Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Saddle Height And Break Over Angle


Victory Pete

Recommended Posts

I have discussed this before here recently and it seems there was agreement that increased saddle height and increased break angle will improve volume and tone. I have been bashed over at AGF for suggesting this. They have "Torque Theory" over there. Does anyone know about this theory? http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241638

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting topic, i will read about it as it seems there is many informations.

 

However, and before i even read it, saddle height definitely improves tone and volume. I do not know if it is due to break angle, but to me it is mainly due to string tension and the strength it pushes the saddle toward the top with. I have went thru this when my saddle was sanded down too much buy my luthier, i bought a new one and sanded it down myself keeping a greater height. The tone was so much better and the volume output does not compare to the dull sound i was getting with the old one. The guitar was back to life...

 

This is well known on these forums and i guess almost everyone will agree here... the key is to find the lowest saddle height (for comfort and ease) that does not waste tone or volume.

 

But the topic/subject of your thread is more wether it is the break angle, or the action, that impact tone; which is probably a whole different topic !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a theory, and it wouldn't be worth reading about if I did due to my lack of qualifications, but I experienced a guitar losing tone & volume when the saddle was sanded down, and that tone & volume returned when I got a new slightly higher saddle. FWIW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At AGF, all guitar sense, knowledge, and especially experience, stops at the receipt. After that, they just look at them and get the strings as low as possible in their never ending quest for Lowest Strings At 12th Fret. About as unrealistic a guitar place as there is.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High action makes the guitar more difficult to play , if you're just doing GC and D then fine I guess . But I like my action low , I play kinda softly . I couldn't get the tone I get if my action was high as that would necessitate too much effort with left hand .

 

High action = better tone is not something I agree with and volume 'my guitars a cannon' is borne from a scenario that most of us do not inhabit

 

Take a look at Gillian welch's j50 and see the saddle break angle , nothing wrong with tone on that guitar .

 

Having a higher saddle and getting low action would be a nice place to be because you can set aside worries about a neck reset in your lifetime .

 

I have a friend with a guitar , not a Gibson , the saddle height is as large as I've ever seen and I wouldn't swap my tone for hers in a million years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At AGF, all guitar sense, knowledge, and especially experience, stops at the receipt. After that, they just look at them and get the strings as low as possible in their never ending quest for Lowest Strings At 12th Fret. About as unrealistic a guitar place as there is.

 

rct

 

You save my time i guess [woot]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't get the tone I get if my action was high as that would necessitate too much effort with left hand .

 

I think it is the opposite, at least for me. When you get used to it, the greater tension/pressure on frets and saddle helps to get longer/everlasting harmonics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is the opposite, at least for me. When you get used to it, the greater tension/pressure on frets and saddle helps to get longer/everlasting harmonics.

 

Anything that makes you a stronger guitar player is a good thing.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished reading the technobabble on the other forum. Please tell me it's not always like that over there😴

Whatever gets decided on paper, I'll continue to judge from guitar to guitar as always. Lord help us all....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have discussed this before here recently and it seems there was agreement that increased saddle height and increased break angle will improve volume and tone. I have been bashed over at AGF for suggesting this. They have "Torque Theory" over there. Does anyone know about this theory? http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241638

Yep. Their theory torques my butt😖

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished reading the technobabble on the other forum. Please tell me it's not always like that over there��

Whatever gets decided on paper, I'll continue to judge from guitar to guitar as always. Lord help us all....

 

Yes. 'Got to the bottom of the page and saw there that it said "Page 1 of 17". I'm done. Think I'll go play my guitar.

 

My .02 would say string break does have something to do with the dynamics of the guitar. . . velocity sensitivity, in MIDI/keyboard-speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be some conflation of a high break angle with high action in some of this discussion. For the same action height at the 12th fret, the break angle at the bridge is really a function of the neck set. I set the 12th fret action on all my flat tops pretty much at the same height, but the break angles vary dramatically. I can't sense any real correlation between break angle and volume, as there are too many other variables, and no two guitars are really alike enough to be definitive on this one.

 

The two guitars below are set to exactly the same string height at the 12th fret.

 

Here's the quite shallow break on my 1948-'50 J-45:

J-45pins.jpg

 

And the dramatically sharp break angle on my L-OO Legend:

colosipins-1.jpg

 

The trick of the constant steep break angle on the L-OO is the tapered bridge, which corrects for the intonation angle of the saddle in plan view. You can't do that with the normal constant-thickness Gibson bridge. You find this tapered bridge on a number of older Gibsons. It makes a lot of sense to me, provided the saddle fits tightly in the bridge slot.

 

And yes, the little L-OO has a lot of volume for a small-bodied guitar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Good grief. So, some folks like low saddles. Still, I'm sure that discussion will NOT put a dent in the number of neck resets that are done each year. . B)

 

 

.

Next they'll be telling us to remove the saddle entirely - gives a more warm, woody sound😋

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be some conflation of a high break angle with high action in some of this discussion. For the same action height at the 12th fret, the break angle at the bridge is really a function of the neck set. I set the 12th fret action on all my flat tops pretty much at the same height, but the break angles vary dramatically. I can't sense any real correlation between break angle and volume, as there are too many other variables, and no two guitars are really alike enough to be definitive on this one.

 

The two guitars below are set to exactly the same string height at the 12th fret.

 

Here's the quite shallow break on my 1948-'50 J-45:

J-45pins.jpg

 

And the dramatically sharp break angle on my L-OO Legend:

colosipins-1.jpg

 

The trick of the constant steep break angle on the L-OO is the tapered bridge, which corrects for the intonation angle of the saddle in plan view. You can't do that with the normal constant-thickness Gibson bridge. You find this tapered bridge on a number of older Gibsons. It makes a lot of sense to me, provided the saddle fits tightly in the bridge slot.

 

And yes, the little L-OO has a lot of volume for a small-bodied guitar.

Falls in with my notion - guitar to guitar, as always😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep, get the action where it's right, the break angle isn't really a do or die circumstance, it just is what it is.

 

We bought these things to play them, and play them comfortably.

 

and yes, the AGF is just like you're noticing. I don't get involved too much over there, I don't think half of them actually know what they are talking about. Found that out when I tried to explain how a drop D capo works... Oy Vhey..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how do you know YOU didn't get used to less pressure on a guitar with low action ?

 

I am not sure what you mean... Tried both. I like lower pressure for easer bends and even the buzz that you can make when playing a string harder may add life (for blues for example).

It all comes to your likeing but i believe that higher saddle will allow for better tone (more harmonic/ringing, piano like sound), purity, volume... and overall i choose something in between (high enough for tone, low enough for ease of play and no buzz).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course saddle height affects tone. Go ask a bunch of banjo players (which translates to guitar believe it or not). It also affects volume as well. As someone who used to play banjo, I can attest to this. Higher action results in a louder, fuller, richer sound, but at the expense of playability. The key is finding an instrument that is set up in a way that allows you to play the way you feel most comfortable that also yields tone you like. Go too low on the action and the guitar will sound more choked and plinky. Go too high on the action and the guitar might have great tone but sound awful simply because it's too difficult to play. It's like anything else in life. There's no free lunch. There's a price to pay for everything and it's all about compromise.

 

As far as break angle, I don't have much to say to this, but would speculate that there is a threshold where a shallower angle would result in a weaker sound, but usually it has never caused me much of an issue or concern. A great example of this are most modern J45 Standards (just as an example, but is the case for most guitars with a bright that is the same thickness thru-out). Because the bridge is a constant thickness the higher strings will always have a shallow angle. Does this result in a less than desirable sound? Not sure, but to my ear it's ever caused any issue in tone or decreased volume, and as long as the string isn't slipping off the saddle I'm happy. My AJ on the other hand has a sharper angle across all strings because of the graduated thickness of the bridge.

 

To those worrying about higher tension on strings...instead of worrying about break angle try adding a little more relief on your guitars neck. Just a little goes a long way and works wonders. I am not sure why so many people think an almost dead-straight neck with just a hair of relief is the way to go. I've noticed that this also tends to choke of an instrument and robs it of a fun, rich sound as well. Unless you have a very light touch and play with a light right hand consistently an almost straight neck will crap out/buzz once you start to dig in and just sound plinky and small. Don't be afraid to add some relief to that neck and whack that low E string and get that guitar rumbling and do that Gibson thump justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about break angle.

 

String height? After the banjo players, ask the electric players. The pickup gets a better look at the strings the higher they are, bends don't fall off into nothingness, vibrato'd notes are strong and clear. It is not intuitively apparent I guess, most guitar players obsess over getting their strings as low as possible, not realizing the detriment to both sound and playing, as a guitar with strings too low is just as difficult to make sound good as a guitar with strings too high, just in a different way.

 

Forest Richard Betts handed a few of us that white Les Paul he used in the 70's? Anybody? Anyway, bridge cables for strings, pickups all the way down, strings way up, like, 3/8 or more at the 12th. Impossible for us 17 year olds to grapple with, he made it look easy all day. That was when I learned a lot about "low action" and keeping my pickups all the way down. That woulda been the first time around for Great Southern, say 1976 or so.

 

I like my acoustics pretty high compared to the measurements I see others use. With high strings you need strength and finesse. Too low, strength does no good and you can't finesse your way around vibrating strings colliding with yer frets up at the weedly end. I suppose the finger pickers deftly arpegiatting their way through CaliRock classics do well with low strings.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about break angle.

 

String height? After the banjo players, ask the electric players. The pickup gets a better look at the strings the higher they are, bends don't fall off into nothingness, vibrato'd notes are strong and clear. It is not intuitively apparent I guess, most guitar players obsess over getting their strings as low as possible, not realizing the detriment to both sound and playing, as a guitar with strings too low is just as difficult to make sound good as a guitar with strings too high, just in a different way.

 

Forest Richard Betts handed a few of us that white Les Paul he used in the 70's? Anybody? Anyway, bridge cables for strings, pickups all the way down, strings way up, like, 3/8 or more at the 12th. Impossible for us 17 year olds to grapple with, he made it look easy all day. That was when I learned a lot about "low action" and keeping my pickups all the way down. That woulda been the first time around for Great Southern, say 1976 or so.

 

I like my acoustics pretty high compared to the measurements I see others use. With high strings you need strength and finesse. Too low, strength does no good and you can't finesse your way around vibrating strings colliding with yer frets up at the weedly end. I suppose the finger pickers deftly arpegiatting their way through CaliRock classics do well with low strings.

 

rct

 

Guess I'm in the same/similar boat. My electric of choice is usually a Tele of some incarnation with a 7.25" radius neck, so you can't go super low on the action with those guitars, and I figure if all the old guys crushed it with Teles back in the day, no excuse why I can't get by with a guitar with those specs. Same for acoustics. I prefer my action average/slightly high with a tad more relief than most. I find it doesn't really hinder my mediocre playing but DOES yield a much better, fuller, richer sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the helpful responses, such a better bunch here than over at AGF. At this point it seems to me that a good break angle with ample force bearing down on the saddle does increase volume and tone. Apparently also the height of the strings alone above the soundboard also attributes to volume and tone due to this "Torque and Leverage" phenomenon. With no helpful explanation from the folks over there I have done some searching and simply put, the higher the strings are, the saddle and bridge has some leverage with the top. This lever moves back and forth and side to side to produce maximum vibration to the top. So any string vibration is amplified before it gets to the top. (Picture a pile of Jell-O on a table.) It is very simple actually. 1/2" from strings to top is apparently ideal, all my acoustics have that measurement and they do sound very good. I suppose if you are a pretentious "Cork Sniffer", trying to keep this phenomena a secret is part of your modus operandi.

 

http://www.esomogyi.com/principles.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Pretty interesting article. I perked right up in his discussion of guitar braces, particularly when he talks about removing mass by tapering the sectional shape of braces. That's pretty much the theory of the "knife-edge" back bracing seen in a lot of older Gibsons.

 

A lot of the bracing design detail probably depends on the function. Tapering or scalloping the ends of the top braces probably lets the top vibrate more as a unit. Likewise, scalloping the top braces at other locations would mean less energy is required to get the top vibrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty interesting article. I perked right up in his discussion of guitar braces, particularly when he talks about removing mass by tapering the sectional shape of braces. That's pretty much the theory of the "knife-edge" back bracing seen in a lot of older Gibsons.

 

A lot of the bracing design detail probably depends on the function. Tapering or scalloping the ends of the top braces probably lets the top vibrate more as a unit. Likewise, scalloping the top braces at other locations would mean less energy is required to get the top vibrating.

 

Yes that is a great link. Are those Waverly tuners on your guitar? What model Guitar? Do you like them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...