Why are bridges cranked so high on modern archtops?
dwabeslim
have the bridge cranked. This is something I see more often than not
on today's archtops.
Are builders doing this because they don't have time[or ability] to
perfect the neck angle?
I realize this causes more pressure on the top producing more
volume but I find it affects string feel[tension?]and produces a less
mellow tone.
Classic electric archtops from the 50's and 60's usually had a low
overstand[the wood between the underside of the fingerboard and the
top] and only rarely did one see a guitar that had the bridge cranked
almost to the top of the threads.
To me this is a deal breaker on any guitar
and I've learned the hard way.
Anyone have any ideas on this issue?
Greg
sheetsofsound
> Looking at that natural Tal on ebay it occurs to me that it seems to
> have the bridge cranked. This is something I see more often than not
> on today's archtops.
> Are builders doing this because they don't have time[or ability] to
> perfect the neck angle?
> I realize this causes more pressure on the top producing more
> volume but I find it affects string feel[tension?]and produces a less
> mellow tone.
i don't agree on either point. I had an original sadowsky semi hollow
with the higher bridge and later on had one with the lower bridge.
They sounded and played the same.
TFPainter
neck angle w/ a 1" height projected at the bridge location...
I agree with you Greg, I like the way the old Gibsons feel with a
shallower neck angle (3 or 3 1/2 degrees) and a lower bridge height.
That's what I do.
Pic:http://s245.photobucket.com/albums/gg45/painter1422/P400/?
action=view¤t=fall-2009021.jpg&newest=1
dwabeslim
BTW I'm talking long scale guitars and I've had many over the
years. I know of which I speak. Now if to you they feel the same
regardless of this issue you are fortunate. It bugs the s... out of
me though.
dwabeslim
> Everyone is doing what Benedetto says to do in his book: 4.5 degree
> neck angle w/ a 1" height projected at the bridge location...
>
> I agree with you Greg, I like the way the old Gibsons feel with a
> shallower neck angle (3 or 3 1/2 degrees) and a lower bridge height.
> That's what I do.
Tom, thanks for that info. I never knew the details on neck angle
but with ear and hands I can tell pretty quick as long as I'm using my
preferred setup .
PS In Bob's defense, A friend of mine has an 80's
Benedetto and it feels like a really good 40's to early 60's
build.. Low bridge, good tension to the strings but they
BREATH. On the other side of the ledger, I had one early 60's
L5ces that had loose, sloppy, string tension no matter how heavy the
strings were. Also I recently played a beautiful '63 Barney Kessel
Custom and the saddle was almost on the last of the top threads....
way too high so I'm not saying that only old Gibson's are "right"
but they seemed to usually have these lower specs.
Mark Cleary
would vary the neck angle depending on how he carved a particular top.
Sometimes he went 4.75 degrees and he liked a bit higher arch than most.
This was because he felt he could get the biggest sound and of course
his normal scale length was 24 3/4 for a 17 inch. The bridge is fitted
last and it should be carved to avoid being cranked to the top of the
threads. This of course has nothing to do with the neck angle but how
the bridge is made and carved.
I must add however that just because Benedetto says it should be 4.5 had
nothing to do with why Bill used this angle. Bill was making guitars
long before Benedetto wrote his book. If Benedetto says this is the
common angle it is probably the only thing they did that was similar. I
personally do not like shallow neck angles but no doubt many fine
sounding guitars have shallow neck angles.
The height of my 18 inch Hollenbeck at the bridge is 15/16 of an inch.
The D'angelico is 1 inch exact.
Does someone have the height of a 175?
--
Deacon Mark Cleary
Epiphany Roman Catholic Church
Joe Finn
"Mark Cleary" <mcle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hho55n$rq2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
That sounds about right. My guitars are in that one inch range; give or
take.
I agree that various builders use different angles according to the
particular characteristics of the top. I also had an archtop where I could
not get the bridge low enough for a comfortable action. We ended up sanding
the saddle strip down until we got the thing more or less playable. It still
sounded fine too. ....joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
dwabeslim
Thanks Mark, I neglected to mention the shape of the arch but it has
occurred to me that this is probably part of the equation since a
pronounced arch would require a high overstand to get the strings up
and over the hump so to speak. . Also a local luthier once
mentioned that the thickness,graduation etc of the top plate also
exerts an influence on string feel.
The overstand on my 175's are '62, 8/32nds '63,
9/32nd's 2001 L4ces, 17/32nd's
bridge '62
26/32nd's '63 28/32nd's 2001 L4ces 33/32nd's of
course these are short scale and I do notice little change in feel
but as I said I was referring to Super 400 and L5ces guitars in my
original post.
Greg
TFPainter
> "Mark Cleary" <mclear...@comcast.net> wrote in message
I like the lower angle because it just feels better to me
ergonomically. You could make a case for a higher angle being better
in the sense that the guitar *may* be slightly more powerfully voiced
acoustically....might lose some sustain though...there are many
factors to consider overall. I've got a couple of D'A plans that show
a 3 or 3 1/2 degree neck angle and a lower bridge height.
DannyW.
This is a ymmv issue--I prefer the steeper neck angle on modern
Gibsons. Feels better to me, and leaves more room for adjustment as
the guitar ages.
Danny W.
mikeo
bridge heights side by side, so cannot comment one way or the other on
the question. However, as a point of interest, I had the pleasure of
visiting luthier Steve Grimes' shop in Maui some years ago and he
explained that he favors a shallow neck angle. I did play some of his
guitars exhibiting this setup and found them to be very nice and not
lacking in projection in any way as far as i can tell. Obviously
there are many physical factors contributing to what we perceive as
tone, so i will leave the debates to the science.