Take me to the bridge, please!

[Watersilk]

As always, I'm chasing any improvement in tone and sustain.

I would like to upgrade the bridge in my Les Paul historics, but I want to continue with the ABR design, because this is period correct, however, not restricting my choices completely, there are some alternatives which will still 'look' period correct.

I would appreciate some input from experienced members regarding these choices:

There are ABR wired, and also non-wired, what is the difference? Is one better than the other, Gibson offer both, the non-wired one is much more expensive.

Cast, versus machined/milled?

I have fairly recently discovered that there are tonal differences between cast bridges and machined/milled bridges. Apparently, two bridges made from the same metal, let's say aluminium for example, one cast, and one machined from a solid block of metal, will poses different properties inside, how does this affect the sound? Some say that one is not superior to the other, they just sound different, some say that machined bridges have superior tone and sustain?

The other question is, which metal is superior, for both tone and sustain, aluminium, bell brass or steel? Or, do they just sound different? I read somewhere that some ABR bridges have brass saddles, and these sound better than those with standard saddles?

Which bridge design is better, the ABR, or the Nashville? I believe the difference is that the Nashville design is wider, offering more movement for intonation.

On a tune o matic bridge, the same above questions apply to the stoptail, also, should the stoptail be locked, or does it resonate better with just the standard studs? I think major manufacturers don't use locking studs, with perhaps some exceptions in signature models, there must be a reason why this is the case.

[capmaster]

The advantage of the wired ABR-1 is you won't lose the saddle when breaking a string.

 

To my experiences there is no specific material and make providing advantages only. There's always a trade-off, and it can be hard to predict for a particular guitar. Some notes may last longer, others shorter with a different bridge or tailpiece. Varying speeds of sound and masses result in varying behaviour at certain frequencies. Aluminium is fast and very light, such reflecting less vibration and passing more into the wood. Usually this will make for less overtones and more fundamentals which are most critical for sustain. On the other hand, a dull note can become more apparent through this, typical around the A4 or 440Hz +/- a half step on Les Paul guitars.

 

I have retrofitted all of my Gibson USA guitars with chrome-plated hardware and stopbar tailpiece with TP-6 finetuner ones. All of these guitars came with a ZAMAK tailpiece except for my 1973 L6-S featuring aluminium. The latter calls for significant stiffer action and sounds brighter with the TP-6 compared to aluminium.

 

Apart from the wired/non-wired point I would stay stock on a Historic. I left my Custom Shop Les Paul with aluminium tailpiece and non-wired ABR-1 original, too.

[merciful-evans]

 

Cast, versus machined/milled?

I have fairly recently discovered that there are tonal differences between cast bridges and machined/milled bridges. Apparently, two bridges made from the same metal, let's say aluminium for example, one cast, and one machined from a solid block of metal, will poses different properties inside, how does this affect the sound? Some say that one is not superior to the other, they just sound different, some say that machined bridges have superior tone and sustain?

The other question is, which metal is superior, for both tone and sustain, aluminium, bell brass or steel? Or, do they just sound different? I read somewhere that some ABR bridges have brass saddles, and these sound better than those with standard saddles?

 

 

Hi Watersilk,

I would like answers to some of your questions also. I dont know what materials are 'best'.

 

I do have experience of metalics though, through my work.

I have not heard of a tonal difference in cast or milled aluminium. According to what youve discovered, though there is.

I find that very hard to accept. I have experience of machining, heat treating and flaw detection of metals formed from extrusion, forgings, castings and rectangular and round bar. Especially aluminium.

 

Extruding, castings and forging: For 99% of applications it doesnt matter. Only where there is a stress critical application ie: a cleat under load, does it matter at all. Only in those applications will a draughtsman consider the directions the grainflows should run.

 

The things that might potentially make a difference is the grade of metal. Its unlikely that a manufacturer will tell you anything about that.

 

If its a premium industrial grade, it will be ultrasonically scanned (and passed). This is expensive stuff and will have mill certifications to prove the purity and condition of the metal. This is nearly always extruded plate & bar. This is the material that will be milled or turned. Only if its machined 3.mm under the surface of the billet will it be guaranteed as 'good'. If its machined closer to the surface it may contain fissures, coarse grain or scale. This would ruin the advantages of using the premium grade.

 

If it metal reconstituted from recovered metal (scrap swarf etc) it will usually contain impurities. This stuff is cheap, and would more likely to be used in castings. But there is no reason why casting cannot be milled also. except that it will add cost. Is it worse for a bridge or tailpiece? It will be perfectly good structurally. For tone & sustain? I would be amazed if it made a difference.

 

What would make a difference to sustain IMO is density. The differences in brass & aluminium would be very small as the grades in each vary a lot. Steel would be better. You can get steel saddles but not (as far as I know) steel bridges.

 

The same claims are made for different metals used as slides. I have used brass, steel, and chrome plated alluminium. Steel has slightly better sustain. However a thicker heavier brass slide will be sustain better than a light steel one. This is why I think material weight (or density) id more important for sustain. As for tone, I cant hear any difference TBH.

[capmaster]

Forgot to mention that the word "upgrade" can be rather subjective. Some people tend to "feel" better after having spent lots of money on stuff and perhaps therefore play better and listen more benevolently.

[ksdaddy]

Reminds me of the many discussions about bridge pins. I think it's mostly in people's heads.

 

(Bracing now for Colosi fanboys to crucify me in public)

 

My '71 LP's bridge seemed to sag in the middle and that's why I replaced it with a $15 import. I'd like to put an original Gibson bridge on it but I'm not willing to spend $150 for another sagging bridge. I don't even know what material the original was made from....I assume aluminum because I have a hard time believing a chunk of steel that big would sag under the tension of guitar strings.

 

In the past I discussed (acoustic) saddle hardness and it's effect on tone and energy transfer with a learned engineer. He made references to Young's Modulus of Elasticity and dumbed it down enough so I walked away convinced the harder the saddle, the better the tone vis a vis better energy transfer from the strings to the top. That may work with computer modeling but not in real life with human ears. ("Better tone" is not necessarily a result of "more sustain"....an old J45 thumps, it doesn't ring.)

 

Just me spouting. Pay no attention. Most won't anyway, I'm an old man.

[BigKahune]

.

KSdaddy's point well taken. . . I recall a while back the talk was all about light weight bridges and stops, and saddle hardness.

 

ABR wired/non-wired: The ABR-1 bridge has the saddle adjustment screws just sitting in a slots in the bridge body. Originally the ABR-1 design had the string pressure holding he saddles and screws down and during a string change the saddle could fall out - this is called non-wired and is used on Gibson's Historic Reissues and the Gibson part is pricey. The modern ABR-1 bridge has a stay-wire that clips into the bridge body and holds the saddle adjustment screws in place - this is called wired and the Gibson part is about half the cost of the Historic model.

 

Cast/machined: Some players prefer machined over the Gibby cast parts. Sound is subjective and I'm not sure machined makes much difference as I tend to go with light weight stop and harder saddle materials. Machined parts can be expensive. And, over the years plenty of hits (sounds we love) were made with plain old cast parts.

 

Aluminium/brass/steel/etc: Some players claim a difference in sound goes along with the change metals/alloys and some of those materials are expensive. Also, there's a whole faction that likes to change the metals in the anchors and studs for 'better' sound. Again, over the years plenty of hits (sounds we love) were made with plain stock metals/alloys.

 

ABR or Nashville: They both do their job well. Some go with ABR for vintage authenticity or a more 'vintage' tone. You can get both bridges in an array of materials and production. You've got the bottom line - how much intonation room you need on a specific guitar would be a determining factor. I should add the ABR is properly installed with its saddle screws facing the bridge pup, while the Nashville saddle screws can face the stop.

 

Locking: Some would say a more solid connection to the posts transfers the vibrational energy better. And there are those that have change all their strings at once without realize the bridge and stop aren't locked and ended up with a scratched top. And yep, over the years plenty of hits (sounds we love) were made with plain non-locking parts.

 

I'd advise you try to locate (in shops or with acquaintances) guitars with some of these mods so you could play them and decide for yourself. I prefer hard saddles, aluminum stop, but whatever the stock bridge material is fine with me.

 

ABR wired -

 

Nashville -

 

.

[surfpup]

Admittedly sound quality is subjective.

 

However, there is something to a beautifully solid about a milled piece of metal. I think it's hard to beat Callaham for bridges, etc...

 

 

 

[Watersilk]

Hi Watersilk,

I would like answers to some of your questions also. I dont know what materials are 'best'.

 

I do have experience of metalics though, through my work.

I have not heard of a tonal difference in cast or milled aluminium. According to what youve discovered, though there is.

I find that very hard to accept. I have experience of machining, heat treating and flaw detection of metals formed from extrusion, forgings, castings and rectangular and round bar. Especially aluminium.

 

Extruding, castings and forging: For 99% of applications it doesnt matter. Only where there is a stress critical application ie: a cleat under load, does it matter at all. Only in those applications will a draughtsman consider the directions the grainflows should run.

 

The things that might potentially make a difference is the grade of metal. Its unlikely that a manufacturer will tell you anything about that.

 

If its a premium industrial grade, it will be ultrasonically scanned (and passed). This is expensive stuff and will have mill certifications to prove the purity and condition of the metal. This is nearly always extruded plate & bar. This is the material that will be milled or turned. Only if its machined 3.mm under the surface of the billet will it be guaranteed as 'good'. If its machined closer to the surface it may contain fissures, coarse grain or scale. This would ruin the advantages of using the premium grade.

 

If it metal reconstituted from recovered metal (scrap swarf etc) it will usually contain impurities. This stuff is cheap, and would more likely to be used in castings. But there is no reason why casting cannot be milled also. except that it will add cost. Is it worse for a bridge or tailpiece? It will be perfectly good structurally. For tone & sustain? I would be amazed if it made a difference.

 

What would make a difference to sustain IMO is density. The differences in brass & aluminium would be very small as the grades in each vary a lot. Steel would be better. You can get steel saddles but not (as far as I know) steel bridges.

 

The same claims are made for different metals used as slides. I have used brass, steel, and chrome plated alluminium. Steel has slightly better sustain. However a thicker heavier brass slide will be sustain better than a light steel one. This is why I think material weight (or density) id more important for sustain. As for tone, I cant hear any difference TBH.

 

Wow! Thank you for a really detailed reply Merciful. I will have to read a few times to fully digest this.

What really got me thinking about bridge materials was my Koean PRS guitar bought secondhand.

Paul is fanatical about making changes that improve tone and sustain, these improvements filter down to the Korean guitar line, but with compromises to fit lower budget requirements. The wraparound bridge on my Korean PRS is made of aluminium, it looks identical to the aluminium wraparound bridge on my USA PRS, but the price of the USA bridge is much higher than the Korean bridge. I'm absolutely sure that the difference between them is that the Korean bridge is cast, and the USA one machined.

So why bother machining/milling a bridge when casting is much cheaper?

ABM, a company manufacturing high quality guitar parts, claim that machined bridges are superior to cast, in terms of sustain and tone.

I took a chance and bought an ABM machined bell brass bridge, for my Korean PRS, there is a noticeable difference in both sustain and tone. However, is this difference because it's brass, or machined, or Both?

Both my Les Pauls are beautiful guitars, but if I can make changes that improve them in any way I will do so. I'm really impressed with the quality of ABM's bridges, they offer ABR bridges in aluminium, bell brass and steel, machined/milled, not cast.

While I believe that a lot of important development on the electric guitar took place in the fifties, surely in sixty years, technology has improved some components?

 

[Watersilk]

.

KSdaddy's point well taken. . . I recall a while back the talk was all about light weight bridges and stops, and saddle hardness.

 

ABR wired/non-wired: The ABR-1 bridge has the saddle adjustment screws just sitting in a slots in the bridge body. Originally the ABR-1 design had the string pressure holding he saddles and screws down and during a string change the saddle could fall out - this is called non-wired and is used on Gibson's Historic Reissues and the Gibson part is pricey. The modern ABR-1 bridge has a stay-wire that clips into the bridge body and holds the saddle adjustment screws in place - this is called wired and the Gibson part is about half the cost of the Historic model.

 

Cast/machined: Some players prefer machined over the Gibby cast parts. Sound is subjective and I'm not sure machined makes much difference as I tend to go with light weight stop and harder saddle materials. Machined parts can be expensive. And, over the years plenty of hits (sounds we love) were made with plain old cast parts.

 

Aluminium/brass/steel/etc: Some players claim a difference in sound goes along with the change metals/alloys and some of those materials are expensive. Also, there's a whole faction that likes to change the metals in the anchors and studs for 'better' sound. Again, over the years plenty of hits (sounds we love) were made with plain stock metals/alloys.

 

ABR or Nashville: They both do their job well. Some go with ABR for vintage authenticity or a more 'vintage' tone. You can get both bridges in an array of materials and production. You've got the bottom line - how much intonation room you need on a specific guitar would be a determining factor. I should add the ABR is properly installed with its saddle screws facing the bridge pup, while the Nashville saddle screws can face the stop.

 

Locking: Some would say a more solid connection to the posts transfers the vibrational energy better. And there are those that have change all their strings at once without realize the bridge and stop aren't locked and ended up with a scratched top. And yep, over the years plenty of hits (sounds we love) were made with plain non-locking parts.

 

I'd advise you try to locate (in shops or with acquaintances) guitars with some of these mods so you could play them and decide for yourself. I prefer hard saddles, aluminum stop, but whatever the stock bridge material is fine with me.

 

ABR wired -

 

Nashville -

 

.

 

What lovely pictures! Thank you for explaining the difference between wired and non-wired, that makes sense.

The recordings we love, are a tribute for late fifties to 1960 Les Pauls, and yes, they had nylon nuts and standard ABR bridges, they also had Honduran mahogany bodies and neck, with Brazilian rosewood fretboards... and neither of my Historics sound like them.... even though every vintage Les Paul sounds different. I'm optimistic, I think there is rarely a perfect package, when a product is only as good as the sum of its parts, it's quite possible to find weak links in the chain, improving the acoustic properties of one link enables the other links to perform better.... just a thought :)

Yes, I agree, hard saddles and aluminium stoptail, my thoughts too...

I'm living in Africa, not easy to find guitars of the same type, let alone modified with the exact parts I'm contemplating, all I can do, is research, reading posts on forums like this one, where we have some really experienced members like yourself, then take a chance by buying a part and trying it.

 

 

[capmaster]

..., they also had Honduran mahogany bodies and neck, with Brazilian rosewood fretboards...

This is why I think all the Reissues and True Historics should more sincerely be named Tribute guitars. Molecular design of plastics can't hide the fact that except for maple the timbers are different.

 

Present 70's tributes don't even deserve the Tribute denomination. E. g. the Gibson SG, then spelled S-G like mine made in 1978, would have to have a neck volute, deeper neck set, different pickup, bridge and tailpiece positionings, the wide long-travel "harmonica" bridge, and Bill Lawrence's "tarback" pickups. They also would have to come with the poor 100kOhms tone pots but I would swap them with 500kOhms ones. Add Honduran mahogany and Brazilian rosewood, then the resulting S-G would be a reissue model deserving this name.