Archtop bridge types (reprise)
fullcity
wood bridge with a Tune-O-Matic type. Opinions began as strongly in
favor of the wood sound, while later in the discussion some folks
chimed in with preferences for the TOM. In the end, the original poster
replaced his bridge with a TOM and liked it better.
Here's another data point. I changed the rosewood bridge on my 175 from
wood to TOM. Here are the objective differences, based on my subjective
ear and hands:
Wood Bridge:
- Less accurate intonation
- A bit less sustain
- A bit quieter acoustically
- More woody
- More "vintage" sounding
- Leans toward the acoustic archtop sound
- Pick attack requires more careful control
TOM:
- More accurate intonation
- More sustain
- A bit louder acoustically
- Sweeter, chimier top end
- Leans towards the classic, fluid, electric jazz sound
- Pick attack results in a smoother response
This is not the first time I've done this. I also swapped bridges a few
times on my laminate top ES-775, and reached the same conclusion. But I
see why some folks prefer the wooden type; they are probably biased
towards the acoustic archtop sound rather than the "liquid electric"
sound. Makes sense!
YMMV...
Roger
http://www.rogerplacer.com
Joe Finn
"fullcity" <nine...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106145015.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You don't mention the tune o matic saddle materiel. These saddles are
available in metal and different types of nylon. The sound quality varies
dramatically. The vintage Gibson soft nylon saddles being the darkest and
the metal saddles being the brightest.
Wooden bridges also vary with rosewood sounding very much unlike ebony.
Compensating wooden bridges are also popular but the best thing you can put
on any guitar to improve intonation is fresh strings. ...joe
--
Visit me on the web www.joefinn.net
Michael L Kankiewicz
I'm gonna chime in on this from the exact opposite perspective. I've
experimented with substituting wood saddles on a 335 and L5-S with great
results. A more archtop-ish tone.
MK
Joe Finn
"Michael L Kankiewicz" <mich...@buffalo.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.05.105011...@callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu...
I thought I was the only one who did things like that. It sounds great
doesn't it? Much more acoustic and not so twangy. .....joe
fullcity
Exactly. This is what I hear too. Again, to me the wooden bridge is:
- More woody (doh!)
- More "vintage" sounding
- Leans toward the acoustic archtop sound
So if you want your 335 to come closer to that, go with wood. If you
want your carved spruce top guitar to come closer to "liquid electric,"
go with metal. Point being in all of this that the difference isn't
really that subtle, and both have their place. It's nice to be able to
change such a fundamental component of your sound rather cheaply.
If I had one jazz guitar for all seasons and I favored the acoustic
archtop sound, I would go with a wood bridge. But I have an L5C too, so
I wanted my 175 to have the "other" jazz sound - which I find is best
accomplished with a metal TOM.
Roger
joemont...@hotmail.com
> You don't mention the tune o matic saddle materiel. These saddles are
> available in metal and different types of nylon.
Is there a reason they can't (or don't) make the saddles out of ebony
or rosewood?
Then you might have woody sound and perfect intonation.
JM
Stan Gosnell
> I thought I was the only one who did things like that. It sounds
> great doesn't it? Much more acoustic and not so twangy. .....joe
>
This is a very subjective thing. That's why they sell both types. Some
like one, some like the other, and neither is wrong or right, except to
the player. Me, I'll take intonation over subtle tone differences, but
everyone is free to use whichever they like. That's one (minor, IMO)
reason everyone's tone is different.
--
Regards,
Stan
Stan Gosnell
news:1106161125.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
It's very labor-intensive, the yield isn't great, and the saddles won't
last long. Wood cut that thin and small splits easily, especially when
you put strings at high tension onto it. The only practical way to use
wood is as a solid piece. It's easy to cast metal, but you can't do that
with wood.
--
Regards,
Stan
Joe Finn
"Stan Gosnell" <mur...@yahoo.com> wrote
> It's very labor-intensive, the yield isn't great, and the saddles won't
> last long. Wood cut that thin and small splits easily, especially when
> you put strings at high tension onto it. The only practical way to use
> wood is as a solid piece. It's easy to cast metal, but you can't do that
> with wood.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Stan
I think it would also be difficult to tap threads into an ebony saddle. Even
if this could be done how long would the threads last? I would guess that
moving the saddle back and forth would ruin the threads pretty quickly.
..............joe
Nick
Roger,
I changed the bridge on my '175 at the end of last year (after seeking
some advice on this group) and I have been pleased with the result.
Instinctively I would prefer a wooden bridge (somehow more 'organic')
but the intonation is sooooo much better with the TOM that it makes up
for it! The TOM is much flatter than the original rosewood bridge and I
think it is a better fit for my fretboard and easier to play. The sound
is fine - perhaps a little brighter but nothing drastic. It has
survived several gigs now and I think it is there to stay!
Out of interest - where did you source your TOM? Mine was a cheapy from
Stew Mac.
Nick
Stan Gosnell
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> Out of interest - where did you source your TOM? Mine was a cheapy from
> Stew Mac.
Almost every repair tech gets his parts from either StewMac or AllParts.
There is nothing wrong with StewMac's parts, for the most part, and the
price is mostly a reflection of volume.
--
Regards,
Stan
Stan Gosnell
> I think it would also be difficult to tap threads into an ebony
> saddle. Even if this could be done how long would the threads last? I
> would guess that moving the saddle back and forth would ruin the
> threads pretty quickly. ..............joe
>
True. Wood, even comparatively hard wood like ebony, can't take small
threads like what is on saddle screws very well. I've done some work
with ebony and other wood, and making something as small as a TOM saddle
from wood is just not practical at all. It's enough work making a pick,
nevermind a saddle! If you could get them made, they would probably cost
$100 or more, and the market just isn't there, because nobody wants to
spend $100 every month or so for a set of TOM saddles. If you have to
have wood, a solid saddle is the only practical option, but you have to
give up perfect intonation to use one.
--
Regards,
Stan
Nick
AllParts.
> There is nothing wrong with StewMac's parts, for the most part, and
the
> price is mostly a reflection of volume.
Sure - I meant 'cheap' in comparison with my local supplier (in the UK)
who
would sell me a 'genuine Gibson' replacement part for something like
four
times the price! It was far cheaper to get StewMac to send one over
from
the US :) I'm wondering if the Gibson parts are really any
better/different?
Nick
fullcity
Mine is from StewMac as well. It's the one noted as a "Tune-o-Matic
Replacement," about $25 US. Yes, I agree that the wooden bridge is
somehow more organic and I have a bias towards it too from an aesthetic
perspective. It means we think of our guitars as wooden, vibrating,
living things. But the TOM has a better sound, so that's that. Gibson
did outfit its high end archtops with it for a reason when it was
introduced in the late 50's. The lower end models retained the
traditional wooden bridge.
I do keep an ebony bridge on my L5C. No interest in experimenting
there!
Roger
pataud
>
Out of curiosity, how are the nylon ones threaded?