Why aren't all guitars equipped w/ pinless bridges
luna
pinless bridges, for guitars thaT are not trying to be historically
correct copies of old Martins, Gibsons, ect.
Why aren't all guitars equipped w/ pinless bridges?
They seem to be better in everyway that I can see. Are there any
structural problems w/ pinless bridges?
Kevin Coffey
Bob Dorgan
"luna" <kevin...@ncia.net> wrote in message
news:1180611215....@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I've owned both and I prefer pinned bridges.
You have to be careful when you change strings to keep from scratching the
top and I think it takes too long to change strings because of that care.
I have a Breedlove 12 string and I'd rather take a beating with a stick than
change strings on that thing.
There are no structural issues that I'm aware of, just the string changing
issue.
Dorgan
Al Evans
luna <kevin...@ncia.net> wrote:
Interesting. I've had a couple on a Breedlove and a Takamine, and of
course on electric guitars, and I'll have to say I prefer bridges with
pins. I don't much like having to pull the strings through the holes.
--Al Evans--
guitar...@yahoo.com
> You have to be careful when you change strings to keep from scratching the
> top and I think it takes too long to change strings because of that care.
Here's a quick tip to prevent scratching on the bridge...
Use the string wrapper or packaging to guide the string as it exits
the bridge hole and then up and over the saddle. The cardboard Elixir
box works great for this. No scratching!
-Brian
http://wrennhouse.com
Mike Brown
A little off the original posters question, but my Washburn XB800
electric bass had a bridge that you had to pull the strings right
through to fit or remove.
A real PITA, particularly when removing the old ones with their curly ends.
Guess I could have just cut the curly ends off, but I'm a mean old sod
in some ways, and bass strings can be boiled and reused in an emergency.
Anyway, I modified the bridge and body so that the string ball ends can
be slipped under the bridge and into the slots in the bridge.
I have had a guitar (can't remember what it was) on which you had to
maintain tension on the string while you wound the machine or the ball
end could slip out of the slot in the bridge, and that was a PITA too.
MJRB
Jim McCrain
It seems to me (a non-luthier) that a "pinned-bridge" would translate
vibrations to the top more efficiently than a non-pinned bridge. With
a pinned-bridge, the strings are in much closer contact with the
bridge AND the bridgeplate, which are both directly connected to the
top. To me, this just seems like it would transfer more vibrations
directly to the top. There would also be less room for any buzzing
from the string in the "tube" created by a "pinless" bridge.
But I am not a structural engineer, so this may all be conjecture.
Jim McCrain
Ken Cashion
There is a structural reason. I had a 1955 pinless bridge that I had
to replace with a pin type. Over time, the rasping of the strings
being pulled through the hole wears the wood, the ball end will wear
on the hole, and the wrap of the string over wood will wear it away on
the wrapped strings and the thin strings will cut into the wood enough
to weaken it.
The pinless bridge was a carry-over from nylon string guitars and we
might ask, "why did steel string guitars change from pinless to pins?"
I think we know why the other method stopped being used...the
tailpiece.
Ken
batai...@yahoo.com
Ken Cashion wrote:
>
> I think we know why the other method stopped being used...the
> tailpiece.
Can you elaborate on that one ?
Pros and cons on the structure, vibration transmission, etc...
Jean-Paul Bataille
alcarruth
Historically, the 'Spanish' classical guitar bridge, with a tieblock,
probably evolved from the lute bridge, which was essentially a
tieblock with no saddle. One conjecture is that the saddle originated
as a sort of 'capo', and was found to work so well that they started
putting them in as a matter of course.
I believe that pinning strings originated on gut strung harps in the
middle ages. The 'Gothic' style had 'bray pins' that worked in
somewhat the same way as a sitar bridge, to cause the strings to buzz.
These were small instruments, and the buzz helped them to be heard.
Even after bray pins went out of use they kept pinning the strings in.
Otherwise you either had to leave large enough openings in the back of
the box to be able to replace the strings, or have a removable back,
and both have structural or aoustic costs. Harp strings, BTW, often
don't come with ball ends; rather the harper ties a special knot to
lock them in place.
I can't think of any particular acoustic advantage to either setup on
a guitar. The role of the saddle is to stop the string vibration at
that point, and if it doesn't, you have a problem. If break angle
makes a difference you can set up either sort of bridge to have
enough, although it may be a bit easier to modify a pin bridge to
increase the break angle when you want to. There is a lot of
disCUSSion on this point amoung luthiers, and precious little actual
data, so I won't belabor it too much.
There is a pinless design that does not require that the string be fed
through a small hole, but it is subject to wear problems.
Alan Carruth / Luthier
hank alrich
> Harp strings, BTW, often don't come with ball ends; rather the harper ties
> a special knot to lock them in place.
I think Bob Dorgan doesn't want a harp.
--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam
performingchimp
I agree - I absolutely hate bridge pins, they drive me mad! Plus I find
them aesthetically less pleasing than a plain bridge too.
jon g
Misifus
Which is precisely why ice cream is made in both chocolate and vanilla.
I've got a lovely gouge on the nicely aged top of my pinless classical
which came from tying the knot one time.
-Raf
--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
mailto:rafse...@suddenlink.net
blog: http://rafsrincon.blogspot.com/
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com
Tony Done
The pin bridge is mechanically a very good way of anchoring the strings. It
puts little stress on the bridge glue joint (the bridge still works even
when it is almost detached from the top, been there, done that), and I
suppose it is effective in transmitting vibrations. Why have a set up where
the string vibrations are transmitted via a glue joint that can be avoided?
Or rely on a glue joint to bear the full tension of the strings when it
isn't necessary? FWIW, I feel the same way about neck joints, especially in
electric guitars, but less negatively.
A pinless bridge would be a strong minus point is a prospective guitar
purchase for me.
Tony D
luna
> "luna" <kevincof...@ncia.net> wrote in message
Lots of good points put forward in favor of the pinned bridge and I
did have a Lowden cedar top that had a pinless bridge which pulled up
when it didn't like the 100% humidity at the Swannanoa Gathering last
summer.
Kevin Coffey
Ed Edelenbos
The one bridge I had that pulled up a little was pinned. The pinless
(Taylor) I've had the longest is fine (i.e. no pulling up).
Ed
J.M. Kobe
Interesting thread.
Personally, I prefer pinless bridges. I find them easier to deal with
(can't loose the bridge pins) and I find them more beautiful as well,
but I own both types.
The question about the (dis)advantages of a pinless bridge recently
came up in the Lowden-newgroup. David Kilpatrick stepped in, and
George Lowden himself responded. I copy/pasted their reactions down
here (and I hope David won't mind).
Here is David's reaction:
Negative structural (they are more difficult to get to stay stuck on
on
steel string guitars)
Positive tonal (the string path causes greater rotational force on the
vibration part of the lower bout)
George may answer himself. He has made pin bridge guitars as special
orders, and some older Lowdens which have reached a stage of top
bellying beyond the adjustment limit of a pinless bridge (due to
over-heavy stringing normally) have been converted by Lowden to pin
bridge. There is some change in sound quality, and some loss of the
essence of Lowden sound, but players seem quite happy.
David
***************
And here George Lowden:
Hi Everyone,
I'm sorry for being a little silent for a while ..... pretty busy
really!
Regarding the design advantages / disadvantages of my pin-less bridge:
As David has said, the main downside could be that a pin-less bridge
will come off more easily than a pin bridge. But it is very important
to realise that given the same climatic conditions a pin bridge will
also lift off the soundboard at the back, the difference would be
that a pin-less bridge is likely to separate completely or nearly
so, ..... The way a pin bridge behaves under these same
circumstances is obviously less dramatic - but must nevertheless be
repaired the same way. Rarely does a bridge come off if the bridge is
kept from drying out too much, so be very careful to humidify the
guitar in dry periods - particularly if snow is on the ground, and
central heating is on.
The main advantages of a pin-less bridge are to do with the tone
characteristics. Because the rake angle taken by the strings over our
saddles is shallower than on a pin bridge, I am not so restricted by
structural considerations with the bracing / bridge interface. The
bracing can then be designed in such a way that it encourages a lot
of relatively complex oscillation modes, which in turn helps to give
the Lowden its particular tone.
All experienced guitar makers know that creating unplanned for stress
or tension in an instrument is not good for tone. The most critical
area of the guitar where tension should be avoided as much as
possible is the bridge and its joint to the soundboard. Any stress in
there is going to damp and restrict the guitar's tone, volume and
sustain. A pin-less bridge will be an 'easier' fit to the soundboard,
provided it has been fitted expertly.
This is a complex subject of course and so maybe someday I'll write a
book about my ideas of guitar design and construction.... but then it
might be too technical ..... I'd have to include some stories to
liven it up a little! Maybe someday
Cheers
George
*************
All the best,
Koos van den Berg
Julian Templeman
> The one bridge I had that pulled up a little was pinned. The pinless
> (Taylor) I've had the longest is fine (i.e. no pulling up).
I've had a Lowden with a pinless bridge since 1982, with no problems.
And while I agree with Bob about the possibility of scratching the
finish as you replace strings... well, my guitars are all beat up as it
is, so a few more just adds character. And with pin bridges, I always
seem to drop a pin, or can't get one out and don't have any tools...
I recall George Lowden saying that pinless bridges were harder to do
well, because you don't have the anchoring effect of the strings. I
might email him and ask his thoughts on this - it would be interesting
to hear the opinion of someone who's decided that this is the way to go...
ttfn,
julian
Ed Edelenbos
"Julian Templeman" <jul...@templeman-consulting.co.uk> wrote in message
news:465f54ce$0$647$bed6...@news.gradwell.net...
See the other entry in the thread. Interesting comments from G. Lowden.
(An interesting thread overall.)
I know Taylor switched to all pinned bridges but my guess with them is that
they switched to eliminate a machine (and separate line) in the factory (and
training for such.) I can see the break angle problem potential but it
doens't seem to be a problem with my Taylor. I can also see the potential
for ding damage due to stringing a pinless bridge, though so far I've
avoided it for the most part. I bet the satin finish helps and I also bet
with a magnifier some marks would show. Like you say about yours, mine has
its' share of "use marks"... I'm not so sure little marks by the bridge
would be significant in comparison.
Ed
performingchimp
> I copy/pasted their reactions down
> here (and I hope David won't mind).
>
Thanks for posting that - a fascinating read!
Jon
Tom from Texas
"Bob Dorgan" <dor...@fltg.net> wrote in message
news:135tdio...@corp.supernews.com...
I'll change those string for ye, Bobs, if I can pick out the stick and beat
ye for at least an equal time that it takes to change the strings. It's not
that I don't like ye, it's just that if I don't do it, Norm will and I'd
hate to see him throw out his shoulder or pull a hamstring.
--
Tom from Texas
(The Tom Risner Fund for Deserving North Texas Guitarplayers is not liable
for any slander, hurt feelings, pointless moaning, or achy-breaky heartache
any
post under this name should cause. Yall want some easy cash or sympathy...
ya can kiss my grits!! )
Al Evans
guitar...@yahoo.com wrote:
Even quicker -- just cut 'em near the tuner, and no more twisty,
scritchy ends to scratch your top.
--Al Evans--
Ken Cashion
Or cut them so short, they won't reach the tuners. The top is
protected and the tuners never have any wear.
Ken
Leonardo
Because C.F. Martin decreed it so
John
Bob Dorgan
"Tom from Texas" <tris...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:lTK7i.9778$4Y....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
I'm completely overwhelmed by your compassion.
Let me think about this.....
No, thanks.
Dorgan
guitar...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:52:31 -0500, Al Evans <a...@tbtm.org> wrote:
> > guitarblat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> On May 31, 7:51 am, "Bob Dorgan" <dor...@fltg.net> wrote:
>
> >> > You have to be careful when you change strings to keep from scratching the
> >> > top and I think it takes too long to change strings because of that care.
>
> >> Here's a quick tip to prevent scratching on the bridge...
>
> >> Use the string wrapper or packaging to guide the string as it exits
> >> the bridge hole and then up and over the saddle. The cardboard Elixir
> >> box works great for this. No scratching!
>
> >Even quicker -- just cut 'em near the tuner, and no more twisty,
> >scritchy ends to scratch your top.
>
> > --Al Evans--
>
> Or cut them so short, they won't reach the tuners. The top is
> protected and the tuners never have any wear.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think Al is talking about removing the strings, where I was talking
about putting them on.
-Brian
http://wrennhouse.com
Ken Cashion
I was talking about putting them on, too.
Ken <g>
Ken Cashion
The need is simple...make the top of the box amplify the sound from
the strings. How to do this can be complex. One thing is for sure,
the more pieces, the more absorption of string energy, etc., the worse
it will be.
So we can address the most efficient way to terminate strings. On one
end is the nut and I prefer zero frets as older stringed instruments
were and the string spacing was controlled by simple pegs inserted
into the top of the patent head.
The other end, the bridge end, is more complicated. When we had very
flexible strings..with low inertia...we had to be as efficient as
possible and that would mean to just tie the string directly at the
bridge, but it would be good if the downward pressure on the bridge
was increased for better coupling between string inertia and box top,
and so we started talking about break angle at the bridge...the higher
the angle, the more pressure...and often the more volume.
So with a longer scale instrument, the bridge-to-termination distance
is greater with a tailpiece. This is fine if there is a fairly high
bridge. This will increase the break angle to put the proper pressure
on the top of the box.
Or in the case of the arch top, the top can be raised to meet the
bottom of the bridge. <g> That is more or less what is taking place.
The downward pressure is greater, so the arched top can be thin for
frequency response, and still support a lot of downward pressure
because of the simple structure of the arch.
However, I have a flat top with a tailpiece and it shouldn't be
loud...but it is...wood selection and structure can make up for a
lower break angle...and in this case, the strings have a lot of
inertia to improve coupling even with a lower break angle.
The Maccaferri style flat top guitars also use a tailpiece and have
good volume. Some designs can do it; some cannot.
The Maccaferris had/have some pretty innovative ideas in them.
I have been talking about volume and efficiency, not the frequency
range or shaping.
Ken
alcarruth
"The need is simple...make the top of the box amplify the sound from
the strings. How to do this can be complex. "
I'd put that a bit differently: I don't consider the guitar to be in
any sense an 'amplifier', since it only works with the energy that's
in the strings, unlike the usual amplifier, that uses a small input
signal to modulate an outside energy source. You're absolutely right
about the complexity part, though!
One of the problems we have is that, as usual, we're setting up
conflicting constraints. On the one hand, we want the strings to be
'ideal' ones, producing as close to a harmonic series of overtones as
possible. To do that, we'd have to have the string ends fixed;
absolutely immobile. If that were the case, the guitar would not make
any sound, since the top could not move. On the other hand, if we were
to make a top that moved as freely as the strings it would, in effect,
be a continuation of the strings, and they ould not 'know' how long
they were, or what pitch to produce. So, as usual, we end up settling
on some sort of compromise that is 'good enough', and good enough is a
matter of opinion.
You tell the string how long it is by providing an impedance mismatch
at the end. The impedance of the string established by it's density
and tension and length. Hooking it on to something that is either
stiffer or floppier, or lighter or heavier, will provide the mismatch.
Since strings are themselves fairly light and flexible a heavy stiff
bridge works well.
There are a few ways to see to it that the string stops vibrating at a
particular point on the bridge. You can pinch it in a slot, as they do
on resos, pass it between pins that bend it sideways, as on a piano,
or 'break' it over a saddle, as we usually do. In theory, you should
only need enough break angle to keep the string from hopping off the
saddle as it vibrates upward, and normally 12-15 degrees will do.
If you break the string downward toward the top to stop it, you have
to have some way of providing that downward force, and a structure
that can withstand it over the long term. On the usual type of flat
tiop or classical bridge, which we could call a 'stop' bridge, some
means is used to tie the string down behind the saddle. This causes
the back edge of the bridge to pull upward, and we have to provide the
structure to resist that torque. The tailpiece ties the strings
indirectly to the end block, eliminating the need for a glue line
between the bridge and the top. However, for this to work the geometry
of the instrument must allow in one way or other for that 12 degrees
or so of break angle. Normally this calles for a tall bridge, althogh
there are mechanical ways of making the tailpiece presss downward on
the strings, which call, in turn, for a strong tailpiece. Either way,
the strings are pressing downward on the top, and it has to be strong
enough to resist that load over the long term. Archtop guitars
normally have fairly thick tops, and even then I've seen a lot of them
that have sunk over the years because the geometry was not up to the
task.
Usually to increase the break angle you have to raise the strings
further off the top, so it's hard isolate the effects of the two.
Raising the strings off the top does give more leverage to the tension
change part of the signal, which, happens at twice the fundamental
pitch of the string and multiples of that. In a recent experiment I
noted a rise in the even-order partials of a string when I raised them
further off the top of the guitar, which is what one would expect if
leverage were of primary importance. It is difficult to see why break
angle alone would have that outcome; one would expect it to 'raise all
the boats'. As further confirmation, there was also a large increase
in the high frequency 'longitudinal' wave signal from the string in
the output of the guitar, and that would also only make sense if
increased leverage was in effect. I will note that I did not hold the
break angle constant in this experiment, and need to do that as well,
but so far the results seem to favor a larger role for leverage than
break angle.
In short, there's a lot we need to sort out yet, and we'll get there
eventually.
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>Ken Cashion wrote:
>"The need is simple...make the top of the box amplify the sound from
>the strings. How to do this can be complex. "
>
>I'd put that a bit differently: I don't consider the guitar to be in
>any sense an 'amplifier', since it only works with the energy that's
>in the strings, unlike the usual amplifier, that uses a small input
>signal to modulate an outside energy source.
You are right but I was taking a very simplistic view. Strum the
strings in free air and they aren't very loud; tie them to the box and
the sound is louder. <g>
Come to think of it, I have had some cheap ply boxes that made little
difference if the string was in free air or tied to the heavy ply
crate...I mean "box." <g>
Ken
Mike Brown
Thanks Al, filed with the others.
MJRB
Dorgan
Cedar is tougher to get a good glue joint on than spruce is, and I'd suspect
that fact is more relevant to your bridge lifting than the fact that it was
pinless.
Dorgan
Bob Dorgan
"Al Evans" <a...@tbtm.org> wrote in message
news:al-065AA6.06...@news.houston.sbcglobal.net...
There's some kind of confusion here.
I'm not talking about the head stock getting scratched by untrimmed strings.
I'm talking about feeding the strings through a pinless bridge. You have to
be very careful to keep the ball ends from scratching the top of your
guitar, south of the bridge.
Dorgan
batai...@yahoo.com
Learned a lot (although I'm not sure to understand the whole thing).
I use two parameters to choose a guitar : 1- must be visually pleasant
to my eyes, and 2- the nut with must be 1"7/8 at least (more even
better). I don't care of the sound (well, I will play *with* what the
guitar is giving to me).
So this eventually led me to the Maccaferri guitars (actually the
chinese copies closely based on that design...). And I'm quite
pleased, although the models I own are not high-end.
Now back to the topic : I'm used to flat tops, so was thinking that
heavier the strings, louder the sound.
I discovered that the Maccaferri needs little pressure to deliver loud
sound. The more pressure you put on it, the less sound. And the break
angle is in no way similar to an archtop. Almost flat.
Why is that?
The top is stressed by the ladder bracing, as I understand.
The tops on the models I own are not very much curved, so I assume
they are not stressed much. I even have a very cheap copy which has a
strict flat top, and it reacts exactly like the others.
Seems to me that there is a something in the design, like a Beethoven
melody played by a digital clock, that make it work even in the worst
condition. Fascinating.
Now, the sound is... *loud*, but very "colored". Narrow frequency
range. Very medium. And I actually like that, mainly because it's so
*different* of what I'm used to. These guitars are singing another
song.
Jean-Paul Bataille
Misifus
I think the Selmer/Maccaferri guitars were designed to project well to a
club in an era when amplification was rare. Thus the highly colored
sound which can be heard well.
batai...@yahoo.com
> I think the Selmer/Maccaferri guitars were designed to project well to a
> club in an era when amplification was rare. Thus the highly colored
> sound which can be heard well.
>
> -Raf
>
true.
The Maccaferri was played by Django Reinhardt and is now associated
with gypsy jazz. (Electrical amplification appeared later)
But Mario Maccaferri didn't designed his guitar with that precise
purpose in mind.
He just wanted, at the time, to make a overall better guitar. And
having it industrially done : he also designed the necessary
machinery, hired the crew, etc...
For me, about 80 years later, they are very interesting fingerstyle
guitars.
Jean-Paul Bataille
Ken Cashion
>Ken and Al : many thanks for the lengthy answers.
>Learned a lot (although I'm not sure to understand the whole thing).
>
>I use two parameters to choose a guitar : 1- must be visually pleasant
>to my eyes, and 2- the nut with must be 1"7/8 at least (more even
>better). I don't care of the sound (well, I will play *with* what the
>guitar is giving to me).
>So this eventually led me to the Maccaferri guitars (actually the
>chinese copies closely based on that design...). And I'm quite
>pleased, although the models I own are not high-end.
>
>Now back to the topic : I'm used to flat tops, so was thinking that
>heavier the strings, louder the sound.
>I discovered that the Maccaferri needs little pressure to deliver loud
>sound. The more pressure you put on it, the less sound. And the break
>angle is in no way similar to an archtop. Almost flat.
>Why is that?
OK, first off, that can't be. We all know that volume is associated
with break angle, pinned bridges, the material of pins, the material
of the nut, the alignment of the stars, and a whole bunch of other
stuff -- so you have to be mistaken. Even though I have noticed the
same thing you have with the Maccaferri designs. Therefore, I must be
mistaken as well. <g>
Those are wonderful guitars and were well-designed for what they were
intended to do. I am sure Mario could have built anything he wanted
and he didn't do these things without thought. He was a trained
luthier, as well as performer. His violins were some of the best.
We know that Maccaferri and Segovia were contemporary classical
guitarists and were competitors, but Mario built classical guitars and
Segovia didn't. (Mario didn't care much for the sound of Segovia's
Ramirez. <g>)
>The top is stressed by the ladder bracing, as I understand.
>The tops on the models I own are not very much curved, so I assume
>they are not stressed much. I even have a very cheap copy which has a
>strict flat top, and it reacts exactly like the others.
>Seems to me that there is a something in the design, like a Beethoven
>melody played by a digital clock, that make it work even in the worst
>condition. Fascinating.
Ladder bracing is notorious for lifting tops and falling between sound
hole and bridge. But it is good for sound projection. The "X"
bracing helps keep the top flat by making the top more rigid. Perhaps
this rigidity detracts from the volume.
The ladder bracing that lifts is generally because a tail piece is not
used but pinned bridges are. This pinned bridge is a simple design to
almost promise that the bridge rear will try to lift. There is
downward pressure on the sound hole side of the bridge and lifting on
the tail side. This places a rotational load on the plate. The top
may raise behind the bridge, or the front might be pushed
in...depending where the ladder braces are...or there might be some of
each. (Bridge Doctors work in some of these occasions -- if they are
caught early enough.)
So I would think that with a tail piece, the ladder bracing would
permit a lighter and more responsive top and still not have the
lifting of the top. It is also significant that the tail piece puts
all load on the bridge nearly straight down. This is more efficient
for transferring string loads than a rotational one.
>Now, the sound is... *loud*, but very "colored". Narrow frequency
>range. Very medium. And I actually like that, mainly because it's so
>*different* of what I'm used to. These guitars are singing another
>song.
Again, this is one of the reasons that ladder bracing gave way to "X".
Ladder divides the top into free areas that are nearly rectangular and
this limits the overall frequency response to the fundamental. "X"
bracing has a greater range of fiber length per confined area and this
lets it respond to more frequencies.
I have a ladder braced Harmony of superb materials and quite good
workmanship and it, too, has the fundamental sounds...and the pinned
bridge caused the rotation of the bridge plate to the point that I
replaced the bridge/saddle and had the neck reset.
Mario had a particular style guitar with a humongous "D" hole. The
"D" was made for rhythm and had 12 frets but had an extended fretboard
over part of the "D" hole. Mario was performing with a classical "D"
hole in the 1930s.
Mario put the Selmer Reed company in the guitar business and Django
really liked the 12-fret "D" hole. After Mario departed Selmer,
Selmer took one of Mario's experimental "D" guitars that he had put 14
frets on (because he wanted a jazz lead guitar) and Selmer put the
oval hole in it because the internal resonator that made the "D" hole
so desirable was no longer wanted -- Django didn't want it either. And
Selmer had a sound hole pickup under construction and it would best
fit an oval hole.
Django stopped playing the "D" and switched to the oval while his
brother, Joseph, and Roger Chaput continued to play the "D" holes...
...I forgot what I was going to say. Sorry...babble...babble...
Ken
batai...@yahoo.com
> >I discovered that the Maccaferri needs little pressure to deliver loud
> >sound. The more pressure you put on it, the less sound.
> OK, first off, that can't be. (...skip...) Even though I have noticed the
> same thing you have with the Maccaferri designs. Therefore, I must be
> mistaken as well. <g>
Ah, but I made an analog experimentation to proove that : I had
somebody sit on my belly, and suddenly, I had difficulties to breath.
More pressure, less breath. Now this is science, is it ?
>
> Those are wonderful guitars and were well-designed for what they were
> intended to do. I am sure Mario could have built anything he wanted
> and he didn't do these things without thought. He was a trained
> luthier, as well as performer. His violins were some of the best.
>
> We know that Maccaferri and Segovia were contemporary classical
> guitarists and were competitors, but Mario built classical guitars and
> Segovia didn't. (Mario didn't care much for the sound of Segovia's
> Ramirez. <g>)
>
The Mario Maccferri life is indeed fascinating.
>
> Again, this is one of the reasons that ladder bracing gave way to "X".
> Ladder divides the top into free areas that are nearly rectangular and
> this limits the overall frequency response to the fundamental.
This is why that design is nice for fingerstyle :
Zero fret, movable bridge : perfect intonation.
Ladder bracing and thin top : very few harmonics, great dynamic range
and good projection.
Large neck, 12 fret to the body (grande bouche model), and cutaway :
very comfortable to play.
Slotted head : this is what I prefer.
Chinese make them for a few hundred dollars with the case : now I'm
happy.
>
> ...I forgot what I was going to say. Sorry...babble...babble...
Yes, I think I'll go sleeping too.
Jean-Paul Bataille
daark...@gmail.com
Al Evans
holes in the bridge. If you don't cut them, the curled up ends that were in
the tuners can scratch the top. If you do cut them, they're no use to the
Second String project, where we send all our old strings.
Meanwhile, I've never found it a problem to change strings on a guitar with
bridge pins....
--Al Evans
Tony Done
joint. Failure could be sudden and catastrophic. Pinless bridges are a
strong minus for me
--
Tony Done
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456
http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/
dsi1
> As a breedlove owner...I must say I have never experienced any problems changing strings. In fact I much prefer changing strings on a pinless bridge rather than mess with pins. No buzzing to report. My guitar isn't ancient or anything but it's over a decade old and had seen its share of strings. I do my beta testing for daddario on the breedlove mostly because of the convienance of not having to deal with pins. In just one player in a huge network and this is just my humble opinion.
>
We don't need on stinkin' balls at all! We already got all the balls
what we need already.
howar...@gmail.com
David KIlpatrick
> They seem to be better in everyway that I can see. Are there any
> structural problems w/ pinless bridges?
My favourite pinless bridge is the Tacoma design, where the ball end of the string is secured right under the bridge plate and therefore the top, bridge and bridgeplate are kept in perfect compression always. No pins, no threading, very rapid string changes and great sound.
David
Tom from Texas
> My question, after owning Lowdens, a Breedlove, and a McElroy, all w/
> pinless bridges, for guitars thaT are not trying to be historically
> correct copies of old Martins, Gibsons, ect.
> Why aren't all guitars equipped w/ pinless bridges?
>
> structural problems w/ pinless bridges?
>
I have a Lowden with a pinless bridge. No problem with the bridge. Changing strings is a whole lot easier than changing strings on a classical or 12-string with that crazy head.
Tom from Texas
don hindenach
Tony Done <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 1/22/2016 3:08 PM, daark...@gmail.com wrote:
> > As a breedlove owner...I must say I have never experienced any
> > problems changing strings. In fact I much prefer changing strings on
> > a pinless bridge rather than mess with pins. No buzzing to report. My
> > guitar isn't ancient or anything but it's over a decade old and had
> > seen its share of strings. I do my beta testing for daddario on the
> > breedlove mostly because of the convienance of not having to deal
> > with pins. In just one player in a huge network and this is just my
> > humble opinion.
> >
> I don't like the idea of all that string tension hanging off a glue
> joint. Failure could be sudden and catastrophic. Pinless bridges are a
> strong minus for me
>
> --
> Tony Done
--
-donh-
donh at audiosys dot com