Marshall Paul Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 This issue has had me thinking recently, and I can't ask my techie because he's taken the family on a short break, literally gone fishing. Here's the thing.... If you were to hold your LP up to your eye flat and have a look back at the headstock, you would just be able to make out the left/right curve of the neck, the radius. The greater the radius, the flatter the curve. Now, holding that position, looking at the saddles on your bridge, do they left/right (bottom E to top E) follow the curve of the neck (the neck radius)? I know this roughly happens on the strat because not only can the bridge be moved up/down as one (collective action) (block relief), but the saddles can be moved in/out (intonation), and individually moved up/down (action again and ultimately radius). But, these ABR and Nash bridges, the bridge can be moved up/down as one (collective action), but the saddles can be moved in/out (intonation) only. So with my strats ultimately it's no problem. My strats have from 7.5" radius to 9.5" radius. But the LP's have anywhere from 9.5" radius to 14" radius. Pretty curvy to pretty flat. But, all the same bridge radius (whatever it is?). The bridge posts can be raised or lowered to do the action, but thats just tilting left/right the string plane, not addressing the issue of the radii camber (still with me crew?). So, to use an example. If your neck was a curvy 9.5" (older LP's) and say for arguments sake the bridge was a flatter 14", and you tilt down left right for bottom and top E's action, and you get those two values a certain distance from top of fret to bottom of string. That would mean your middle strings (D and G) distance off the frets would be much less than the outside strings (E and E) would be. Now even compensating to a certain point would be the nut up the other end. But that would still mean that as you got progressively further up the neck back towards the bridge it would flatten out again. Anyone know the set radii of these bridges? Anyone know the answer to this riddle? C'mon BadBluesPlayer, you have an engineering degree too, help me out on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfpup Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Gibson seems to use 12" radius bridges regardless of the neck radius since most of their guitars are 12" neck radius. I was wondering about the new compound radii necks myself. I guess the 12" bridge does sorta split of the compound radii necks. I have heard that some people with the newer 14" radius LPs file the D and G saddles down a tiny bit (like .005") to flatten the 12" radius out - but not sure what the best tip for the compound radii set ups would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Paul Posted February 1, 2015 Author Share Posted February 1, 2015 Follow ya, thanks mate. Yeah, 12" seems to be the new average now, where as before, the earlier LP's average was 9.5". That was back in the day when the average for the strats was 7.5". Now theirs is 9.5" Would that mean that back when 9.5" for the neck, does that mean the bridge's would've been 9.5" as well? And these compounds I was thinking about too. Throw that in the mix and it can get quite complex. What are they, 12 to 14 or 9.5 to 14? I think some models might even be 10"(?). When doing actions, pup heights, and intonations, and working within tolerences of 1/32" and 1/64", even small nuances can become large and a problem. What started all this was I was looking around the net for a possible replacement bridge for the LP's. Not happy with these ali blocks. I was looking at bell brass. And one's with maybe even roller saddles. And even with individual saddle adjustments if they exist. There's not that much choice for LP style bridges it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Yeah I was looking around HARD the other day to try and find something a bit different for my builds.. and there really isn't much choice out there... Apart from, TOMs, wraparounds, strat/tele type hardtails and tremolo bridges... there really isn't much other choice (certainly for top loaders).. there a few more options for string through bridges.... The one thing I found that is very different (and apparently will retrofit a LP) is the Hipshot baby grand bridge http://www.axesrus.co.uk/Hipshot-Baby-Grand-Bridge-Tailpiece-combo-p/43100c.htm This lady has one (not sure of her name) The other one I found I liked, and all it is, is a different base shape is this one.. but its a string through Maybe theres a gap in the market there for a different bridge that retrofits other guitars...?? Also Wilkinson do good stuff (and they have a nice roller bridge.. As for the radius shape.. Well my main rule when it comes to all that is I put them low enough till you get a buzz then back it off a bit.. and as long as its intonated after that im not fussed about the specs :) (even though maybe someone like me should be ;)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Like Surfpup said when it comes to tune-o-matic bridges the best way to adjust to the radius of the neck is to slot the saddles properly. I never knew Gibsons were anthong other than 12" radius. I have an Epiphone Jeff Watets signature Flying V with a 14" radius but in measuring the radius under the strings at the bridge looks is slotted for the usual 12". I'll fix that one of these days. Frankly, to me, I prefer the fixed height of the saddles. I am heavy handed and I prefer to have a fixed radius setup on my guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Like Surfpup said when it comes to tune-o-matic bridges the best way to adjust to the radius of the neck is to slot the saddles properly. I never knew Gibsons were anthong other than 12" radius. Same here... Maybe in the weird 70s era? And apart from some of the compound radius boards which I know Gibson have done a few times and go flatter at the high end of the board I also thought they were always 12".. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 It's really quite simple. ABR ridges have the radius set at the initial set up, by filling the tops of the sadles and cutting the slots. Once it's set it should never change. One factor behind this is that Gibson use set necks so the radii of the bridge should never need to be adjusted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfpup Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 [quote name='Rabs' timestamp='1422814838' post='1623374And apart from some of the compound radius boards which I know Gibson have done a few times and go flatter at the high end of the board I also thought they were always 12".. Yeah, the vast majority of Gibson necks have a fretboard radius of 12. Some say the older ones had 10" radii, but I'm not sure that is the case. Maybe just talk. Someone here may know. A rare few of the 90s and beyond Gibson necks apparently have a 14" radius. I'm sure someone know which ones - but I don't. And the new compound radius necks go from 10" at the nut to 16" in the upper regions. In which case I figure the 12" radius bridge about splits the difference. One could file the middle two strings down a tiny bit to flatten it to the mathematical 13" halfway point I guess, but I don't think it would matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 The bridge on a compound radius guitar should be the flattest part. If the radius at the twelfth is 13", and the nut, 12", the radius at the bridge should be 14", so as to get the string height spread perfectly along the neck. Mathematically it's a section of a cone. Non euclidean geometry if you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfpup Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 The bridge on a compound radius guitar should be the flattest part. If the radius at the twelfth is 13", and the nut, 12", the radius at the bride should be 14", so as to get the string height spread perfectly along the neck. Mathematically it's a section of a cone. Non euclidean geometry if you will. So what radius bridges is Gibson using on the compound radius guitars? If the maximum flatness of those necks is 16" then the bridges should be that or flatter - following the conical model. Maybe someone with a newer LP can check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Yeah I was looking around HARD the other day to try and find something a bit different for my builds.. and there really isn't much choice out there... Apart from, TOMs, wraparounds, strat/tele type hardtails and tremolo bridges... there really isn't much other choice (certainly for top loaders).. there a few more options for string through bridges.... The one thing I found that is very different (and apparently will retrofit a LP) is the Hipshot baby grand bridge http://www.axesrus.co.uk/Hipshot-Baby-Grand-Bridge-Tailpiece-combo-p/43100c.htm This lady has one (not sure of her name) The other one I found I liked, and all it is, is a different base shape is this one.. but its a string through Maybe theres a gap in the market there for a different bridge that retrofits other guitars...?? Also Wilkinson do good stuff (and they have a nice roller bridge.. As for the radius shape.. Well my main rule when it comes to all that is I put them low enough till you get a buzz then back it off a bit.. and as long as its intonated after that im not fussed about the specs :) (even though maybe someone like me should be ;)) You can always make your own. My friend Jeffrey came up with this which it still my favorite bridge on a guitar ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 You can always make your own. My friend Jeffrey came up with this which it still my favorite bridge on a guitar ever. Wow that is cool.. how adjustable is it though? if at all. And yes ive seen some really nice wooden bridges that I liked but as above it would mean doing a string through design.. which I am thinking about, but maybe not quite yet.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Wow that is cool.. how adjustable is it though? if at all. And yes ive seen some really nice wooden bridges that I liked but as above it would mean doing a string through design.. which I am thinking about, but maybe not quite yet.. It's not adjustable at all. Jeff sets them the way they need to be set and there's nothing more to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 It's not adjustable at all. Jeff sets them the way they need to be set and there's nothing more to do with it. What if he wants to change string gauge? Id love to use something like that, which is fine on a fully custom build but I think most people like the adjustability of toms and the like.. I always do wonder though... If bridges are so essential in that way, to be adjustable to allow for changes.. How come a lot of acoustics have fixed bridges.. yet they still work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfpup Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 If bridges are so essential in that way, to be adjustable to allow for changes.. How come a lot of acoustics have fixed bridges.. yet they still work Well, people adjust string height all the time on acoustic guitars. One saddle... you file it, shim it, or replace it with a larger one if need be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Well, people adjust string height all the time on acoustic guitars. One saddle... you file it, shim it, or replace it with a larger one if need be. Yeah its true... But on an electric the adjustability is a good thing I think.. Just maybe not quite as complex as people make out... assuming, that the bridge has been positioned and set up properly in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 So this begs the question, Why do we insist on adjustable bridges and laugh at adjustable nuts? Hmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdgm Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 So this begs the question, Why do we insist on adjustable bridges and laugh at adjustable nuts? Hmmmmm The Micro-Frets Micro-Nut.....24 (or was it more?) carefully machined/pressed separate pieces of metal to replace a single piece of plastic...years before Buzz Feiten.... Bridges...there's tons of 'em out there. I was pleasantly surprised by the cheap one I bought on Amazon, very good quality..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Sure micro frets, Warwick, Gibson, ABM, AXEMASTER .. Lots of folks offer adjustable nuts. But I bet the only ones here that have one are the 2015 Les Paul and SG owners. I wonder why it is that we insist on a complicated metal gizmo at one end of the string and a goofy hunk of plastic at the other end? Seems odd to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Paul Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 Very valid point. Why can't we have three axis adjustable bridges and three axis adjustable nuts as well. Then we can get perfect string spacing, action, and then ultimately, intonation. I'm a looney for perfect intonation, drives Chris battie (lol). I like the look of the one on that shiella's LP. That looks like the saddle can go in/out and up/down. And for you youngin's out there, yeah the neck's used to be 9.5". The average now, and has been for a while, is 12". My first two LP's ('75 and '77 I think from memory) are both 9.5". My '73 Strat is 7.5". My LP's now are 12" and Strats are 9.5". Gotta keep looking for a new type of bridge. There's got to be one out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabs Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 You can always make your own. My friend Jeffrey came up with this which it still my favorite bridge on a guitar ever. In my searchings I found this bridge that I thought was cool... Obviously an acoustic.. but cool idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Paul Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 That'd be good for the Ovations. Their bridges are a bugger too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Very valid point. Why can't we have three axis adjustable bridges and three axis adjustable nuts as well. Then we can get perfect string spacing, action, and then ultimately, intonation. I'm a looney for perfect intonation, drives Chris battie (lol). I like the look of the one on that shiella's LP. That looks like the saddle can go in/out and up/down. And for you youngin's out there, yeah the neck's used to be 9.5". The average now, and has been for a while, is 12". My first two LP's ('75 and '77 I think from memory) are both 9.5". My '73 Strat is 7.5". My LP's now are 12" and Strats are 9.5". Gotta keep looking for a new type of bridge. There's got to be one out there. You do realise there's no such thing as perfect intonation on any 12 note tempered scale instrument of any kind. It would be a contradiction in terms. We even out the note spacing a little to simplify the scale. Mathematically speaking B# and C are not the same note but they're so close we just accept that a slight error is tolerable. Add to that the inherent issues of stringed instruments and you're actually quite far from perfect in a best-case-scenario. The only way to get perfect intonation is those horrible wiggly frets. Even then, you'll always be out of wack with the band members making do with straight frets. You can set your intonation to be as close as possible for the song you're recording in a studio, a lot of bands do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 You can have perfect intonation if you pull all the frets out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsbarns Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 You can have perfect intonation if you pull all the frets out. Only if you're happy to play out of wack with all the non-string-and-fingerboard instruments in the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.