Official Luthiers Forum!
http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Bridge plate thickness
http://www-.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=9081		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Andy Zimmerman [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:03 am ]
Post subject: 
I have been using mostly EIR bridge plates. I am curious what thickness
most of you use.
TIA
Andy
Author:  JJ Donohue [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:11 am ]
Post subject: 
.090"
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:30 am ]
Post subject: 
.09-.10 depending on material maple .10 IRW .09MichaelP39020.7303125
Author:  crich [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:40 am ]
Post subject: 
AZimmer-Great question! I've been wondering that myself. I just use .10 because that's what Cumpiano said in his book.

MichaelP:Not wanting to hijack this thread, but what would you consider the main differences (in sound) in the two most commonly used materials,ie: EIR & maple ??

Hesh:What are you taking into consideration? You want the bridge plate to be heavier in which scenario?
Clinton
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:04 am ]
Post subject: 
personally I think there is no real good reason to use anything but maple but some claim IRW gives more mid and high response. personally I think that is backward but don't have enough data to prove it
Author:  crich [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:49 am ]
Post subject: 
Very interesting concepts. But wouldn't a heavier bridge tend to push a lighter bridge plate easier than a heavier bridge plate? Doesn't the bridge have it's own connection (via the soundboard) to the X-bracing? Isn't the main function of the bridge plate to hold the string ends from coming up through the top and not so much to drive the top? Wouldn't a heavier bridge plate tend to deaden the top from vibrating? The reason I'm re thinking the bridge plate is that I read Kinkead's book and his opinion is that the bridge plate should be kept 1/8" away from from the X-brace. So now I'm really confused on the whole thing! Clintoncrich39020.8184490741
Author:  JJ Donohue [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:44 am ]
Post subject: 
I've been using Padouk for all of my guitars so far...glued in place with HHG. I got a piece some years ago that rings like a church bell and I've been slicing a .090" piece with each build. I think it was either John Kinnaird or Mario who wrote about this on the MIMF some time ago. I also have a piece of BRW that I'll use once I run out of my Padouk hunk. It rings, but not like the Padouk. Padouk is also a very hard wood which I believe will provide good string ball protection.

Numbers...My bridges are usually between 24-26 grams but I always just go with a .090" bridge plate and tap out the rest of the bracing to get the ring I think I want. I actually have little or no idea as to what I'm doing when I tap tone but one of these days (years) it might start making sense.

Author:  Tom Morici [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Clinton
I agree with what you said.

I use .1 as my bridge plate thickness, after sanding
in the radius dish to match the top radius it is
about .09 in the center. Maple in the past. ziricote now. I like that I can get a tap tone from ziricote.

Tom
Author:  Andy Zimmerman [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Thanks
Author:  phil c-e [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
a few days ago i looked at mario's web site and saw the pictures of his magic tone enhancer brace placed along the lower edge of the bridge plate. he claims that mass in the right place is a good thing. i don't doubt it, but i wondered if the same mass could be achieved with a thicker and/or heavier bridge plate. i'm also wondering how you guys would characterize the change in sound with heavier bridges and/or bridge plates? mario, please join the discussion if you're not already tired of talking about it.
i've not read the articles you guys have refered to, so if any of you have links i could also catch up on my own time rather than here in the forum.
phil
Author:  crich [ Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hesh,
Just a quick note about your location that I JUST noticed,I'm from around Columbus,Ohio....November 18 mean anything to you?
Clintoncrich39020.9272800926
Author:  Alan Carruth [ Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:53 am ]
Post subject: 
I, too, think of the plate mostly as a string stop. It _may_ also help to give the top a 'balanced construction', a la veneering practice, with a cross grain piece underneath to balance out the cross grain piece on top. It certainly _does_ add to both the mass and stiffness of that area of the top, and the notion of trying for a uniform combined plate/bridge weight makes a lot of sense, if you're using tops that are also uniform in weight. This will ensure that the string always 'sees' the same sort of termination.

Anyway, I tend to make them around .100, or a little more. I would think padauk would be both too open grained and too prone to splitting, but that's just my opinion. Of late I've been using persimmon, the American member of the ebony family, and the hardest wood to split I've ever run into.
Author:  SniderMike [ Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=MichaelP] personally I think there is no real good reason to use
anything but maple but some claim IRW gives more mid and high
response. personally I think that is backward but don't have enough data
to prove it[/QUOTE]

Michael, what kind of maple do you use?

Author:  Joe Beaver [ Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
[QUOTE=MichaelP] some claim IRW gives more mid and high response. personally I think that is backward but don't have enough data to prove it[/QUOTE]
I'm with you on that. The lighter the wood the brighter the sound (as in maple). The heavier the wood the darker the sound (as in rosewood)
Just an opinion of course, but I do like rock maple.
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Mostly bigleaf and some RockMichaelP39022.3566782407
Author:  Scott van Linge [ Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:43 am ]
Post subject: 
I've been building with .ll0" bridgeplates, after reading Cumpiano's book. However, I just finished re-voicing a '40s Gibson J-45, and needed to reglue the bridge and bridgeplate. I was surprised to mic the plate at .090" (thinner than what I usually see) and also to notice how narrow it was--barely one inch wide. The bridgeplate was about about 3/32" in from the X brace on each side, and it was maple.

This is a major contrast to a '70s Gibson I own, which used the double X brace pattern on the top, and the bridgeplate is a diamond that completely fills the area between the X and the belly diamond, butted tight.

Right now, I've got a fairly new OOO-28EC on the operating table. (It arrived in July but I noticed that the dovetail joint had lifted, creating a .024" gap at the heel cap. It was shipped to an authorized Martin dealer [Hoffman Guitars] for a reset, and also needed regluing the bridge and some back braces. Must've been built on a friday.) The bridgeplate appears to be closer to .110", about 1 3/4" wide, and butted to the X. Maple.

It has been my observation that the X brace does not like anything butting against it, and have found that even the tiny brace between the arms of the X and below the soundhole can dampen the very high end with a butt, usually around the 10th fret, high E string.

Like Hesh, I bevel the bridgeplate around the entire circumference, but use a curved bevel, if there is such a thing. I worked on a Goodall last spring that also had the bridgplate bevelled where it butted against the X.

Shape is also important. Larrivees have a bridgeplate that has a bottom edge that angles up about an inch in from the X on each side at 45%s to meet the X, making a shorter distance that butts the X. It turns out that these 45% corners dampen the F#, second fret, high E string, at least on several I've worked on since I noticed the problem. I sand the bottom edge the entire length and round the corners as much as possible without sanding the actual top. This brings the F# up to full volume, but for that to happen, one must believe that corners and ridges inhibit vibration...

Scott







Scott van Linge39022.4558101852
Author:  JJ Donohue [ Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:00 am ]
Post subject: 
Persimmon?...hmmm, they used to make drivers and fairway woods out of that wood. There may be a lot of potential bridge plates out there collecting dust in some old golf bags. Unfortunately, they weren't as monstrous as today's titanium drivers so they probably wouldn't be big enough for bridge plates.
Author:  CarltonM [ Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hey Scott! Welcome back. Interesting observations--thanks.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/