Great advice there Bruce! Yep Ross, have fun!
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Bridge plate size http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=6420 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Rossy [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi guys, I was just wondering if the bridge plate supposed to be as big or be able to cover the whole surface of the bridge from underneath. I hope that make sense if not I'll try again. Thanks in advance. blessings, Ross |
|
| Author: | LanceK [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I try to make mine a about 1/8th larger than the belly of my bridge, the wings of the brige over lap the lower X legs. |
|
| Author: | Rossy [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks Lance. That'll work for me. |
|
| Author: | John Mayes [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes as long as it is at least the size of the bridge then it's cool. You can make it larger if you wish, but it will affect the tone (not good or bad, but it will affect it) The thickness matters a lot too. |
|
| Author: | ecklesweb [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You know, I never thought one second about the thickness of the bridge plate (don't know why). I just took the blank that Steve sent, cut it to shape, sanded the radius into it, and slapped that puppy on. What thickness would you use for, say, a hard maple plate, and how would you adjust that thickness for other materials? |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thickness? About an 1/8" is pretty good for starters. After you sand it it will be a little less. |
|
| Author: | Alain Desforges [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sounds good. Anywhere around 3/32 is o.k. |
|
| Author: | Rossy [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 4:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have John Maye's videos and I believe he does .090. |
|
| Author: | Rod True [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I usually use the off cut from the back after sanding, so 0.090 for the back is good. |
|
| Author: | Bruce Dickey [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I use .100" for the thickness and usually don't sand it on the radius, just allow it to glue up curved to the top radius. Ross, just to show you how bridgeplate is a personal preference sort of thing, Jim Olson is one of the best known builders around. The bridgeplate in the "single" guitar I've examined of his is two inches wide and wall to wall across the x. Really large. I like the Martin standard bridge, but on the last few guitars have gravitated toward a Taylor-shaped bridge with the bulging lower round. I'm sure that helps keep the belly of the guitar from rotating. And as everyone has already mentioned, it has to affect sound. Everything you do affects sound. What gets me is the use of spruce as a bridgeplate. It is structural to a point, but the purpose of using any hardwood is to protect the top. Spruce is just destined to be chewed up by the ball ends of the strings over time and will need reworking? I'm a hardwood kind of guy myself. Then, there comes the idea of what cut of wood and how the grain runs in the piece, gee, there can be many ways of spec'ing out how to put in a bridgeplate. Riftsawn, quartersawn, grain angling to keep the pins from being in the same grainline. Oh my. I've used Indian Rosewood, Sycamore Maple, Hard Rock Maple, Walnut, and an orangey-yellow hardwood, can't think of the name of it, from another luthier. Lately I've considered Cocobolo, because of it's glassy ring, but haven't tried it. Which "sounds" the best? Gee, that would be a real guess. But I have to say Walnut on Adirondack to date. Why? I have no idea, but that is what sticks in my mind. Grin. Is is the Walnut or the Adirondack? I don't know, but my guess is, the sound is more tailored by the topwood than by a patch glued to the top wood. Confused Ross? Don't be, just follow a good plan and go for it. IF you build enough guitars, you'll get to play with these minor details over time. Don't lose sight of the main objective, build a good guitar and have fun doing it. |
|
| Author: | Serge Poirier [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Great advice there Bruce! Yep Ross, have fun!
|
|
| Author: | Keith M [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Bruce Dickey] What gets me is the use of spruce as a bridgeplate. It is structural to a point, but the purpose of using any hardwood is to protect the top. Spruce is just destined to be chewed up by the ball ends of the strings over time and will need reworking? I'm a hardwood kind of guy myself. [/QUOTE] Bruce I use spruce with a small hardwood backer just where the ball end are. Got that from the other Bruce (Petros). No proof that it is better than solid but it appeals to me. |
|
| Author: | TonyKarol [ Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am using EI rw right now, mainly because I got a load of Larrivee back cutoffs nicely sanded to 90 thou !!! But I have used braz, afr blackwood and maple in the past. I think I like the sound of the rosewoods the best. Mine are about 1 3/4 wide, and leave a touch of the belly showing. I also use a symmetrical pattern though, so about a 1/4 inch behind the patch is the first tone brace if you will, so there is plenty of top support there. |
|
| Author: | Bruce Dickey [ Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi Keith, yeah, seems like I remember seeing Bruce's patch, and I can go for spruce with that hardwood insert. You gotta be good to hit the mark with that... grin. Ross is new, so getting the big picture reveals it's not a real cut and dried issue. I get a kick out of the little brass plates that are available with double sticky tape. I suppose that serves the purpose. I also enjoy the little tool that they sell to repair old bridgeplates. Cuts a little circle of plate out, and they supply little circles of hardwood to glue back in and re-drill. Neat repair. Frank and Dan demo this I believe. |
|
| Author: | Bruce Dickey [ Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Keith, that spruce might just be the ticket for one reason, weight. Excess weight in the bridge area, kills sound production. Takes me back to conversations about bridge weights, same thing would apply here to bridge plates. I have owned a few fiddles in my day, got rid of 'em all. But, as most who know beginner fiddlers, they should always practice where other humans cannot hear them. Grin. Enter, the mute. The mute cuts way down on the sound the fiddle makes. The mute is just a small fingered piece of ebony pressed on to the top of the maple bridge. Just that tiny mass in that strategic spot on the fiddle almost completely stifles the sound generation of the instrument. So I listen intently when the likes of Frank Ford talk about mods to his mandolin bridges and the like. I believe it really matters, what we do in this area. Back to the walnut plate. Not the heaviest hardwood for sure, and much lighter than some rosewoods. This is an interesting thread. It helps us old timers rethink what we do a lot of times explaining things to newbies. Thanks Ross for asking a good question. |
|
| Author: | Rossy [ Sun Apr 30, 2006 5:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks again guys and thanks Bruce for your great explanations and opinions. Ross |
|
| Author: | Skip Beach [ Sun Apr 30, 2006 2:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi Keith, On my 1st guitar, like you I used the same Bruce Petros idea of a large spruce bridge patch with a tiny ebony string ball-end added patch. It turned out sounding really terrific. Now on my third guitar I'm using that same basic bridge patch approach with the spruce again but am trying a 3/4" x 3" x 1/16" bone protective patch instead of ebony. The idea is slightly less mass & harder material for a slightly brighter treble. It's a few weeks away from getting strung up so we'll see how that works ... or doesn't. 
Skip |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Skip Beach] Hi Keith, On my 1st guitar, like you I used the same Bruce Petros idea of a large spruce bridge patch with a tiny ebony string ball-end added patch. It turned out sounding really terrific. Now on my third guitar I'm using that same basic bridge patch approach with the spruce again but am trying a 3/4" x 3" x 1/16" bone protective patch instead of ebony. The idea is slightly less mass & harder material for a slightly brighter treble. It's a few weeks away from getting strung up so we'll see how that works ... or doesn't.
Skip[/QUOTE] Skip I think I've posted this before but I have used a bone patch on the bridge plates of about a dozen guitars so far and I really like the extra clarity and separation it seems to give. I started doing this when I double taped a piece of bone onto a 30s Martin 000 that had a bridgeplate that was on it's way out and loved the immediate sound it gave me. I've always rationalised it with the mantra "bone nut, bone saddle, bone pins, bone plate". I've also used it on cheap shop bought guitars for students using double tape. But the good thing is you can try it out the effect simply by letting the strings balls hold it in place, if you don't like it, just take the strings off and out it comes. Before going down the line of adding one to a build try it on a guitar that you know well and see if you like the effect. Colin |
|
| Author: | Skip Beach [ Mon May 01, 2006 1:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
That's very cool Colin, thanks for the information about your experience using a bone patch. It's good to know you found it a favourable addition. Plus that's a smart idea about trying it on an existing "known" guitar. I'll definately try it. Thanks. Skip |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|