How important is the bridge... (on a solid body guitar).

[cosmikdebriis]

Surely no one would doubt the importance of bridge design on an acoustic guitar as it transmits string vibrations to the sound box which creates/amplifies the sound of the instrument.

 

On an electric guitar the pickups electro magnetically create the sound so the job of the bridge is less clear.

 

Fairly obviously it is used to adjust string height and intonation but how important are the acoustic properties of the bridge ???

 

The original LP designs both had severe limitations (you have to decide who is "to blame" depending on who you believe). but both wrap under and over designs have their drawbacks.

 

Hence the introduction of the "tunamatic" which has survived pretty much intact until this day.

 

But is that old 50's design the best we can come up with?

 

On the face of it the Tunamatic and the "acoustic" bridge are very different. Most obviously it's metal... The way it is mounted to the guitar body is also very different with its arrangement of threaded parts.

 

So... Are the Tunamatic style bridges the best?

 

Is metal the best material to use? if so which metal(s).

 

How about an acoustic wood style bridge mounted straight on to the guitar body?

 

Consideration must also be given to the cost. If one design costs significantly more than another then would the money be better spent on, say, better pickups?

 

Any body else got other ideas?

[Thundersteel]

Along with string gauges, wood type, finish thickness, and sun spots, this has been debated for millenia.

 

I believe the majority of one's tone is in the fingers.

[yoslate]

I believe the majority of one's tone is in the fingers.

 

 

                                          Second!

[JeffB]

Just the second finger?

[Paul Asbell]

>Just the second finger?<

 

I sometimes use my ring finger. Anyone else?

[Kuz]

To quote (and I believe this is 100% accurate) Paul Reed Smith; "Everything, effects everything"

 

All parts make the sum; wood, pickups, bridge, tail piece, saddles, inlays, strings, scale length, neck angle, composition of the materials used, weight, tuning machines, neck angle, nut, ect....

 

It may be over kill to think how all these elements combine to form the tone of your guitar, but call Jay Wolfe and let him tell you the scientific results that Seymore Duncan got comparing the Schaller roller bridge vs the nashville tuneamatic.

[cod65]

I just debated this myself, with an h140. I was going to switch out the bridge and tail. Somebody suggested I keep the schaller bridge for intonation/spacing adjustment. I switched to a locking tonepros and gotoh aluminum tail.

 

I gotta say its a different beast- its got more nasally mids- the harmonics are more solid. this is what i needed because the guitar was to bassy. its great. i don't think i will change the bridge now, cause i got really good intonation going, and the strings are right over the pickup poles.

 

then you get into whether or not the tail should be locked all the way down (yes). this works with the sachller well, because it doesn't rub against the back of the bridge and is real solid.

[Kuz]

Personally, I set my Nashville stoptail down all the way, whether it hit the back of the bridge or not.

 

(So the strings resonate a little more on the bridge vs the stoptail. They both are in screwed into the top of the guitar, right?)

[cosmikdebriis]

There's been quite a lot of discussion on the style of neck joint. Set, screwed, thru, etc and how the glue, length of tenon or screws affect the tone. So it must surely follow that the bridge can have a similar effect.

 

So, I wondered if a wood/bone bridge arrangement fixed directly to the body of the guitar would be any better than a metal affair?

 

Does anyone know of such a guitar (solid body that is)?

 

I would guess that at the beginning of the electric manufacturers would have experimented with acoustic style bridges as that would be the natural progression. Presumably then they dropped the idea in favour of the metal bridge. Was that for reasons of tone/adjustment or just because metal bridges were easier to manufacture and required less skill in the manufacture/setup than an acoustic style.

 

If you consider the early days of the electric, many manufacturers considered them as a plank of wood with a pickup attached. I believe Orville Gibson described them as a "broom stick with a pickup on it". As such I doubt much care was initially put in to their production. So maybe the metal bridge is just a throwback to an earlier age?

 

I appreciate that quite a lot of this is conjecture, perhaps someone knows better?

[backline]

I think getting better intonation on electric guitars came about because the fundamental note is so prominant. Acoustic guitars have a lot of harmonics and frequency splatter so it's harder to hear imperfections in intonation.

 

As well as the structure of the guitar, I'm a believer that the bridge system is as important to tone, and pickups (and their location) too.

 

I have been known to use nylon saddles under the plain strings on a tune-o-matic ABR-1 to get less "ping" when I want fluffy trebles for jazz sounds.

 

Nuances, but everything has its effect.

[yoslate]

Just the second finger?

 

Alright, wiseguy....  Better ask Django!  My preference, just now, would be for the third....*      Jeez...everybody's a comedian!

 

 

(* Disclaimer:  The above is intended as a humorous interlude for our viewing audience.  Any hostility on the part of the poster toward the recipient is neither intended nor implied....)     

[SouthpawGuy]

I think getting better intonation on electric guitars came about because the fundamental note is so prominant. Acoustic guitars have a lot of harmonics and frequency splatter so it's harder to hear imperfections in intonation.

 

As well as the structure of the guitar, I'm a believer that the bridge system is as important to tone, and pickups (and their location) too.

 

I have been known to use nylon saddles under the plain strings on a tune-o-matic ABR-1 to get less "ping" when I want fluffy trebles for jazz sounds.

 

Nuances, but everything has its effect.

 

Please explain further, I'm very curious.

 

Also please define "fluffy trebles". Perhaps give an example of an artist with that tone ?

 

I use the big end of a 1.1mm pick right over the end of the fingerboard, and also use the neck pickup with the tone control rolled almost off. I seem to get a sweeter tone that way.

[backline]

Please explain further, I'm very curious.

 

Also please define "fluffy trebles". Perhaps give an example of an artist with that tone ?...

 

OK, most guys with so-called "jazz tones" use a hollowbody archtop: Barney Kessell, Johnny Smith, Kenny Burrell, Herb Ellis, etc etc.

 

Somehow with my attack, or something, I tend to get a lot of "ping" on the unwound strings, especially the high E string, when I want that lush tone. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "fluffy," as it conjurs up maybe some new tone as yet unheard. What I want is that nice round fat treble string "pop," but somehow I tend to sound pingy. That's what I'm trying to Rx.

 

I've tried heavier treble strings, and that certainly helps "de-ping" the plain strings. But I like to play a variety of music types in a set, and it's nice to just switch pickups and go for some Blues or Country inside of whatever song is up. I don't like switching guitars.

 

So when I roll off the tone pot to get the highs where I like the bass strings get all muffled and tubby sounding.

 

To get some highs diminished a bit, so that I can leave the tone pot a little clearer for the wound strings voice, I have experimented with bridges that present a different material to the plain strings than the wound strings.

 

Gibson used to put nylon saddles on some ABR-1 bridges. I used to see them on everything from Byrdlands to some ES-335's of some eras.

 

I've also used and liked wood bridges, but on a Les Paul type guitar it can be problematic.

 

One solution I have used a couple of times is GraphTech saddles of various materials mixed with metal saddles.

 

To compound the problem, I like a plain G string. Not all wood bridges are compensated for a plain G except the straight across type, which leads to other intonation challenges.

 

I'm not as anal about intonation as I am about getting the highs fluffy (there's that word again), while keeping the bass strings snappy, but over the years have experimented plenty with bridges and kluged together some hybrid stuff out of my parts bin and been encouraged.

 

Right now I'm not presently playing jazz jobs, so the issue is kinda academic. I'm just using straight metal saddled tune-o-matics or roller Schallers. But I do believe bridges (and/or saddles) are an important part of the recipe, along with the guitar's overall structure, and strings. Then there's pickups too!

[Spectrum13]

Cos,

 

  There are so many types of tuna bridges... ABR-1, Nashville, Converson plus the Asian and European variations of same plus the alternative mounting systems and saddle materials that were not available 50 years ago that the "best we can come up with" might not apply. The 911's rear engine design and development has been described as a bad design perfectly executed. Classic designs and both from around the same time period and still popular.

  I like choice &I like locking designs. We can keep our setups when changing strings, cleaning or modding stuff. Faber has come up with a variety of interesting inovations addressing the wrap tail and stop tail as well ABR & Nashville mods. I believe Jimmy D'Aquisto made his set neck and set angled electrics with a wooden bridge but they must have been difficult to adjust. Now if Ted came up with Leo's bridge first... that would be a good topic.

[yoslate]

Somehow with my attack, or something, I tend to get a lot of "ping" on the unwound strings, especially the high E string, when I want that lush tone. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "fluffy," as it conjurs up maybe some new tone as yet unheard. What I want is that nice round fat treble string "pop," but somehow I tend to sound pingy. That's what I'm trying to Rx.

 

I've tried heavier treble strings, and that certainly helps "de-ping" the plain strings. But I like to play a variety of music types in a set, and it's nice to just switch pickups and go for some Blues or Country inside of whatever song is up. I don't like switching guitars.

 

I've also used and liked wood bridges....

 

To compound the problem, I like a plain G string. Not all wood bridges are compensated for a plain G except the straight across type, which leads to other intonation challenges.

 

But I do believe bridges (and/or saddles) are an important part of the recipe....

 

Just a little anecdotal observation.  When I ordered my Super from Jay and Graham, I spec'd it with a tune-a-matic, something that Graham, who did the set up, did not think was at all weird.  I don't really do the jazz thing, (ingeneri, among others would be an authority on jazz tone, and how to get it), although I'm a great admirer of Kenny Burrell.  I'm primarily a clean blues player who bends a fair amount (I thought the t-o-m would accomodate that more readily) and I like what I've always referred to as a "snap and ring" in my attack (much of which has to do with the right hand).  I was afraid the wooden bridge would be much too dark and mellow, woody, if you will, and cause me to wear a suit and sit when I play.  But last week, when I decided to restring the Big Girl, I went ahead and put the wooden floater back on.  First thing, with an unwound "G," the intonation was not a problem.  Secondly, nobody jumped out of place when strings were bent, and last, the tone is wonderful!  A little less bite, but more round and warm (your "fluffy" backline?), without really losing any of the "ring" (which I think of as more sustain than "ping").  I think much of what I desire which stayed in the guitar's sound, despite the bridge change, has to do with the pickups, though, the Lollar P-90's.  But the wooden bridge is really a remarkable little piece of work, too...talk about simplicity and form following function.  Now I'd really like to know who made it; it's just a beautiful piece of work unto itself!  I don't see a return to the tune-a-matic any time soon.

[Kuz]

Just a little anecdotal observation.  When I ordered my Super from Jay and Graham, I spec'd it with a tune-a-matic, something that Graham, who did the set up, did not think was at all weird.  I don't really do the jazz thing, (ingeneri, among others would be an authority on jazz tone, and how to get it), although I'm a great admirer of Kenny Burrell.  I'm primarily a clean blues player who bends a fair amount (I thought the t-o-m would accomodate that more readily) and I like what I've always referred to as a "snap and ring" in my attack (much of which has to do with the right hand).  I was afraid the wooden bridge would be much too dark and mellow, woody, if you will, and cause me to wear a suit and sit when I play.  But last week, when I decided to restring the Big Girl, I went ahead and put the wooden floater back on.  First thing, with an unwound "G," the intonation was not a problem.  Secondly, nobody jumped out of place when strings were bent, and last, the tone is wonderful!  A little less bite, but more round and warm (your "fluffy" backline?), without really losing any of the "ring" (which I think of as more sustain than "ping").  I think much of what I desire which stayed in the guitar's sound, despite the bridge change, has to do with the pickups, though, the Lollar P-90's.  But the wooden bridge is really a remarkable little piece of work, too...talk about simplicity and form following function.  Now I'd really like to know who made it; it's just a beautiful piece of work unto itself!  I don't see a return to the tune-a-matic any time soon.

 

BINGO!!!

 

When I bought my 525 with lollar p-90s from Wolfe guitars I had heard all this story about having the T-o-M bridge joined to the body for more sustain, you could bend notes without the bridge moving, and it sounds brighter with more bite.

 

Graham got a dentist mirror and found that there is no bracing difference between the T-o-M drilled into the top and a floating wood platform T-o-M. So I knew if I got a 525 with a floating bridge I could have the T-O-M installed in the top later if I wanted.

 

So I got my 525 with the floating T-O-M strung with 11s and it just sounds KILLLER. I can't imagine it sounding any different. Needless to say it will never be modified. This maybe my best sounding Heritage ever- Neck pup is jazz hollowbody or smokey blues joint- mid position is chimey full but phat- bridge pup is in Tele territory.

 

Rob, I was going to recommend that you put the wood floater on to give you "that tone" but I figured (and figured correctly) that you would try it someday and love the results!!!!

 

Here some pics of the guitar and bridge for your viewing pleasure.

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff205/jjkuz/Photo6_8dda1-Original-1.jpg[/img]

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff205/jjkuz/photo1_42909-Original.jpg[/img]

[backline]

...I was afraid the wooden bridge would be much too dark and mellow, woody, if you will, and cause me to wear a suit and sit when I play...

 

 

:laugh:

 

 

Ha, yeah those wooden bridges will surprize you. I kluged together an Ibanez green metalflake hairband guitar once and removed the Floyd, etc. In its place I put a wooden bridge. It was still a Rock guitar in sound, and even though 24 fret, the jazz tone was good too. I just didn't want to be seen sitting down with it. :wink:

[peerless]

The bridge of an electric guitar is just as important as the bridge on an acoustic guitar.  Most players do not realize this.  Most electric guitars have inferior bridges and this is made up for with pickups and amps.  A guitar with a good bridge, set up correctly, will sound much better.    When you talk about changing metals and such, some folks raise their eyebrows, but its all about sound transfer.  Different metals have different properties when it comes to resonance.  They emphasize frequencies differently and they have their signature tones.  The actual construction of the bridge is even more important.  I just do not understand why this causes so much controversy.  Nobody questions bracing schemes on acoustic guitars?  We may not know so much about them but we know they are important.  I guess the bridge and tailpiece would not be so controversial if it were not for modern production methods.  The bridge and tail piece has been one of the favorite points of cost cutting for manufacturing.  Be it the short and block of the strat, the pot metal Gibby tail piece and saddles you can bend with ease, or the any of the many bastardized Floyd Rose variants--there are so many cheap examples out there it has become the norm.  I think its a good idea to look at the designs and materials that were used when metal was actually something made in the USA so it was cheap and of high quality.  They used good stuff because it was at their fingertips.  Gibson made tailpieces from aluminum for a reason.  They used brass or whatever on their saddles for another.  These were not cosmic accidents.  Does all this matter?  In regard to tone?  You better believe it does.

 

Somebody gave a really good description of what an aluminum tailpiece does for a 150.  It alters the mids, less bassy, and harmonics and overtones are stronger.  The difference is very dramatic.  A pot metal tailpiece in my opinion does not sound worse, but really different.  If I played heavy metal all the time I would stick with the pot metal because it is more aggressive.  The bridge itself also changes the tone of your guitar from one type to another.  A Nashville and an ABR do sound different.  Even on the same studs.  A pure ABR setup has the studs directly into the wood and this really increases transfer.  IF you can't hear these differences you need a better tube amp.  Why wouldn't it change the tone?

 

Tone is in the fingers.  Well yeah, of course.  But, this is hands down the biggest shortcut to thinking a guitar player can make.  The distinction between tone in your figures and your signal is silly to debate.   

[cosmikdebriis]

The bridge of an electric guitar is just as important as the bridge on an acoustic guitar.  Most players do not realize this.  Most electric guitars have inferior bridges and this is made up for with pickups and amps.  A guitar with a good bridge, set up correctly, will sound much better.    When you talk about changing metals and such, some folks raise their eyebrows, but its all about sound transfer.  Different metals have different properties when it comes to resonance.  They emphasize frequencies differently and they have their signature tones.  The actual construction of the bridge is even more important.  I just do not understand why this causes so much controversy.  Nobody questions bracing schemes on acoustic guitars?  We may not know so much about them but we know they are important.  I guess the bridge and tailpiece would not be so controversial if it were not for modern production methods.  The bridge and tail piece has been one of the favorite points of cost cutting for manufacturing.  Be it the short and block of the strat, the pot metal Gibby tail piece and saddles you can bend with ease, or the any of the many bastardized Floyd Rose variants--there are so many cheap examples out there it has become the norm.  I think its a good idea to look at the designs and materials that were used when metal was actually something made in the USA so it was cheap and of high quality.  They used good stuff because it was at their fingertips.  Gibson made tailpieces from aluminum for a reason.  They used brass or whatever on their saddles for another.  These were not cosmic accidents.   Does all this matter?  In regard to tone?  You better believe it does.

 

Somebody gave a really good description of what an aluminum tailpiece does for a 150.  It alters the mids, less bassy, and harmonics and overtones are stronger.  The difference is very dramatic.  A pot metal tailpiece in my opinion does not sound worse, but really different.  If I played heavy metal all the time I would stick with the pot metal because it is more aggressive.  The bridge itself also changes the tone of your guitar from one type to another.  A Nashville and an ABR do sound different.  Even on the same studs.  A pure ABR setup has the studs directly into the wood and this really increases transfer.  IF you can't hear these differences you need a better tube amp.  Why wouldn't it change the tone?

 

Tone is in the fingers.  Well yeah, of course.  But, this is hands down the biggest shortcut to thinking a guitar player can make.  The distinction between tone in your figures and your signal is silly to debate.   

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you....

 

That's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Also I'm very interested in the wooden bridge idea. Anyone tried it on a solid body?

 

Oh... And... I'm not so sure I was to blame  :wink: ;D