Break Over Angle Experiment

[Victory Pete]

I have done some experiments with my Martin D12-28. I have put on 2 sets of Martin Medium SP Phosphor Bronze strings and have alternated between the 2 rows of bridge pins. I first raised the saddle with a shim to see what a higher saddle would do. I then did the same comparisons with the original saddle which is not that high. Finally I put the 2 low E strings on and compared them. In all cases volume and tone stayed roughly the same. I used a decibel meter. When I had the 2 E strings on I could compare them directly. Again volume and tone the same, however the higher break angle had a very dramatic effect on picking attack. The higher angle produce a more tight and focused pick attack, which I find very desirable. The lower angle felt lazy and sloppy whereas the higher angle felt punchy and tight. So there is in fact a direct relationship between high break angle and sound and playability. So as many of us have felt increasing the saddle and break angle does change the way a guitar plays and sounds. Therefore I am interested in guitars that have a high break angle. My new Gibson Western Classic has the historic 4 ribbon bridge and lacks the punch of my new Southern Jumbo which has a high break angle. So I am now aware that the saddle height alone accounts for increased volume and not the break angle, which is good to know and I am glad that I now have proof. But the lower break angle does effect the sound if you are a strummer. I suppose finger pickers won’t be affected much by this. I still have the guitar set up this way for further experiments, I am going to try to measure sustain next.

 

Here is the low break over angle

 

 

Here is the high break over angle

 

 

Here are the 2 low E strings for direct comparisons

 

[Buc McMaster]

So I am now aware that the saddle height alone accounts for increased volume and not the break angle.......

 

The two are inextricably tied to one another, Pete. Given the same distance between saddle and pin hole, a taller saddle will by default increase the angle of break. Without changing saddle height but moving the pin hole closer will by default increase the break angle, in effect changing the saddle height as well. Going the other way, without changing pin location a taller saddle will increase the angle. The two go together.......you can't change one without altering the other. So how can it be that "saddle height alone accounts for increased volume and not the break angle......."? How can you isolate one from the other?

 

All this hair splitting makes my head hurt..........just play the thing.

[Victory Pete]

The two are inextricably tied to one another, Pete. Given the same distance between saddle and pin hole, a taller saddle will by default increase the angle of break. Without changing saddle height but moving the pin hole closer will by default increase the break angle, in effect changing the saddle height as well. Going the other way, without changing pin location a taller saddle will increase the angle. The two go together.......you can't change one without altering the other. So how can it be that "saddle height alone accounts for increased volume and not the break angle......."? How can you isolate one from the other?

 

All this hair splitting makes my head hurt..........just play the thing.

 

Your statement:

"Without changing saddle height but moving the pin hole closer will by default increase the break angle, in effect changing the saddle height as well"

The saddle height will not change if you just change the pin location. I was sure break angle would effect volume, but it does not, the leverage created by the taller saddle does. My experiments proved this multiple times. The break angle does in fact change the string attack making the guitar sound punchier and a bit trebly. I would like to play the things, but I now have 5 and soon to be 6 acoustic guitars that are all vastly different. It essential to me to understand why they all sound the way they do.

[Buc McMaster]

The saddle height will not change if you just change the pin location.

 

I said moving the pin closer to the saddle in effect increases saddle height by increasing the angle of break.......the effect is the same. With the effect being the same you cannot isolate the effect of one from the other. Given the same pin location you cannot increase saddle height without simultaneously increasing break angle. You cannot decrease angle of break without decreasing saddle height. You therefore cannot isolate an increase in volume to just one of these parameters. At least not if you accept the principles of geometry as truth.

 

This will be my final word on this.........should have stayed out of it to begin with. I'm glad you find joy in dissecting this aspect of guitar construction.........I prefer to spend my time playing the damn thing. Onward through the fog, Pete!

[Victory Pete]

I said moving the pin closer to the saddle in effect increases saddle height by increasing the angle of break.......the effect is the same. With the effect being the same you cannot isolate the effect of one from the other. Given the same pin location you cannot increase saddle height without simultaneously increasing break angle. You cannot decrease angle of break without decreasing saddle height. You therefore cannot isolate an increase in volume to just one of these parameters. At least not if you accept the principles of geometry as truth.

 

This will be my final word on this.........should have stayed out of it to begin with. I'm glad you find joy in dissecting this aspect of guitar construction.........I prefer to spend my time playing the damn thing. Onward through the fog, Pete!

 

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

 

Changing pin location does not change saddle height whether "in effect" or in reality.

Did you see my pictures? Both tests have the same saddle height. One test has a high angle and one test has a low angle. Volume was the same in both tests. Therefore break angle doesn't affect volume. Saddle height does.

[theflyingturtle]

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

 

Changing pin location does not change saddle height whether "in effect" or in reality.

Did you see my pictures? Both tests have the same saddle height. One test has a high angle and one test has a low angle. Volume was the same in both tests. Therefore break angle doesn't affect volume. Saddle height does.

 

I usually lurk but I had a visual image that I wanted to share regarding this matter. I think there is an idea here that hasn't transferred here. To do this I need you to play an imagination game with me. Okay? Imagine that you are sitting by the dock of the bay. Let's say you're just wasting time and you're swinging you legs as you sit on the edge of the pier. It's fun. I do it, you do it and life goes on. But now imagine that your knees are the saddle, your legs the strings, and your feet are where the strings are locked by the bridge pins. As your feet swing forward to represent a shallower break angle, and the height from your feet to your knees decreases. In contrast, when your feet swing backwards the string break angle increases as does the height difference from the knee to the foot. That is, the foot is now lower from the knee that it was before. I believe this illustrates what Buc was trying to explain but with a more "visual" example. I don't have a dog in this fight BTW. I just like J-45s.

[Victory Pete]

I usually lurk but I had a visual image that I wanted to share regarding this matter. I think there is an idea here that hasn't transferred here. To do this I need you to play an imagination game with me. Okay? Imagine that you are sitting by the dock of the bay. Let's say you're just wasting time and you're swinging you legs as you sit on the edge of the pier. It's fun. I do it, you do it and life goes on. But now imagine that your knees are the saddle, your legs the strings, and your feet are where the strings are locked by the bridge pins. As your feet swing forward to represent a shallower break angle, and the height from your feet to your knees decreases. In contrast, when your feet swing backwards the string break angle increases as does the height difference from the knee to the foot. That is, the foot is now lower from the knee that it was before. I believe this illustrates what Buc was trying to explain but with a more "visual" example. I don't have a dog in this fight BTW. I just like J-45s.

 

I am sorry, but what is your point?

[BigKahune]

.

Along the lines of what Buc has said - your conclusions on the break angle may be off a bit because the distance from the pin to the saddle was changed and could be affecting the sound. This variable should removed or isolated.

 

 

.

[rct]

I usually lurk but I had a visual image that I wanted to share regarding this matter. I think there is an idea here that hasn't transferred here. To do this I need you to play an imagination game with me. Okay? Imagine that you are sitting by the dock of the bay. Let's say you're just wasting time and you're swinging you legs as you sit on the edge of the pier. It's fun. I do it, you do it and life goes on. But now imagine that your knees are the saddle, your legs the strings, and your feet are where the strings are locked by the bridge pins. As your feet swing forward to represent a shallower break angle, and the height from your feet to your knees decreases. In contrast, when your feet swing backwards the string break angle increases as does the height difference from the knee to the foot. That is, the foot is now lower from the knee that it was before. I believe this illustrates what Buc was trying to explain but with a more "visual" example. I don't have a dog in this fight BTW. I just like J-45s.

 

But what is being discussed here is the height from the knee up, not the knee down. The knee up height does not change. That's the distance from the soundboard and sound hole that allegedly changes volume and/or tone.

 

rct

[Victory Pete]

.

Along the lines of what Buc has said - your conclusions on the break angle may be off a bit because the distance from the pin to the saddle was changed and could be affecting the sound. This variable should removed or isolated.

 

 

.

 

Really? Talk about splitting hairs. The break angle does not affect volume, string height off the top does, it is not just my theory, it is posted elsewhere although my multiple experiments confirms this. Any change in length of the non vibration part of the string I am sure is neglible. The downward force of the string on the saddle due to an increasing break angle affects how the string reacts to being strummed or plucked and that is it. I did notice that a small amount of certain brightness is produced while picking with a higher break angle.

[BigKahune]

.

You've missed it. On a guitar with only six holes in the bridge (instead of a Swiss cheese twelve), the proximity of those holes to the saddle may affect the sound. And the size of those holes may also affect the sound.

 

 

.

[blindboygrunt]

When you say 'high saddle'

You are talking about the height from the guitar top to the strings and not the height of the saddle above the bridge ?

[62burst]

When you say 'high saddle'

You are talking about the height from the guitar top to the strings and not the height of the saddle above the bridge ?

 

The above is what I have been wondering since this merry thread started days ago.

And Buc- 'fess up; you get into this topic . . . Your words about the four ribbon bridges on some J-200's are what got many of us thinking about reduction of break angle on a four ribbon bridge a long time ago.

 

Much appreciate the OP Pete at least trying to make a practical experiment to demonstrate the effect. One of the limitations of this sort of experiment has always been to have something that can create a uniform pick strike on the strings.

[Cougar]

I used a decibel meter.

 

How accurate is your meter? The ones I looked at were +/-1.5 dB. That may not be accurate enough to notice the small difference we're talking about.

 

....the higher break angle had a very dramatic effect on picking attack.

 

What do you mean "picking attack"?

 

So I am now aware that the saddle height alone accounts for increased volume and not the break angle

 

I'm with Buc on this. In practice, if the action is too high, you shave the saddle. This lowers the break angle, which in turn reduces the volume potential a smidgin'. Even with a low saddle, some of that break angle can be recovered by ramping the bridge pin holes.

[rct]

You guys must cover your headstocks with a tarp, I can't imagine what all that unangled flapping around in the breeze string is doing to your OCDs.*

 

rct

 

*Moderators: Feel free to punt me for a couple weeks. I do understand, based on my experience at other acousti-centric forums that the acoustic guys are a sensitive lot, and I'll take my punishment like the guitar playing man I am. Your welcome.

[fortyearspickn]

VP, A noble experiment. Commendable and very well thought out.

"I used a decibel meter.' AND 'The volume and tone did not change'.

You deserve honorary mention in the ranks of scientists who followed Pythagorus in declaring the world round.

There will always those who declare 'my feet are flat and I can feel the world under them is too'.

Ignore them.

 

EDIT added :

I'm confused after reading your original post, as I quoted above - you've gone on to state that "break angle does affect the sound".

If BA doesn't affect volume and tone - how does it affect sound? I'm confused.

At the end of the day, differences in guitars, strings, and action IMHO, will have a greater impact on "sound" than the relatively small possible variations that can be made to BA.

Basing a finding on volume is not precise, because the angle and power of the pick striking the string can't be controlled.

Basing a finding on 'tone' is subjective and varies from one set of ears to the next.

So - I'm still not convinced that BA, within normal limits, should be a criteria one uses when selecting a guitar.

If you want a different sounding guitar than one with a 4 ribbons (2 pairs) bridge - you should look for a different model, not one with a 2 ribbon (1 pair) bridge.

This issue, to me, is as impossible to resolve as whether bridge pin material or tuner weight materially or noticeably affect 'tone'.

 

 

 

 

[Victory Pete]

.

You've missed it. On a guitar with only six holes in the bridge (instead of a Swiss cheese twelve), the proximity of those holes to the saddle may affect the sound. And the size of those holes may also affect the sound.

 

 

.

 

The distance of the holes to the saddle does affect the sound, due to the break angle. If there is a change because of the different length of that part of the string I am sure it is very neglible. I have proven that break angle does affect the sound and that is what this discussion is about. Are you saying break angle doesn't affect the sound?

[Victory Pete]

When you say 'high saddle'

You are talking about the height from the guitar top to the strings and not the height of the saddle above the bridge ?

 

Both. Height from top of saddle to guitar top changes the leverage and increases volume. Height from top of saddle to top of bridge changes break angle which increases pick attack and punch which seems to increase treble a little bit.

[Victory Pete]

VP, A noble experiment. Commendable and very well thought out.

"I used a decibel meter.' AND 'The volume and tone did not change'.

You deserve honorary mention in the ranks of scientists who followed Pythagorus in declaring the world round.

There will always those who declare 'my feet are flat and I can feel the world under them is too'.

Ignore them.

 

Thank you sir, I still have the test guitar strung up and will be doing further experiments.

[Victory Pete]

 

The above is what I have been wondering since this merry thread started days ago.

And Buc- 'fess up; you get into this topic . . . Your words about the four ribbon bridges on some J-200's are what got many of us thinking about reduction of break angle on a four ribbon bridge a long time ago.

 

Much appreciate the OP Pete at least trying to make a practical experiment to demonstrate the effect. One of the limitations of this sort of experiment has always been to have something that can create a uniform pick strike on the strings [/size]

 

Thanks, I was wondering about the previous discussions we had about the 4 Ribbon bridge myself. After all, my New Western Classic has one and that is what inspired me to do this experiment. Trying to keep the picking force the same is a bit of a challenge, but I have been taking an average of many readings of the DB meter and I am confident I can confirm a repeatable trend.

[blindboygrunt]

Getting nowhere fast this

[Victory Pete]

How accurate is your meter? The ones I looked at were +/-1.5 dB. That may not be accurate enough to notice the small difference we're talking about.

 

 

 

What do you mean "picking attack"?

 

 

 

I'm with Buc on this. In practice, if the action is too high, you shave the saddle. This lowers the break angle, which in turn reduces the volume potential a smidgin'. Even with a low saddle, some of that break angle can be recovered by ramping the bridge pin holes.

 

Meter is accurate enough to confirm the results I am hearing and seeing. Picking attack is the effect of the pick hitting the string and interacting with it. A high break angle causes the pick to bounce off the string in a very stiff and definite way that will make the sound a bit tighter and brighter. A low angle makes a softer attack with some give as the pick hits the string, makes for a more open and less focused sound. It is similar to strumming thicker versus thinner strings. Lowering the saddle will reduce volume because of the reduced leverage from the reduced distance to the guitars top. Lowering the saddle also reduces the break angle which does not reduce volume but will reduce the picking attack and some apparent treble. 2 different things going on here.

[Victory Pete]

You guys must cover your headstocks with a tarp, I can't imagine what all that unangled flapping around in the breeze string is doing to your OCDs.*

 

rct

 

*Moderators: Feel free to punt me for a couple weeks. I do understand, based on my experience at other acousti-centric forums that the acoustic guys are a sensitive lot, and I'll take my punishment like the guitar playing man I am. Your welcome.

 

Very funny, but understanding these effects is very important in selecting and understanding a guitar. If one is aware of these effects they can get an idea what to expect in a given guitar with a certain bridge geometry. I have noticed all my guitars have different sounds and I now see a direct correlation with the bridge design.

[rct]

Very funny, but understanding these effects is very important in selecting and understanding a guitar. If one is aware of these effects they can get an idea what to expect in a given guitar with a certain bridge geometry. I have noticed all my guitars have different sounds and I now see a direct correlation with the bridge design.

 

I applaud your experiment and I respect the results and the seriousness of their meaning to the intended audience.

 

With that said, and with that in mind, please accept my breaking of your stones as the love of one (type of) guitar player to another (type of) guitar players.

 

In the context of how I and gajillions of others use guitars, no, none of this means anything. If you are in front of a couple few hunnert/thousand people hoping you brought the one with the right break angle so your tone is juicy sweet and carmel-y warm, you got issues. And if you believe the break angle in any way makes you sound different after the pickup, pa, feeding back monitors, and front row of concert ts muffles it all before it weakly bounces off the back wall and turns to mud, you aren't listening to the tapes enough. If the 4 thousand dollar Neuman isn't hearing it right, some guy that smells like Marlbls will be along in a second to make it hear it right for the next take.

 

As an ever moving standing up gigging guitar player, whatever your sound definition is, based on the angle of the strings and your pick attack, I am going to defy it by picking all over the place, not where you say I should, by hitting it probably way harder than you would ever consider, by using more ups than downs in a given night, and generally using the guitar in a different way. So will everyone else that picks up the same guitar.

 

Context is everything and minutiae kills. Like the joke I made earlier, if this minutiae matters, then what happens past the nut matters, and I've never seen anyone in any of the acousti-centric places even talk about it. Nothing happens, that's why, same as nothing happens past the bridge on an electric that matters, and more than likely, in most realities,

nothing happens past the saddle on an acoustic that matters. Much. When you get going, using it as it was intended.

 

These nicely worded and delivered with an olive branch paragraphs would definitely get me canned from the AGF for even entertaining such heretical notions.

 

rct

[fortyearspickn]

RCT, agree. the string tension to get the right pitch on your Fat E string is the same above the nut and below the saddle, as in between the two. And, that string tension, to get that right pitch, has to be the same regardless of how high or low your saddle is. So, the range of possibilities, given a 'correct' saddle height, for the pins being either forward of aft - is a few silly centimeters, and the human ear (at least most of them) wouldn't be able to tell any change in 'sound'.

BBG, yes. this is going nowhere fast. I'm just happy to be on board this runaway train!