Fixed Bridge Designs for Maximum Sustain

[JPilot]

Hi everyone,

I'm in the process of configuring my first Warmoth guitar. My two primary design goals are maximum sustain and ergonomics. A great tone is of course what we all go after, and I think my amplifier and pickup selection can take care of that given a good solid design of the wood and hardware components. I'm designing the instrument completely from a "form follows function" standpoint.

That said, I need some advice on finding a fixed bridge that offers lots of sustain.

Here are the specs of the guitar thus far:

BODY

V2 Body - Mahogany (Easily playable across entire range of instrument). I'll add a flame maple top if I can afford it.
Pickup Rout - HUM, NONE, HUM. Direct mount pickup rout, 24 fret reposition
Bridge Rout - ?????
Other Options - Contoured Heel, 720 Mod
Finish - Transparent of Dye Red or Brown (not sure yet)

NECK

Warmoth Pro Angled - Quartersawn Maple, Black Ebony (String trees no longer needed. Increased force on nut)
Back Contour - Wizard (I know a thicker neck might sound better, but I've fallen in love with my Ibanez necks)
Frets - 24 6100SS
Headstock - Custom Headstock, 4-2 in line tuners with no lateral break angle (Less friction for string bending and tuning, less string length behind nut to vibrate)
Headstock Finish - Match Body
Nut - 1-3/4" Earvana
Inlay - None

HARDWARE

Pickups - Bareknuckle Nailbombs (I have these in my RG. They sound amazing in single coil mode as well)
Neck Screws - Machine screw inserts
Neck Plate - 0.075" Stainless Steel - no neck plate pad to damp vibration.
Pickup height adjustment screws - Machine screw inserts with steel washers for height adjustment, no springs, no pickup rings.
Tuners - Locking
Output Jack - Deep Panel Jack
Bridge - ?????


I've been thinking about a bridge design similar to the Wilkinson/Gotoh vibrato bridge (locking saddle intonation adjustment with no springs), but in a fixed bridge design. Or maybe a wrap around bridge. Or a Tune-O-Matic with stop bar. I'm not sure which would be best. My gut tells me to minimize the string length behind the nut and bridge for maximum sustain (less mass to vibrate and suck energy from the string). What do you guys think? Also, any other suggestions on ways to improve this project would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[stratamania]

Perhaps a 2tek

http://www.warmoth.com/Hardware/bridges/2TekBridges.aspx

 

[Cagey]

In my experience, bridges that mount tight to the body provide a great deal more sustain than those mounted on pegs/posts of any sort. So, I'd be looking at Hipshots like this...

...which are machined from brass rather than cast from relatively soft potmetal. That picture is from StewMac, but the parts are widely available. It's a good design, reasonably priced in most cases. It may be slightly improved by the replacement of the saddles with Graphtech's offering, but that's not entirely necessary. Be aware that particular bridge comes in two base thicknesses.

Strat hardtail bridges are similar, but made of steel. They're less expensive, but maybe less desirable.

Also speaking of sustain, you say you're looking at Mahogany, which isn't the hardest of woods. The way to make that stuff sustain is to use massive chunks of it with short, thick necks deeply embedded in the body, a la Gibson's Les Paul. If you're not going that route, then you want a wood that's very hard and dense. Mahogany and thin necks are a recipe for disaster, sustain-wise. At least, if you want real sustain. You can get fake sustain by using high-output pickups that force a natural compression in your signal chain. That's fine, depending on your music style. People have been doing that with a number of guitar designs ever since about the late '70s.

 

[JPilot]

Thanks guys.

The 2Tek looks like an interesting option. So does the Hipshot. I'll do some more research into these.

Now on to the body wood.

Cagey, unfortunately I'm set on the Wizard profile. I've been playing guitar for about twenty years and at this point I don't think I can switch to a thicker neck. I've played all sorts of guitars (I worked at a music store before going back to engineering school a few years ago) and I always find that a thin neck is much easier for me to play.

However, I'm not set on the woods. You mentioned that mahogany is not the body wood to use in this application. What kind of body wood should I use? Should I also use a different neck wood to get back what I lose with the thinner neck? If so, what do you suggest?

In terms of relying on high output pickups, I'd prefer to get as much sustain out of the guitar BEFORE the electronics come into play.

Thanks again guys!

 

[Cagey]

I wouldn't worry about the body wood so much. Do what you want. The neck is the thing. I put together a lot of guitars here, and it's always the neck and the neck/body joint, in concert with the bridge and its mounting/material. Choose some pickups sympathetic to the tone you want and you're there.

Physically, and ultimately, in my mind, you want the strings to vibrate forever and have none of their frequencies/harmonics absorbed by the mounting points or the material they're mounted in. You can always filter out frequencies you don't want, but you can't amplify what doesn't exist in the first place.

So, you don't want a flimsy/squishy neck, lest it absorb things you'd rather not lose. At the risk of sounding pornographic, the wood has to be hard and stiff. That most often means of the two popular major OEM woods that you go thick if you like squishy woods like Mahogany, or you can slim down with Maple. But there are some great alternatives that Warmoth has made available. Rather than go through them all here, you might want to review what Warmoth has to say about different neck woods here.

Look those over, and we'll talk. I have many examples here.

 

[JPilot]

Alright. After looking through the options, I'm now thinking about going with an ebony fingerboard mated to a bubinga, or ebony neck. For the body, I'm looking at hard maple or bubinga. Let me know what you think.

Thanks!

 

[Cagey]

An Ebony over Bubinga neck is an excellent choice. I have one here, and it's one of my favorites. Want better? Ebony over Pau Ferro. Pure sex on a stick. Comparable to that would be Ebony over Bloodwood, but the color restricts your body finish choices. It only looks good in certain situations. Still... if you can do it, there's no way you'll be sorry. Another thing that's great about those choices is they can all be done raw. That is, no finish needed. Not only saves you serious money, but gets you a better feel by far. Although, whether you know it or not, you almost certainly want to spend a little extra time/money burnishing the thing.

As far as the body goes, it depends on the appearance you want. The wood matters, but it doesn't have as great an influence on the sound as is often imagined, or like it does with an acoustic. It's more of a spice thing. That's why I say you can do what you want there.

 

[tangent]

Schaller claims the hannes bridge has increased sustain up to 15% over steel or 25% over brass fixed bridge designs, due to the extreme low mass of the graphite saddles.  (There is no metal under the strings, only TUSQ)

That seems like an arbritrary statistic that they pulled out of their ass for marketing reasons;  However, after trying one recently (http://unofficialwarmoth.com/index.php?topic=22482) and considering the physics of the design, I must say it seems very plausible. 

That tele definitely has a ridiculous amount of sustain, I've never played a solidbody where you can feel the body wood resonate so much.  I've only had the tele with hannes bridge for a few days and already ordered a second hannes bridge with integrated piezo for my next build, which will be a thinline tele. =)

The only thing which sucks about the hannes bridge is changing strings.. the floating saddles with tiny holes make it kind of a pain to thread the strings through.

 

[SustainerPlayer]

So ... how much sustain is necessary? How do you measure it?

Does the e-chord have to sustain for 11,7 seconds or 13,5 seconds?

These handy devices puts the control right in your hand: http://www.fernandesguitars.com/sustainer-kits.html ... as long as the battery last that is!  :sign13:

 

[Cagey]

I certainly can't put any numbers on it. but I buy a lotta Graphtech nut blanks and it's always surprising how they sound when you jangle them in your hand as you place them with the rest of the parts. They sorta make a "tinkle" noise, if you know what I mean. And I don't mean they take the opportunity to piss on you. They just have a sound to them that says they're very hard and light, sorta like glass or something, but lighter. Bone is similar. Most other materials sound somewhat clunky in comparison.

 

[JPilot]

Alright. So here's what I'm trying to wrap my brain around:

I am assuming that the (bridge-body-neck)-string interaction can be modeled like a system of two unequal masses connected by a spring. The string is the small mass and the (bridge-body-neck) is the large mass. The friction between the bridge and the string damps the vibration, as does the 'sponginess' of the wood. I don't think that this works exactly into the damped spring equation (because of the nature of the friction in the bridge saddles), but I'll pretend it does for simplicity.

By stretching the spring (plucking the string), an oscillation is set up in which the amplitude of the small mass is much greater than that of the large mass (the bridge-body-neck). If the mass of the guitar is decreased, the amplitude of the guitar body is increased and the amplitude of the string is decreased. You hear a louder unplugged sound at the expense of sustain.

I think this is why chambered electric guitars are much louder unplugged than a completely solid instrument. For acoustic guitar design, you want the body to vibrate as much air as possible, so you want a high surface area,  low mass guitar body that is very stiff.

So here's my point: I think the reason that the lightweight teflon and graphite saddles sustain better is because of the decreased friction on the vibrating string. And only because of their decreased friction.

That said, the way to keep the rate at which the amplitude of the string decreases to a minimum (maximum sustain) is to build a very massive and very stiff instrument with as little friction between the strings and the bridge, frets and nut as possible.

So based on this, I need a heavy bridge with high mass, low friction saddles that are bolted down. This bridge needs to be mated very securely to a heavy and stiff guitar.

Now, I could be completely wrong with all or part of this, so please correct me if any of you think that my thinking is flawed  :dontknow:

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

I noticed you had a 720 mod in your original specs.  If you go with a bridge that requires an angled neck pocket, that won't be doable.

 

[drewfx]

For acoustic guitar design, you want the body to vibrate as much air as possible, so you want a high surface area,  low mass guitar body that is very stiff.

No. Acoustic instrument bodies should be as elastic as possible, not stiff.

 

[Patrick from Davis]

I'm not sure about a lot of the reasoning here.  Sure an ebony board on a pau ferro neck is nice, but it is bright.  A rosewood board on a mahogany neck would be less bright, and a TOM would be less energy transfer using the logic above.  Still, I don't hear many complaints about 59 Les Pauls with respect to sustain.  At work we have a lot of "Paper Chemistry" that happens.  It looks marvy on paper, but doesn't go as planned.  I would look up what my favorite sounding artist likes and start there.  Personally, I like the V's with the recessed TOM, just looks right.  I know an overly bright guitar is not my favorite, so I'd take a moment to figure out what you are after.
Patrick

 

[drewfx]

Technically, sustain also varies with frequency. A lot.

But interestingly, no one who tries to theorize and rationalize it ever seems to take that into consideration. :dontknow:

 

[Cagey]

No. Acoustic instrument bodies should be as elastic as possible, not stiff.

Really? So, have you hung a 20" ring of spandex or a rubber inner tube from a nail and hit it with a tack hammer, then hung a 20" piece of iron from a nail and hit that? If so, which one seemed produce more sound and/or for a longer period of time? If you haven't, go try it right now and report back. We'll wait here.

 

[Cagey]

I'm not sure about a lot of the reasoning here.  Sure an ebony board on a pau ferro neck is nice, but it is bright.  A rosewood board on a mahogany neck would be less bright, and a TOM would be less energy transfer using the logic above.  Still, I don't hear many complaints about 59 Les Pauls with respect to sustain.

Bright is not a Bad Thing. You can always filter out high frequencies electronically, but, you can't create them electronically without synthesis. So, it's better to have a bright guitar than a "warm"/dead one. You can always deaden a bright guitar, but the reverse is not naturally possible. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

In any case, the tighter woods are more comfortable, so you always win playability-wise.

 

[drewfx]

No. Acoustic instrument bodies should be as elastic as possible, not stiff.

Really? So, have you hung a 20" ring of spandex or a rubber inner tube from a nail and hit it with a tack hammer, then hung a 20" piece of iron from a nail and hit that? If so, which one seemed produce more sound and/or for a longer period of time? If you haven't, go try it right now and report back. We'll wait here.

I suspect you are being less than 100% serious, but not everyone may realize this.

Elasticity is a property that defines a material's ability to return to its original state after being deformed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(physics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_modulus

 

[sixstringsamurai]

String Through with a recessed TOM...


GOBS of Sustain...

:headbang1:

 

[Patrick from Davis]

I'm not sure about a lot of the reasoning here.  Sure an ebony board on a pau ferro neck is nice, but it is bright.  A rosewood board on a mahogany neck would be less bright, and a TOM would be less energy transfer using the logic above.  Still, I don't hear many complaints about 59 Les Pauls with respect to sustain.

Bright is not a Bad Thing. You can always filter out high frequencies electronically, but, you can't create them electronically without synthesis. So, it's better to have a bright guitar than a "warm"/dead one. You can always deaden a bright guitar, but the reverse is not naturally possible. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

In any case, the tighter woods are more comfortable, so you always win playability-wise.

The more comfortable line is purely opinion, so I don't agree with that one.  The filtering things electronically is sort of true, but why bother if you can just use the wood that sound the way you like to begin with?  Just to have it there?  Cagey, as a person who is on record of liking only one volume knob, why bother if you can get the sound without electronics?  Just to have the option of potentially using that sound?  Even if it is a sound that you don't find desirable?  I understand putting controls on the guitar that you use, but having 30 more knobs and switches and related electronics that you never touch is worthless.  Warm is not dead either.  Generally it is more mid emphasis, not brittle ear piecing highs that the harder wood tend to impart.  And while you can effect frequency with electronics, the response of the guitar will change with the less rigid woods (like attack of notes)  Dead, on the other hand, is just flat out a sponge with strings.  So I disagree with your argument on a number of points.  It just seems to me you are over engineering a tool because you can, not for the need.
Patrick