JDL Bridge system
Rogluthier
Has anyone tried the JDL bridge system which is supposed to increase the volume
and sustain of the guitar. How noticeable was the change and how easy was it
to install. I understand Breedlove guitars have this installed from the
factory.
Roger Thurman
Thurman Guitar & Violin Repair, Inc.
900 Franklin Ave.
Kent, OH 44240
330-673-4054
http://members.aol.com/rogluthier/index/html
25 years in repair, making and sales.
Martin Warranty Repair
Visa/MC Shipment on approval
Gerardo
Rogluthier <roglu...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980208223...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Has anyone tried the JDL bridge system which is supposed to increase the
volume
> and sustain of the guitar. How noticeable was the change and how easy
was it
> to install. I understand Breedlove guitars have this installed from the
> factory.
In my opinion, the problem with those JDL bridges (similar to the one
Breedlove uses) is the fact that they hold the top down and muffle the
sound a bit. They will change the tone of your guitar, some people say
for the better and some people say for the worse. You want your top to
vibrate as much as possible and be loose, and when you install one of
those things you are defeating the purpose. Is like playing your guitar
while somebody pushes down on the bridge of your guitar.
I like the Breedlove sound and they are nice guitars but I am, personally,
not convinced about the truss rod design.
Gerardo
d77...@epix.net
>
>
>
> In my opinion, the problem with those JDL bridges (similar to the one
> Breedlove uses) is the fact that they hold the top down and muffle the
> sound a bit. They will change the tone of your guitar, some people say
> for the better and some people say for the worse. You want your top to
> vibrate as much as possible and be loose, and when you install one of
> those things you are defeating the purpose. Is like playing your guitar
> while somebody pushes down on the bridge of your guitar.
>
> I like the Breedlove sound and they are nice guitars but I am, personally,
> not convinced about the truss rod design.
>
> Gerardo
>
Do you have any evidence that they muffle the sound? I have not heard anything
negative from any one that has installed one, and I am wondering if you have
takled to someone that has installed one or if this is just a conceptual
opinion.
TIA
BoB Dorgan
Josh Karnes
> In my opinion, the problem with those JDL bridges (similar to the one
> Breedlove uses) is the fact that they hold the top down and muffle the
> sound a bit. They will change the tone of your guitar, some people say
> for the better and some people say for the worse. You want your top to
> vibrate as much as possible and be loose, and when you install one of
> those things you are defeating the purpose. Is like playing your guitar
> while somebody pushes down on the bridge of your guitar.
>
> I like the Breedlove sound and they are nice guitars but I am, personally,
> not convinced about the truss rod design.
hmmm. hard to argue that they "muffle the sound".
i just spent 30 minutes in my mechanical engineering manager's office (this guy
is an expert, believe me) discussing this, complete with white board drawings,
equations, etc. the concusion is, you are increasing the structural strength of
the "system", and therefore there is LESS ENERGY LOSS. think about it as
mechanical resistance. you have a more efficient transfer of energy from the
bridge saddle (strings) to top, significantly more efficient transfer to the
tailblock and therefore the sides. this is not even mentioning the fact that
now the top is also being excited by the sides, rather than the sides simply
being a more efficient place to lose energy than the top:air junction (the sides
are resonating as a result of the direct transfer from the sound post). making
the point where the strings terminate at the bridge more stiff and more strong
will reduce the energy lost at that point, and the laws of conservation of
energy dictate that if you lose less energy at the point where the energy enters
the top of the guitar, and you lose less energy at the next most likely point,
the joint top:sides, you must as a rule increase the amount of energy that is
lost (transferred) in the other junctions, i.e. from the top to the surrounding
air (and consequently from the sides to the back, from the back and sides to the
air, from the back and top to the neck block, etc.). this all supports all the
claims of the JLD system and supports the observations of myself and many
others.
so the guitar is louder, definitely.
ok, regarding what exactly this does to the top. the primary force on the top
of the guitar top without the JLD is a tension between the tail block and the
bridge and a corresponding compression between the bridge and the neck block.
when you add the truss, you REDUCE the amount of tension which is between the
tail block and the bridge by whatever amount of compression you have on the
sound post. it's that simple (well almost, there is also the effect of moments,
however these tend to reduce as well with the JLD system). this will reduce the
resonant frequency of that part of the guitar, which to a guitar player, adds
bass and in general adds what we would call "resonance" (although a physicist
might say we are reducing resonance, which means to him that we are reducing its
frequency... you see the fundamentals of a guitar's tone are pretty darned low
in frequency, even those on the "treble" strings). think about it, it is like
reducing the tension of a guitar string. the more pressure you have on the
soundpost, the lower that resonance becomes (until you exceed the pressure of
the strings, which would cause you to actually COMPRESS that part of the guitar
while putting tension on the neck-bridge span, and breaks your guitar in the
process). this is a tuning process. it's being able to tune that tensioned
part of the guitar's top for whatever frequency (within limits) you want. the
principle flaw in my opinion of the JLD system is its inability to be adjusted
with the strings installed and the guitar tuned to pitch.
my mechanical engineer described this as a "no brainer". the guitar will be
more lively, louder, and have more sustain. it will have a noticeable effect on
the "tone" of a guitar which you might or might not like. for guitars which
have weaker bridges (less stiff/strong), the difference will be greater.
guitars which are very strong will show less difference. laminated guitars will
benefit greatly because their resonant frequency is already excessively high and
reducing it by reducing the top's tension will significantly improve low-end
responsiveness (anyone who has spoken with james oliver at JLD will attest, he
can't stop talking about how great it makes laminated guitars sound [of course,
he can hardly stop talking!]).
still can't come up with a rational reason to believe it would muffle the top.
once you have played a chaged guitar, you won't argue. soon i will be getting
several of these in my hands along with one of the brass pins so i can "test
fit" one in any guitar without drilling. this will be your chance to try before
you commit, folks! if you question it, come over, bring your guitar, and we'll
see. i'll bet you end up buying one.
later-
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
josh_karnes:
shileen's husband, jordan and hannah's daddy, guitarist, drummer,
composer, songwriter, audiophile, computer geek, mechanic, carpenter,
wannabe gourmet chef, keeper of the faith <><
George Reiswig
Gerardo,
Are you speaking from experience, or just guessing? I was really
sceptical, too. I put one in my old Yamaha 12. True, at first it sounded
muffled. But it opened up. Sustain increased immediately. Midrange and bass
increased after time. Volume and bass increased radically after shaving the
braces a bit. I can't wait to get this old beater down and play it next to
some expensive guitars...I think it'll blow them away!
GR
Gerardo wrote:
> Rogluthier <roglu...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19980208223...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> > Has anyone tried the JDL bridge system which is supposed to increase the
> volume
> > and sustain of the guitar. How noticeable was the change and how easy
> was it
> > to install. I understand Breedlove guitars have this installed from the
> > factory.
>
> In my opinion, the problem with those JDL bridges (similar to the one
> Breedlove uses) is the fact that they hold the top down and muffle the
> sound a bit. They will change the tone of your guitar, some people say
> for the better and some people say for the worse. You want your top to
> vibrate as much as possible and be loose, and when you install one of
> those things you are defeating the purpose. Is like playing your guitar
> while somebody pushes down on the bridge of your guitar.
>
> I like the Breedlove sound and they are nice guitars but I am, personally,
> not convinced about the truss rod design.
>
> Gerardo
--
George S. Reiswig
Obviously, my opinions should not be construed as being anything like
those of my gracious employer, Intel. Their opinions are probably
better.
Advertisers!
It is illegal to use this e-mail address for unsolicited commercial
e-mail per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I reserve the right
to assess a US $500 charge for reviewing & deleting each unsolicited
commercial e-mail.
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to my email address denotes
acceptance of these terms. Postings from me to UseNet neither grants
my consent to receive commercial emailings nor is intended to solicit
commercial email.
Tom Loredo
Howdy-
Visit the "Technology" page at AG (http://www.museweb.com/ag/)
and check the "Misc." section for links to JLD's site and
some comprehensive reviews posted before to RMMGA. My own
impression of past reviews of this system here and in print
(reviewed in AG) is that it benefits some guitars and not
others. The physicist in me was not persuaded by Josh's
arguments, however "no brainer" they appeared to his engineer
friend, and indeed the reviews bear out that sometimes it
does nothing, and perhaps has a negative effect (though the
RMMGA review is quite positive, as I recall). The apparent
mechanical simplicity of a guitar (or violin, etc.) is deceptive.
Conservation of energy is not a sound basis for arguing about
the behavior of a system whose dissipative aspects are what
are most relevant (ie, conversion of mechanical energy to sound,
which is what we hear). Where and when this energy is dissipated
is crucial to how a guitar will sound. It is far from obvious
that "stiffening" should be a universal benefit to producing a good tone.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
bobdylan
I called JDL and Jim answered the phone. He spent about 20 min on the phone with
me asking me questions about the guitar that I planned to use with the Bridge
Doctor. He was a great guy to talk with. I sent him a check and he sent me the
JDL. It took about 1 hour to install (older EKO 12 string) and my bridge was
lifting in the back. The JDL sucked the bridge down flat and fit perfectly under
my saddle. I don't notice much difference in the sound but that may be just me.
I'm just glad it fixed my bridge problem. The product is great and Jim was even
more a pleasure to deal with. Down home guy; down home product. Just like a
clothes pin, you wonder why you didn't think of it first. Get one !
Rogluthier wrote:
> Has anyone tried the JDL bridge system which is supposed to increase the volume
> and sustain of the guitar. How noticeable was the change and how easy was it
> to install. I understand Breedlove guitars have this installed from the
> factory.
Gerardo
George Reiswig <george_...@ccm.jf.intel.com> wrote in article
<34DF6B2D...@ccm.jf.intel.com>...
> Gerardo,
> Are you speaking from experience, or just guessing? I was really
> sceptical, too. I put one in my old Yamaha 12. True, at first it
sounded
> muffled. But it opened up.
Actually I was guessing based on my knowledge of sound and engineering
background. But I know that the guitar structure and dynamics are rather
complex and you might very well be right. After all, Breedlove guitars
sell a lot of instruments. What I know is that people either love the
sound of a guitar with the bridge system or they totally hate it. It
seems that there is no middle ground.
I am, by no means, an expert in this area but the system has never
convinced me from a design standpoint. On the other hand, I don't doubt
your guitar sounds better with it. Maybe it takes time to open up, like
you said.
Gerardo
Dave Bricker
> Actually I was guessing based on my knowledge of sound . . .
> I am, by no means, an expert in this area but . . .
Folks,
The last thing I want to do is get commercial on this list. I am affiliated
with JLD so I'll spare you the sales spiel here. However, I'm disgusted at
the number of people who will readily comment on their opinion of the JLD
Bridge System without having ever installed one in a guitar. Are these the
same people who can hear a vast improvent in an instrument when it has a
Martin decal on the headstock?
We've installed over 5000 JLD Systems over the past several years with a
better than 99% satisfaction rate. It's true that some people simply don't
care for the sound. The majority of people do. In some instruments, the tonal
effects are subtle. In others, they're amazing. In all cases, we end up with
a flat top. We've proven conclusively that you can brace for tone instead of
structure and built a guitar with no bridge plate and bracing that consists
of simple, radial tone bars.
As for Breedlove, they are a customer of ours and they build fine guitars.
Again, some folks like 'em and others don't. None of my guitars are
Breedloves and in spite of the JLD Systems, none sound like Breedloves.
JLD has an idea which we believe is important and some criticisms of
traditional guitar design which we believe are valid. We are also more than
prepared to subject our opinions to the scrutiny of objective listeners who
will actually try something before spouting off some sort of physics
rhetoric. I believe the purpose of this list is to provide a forum for just
that type of thing.
I invite anyone who has actually tried a JLD Bridge System to post their
opinions of it here whether they like it or not. Postulations about the
physics behind it are also interesting and I would hope to learn something
from them myself. However, I will remind some of you that observation is an
integral part of the scientific method. You may be able to prove
mathematically that a bumblebee can't fly but you'll be wrong. In this case,
the price for your groundless opinions is paid by a group of people who
believe in their product and have invested a lot of time and money studying
and improving it.
One great thing about the JLD Bridge System is that you don't need an
engineer, a physicist or scientific testing equipment to prove it works. My
mother can hear the difference. That's science!
I now relinquish my soapbox,
Dave Bricker
http://www.jldguitar.com
Josh Karnes
> The physicist in me was not persuaded by Josh's
> arguments, however "no brainer" they appeared to his engineer
> friend, and indeed the reviews bear out that sometimes it
> does nothing, and perhaps has a negative effect (though the
> RMMGA review is quite positive, as I recall). The apparent
> mechanical simplicity of a guitar (or violin, etc.) is deceptive.
> Conservation of energy is not a sound basis for arguing about
> the behavior of a system whose dissipative aspects are what
> are most relevant (ie, conversion of mechanical energy to sound,
> which is what we hear). Where and when this energy is dissipated
> is crucial to how a guitar will sound. It is far from obvious
> that "stiffening" should be a universal benefit to producing a good tone.
i would agree. my argument is that increasing the efficiency (reducing loss) of
the junction of the bridge and the top would seem to be a good idea in producing
_more_ sound from a guitar.
anyway, the point i was trying to make is that it does not make sense to assume
that the JLD "muffles" the top. if anything, it will likely increase the
efficiency of energy transfer from the strings to the top, and perhaps this is
not what you want.
xyzj...@primary.net
On Mon, 09 Feb 1998 22:23:31 -0500, bobdylan <bobd...@enter.net>
wrote:
>I called JDL and Jim answered the phone. He spent about 20 min on the phone with
>me asking me questions about the guitar that I planned to use with the Bridge
>Doctor. He was a great guy to talk with. I sent him a check and he sent me the
>JDL. It took about 1 hour to install (older EKO 12 string) and my bridge was
>lifting in the back. The JDL sucked the bridge down flat and fit perfectly under
>my saddle. I don't notice much difference in the sound but that may be just me.
>I'm just glad it fixed my bridge problem. The product is great and Jim was even
>more a pleasure to deal with. Down home guy; down home product. Just like a
>clothes pin, you wonder why you didn't think of it first. Get one !
If you had to pull a bow down, it's going to take a little time before
the top opens up--and when it does, you're going to know!
Is your Eko one of the ones like I had a lifetime ago, about a quarter
of an inch of urethane on the body?
Jeffrey
remove xyz to reply
Larry Pattis
Best, most honest & forthright post I've read on rmmga in a LOOOOONG time.
Thank you Mr. Bricker, regardless of your affiliation, for such succint,
relevant commentary.
Larry Pattis
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but not in
practice.
The top header is to reduce spam. You can really find me at
<lpattis"at"xmission"dot"com>.
Freda Caufield
In article <34E0184A...@spotgrafix.com>,
Dave Bricker <sp...@spotgrafix.com> wrote:
>
>The last thing I want to do is get commercial on this list. I am affiliated
>with JLD so I'll spare you the sales spiel here. However, I'm disgusted at
>the number of people who will readily comment on their opinion of the JLD
.
.
>I invite anyone who has actually tried a JLD Bridge System to post their
>opinions of it here whether they like it or not.
Okay Dave, I guess it's time for me to put in my 2 cents.
I installed a JLD Bridge System on my first homebuilt guitar (a
mahogany/spruce 24.9" scale 000-18 clone). The guitar was still in
the process of 'opening up' when I did the installation, so I can't
really say what the guitar would have eventually sounded like without
the device.
What I _can_ say is that it improved the guitars volume, sustain
and tone. My wife noticed the difference as well, and judged it
as an improvement in the guitars sound. If I ever get enough time
to build another guitar, I'll definitely use the system and brace
the top more lightly.
OTOH, I have a Collings OM2-H that does not have the system installed
and probably never will. If it 'aint broke, don't fix it, right?
(I may change my mind on this when and if the top starts to bulge).
Just a satisfied customer's report.
Jim Caufield
--
lv2...@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-28800, N81)
david belton
Dave Bricker wrote:
>
> > Actually I was guessing based on my knowledge of sound . . .
>
> > I am, by no means, an expert in this area but . . .
>
> Folks,
>
> with JLD so I'll spare you the sales spiel here. However, I'm disgusted at
> the number of people who will readily comment on their opinion of the JLD
> same people who can hear a vast improvent in an instrument when it has a
> Martin decal on the headstock?
>
> We've installed over 5000 JLD Systems over the past several years with a
> better than 99% satisfaction rate. It's true that some people simply don't
> care for the sound. The majority of people do. In some instruments, the tonal
> effects are subtle. In others, they're amazing. In all cases, we end up with
> a flat top. We've proven conclusively that you can brace for tone instead of
> structure and built a guitar with no bridge plate and bracing that consists
> of simple, radial tone bars.
>
> As for Breedlove, they are a customer of ours and they build fine guitars.
> Again, some folks like 'em and others don't. None of my guitars are
> Breedloves and in spite of the JLD Systems, none sound like Breedloves.
>
> JLD has an idea which we believe is important and some criticisms of
> traditional guitar design which we believe are valid. We are also more than
> prepared to subject our opinions to the scrutiny of objective listeners who
> will actually try something before spouting off some sort of physics
> rhetoric. I believe the purpose of this list is to provide a forum for just
> that type of thing.
>
> physics behind it are also interesting and I would hope to learn something
> from them myself. However, I will remind some of you that observation is an
> integral part of the scientific method. You may be able to prove
> mathematically that a bumblebee can't fly but you'll be wrong. In this case,
> the price for your groundless opinions is paid by a group of people who
> believe in their product and have invested a lot of time and money studying
> and improving it.
>
> One great thing about the JLD Bridge System is that you don't need an
> engineer, a physicist or scientific testing equipment to prove it works. My
> mother can hear the difference. That's science!
>
> I now relinquish my soapbox,
>
> Dave Bricker
> http://www.jldguitar.com
cheap yamahas to alvarez , to Seagull. I have both 6 and 12 string and
have bridge systems in all of them. None, I repeat NOT ONE of them
didn't have an increase in volume and sustain. The systems also balanced
the tones of all of them. The boomy ones gained in highs and the bright
ones gained in mids and lows. I've also developed a lucrative sideline
picking up bellied pawn shop beaters and reselling them as extremely
playable low priced guitars. I equipped a Yamaha FG-335 with one and had
a guitar that I wouldn't be embarrased to play next to any Martin or
Taylor. It is also the cure for the hated Ovation syndrome. Basically,
they do everything that they're advertised to do. Don't knock it if you
haven't tried it.
bobdylan
YEP, it had a ton of plastic on it for the last 20 years. I stripped down
completely; it took about 2 weeks to get it all off. Now I have a real wood guitar.
Great sound too. Lowered the action; added a Tusq saddle and WOW !
WalterH796
I also have the JLD on a Hohner guitar. It not only brought the
top back down. It increased the volume and sustain.
I did not crank down the top but slowly adjusted the tension over
about 6 months. Kept the sound from getting thin.
I use the Hohner most nights to play a few tunes. I have a D-35
and a J12-40 Martins for more serious playing.
I must say I play the Hohner more often now.
Walter Hoehn
Paul Smith
> I invite anyone who has actually tried a JLD Bridge System to post their
> opinions of it here whether they like it or not.
I made a permanent installation on my 20 year old Yamaha 12-string.
It is a fairly cheap instrument with a laminated top that was
beginning to pull away. I figured if it didn't work, I'd just throw
it all away. Well, the JLD system not only made the instrument
playable again by flattening the top, but it sounds really, really
good. It is fun to play too because you can feel the vibrations in
the back and sides. For older instruments that need a little help, I
heartedly (not hardly) recommend these.
The only confusion I still have is whether I've tightned it enough or
not. I just kinda, sorta stopped when the top became flat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul F. Smith
mailto:QPS...@email.mot.com
"We have enough youth; how about a fountain of 'smart'?"
Josh Karnes
Paul Smith wrote:
> The only confusion I still have is whether I've tightned it enough or
> not. I just kinda, sorta stopped when the top became flat.
this is a critical adjustment, unfortunately. can make an enormous difference
in sound. james oliver says you can probably adjust this with the guitar strung
and tuned to pitch with a long flatblade screwdriver if you angle it into the
soundhole. you might have to grind on the blade of a screwdriver to make it
fit. buy a cheap one and use it for this purpose. otherwise you might be able
to use a socket-mounted allen wrench on a 1/4" socket with a long extension and
a T-handle wrench, but that would certainly be tricky. james oliver has a
method using a whacked-out modified tuning machine. well, i'll leave that one
for another day.
i'm planning to make a ball-end allen driver out of a cheap long-blade
screwdriver, a ball-end hex key and some rather intensive transplant surgery.
i'll report how it turns out. this might be the key to making these sound good.
George Reiswig
Well,
I just have to respond to Dave's post. I am a believer, in a sense. I put
one on an barely playable, thin sounding Yamaha 12 string with laminated top and
back (you've probably all heard this story by now) that had bellied badly. I had
tried to steam out the belly, but it returned as soon as it was strung up.
Install the JLD and a new saddle, thin nasal sound. I played it awhile and
it opened up some, but still didn't sound great. Not until I shaved the braces
did it really open up and start to sound better. It now sounds better than any
of the new 12 strings I've played recently in stores (Taylors, Larivees). So, I
believe it is a great way to fix an unplayable instrument, and for a terrific
price. I also believe that it will help virtually any cheaper instrument sound
better than it does without it, but you may have to work at it some to get it to
sound really good.
Now, does this mean I'm going to put it on my Lowden? Not unless I can do it
without doing permanent changes to the instrument. It's a well-made instrument
to begin with, and I bought it because of *that tone.* Why would I want to mess
with the magic? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If I could try one out that
wouldn't involve permanent modifications to the instrument, I would gladly do so
just so I could find out whether it sounded better or not. (it *would* be a good
preventive for bellying) But, since the Lowden doesn't use bridge pins, I don't
think I could do this without drilling a hole through the bridge.
I agree that it's counterintuitive, but it did work. If you have an
instrument that is hard to play or doesn't sound the way it used to, or doesn't
sound as good as you'd like, give the thing a try. If you don't want to make
permanent changes, try the one with the bridge pins. You can always go back! I
really think it is worth it to try, though.
GR
Dave Bricker wrote:
> I invite anyone who has actually tried a JLD Bridge System to post their
> opinions of it here whether they like it or not. Postulations about the
> physics behind it are also interesting and I would hope to learn something
> from them myself. However, I will remind some of you that observation is an
> integral part of the scientific method. You may be able to prove
> mathematically that a bumblebee can't fly but you'll be wrong. In this case,
> the price for your groundless opinions is paid by a group of people who
> believe in their product and have invested a lot of time and money studying
> and improving it.
>
> One great thing about the JLD Bridge System is that you don't need an
> engineer, a physicist or scientific testing equipment to prove it works. My
> mother can hear the difference. That's science!
>
> I now relinquish my soapbox,
>
> Dave Bricker
> http://www.jldguitar.com
--
Dave Bricker
Josh Karnes wrote:
> Paul Smith wrote:
>
> > The only confusion I still have is whether I've tightned it enough or
> > not. I just kinda, sorta stopped when the top became flat.
>
When flattening a top, you pretty much have to stop when the top gets back to
normal. The guitar will sound very stiff at first. It's like putting braces on
crooked teeth. They hurt until they move. After a while (usually a day or three),
the top will stop fighting and the sound will open up.
Under normal circumstance (i.e. already flat top), jus tighten the soundpost so you
can reach in the guitar and spin the post without really struggling. It should be
just on the firm side of snug. Either way, things will relax and open up after a
while even if the soundpost is too tight.
Cheers,
Dave Bricker
http://www.jldguitar.com
Dave Bricker
Since I had exchanged some words with Gerardo on this list about his expressed
opinions of the JLD Bridge System, we have shared a few letters and ideas. He has
been skeptical but reasonable.
I suggested that since he is skeptical of the system, he might make an ideal
reviewer and he has agreed to try the JLD Bridge System out in a guitar of his
choice. He'll install the system, leave it in for a week and then publish his
honest opinion on RMMGA about everything from the instructions to the installation
to the effects on the guitar.
I'm leaving the choice of instrument and any experimental controls or measuring
devices (if he chooses to use any apart from his own tastes and ears) up to him. As
soon as I have the bridge-pin to saddle measurements I requested from him, I'll
send him a System that fits his guitar.
He'll either keep it or I've got to take it back in front of everyone.
Cheers,
Josh Karnes
> I suggested that since he is skeptical of the system, he might make an ideal
> reviewer and he has agreed to try the JLD Bridge System out in a guitar of his
> choice. He'll install the system, leave it in for a week and then publish his
> honest opinion on RMMGA about everything from the instructions to the installation
> to the effects on the guitar.
[snip]
> He'll either keep it or I've got to take it back in front of everyone.
way to go dave. anyone in austin who wants to do the same thing, i'll have at
least one spare next week and i will be happy to offer the same terms. install
it, play it for a week, and i will gladly and publicly take it back if you don't
like it. all you could possibly lose is your time.
later-
Pmac3000
Even though I'm not a big believer in this system as installed in new guitars
(a la Breedlove), I do admire Dave Bricker for the obvious confidence he has in
it, and the guts to put his product's reputation on the line in front of a
rather critical audience. I'm intrigued.
Pat McCarthy
steve
The September issue of Acoustic Guitar Magazine did a review of the JLD Bridge System,
it can be seen on page 84. A pretty good article that gave mixed reviews. They
installed the system on a Taylor 514C, a Santa Crus H, a Fender El Rio, and a Lincoln
Dreadnought. The reviewers all seemed to be mildly impressed with the system, they did
note that every guitar tested with the JLD system went through some sound
transformation, either in volume or tone. The reviewers stated they felt the JLD
system was a great way to enhance low to mid quality guitars, but felt the addition of
a JLD system to undamaged, high quality, solid-topped guitars was unnecessary unless it
was part of the original construction as in the Breedlove line.
Happy picking,
Steve C
Dave Bricker wrote:
> Since I had exchanged some words with Gerardo on this list about his expressed
> opinions of the JLD Bridge System, we have shared a few letters and ideas. He has
> been skeptical but reasonable.
>
> I suggested that since he is skeptical of the system, he might make an ideal
> reviewer and he has agreed to try the JLD Bridge System out in a guitar of his
> choice. He'll install the system, leave it in for a week and then publish his
> honest opinion on RMMGA about everything from the instructions to the installation
> to the effects on the guitar.
>
> I'm leaving the choice of instrument and any experimental controls or measuring
> devices (if he chooses to use any apart from his own tastes and ears) up to him. As
> soon as I have the bridge-pin to saddle measurements I requested from him, I'll
> send him a System that fits his guitar.
>
> He'll either keep it or I've got to take it back in front of everyone.
>
> Cheers,
>
> http://www.jldguitar.com
Scott Reichert
steve wrote:
>
> The September issue of Acoustic Guitar Magazine did a review of the JLD Bridge System,
> it can be seen on page 84. A pretty good article that gave mixed reviews. They
> installed the system on a Taylor 514C, a Santa Crus H, a Fender El Rio, and a Lincoln
> Dreadnought. The reviewers all seemed to be mildly impressed with the system, they did
> note that every guitar tested with the JLD system went through some sound
> transformation, either in volume or tone. The reviewers stated they felt the JLD
> system was a great way to enhance low to mid quality guitars, but felt the addition of
> a JLD system to undamaged, high quality, solid-topped guitars was unnecessary unless it
> was part of the original construction as in the Breedlove line.
> Happy picking,
> Steve C
I would also point out that due to time limitations, we couldn't wait a
day or two for the tops to loosen up as suggested by Dave Bricker. This
could have made a difference in the more expensive guitars, and I would
have been interested in hearing all of the guitars the next day, after
having left the device in overnight and after some hours of play. The
JLD system that was put in my cheap indonesian dreadnaught (which I use
as a travel guitar) is still there today. Impressive, the way it
flattened out the concave top. Sounds and plays better, too.
Scott Reichert
Ocala, Florida
Josh Karnes
Scott Reichert wrote:
>
> steve wrote:
> >
> > The September issue of Acoustic Guitar Magazine did a review of the JLD Bridge System,
> > it can be seen on page 84.
[snip]
> > The reviewers stated they felt the JLD
> > system was a great way to enhance low to mid quality guitars, but felt the addition of
> > a JLD system to undamaged, high quality, solid-topped guitars was unnecessary unless it
> > was part of the original construction as in the Breedlove line.
> > Happy picking,
> > Steve C
> > FWIW, I was there for that test, and this summary is accurate. However,
> I would also point out that due to time limitations, we couldn't wait a
> day or two for the tops to loosen up as suggested by Dave Bricker.
my seagull was still changing in sound for several weeks after the install. i
would say that a week will get it more-or-less stable, and a month will have it
sounding the way it will for the long term. during this time period i found it
beneficial to tweak the tension. my guitar had no bellying of the top. we'll
see how it does on the new seagull (should be able to install one this
weekend). i WISH i could find an observer to judge this for me who is
independent. as it is i might make a recording before and after just to offer
some comparison, same mic, same piece of tape, same room, etc.
sas ya-
steve
I own a Breelove C-1 that of course has the JLD Bridge system installed by the maker. The C-1
has rosewood sides and back and a redwood top. It is a beautiful sounding instrument, probably
the best sounding instrument I've ever owned, and I've owned quite a few. Currently have a
Breedlove, Martin, Gibson and a Tacoma Papoose (travel guitar) and the Breelove is by far the
best sounding of the bunch, great for finger style guitar. When I first purchased the guitar I
didn't know it had this bridge system installed. So I wrote Breedlove and asked them if it
helped transfer vibration from the bridge to the top and what it was all about. They replied
"Don't touch it, it does help the transfer of vibration and assists in supporting the top of
the guitar." They didn't add much more than that, so I was left up to investigating what is
was all about on my own. Apparently the JLD system allows them to plane their tops a bit
thinner for better volume and tone and I think it really does a great job. I don't know if it
would help any of my other guitars sound better but seeing as I'm satisfied with how they sound
and play I can't find any good reason to install the JLD, with the exception of the Martin. It
is an old 1931 and has a slight belly behind the bridge (not much though, switched to a lower
tension string). I think the article in the May 97 Acoustic Guitar Magazine does a pretty fair
job of evaluating the system and it's correct applications. Folks should read it to assist in
their decision of using this system on an undamaged guitar.
Steve C
Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou
Hey guys.
In article <34E2CE15...@wolfenet.com>, steve <sc...@wolfenet.com> wrote:
| The September issue of Acoustic Guitar Magazine did a review of the JLD
Bridge System,
| it can be seen on page 84. A pretty good article that gave mixed
reviews. They
| installed the system on a Taylor 514C, a Santa Crus H, a Fender El Rio,
and a Lincoln
| Dreadnought. The reviewers all seemed to be mildly impressed with the
system, they did
| note that every guitar tested with the JLD system went through some sound
| transformation, either in volume or tone. The reviewers stated they
felt the JLD
| system was a great way to enhance low to mid quality guitars, but felt
the addition of
| a JLD system to undamaged, high quality, solid-topped guitars was
unnecessary unless it
| was part of the original construction as in the Breedlove line.
| Happy picking,
| Steve C
I'll never get used to the same topic coming up in a newsgroup just a
scant few hours, sometimes, after it's been covered.
Here's the scoop on the JLD review. Glad you liked it:
... We were all impressed by how the Bridge System improved the warped top
on Reichert's beat-up old Lincoln. The top didn't flatten out completely,
but the guitar was now perfectly playable and sounded fine. By this
time, we were wondering if the brass pins might be adding some of the
brilliance to the mids, so Oliver fitted the System to the Fender more
permanently by screwing the device to the underside of the bridge through
a hole centgered behind the pin holes. There was a slight loss of added
brightness, but the resonance, volume and general acoustic quality were
still greatly enhanced.
We then tried the bridge pin method with the Santa Cruz. The effect was
the same as that on the Taylor: the tonal quality was colored with more
brilliance in the midrange, the bass response was a bit deadened and a
little resonance was added. All in all we preferred the guitar's tone
without the JLD Bridge System.
This was anything but an exhaustive test, but we concluded that
installing the JLD Bridge System is a great way to enhance the acoustic
attributes of low- to mid-quality laminated instruments and to
unobtrusively flatten warped tops. For undamaged, higher quality, solid
topped guitars, however, it may be an imposition of unnecessary tonal
color unless the system is part of the original design, as with Breedlove
guitars.
Regards
Elizabeth
Remove NEWS from email address to reply
DaveP4
I have installed several of them on all sorts of guitars, ranging from plywood
crap to decent Martin d-28s. They are easy to install once you've done the
first one or two. I can do it in less tha 10 minutes now. As for what it
does, in ;short it actually does what the manufacturer says it will. it cures
:"bellies" and tends to radically improve the sound of cheaper guitars. It can
make a plywood piece of junk sound decent. It really enhances the harmonics..
Also, the Bridge system makes heavey bracing superfluous. That's why Breedlove
uses them as part of their bracing system. They use very little bracing on the
top and the JLD Bridge system keeps the top from warping and it keeps ternsion
off the top as well. I personally like Breedlove guitars a lot, and own one of
their Dreadnoughts which has the traditional X bracing with no JLD bridge
system. Nothing against the others, just had to have that particular guitar.
It beat my D-28 like a dog. If I were you, I'd try the system on a cheap
laminated guitar first and notice the changes. I'd be more cautious about
putting one on a higher end guitar, though they can help in some cases with
tone as well as the structural problems. You can call the guy who designed
these things. He will talk your ear off, but he's interesting.
Anthony W. Rairden
Scott Reichert wrote:
>> FWIW, I was there for that test, and this summary is accurate. However,
I would also point out that due to time limitations, we couldn't wait a
day or two for the tops to loosen up as suggested by Dave Bricker. This
could have made a difference in the more expensive guitars, and I would
have been interested in hearing all of the guitars the next day, after
having left the device in overnight and after some hours of play. <<
Seems to me that journalistic responsibility would have called for running
the article in a later issue, to allow a full and fair evaluation of the
system... or else the test should have been started a week earlier. Letting
deadline pressure impact completeness of a supposedly objective and complete
test bespeaks a managerial or editorial problem somewhere...
Tony Rairden
Craig Clausen
I confess my ignorance, What is the JDL Bridge system? Is this a Luthier item?
Something for guitar builders/repairers? Is this an Acoustic Pickup enhancer?
I hope this is not too basic.
TIA,
Craig
Josh Karnes
Craig Clausen wrote:
>
> I confess my ignorance, What is the JDL Bridge system?
it's a bridge bracing system which uses a sound post to brace the bridge to the
tail block of the guitar. see www.jldguitar.com for more information, or feel
free to write me offline for discussion.
lmy...@spammus.neglectus.gte.net
I guess its my turn to describe my experience with the JLD Bridge
System (sorry for the length, but I wanted to be thorough). Like most
of you, I was extremely skeptical about attaching some strange device
to my vintage guitar, a pre-war Martin D-18. But the top was pulling
up again (I had a similar pull up repaired many years ago) and I felt
like it was time to do something. So I did my good little engineer's
thing (actually, my wife has some other, more descriptive terms for
this behavior) and started researching alternatives. Repair shops all
wanted to put a bigger bridge plate in since the previous repair
method was no longer effective. I have always loved the sound of this
guitar, great bass and ringing highs, a real cannon, and I didn't want
to do anything that would adversely affect its tone. That pretty much
rules out the oversized bridge plate, from everything I've read.
About this time, I became aware of RMMGA and subsequently the JLD
Bridge System. After reading everything here on the subject,
exchanging some interesting email with Dave Bricker (thanks Dave), and
spending about an hour on the phone with James Oliver at JLD (thanks
James)(a really nice and interesting guy, BTW), I decided I didn't
have anything to lose by trying the removable one out. The check and
the device crossed in the mail. I had it in two days.
First of all, for those who don't know, let me say that the
engineering design of this thing is brilliant in its simplicity.
Straight out of introductory physics ... screws, levers and fulcrums.
Picture extending your bridge down into the guitar's body and sticking
a miniature car jack between the extended bridge and the tail block.
Then crank the jack until the bridge is level again (or until the
stress is reduced if you don't have a pull up problem). That's about
it.
Installation of the removable version is just about that simple, too.
Attach the device to the underside of the bridge with a brass bridge
pin through the D string hole and crank it down. Unfortunately for my
guitar, I ran into a couple of problems. When the bridge was repaired
way back when, a second bridge plate was laminated on top of the
original bridge plate about 1/8 inch further from the edge of the
original bridge plate nearest the sound hole. The standard JLD unit
for these guitars is pretty much perfectly sized for the standard
bridge plate, but the offset left about 1/8 inch of a 1/4 inch wood
support on the device hanging over the edge. This wood support takes
all of the stress of straightening the bridge and during the course of
gradually increasing the pressure, the support slipped off the edge,
changing the direction of force enough to crack the support and bend
the brass bridge pin holding the JLD to the bridge. A loud damn crack
it was, too. I'm sure you can imagine the excitement (approaching
heart failure) until I figured out that the guitar was OK. A good
engineering safety reason to make this thing out of wood instead of
metal.
James was great about it, though. Calmed me down, sent me a
replacement body and bridge pin as well as a permanent installation
version should that prove to be necessary. This time I was much more
careful about evaluating placement of the device. Unfortunately, it
still hung over, but not quite as much, so I tried it again. This
time, I was much more gradual about applying pressure, eventually
getting just enough so that change in the top was noticable. At this
point I stopped, let it sit for a while, and decided to string the
guitar up to determine if there was any change in the tone. Here I
ran into the second problem.
Over the years as the bridge gradually tilted forward and up, setups
correspondingly reduced the height of the saddle to maintain the
action. As a result, there isn't enough saddle left to reach all of
the strings with the bridge pins in (the strings would now go through
the holes in the top of the bridge pins instead of through the bridge
pin holes). So, I took the other brass bridge pins out and strung the
guitar up normally except for the D, whose brass bridge pin was
holding the device on.
BTW, there's one addition minor aesthetic problem with the brass
bridge pins. The strings go through holes drilled in the heads of the
bridge pins, so not only do the lovely color-coded D'Addario string
balls show, but, on my guitar anyway, the pins are close enough to the
saddle that the end windings on the wound strings end up sitting on
the saddle. James suggested a clever workaround (why am I not
surprised), just clip off some old string balls and slide them on the
string before stringing. Of course, now you have multiple colored
string balls, but, hey, lets just call it Christmas. 8-)
As I was tuning up I immediately noticed significantly improved
sustain and a change in tone. Notes seemed to last forever. After I
got it tuned, I realized that the bass and high notes were still
strong and the added sustain may have even improved them. The amazing
thing was the effect on the mid-range. Much more balance and harmonic
complexity across the spectrum. I also noted and enjoyed the greatly
increased vibration, particularly in the body of the guitar, but in
the top as well. I was hooked.
After playing my new/old toy for a while, I then tried to flatten the
top a little more. The device eventually slipped off the edge of the
bridge plate again, this time with only minor damage to the support.
I thought about customizing the device to accomodate the overlap, but
instead decided to go ahead and do the permanent install to avoid the
brass pin problem. The permanent version provides much better
leverage and can easily be positioned in exactly the right place on my
guitar. Once I got over the hump of deciding to do it, the
installation was trivial. Drill one hole through the bridge, screw it
down, tighten up the tension, and string it up normally. I didn't
even counter sink the screw because its black and small and is not
very objectionable to me. Because of some cracks and string wear, I
will soon have to replace this bridge and will then have it
countersunk and filled. Or maybe I'll try to talk James into trying
an idea I had to completely hid the screw. But however its done, the
JLD will be on my guitar.
I've had the JLD Bridge System on for several weeks now and couldn't
be happier with the results. The top is significantly flatter
(although not perfect yet) and I love the improvement in the tone.
Over the next few weeks, I will continue to experiment with the
adjustment setting to try to remove the remainder of the bridge tilt,
but I want to be sure to let everything gradually adapt to the new
tension. I will also be doing some experiments with one of my local
dealers on identical (well, as close as possible) new guitars using
the removable version. I'll report the results when I get them.
Others who are familiar with the old sound of my Martin are amazed at
the difference, its definitely an improvement and is not subtle. I've
since had the opportunity to directly compare it with the sound of
some other Martins, Goodalls, Lakewoods, and other assorted higher-end
guitars. I think the Goodalls still reign supreme, primarily for
their crispness and clarity, among the guitars that I have played, but
my Martin is now very close. Close enough to relieve my GAS pressure
for a new acoustic, for a while at least. ;-)
For those of you thinking about using the JLD Bridge System with your
vintage (or otherwise) instruments, I strongly suggest you try it.
You've got nothing to lose. If you don't like it, send it back. Even
if there's no impact on the tone, you've stabilized the top, probably
forever. The most it can cost you is $3.00 in shipping each way if
you decide to return it. I suspect, though, that they'll have to pry
it out of your cold, dead fingers to get it back, but, as always,
YMMV. I hope this helps someone.
Regards,
Larry Myers
lmyers[at]gte[dot]net