opinion/experience/recommendations regarding fixed bridge for new build

[dglady]

Hello Warmoth fans,
I'm specking out my 4th Warmoth build.  I want to build a hollow body with one or 2 f-holes.  Fixed bridge. HxH config.For pickups I'm planning to use SeymourDuncan P-Rails (Humbucker/P90/SC) with TripleshotRings.
I like LP controls.  I'm considering a carved top hollow tele or mooncaster.

One of my other Warmoth builds was in 2009 with a LP style, PearlyGates with SD tripleshot rings, TOM/STP bridge, plus push/pull T/T for getting pickups in series and out of phase.  I really love that guitar with the versitality of tones.  Quite amazing.

For my new build I'm considering bridges:
--Gotoh 510, angled
--TOM/STP, angled (one thing I like about this bridge is being able to adjust string tension)
--Recessed TOM (angled, arched, staggered strings though body)
--Schaller 475

I would welcome your experiences/suggestions/opinions regarding these bridges ... and also regarding other aspects of my planned build.

BTW, thinking of alder or mahogany for body and neck: 24 3/4" strat bubinga w/ Ebony.
Thanks in advance,
DGLady

 

[zebra]

I like your ideas.  My earliest concept of the "electric guitar" (as a 13 year-old kid) was a big 'ol archtype with f-holes and humbuckers.  I haven't owned one of those yet, but one of these days, it's gonna happen! 

Lots of folks have lots of good to say about the carve-top tele - from what I hear, it's quite comfy.  From what I see, it's quite classy.  We don't see enough Mooncasters around here, and want to see more.  You might also want to consider the VIP - it's got a carved-top also, and looks great with f-holes. 

I had the Schaller 475 on a Danelectro - it was great.  It has a nice mass to it, so it feels really solid, and it very adjustable (forward-back, left-right, up-down).  It would probably work really well on the carved-top tele. 

Do you like wrap-around style bridges?  There are some nice ones out there, and some of them are actually adjustable for intonation.  Some folks feel that there a bit unstable, but they can look really sharp on carved-top bodies.  There's a post around here someplace where a forumite compares three favorites.  That being said, the recessed - TOM is something I've been wanting to try - It's a nice clean look, and a nice low profile, and I like string-through-body arrangements.

Anything else you want to had in mind or want to tell us (like sounds or looks you might be looking for)? 

 

[dglady]

Zebra, thanks for your reply.
I've looked at the VIP.  My last build was a HSH VIP with wilkins trem 24 3/4" neck.  Awesome guitar.  It looks like control options are PRS or Strat style.  For my new build, I think I'm leaning towards LP style controls.  This is why I'm thinking of the carved tele or mooncaster plus the hollowbody.

TOM/STP
I like a lot of adjustment in bridges.  In addition to height and intonation,  being able to adjust the string tension.  I've played with different tensions by adjusting the height of the TOM/STP tail stop.  But I've never been wild about the saddles that come with the TOM/STP...I have Tonepros on my Warmoth LPstyle.  Do any of you guys change out the saddles on these bridges.  If so to what?

Recessed TOM (angled, arched, staggered strings though body)
-since this bridge is low, would I need the 720 mod for deeper neck pocket?
-does the string through body affect tone?

Regarding the Warmoth hollow body...since it's not like a typical arch top which wouldn't have the wide solid block down the center of the guitar...
-do the f-holes affect tone?
-does 1 vs 2 f-holes affect tone?

 

[Cagey]

I like a lotta adjustment in a bridge as well, which is why I don't use TOMs if I can help it. Can't independently adjust string height, which I consider important to proper setup. I also don't like their string cutters saddles.

The question of tailpiece height vs. string tension came up in another forum recently, and of course the typical dogma was presented as guidance. I don't know where the idea came from that raising/lowering the height of the tailpiece changes the tension/feel of the strings. It most certainly does not, unless you don't retune the guitar after adjusting its height.

Depending on the length, gauge and mass of the strings, they have to be held under a particular tension in order to vibrate at a particular frequency. The length is set by the scale length of the guitar (NOT the length from tuning peg to anchor point), the string gauge and mass are set by the strings themselves.

For example, if you use D'Addario's nickel plated steel strings, a .009 string on a 25.5" scale instrument needs to be at 13.1 pounds tension to vibrate at 329.6 hz (high E). If you increase or decrease that tension, you'll increase/decrease the vibration frequency (sharpen or flatten the note).

So, while it's true that raising your tailpiece will decrease the tension of the strings, at the same time you'll also lower the frequency the strings vibrate at. You'll have to wind your tuning pegs up to bring the strings back in tune, and guess what? You're back at your starting tension.

This is not dogma, rumor, belief, opinion, drunken certainty or any of that fun stuff. It's introductory physics 101. Rules you can live by. You would think that with the readily available data from respected luthier resources and string manufacturers exposing this reality that general understanding would change and the myths would be busted, but noooo...

The only things you accomplish by raising/lowering the tailpiece height is changing the downforce on the bridge. If it's a milled part, then no harm, no foul. If it's a die cast part, you may bend it out of radius over time. Another side effect of severe breakover angles might be to increase the likelihood of a string failure at the breakover point. Outside of those concerns, you can set the tailpiece height wherever you'd like without effect. It's just an anchor point. If you're feeling a difference in tension by adjusting your tailpiece height, what you're actually feeling is the power of suggestion. Your brain is messing with you  :laughing7:

 

[Cagey]

Bridge-wise, I'd look for something that sits flush to the body rather than up on posts. You'll get better sustain and articulation out of it. If you do end up with a hollow body, it'll be slightly louder acoustically as well, for whatever that's worth on an electric. Of the choices you mentioned, the Schaller 475 would be best. Another style I like are these Hipshot fixed bridges.

As far as the impact of hollow bodies and/or F-holes on the tonal character of electric guitars, the only way I've heard it is acoustically and I've had numerous examples of all of them here over the years. Even then, it's pretty subtle and there's no change at the output jack. Bodies are hollowed/chambered to save weight. F-holes present a certain aesthetic reminiscent of orchestral stringed instruments, and tempt cobs to make webs. So, if you need the guitar to be lighter or to look sorta like a viola, spend the money. Otherwise, save it for your next build.

 

[dglady]

Cagey, thanks for your replies. I don't remember where I came across the suggestion about raising the stop to reduce string tension.  I guess my mind was playing tricks on me.  I was trying different guage strings when I was trying the 'theory' out.  Anyway, I ended up with 9 guage and the stop is almost at the body.  You're right you can't adjust individual string height.  I think I lucked out.  Definitely not the best bridge.  At the time, I was trying to get close to a LP.  Always loved LPs but never found a neck comfortable enough that I could play for long.  I've been very pleased with my Warmoth LP style.

Out of curiosity, I did a little research about improved TOM/STP style bridges and I found fullContactHardware TOM which is fully adjustable and supposedly a direct replacement for the TP TOM/STP.  the bridge also has full body contact.  Here's the link:

http://www.fullcontacthardware.com/fch-tune-o-matic-bridge

Thanks for suggesting the HipShot Fixed bridge. It's a nice looking bridge with lots of adjustments.  I also like the string-through body. Do you know if that bridge is compatible with the bridge routs routinely offered by Warmoth?

Thanks for the feedback about the hollow body and f-holes options.  Your answer is pretty much what I expected since it's not a 'true' hollow body.

 

[Zhaezzy]

    My thoughts are more from a players perspective. What I like about Tune O Matic style bridges is that the string is the highest point there so it makes for easy clean string muting. I do prefer individually adjustable saddles but you have to dig your palm in a bit more to get clean muting. What are you going to be playing on it and what do you want your guitar to do.

 

[dglady]

I will be playing mostly blues and classic rock.  I play through tube amps.

 

[Steve_Karl]

For a hard tail I agree with Cagey on not liking TOMs as much as a flat anchored 2 screws per saddle type bridge.
Or a Wilkinson VS-100 for a non hardtail.
I really am spoiled by the extra adjustability and could never be happy with a TOM again.

Too bad we'll probably never agree on the difference between measurable tension and perceived stiffness.  :toothy10:

 

[Cagey]

Too bad we'll probably never agree on the difference between measurable tension and perceived stiffness.  :toothy10:

Au contraire! I agree there's a perceived difference. But, "perceived" is the critical verb there. There's no actual difference. If there were some way to test a player of two different guitars with the same strings, scale length and bridge so that he couldn't see/feel how high the tailpiece was set or what the excess string beyond the speaking length was, he'd never know which was which.

But, wait! In fact, such a test was conducted once, although it wasn't blind, per se. From an article titled "Human Perception of String Tension and Compliance in Stringed Musical Instruments" by Liutaio Mottola on his "Lutherie Information Website"

Master archtop guitar maker Bob Benedetto described a couple of informal experiments he made in this area in an article that appeared in American Lutherie #68. Bob built two simple demonstration “necks”. The first had a number of identical strings but with different scale lengths, the scale lengths varying from 23” to 26”. All strings were tuned to the same pitch, so according to the relationship between tension, pitch, mass per unit length, and speaking length, the strings with the longer scale lengths will be under greater tension than the shorter ones. You can take it as fact that this must be so (they are called laws of physics after all) but no one that had this apparatus in their hands could feel any difference in elasticity between any of the strings. Again, let me make this clear. The issue here is not that the longer strings were under greater tension – that is a physical fact. The issue is that people could not sense any difference in the feel of the strings when attempting to bend them.

The second of Bob's test necks had a number of identical strings tuned to the same pitch too, but this time they all had the same scale length. What differed was the amount of extra string length between the bridge saddle and the anchor for each string. With this apparatus we know that the tension has to be the same for each of the strings because the strings are identical and their lengths and pitches are identical as well, and we also know that the strings with the longer extra length behind the bridge saddle should be more compliant. But here again, no one that handled the apparatus could detect any difference in elasticity among the strings.

Of course, we're still talking about humans here. I'd be happier if he used servos, load cells and microprocessors to measure all this stuff rather than people's fingers, but whaddaya gonna do? Still, he had human sensation agreeing with what the laws of physics say is the correct sensation. If someone needs to be or is convinced that there's a difference before they'll feel it, chances are overwhelmingly good that there's no difference and their mind is playing tricks on them.

Our senses and brain play tricks on us all the time. Movies and television are ubiquitous examples. The pictures aren't moving at all; its a series of slightly different still pictures shown consecutively in the same place that gives the illusion of motion because our brains get tricked through persistence and latency. Vintage TV is even more magical - it's not a picture at all, but an illuminated dot that changes intensity as it moves  across the screen, jumps back to the beginning and drops down slightly, and does that again repeatedly about 480 times, then starts over again. That's to make what appears to be one picture. Then, it does that whole exercise 30 times a second to create the illusion of still pictures being shown consecutively in the same space to give the illusion of motion.

So, don't sweat it. We're only human  :laughing7:

 

[Steve_Karl]

Too bad we don't live close enough to each other to do a test.
I'd even bring the blind fold.

 

[Cagey]

You're so kinky!  :laughing7:

I have about 20 guitars in my collection now, about evenly divided between 24.75" and 25.5" scales. Almost all of them have the same strings and frets on them. I also get to play around with a wide variety of guitars that belong to customers. I have always been able to feel the difference between scale lengths. To me, it's not subtle - going from a 25.5 to a 24.75 but using the same strings feels like going down a whole gauge set, like from 10s to 9s, or 9s to 8s. But, I've never been able to feel differences in overall string length, even when it's dramatic, like when going from a Tele to a Jazzmaster.

 

[Steve_Karl]

snort  :laughing7:

I had 1 last Les Paul about 3 yrs. ago. I didn't keep it very long. I agree. Not subtle.
I don't think I could go back to 24.75" unless I got lucky and found something like a good deal on a thick Gibson archtop jazz box
(wait for it)
... with a trapeze tail piece.  :icon_jokercolor: