E-minor7 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Hey girls'n'guys – Just wonder if any of you have specific A/B experience with these 2 saddle types. I know it's not often one have the possibilities and circumstances to compare, but still there might be an opinion or 2 out there. Of course the main clues are mass and contact - Look forward to hear from you as this is a part of my C&W neck exchange, which is planned to take off Monday this coming week. . . .......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesKing777 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I am nor sure what you asre asking Em7. The bottom bridge looks like a saddle of the unmentionable material. Is that the difference? Good luck with operation! BluesKing777. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted April 1, 2012 Author Share Posted April 1, 2012 I am nor sure what you asre asking Em7. Okay BK, but the lower version is twice as big. Nothing to do with materials – as said both will be plain bone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duluthdan Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 My instinct says go with the slimmer saddle - faster vibration transfer to the top where all the work is realy done - less bone mass to go thru to get there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewilyfool Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Bone Mass???....we're still talking about guitars .....right??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . Nice Wily. More mass . . . that's an interesting thought . . . . but I've never heard/seen it argued. And with the bigger size, there's a larger surface area making contact with the bridge/top to transmit the vibrations. If it were truly an advantage I would expect to see a lot more bigger saddles - and I never have noticed them. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarrr Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Whatever shakes your top... in the top pic the saddle needs to fill the slot better fwiw. The break angle between the pin holes and saddle top could be limited with the wider material seems to me. I would take the girl with the skinny legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewilyfool Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 One thing about the wider saddle....you can probably get PERFECT intonation!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 I don,t know, but I,ve been told....A big-legged woman ain't got no soul... I think the thinner saddle would be my choice....of the unmentionable material that is... ...and also routing for a saddle-thru scenario if you are not using a UST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfox14 Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 The wider rounded saddle doesn't look like it would work very well. Gibson & Martin use a fairly narrow saddle, so why re-invent the wheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted April 2, 2012 Author Share Posted April 2, 2012 Bone - Mass - Contact. A strong combination of words for you there Wily he heehe, , , , the party goes on. You are right fellows. Better stick to the thin/normal thing. The choice is a bit tempting though – still it's a point of no return situation and I prefer to play safe. Bottom-line is that the guitar sounds splendid as is and the longer scale-length after the exchange is daring in itself. As a matter of fact the luthier just left the building. To my surprise he said that he would try not to remove the bridge, but just adjust the holes. Looking at him while he studied the C&W and the new neck for the first time, I could tell this is a bit of a challenge. He knows exactly what to do and I willingly follow his plan. At this point however, there's a couple of unknown factors here and there. Another thing that surprised me was that he said the guitar will need several weeks to dry up after the neck is damped off, , , !?. This operation will not be finished until somewhere in May. Slightly anxious, , , , and exited as I write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 So....several weeks of recovery and then you will be able to provide a lifetime of 'therapy', eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyK Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 So-o-o-o is he replacing the bridge? If so, I'd go with a thinner saddle. I think industry standard is 1/8" to 3/16". The lower one appears to have had an adjustable saddle at one time, which are, by their very nature, thicker to accommodate the adjusting screws and/or saddle holder. The saddle, needs to fit the bridge. It's been said that the saddle needs to be snug in the slot. Not so snug that you can't push it home with your thumb, but snug enough that you can pick the guitar up by the saddle and not have it just pop out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted April 3, 2012 Author Share Posted April 3, 2012 So-o-o-o is he replacing the bridge? As stated the luthier will try not to remove the bridge in the first round. I personally believe the bridge plate is wide enough to just fix the holes, but still awaits his final approval. The fatter saddle isn't the adjustable size. Take a closer look and you'll find it's in between. No matter what happens, I'll stick to the slim version. Though the luthier talked about better posibilities to fine-tune the intonation with the fat, I don't wanna take further chances with this operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 I am not sure of the original post? Is all of this decision because you are having a longer scale neck attached to this guitar? And if that being the case, the bridge saddle needs to be moved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted April 4, 2012 Author Share Posted April 4, 2012 I am not sure of the original post? Is all of this decision because you are having a longer scale neck attached to this guitar? And if that being the case, the bridge saddle needs to be moved? Exactly - But maybe no removal is needed (except for the holes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.