Saddle design, more thoughts for discussion...

[Louie Atienza]

I didn't want to hijack Mike's thread, so I thought I'd start a new one...

I also have pondered this many times. I don't have the scientific expertise or equipment to prove or disprove my theories.

In my last instrument challenge, I experimented with what I felt was a unique bridge design. It did have 6 individual saddles, and that is not new at all (although I would like to think that way!) But what I did do, was elongate each individual saddle, so that they actually ended at the string hole, tapered each one to string width, andslotted each one behind the break point, ramped gradually all the way to each string hole.

My theories are: If an acoustic guitar is a relatively inefficient system as it is, and there is unsupported string behind the bridge that can vibrate (albeit extrememly little) could an 'edge' be possibly attained by not wasting that miniscule amount of vibration behind the bridge? Secondly, if the saddle is one piece, firmly connected to a bridge, that's supposed to 'read' the three-dimensional vibration a string makes, how could it do so, if the top can vibrate more freely in and out, but the bridge is restricted somewhat in 'pitch' relative to the strings? Now I know that a top does vibrate "side to side" but the "information" it gets from the side to side movvement of the strings is merely a "summation" of it, since the strings are restricted somewhat from moving that way at the bridge. Couldn't individual saddles apply "torque" so to speak, to the bridge in a way a typical saddle cannot, and thus make the guitar respond to tones it normally wouldn't? Is there a reason to restrict these vibrations?

I have to say the last guitar I built has a familiar, yet unique sound. Loud, yet warm. I love the way the bass strings sound, but that might have been because of the multi-scale. I plan to build a more conventional guitar using some of the same methods...

Note in the pics the saddles had not been fully shaped yet. I did that before giving it to my friend as a gift.

[Michael Lewis]

Louie, I will wait and watch as you go through all the steps to find out what works and what doesn't. In the mean time, I sometimes design and make parts for my own instruments, but the point I want to make here is that tried and true traditional stuff works. If you can improve on the function of the instrument I will doff my hat to you. We are afflicted with the "human condition", one aspect of that is that we usually try to improve things, whether we actually do or not. The function of a part is a matter of physics, and should be able to be analyzed. Here in lies the rub, another part of the human condition is we use "logic" to make decisions. The "logic" we often use is fatally flawed due to omission of some details we don't think of, or erroneous assumptions we make.

Your bridge is interesting both in appearance and functional concept, how well do you think it works?

[Len McIntosh]

Louie
I'm looking forward to your results, I think your thought train is valid.
I'm wanting to somehow increase the break angle, ie move the string hole right behind the saddle.
I'm going to do away with bridge pins. And try for 60 degrees. This would lend itself to your solid saddles,
Keep on pondering Louie, and good luck.
Len

[Mario Proulx]

Your thinking is good and valid, but by eliminating the bridge pins, you've gone backwards...

As you said, there -IS- a decent amount of string energy that goes past the saddle, and if left to simply flap in the wind(so to speak0, it's lost. That's why I use solid(unslotted) bridge pins(ebony, or bone usually) that are fitted very precisely to the bridge, and I then cut a slot in the bridge and bridge plate to match the string. This "locks" the afterlength of the string tightly to the bridge, and captures the bit of energy that would have been lost with a set of poorly fitted pins, or worse, a pinless bridge.

I've done this simple modification(switch to solid pins and correctly slot the bridge) to enough guitars that I know without a doubt we get a very real gain in power and tone on all but the most unresponsive/overbuilt guitars.

So, try combining your saddle idea WITH some solid anchoring of the afterlength.

[Bill Hicklin]

Mario, what do you think of the idea used IIRC by Steve Klein, who sometimes instead of bridge pins used little metal posts that the ball-ends hooked onto? (This isn't the same as the "standard" pass-through Klein bridge).

[Mario Proulx]

Same issue; that allows the afterlength to "flap in the wind", so to speak. It is anchored, but only right at the very end(same as a typical pinless bridge, and a bridge with poorly fitted pins); everything between the saddle and the very end is free to do as it wishes, which is contrary to what we want if we're after every-little-bit of the strings' energy potential.

[Andy Birko]

As you said, there -IS- a decent amount of string energy that goes past the saddle.

On what are you basing the "IS" on?

I've done this simple modification(switch to solid pins and correctly slot the bridge) to enough guitars that I know without a doubt we get a very real gain in power and tone on all but the most unresponsive/overbuilt guitars.

How about this experiment: next time you get a guitar in for this job, begin by simply replacing the A string with a new one. Next, do the mod on the low E but size the slot (temporarily) for an A sized string. String up a brand new A string and compare the tone of the two A strings and report back.

I'm proposing this because I'm skeptical that there's significant energy making it past the saddle but not so skeptical that I'd proclaim that there isn't.

[Mario Proulx]

How about this experiment: next time you

How about the next time you doubt me, --you-- run a couple dozen experiments to prove -me- wrong?

<g>

[Louie Atienza]

Thanks for all the thoughts guys. I think spirited debate is good; it gets the thought processes going, and at least it shows we're all passionate about what we do, not just lemmings marching off into a cliff.

Mario, for this build, the exclusion of pins was part aesthetic, and part "I need to get this done before the deadline!" since I prefer to make my own. Actually, more of the latter... I have a bridge pin design as well that didn't get implemented on this but hopefully for the next. But the theory behind it is similar to yours. I'm not a fan of slotted pins either.

Michael thanks for the encouragement. I don't know if I'm exatly looking to improve things, but moreso to find my own unique "voice" for the instrument. i could build it like everyone else, but then I'll have an instrument that pretty much looks and sounds like everyone else's. As for functionality, I will say that after three jam sessions of constant, primal strumming, it hasn't gone out of tune (my buddy couldn't tuna fish) and it really lends itself to both picking and fingerstyle. I still can't believe the bass; but a regular scale version will confirm/deny that. Also, this used non-standard material (plywood back and rim bracing, phenolic veneer body)... I have the woods ready for number 2, just a matter of cutting and glueing. Somebody has to be the first to jump in the fire, Martin with x-bracing and gibson with the archtop guitar; and while I don't hold a candle to them, I certainly am not afraid to try at new things, even if it means absolute failure.

Len, I think the break andgle right at the contact point os only about 9-10 degrees, but then it gradually arches to about 80 at the string slots. While I think this puts more net torque at the bridge, I planned for this with the unique bracing.

[Bill Hicklin]

What, theoretically, are the advantages/disadvantages of individual saddle segments versus a standard one-piece saddle?

[Alan Carruth]

Mario Proulx wrote:
"How about the next time you doubt me, --you-- run a couple dozen experiments to prove -me- wrong?"

Now here's a quandary: on the one hand, I agree with Andy that a more controlled and objective experiment is in order. On the other hand, I have to admit that Mario has a lot of experience, and might well be hearing something real. Still ,in this case, it's Mario who's making a claim that seems to fly in the face of physics-as-we-know-it, and so I think it's incumbent on him to do the experiment if he's going to make the claim. I'm just putting the final touches on a paper on a very similar subject, and would be happy to consult about what's needed to establish a claim like that.

Alan Carruth / Luthier

[Mario Proulx]

I've been at it for 21 years now, and have heard the difference time and again. Like my vision having improved, I say it's up to the skeptics to prove me wrong, not the other way around.

I've also done the absolute best "test" for this, and other small mods. I didn't always tell the owner what, if anything, to expect! When they next bring their instrument in for a look-over or if I meet them someplace, I'll always ask how it's doing, and are they happy with the work I did, etc... Then I take note of their comments. For a pin change, I'll often show them the worn plastic pins and explain why we need to change them before we have to discuss changing a bridge plate, too, and I then offer a set of ebony pins, or for the price of a box of beer, bone pins. I won't explain that they'll be unslotted, and what they should expect to hear. But without fail, they always tell me that the guitar is a bit louder and cleaner/brighter, and in the case of bone pins, more than one has also mentioned that the strings seem to last a lot longer, something i attribute to the guitar now having a brighter overall tone, thereby not relying on fresh strings to keep the sound clean and crisp. This is not the first time I relate the above, either. Flying in the face of the laws of physics??? Give me a phargling break! Physics would dictate that a string's energy cannot stop dead at a single, narrow contact point.

Really, if 21 years of experience and countless testimonies from musicians who weren't told to expect a change needs to be backed-up with scientific "proof", I'm out of here. Honest. There's absolutely no point in any of us being here if we're all asked to "backup" any and all direct experience with some pseudo-science.

[Mario Proulx]

BTw, Louie, I like your idea and think it has some merit, but now I'd like for you to complete it by locking-in the rest of the string, via a well fitted pin, or since you like to do your own thing, make a wedge or something to fit into a matching string notch, make it decorative even. If you complete this system, you'll have eliminated even more lost energy than I am with pins alone. I can also imagine that strings breaking at the saddle would be a thing of the past with your design....

[Alan Carruth]

*sigh*

I don't want to get into a p---ing contest with Mario, but I can't deny what I've learned either. I've been at it almost twice as long as he has, but he makes more guitars, and my hearing isn't as good as his at this point. (BTW, my eyesight got better for a while too, before it got worse: just wait...) I've also seen enough instances of people fooling themselves that I really want to have something other than testimonials when that's possible.

"Physics would dictate that a string's energy cannot stop dead at a single, narrow contact point."

Who says it does? What happens at the bridge is that the wave traveling down the string encounters a large impedance mismatch. Some of the energy in the string 'leaks out' into the bridge and top to produce sound, and most of it reflects back into the string to keep the vibration going. If all the energy stayed in the string you'd get infinite sustain, if it weren't for viscous losses to the air and internal losses in the string, but the guitar would produce no sound acoustically. If none of the energy stayed in the string, if there were no impedance mismatch, the string would not 'know' how long it was at that pitch, nor what note to make. Neither case happens in the real world, of course, although the 'wolf' on the 'cello comes close to the latter case.

What's at issue here is what sort of dynamic forces can be transmitted past the saddle, and how, and what effect this would have on the sound. I already mentioned above that 'rolling' of the string on the saddle top is a real possibility, and that a similar effect has been seen happening on the frets by one very well respected researcher, and was reported in a major journal (DON'T give me that 'pseudo-science' stuff...), so it certainly could happen. If it does, then we have a pretty good idea of what to look for, and how to do that. There are a couple of other possiblities I can think of that involve tension changes as the string vibrates: either the twice-per-cycle signal or a higher frequency 'squeak tone'. Again, these are pretty well understood, and can be looked for reasonably easily, which is not to say it would not take some work. So far, in the experiments I've done, I have not seen evidence of them, but I have not been checking bridge pin fit as a variable.

We're all here because we want to make better guitars. I think we can all agree that the more we understand how they work the more likely we'll be to make improvements. Checking this sort of thing out can only benefit everybody, and I don't have time to check everything out myself. If you, or anybody else, wants to check this stuff I'll be happy to help. Then, if you're right, you can thumb your nose at me all you want in public. Believe it or not, that would be fine with me: this is not about who's right or wrong; it's about what's really happening.

Alan Carruth / Luthier

[Louie Atienza]

What, theoretically, are the advantages/disadvantages of individual saddle segments versus a standard one-piece saddle?

That's what I want to find out...

I will say, from my unscientific tests (meaning listening to what I hear, my friends, and letting them play so I can here them as an audience member) I can actually hear a "separation" between the strings. Even in full chords (6-strings) strummed fast, each note is still articulate. Almsot sounds like a "hi-fi" guitar. Yet it still sounds cohesive. I notice slightly less 'attack' so to speak. Yet it's still responsive to a very light tough. You almost can't play too quiet or too loud. Of course some of this may be due to the unique bracing, so the next one will have the standard [roll eyes] Martin bracing...

From a practical standpoint, it is a lot easier to fine tune string height and intonation, and I have a lot of room to accomdate most any tuning. It would even be possible, I conjecture, to actually affect a different "tone" to a particular string simply by changing the individual saddle material. High E a little bright? Maybe an ebony saddle for the high E. Also an entire saddle does not have to be replaced if there is wear under one string. With the ramped saddles, I strummed hard for hours with a 2mm jazz pick, then a copper pick, in an attempt to break a string at the bridge. No success. Also, one could easily implement piezo pickups under each saddle, for stereo panning, individual effects (octaver on bass strings for example) and evevn MIDI.

Disadvantages? It's a PITA to make. Trying to shape the individual saddles in the way I had was no fun. Making 6 pockets by hand was no fun either, as one slipup meant a ruined bridge (I ruined two). Easier with the round saddles I did on my previous attempts, but obviously not as wasy as using a router and a 1/8" bit and making a straight line. I think it looks distinctive; some may not. My friend accepted his because it was a gift; only time will tell if people would hear the difference.

Again, I can't say for sure if it sounds better than what I'm used to. I will say that I really like what I'm hearing, and feel there's enough merit to warrant more experimentation. I truly appreciate evevryone's input on this. And thanks for the encouragement. Mario, I will be building the next acoustic soon and will implement the "pin" design this time.

[Andy Birko]

Guys, I had no intention of starting a fight here, just had an idea for an experiment. I think most would agree that on most musical instruments, loose fitting items do seem to rob tone.

I did try an interesting experiment after reading this thread though. I make banduras which have a tailpiece type of arrangement for anchoring strings. On my first instrument, the top caved in and there was very little break angle over the strings and the dead portion of the string vibrated a lot and made the instrument sound terrible. I had to thread a strip of leather to damp them to make it listenable.

For future instruments, I redesigned the bridge so that it forces the string down to create a break angle over the saddle and did some other things to keep my tops from collapsing. Now, you cannot hear the dead part of the strings vibrating while playing. The bridge is similar to a bridge on a "Zero Pressure" guitar like HERE

So yesterday I sat down with my instrument, played a chord and then muted the dead strings below the bridge. I thought I could hear a difference in tone. So next I asked my wife to mute the strings for me while I had my eyes closed. The first time I could feel when she did it and I heard a difference. Next couple times she did it and I could neither hear nor feel when she muted or un-muted. To really test though I'd want to do it a lot more times and with blind listeners .

Interestingly, I tried muting a few times after that and could feel the strings vibrating a tiny tiny bit so, they are definitely vibrating to a degree. As I'm writing this post, I'm reminded of a common problem with CNC machines with cheap drivers. Such machines are often plagued with what's called "mid band resonance" where the lead screw resonates with the pulsing of the stepper motor and basically the stepper goes into "wolf tone" mode and fails to drive the screw, even though the speed and load are way below the ratings for the motor. The solution is to fit a damper on the shaft of the stepper.

The damper consists of a hockey puck shaped device with holes on the inside. The holes are usually filled with BBs or lead shot or something like that. When the motor hits the resonant speeds, the damper starts rattling and "stealing" the resonance from the leadscrew/motor and the system functions perfectly. You can hear the BBs rattling around and making a heck of a racket.

I guess what I'm saying is that I definitely trust that Mario's method improves the tone and volume of the instrument if he says so but, it may not be fore the reasons he thinks. Loose fitting parts in a guitar almost certainly have the same effect as the the damper example above and it could very well be the mechanism for the "tone suck". One could also argue I suppose that this is the same thing that Mario's saying as well.

[Steve Senseney]

I have less experience than most.

However, how many times have you changed strings on a guitar and thought "Wow, I really like that sound!" So, just changing the strings can easily impress an impressionable customer.

Also, when you are at a restaurant, and the waiter comes by and says "How was the food?" do we really tell him if it was less than perfect?

When someone has a reputation which is well earned (and deserved), and someone comes to them for a repair or maintenance on an instrument, the customers expectation is that they will have an amazing result. This reminds me of the example of the waiter asking how was the food.

If you took you instrument to the equivalent of a McDonalds with low expectations, you would not brag about how great the instrument was when it was returned to you.

I am always amazed at how little the consumer guitar community knows about instruments. The many fine details that we discuss on the forum on a daily basis and are all considered common knowledge to the users of the MIMF are a complete mystery to most of the players. If they knew this material, they would be changing their own pins, and maintaining their own instruments, and building their own instruments.

I am always trying to put a lot of this into hard science. But I do respect anecdotal observation. Someone who has an inquiring mind, and is able to observe will often see things that others miss.

Still, it is easy to deceive one's self.

[Mario Proulx]

However, how many times have you changed strings on a guitar and thought "Wow, I really like that sound!" So, just changing the strings can easily impress an impressionable customer.

Right, which is why I like to see what folks say a year or three later. THAT tells me more than any pseudo-science.

Outta here....

[Chuck Morrison]

Just a quick note on the saddle pieces. I was reading a GAL convention talk by E. Somogyi last night where he illustrates just this concept. This was from 1993 or there abouts. I'm pretty sure it was on his web site. His illustration is exactly what you've done, not including the bridge pin thing.

The more I invent new guitar stuff the more I've found it's been done before.

[Louie Atienza]

Just a quick note on the saddle pieces. I was reading a GAL convention talk by E. Somogyi last night where he illustrates just this concept. This was from 1993 or there abouts. I'm pretty sure it was on his web site. His illustration is exactly what you've done, not including the bridge pin thing.

The more I invent new guitar stuff the more I've found it's been done before.

I don't recall seeing a Somogyi guitar with individual saddles. Though I've seen it from Gilbert, and that predates 1993. I do know that Somogyi makes his saddles wider than normal, but they don't go all the way to the string hole like mine. Also mine are shaped like a 4-sided pyramid, rectangular at the base to almost string width at top, with a string slot running the entire spine of the saddle. So other than a pin to lock the string in place as Mario suggests, the string is fully supported from bridge plate to break point. That's the difference.

I do own both Somogyi books, but don't recall mention of Gilbert or individual saddles designs...