Agent Jem Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Im building ans SG and I was wondering if the placement of the bridge really matters, as long as I'ts between 24 1/4" and 25"? The reason why I'm asking is because there are some imperfections in the wood that I was hoping could be covered up br the bridge. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setch Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Yes. It absolutely matters, assuming you ever want it to play in tune. Place the bridge so the high e-string saddle is just over twice as far from the nut as the 12th fret is. IE - Nut to 12th fret distance is 12.281, then nut to treble sadle of bridge is 24.562. If you are using a tunamatic the bass side should be offset about an 1/8th of an inch farther back than the treble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Jem Posted June 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Place the bridge so the high e-string saddle is just over twice as far from the nut as the 12th fret is. How much is "just over"? Is there a way of calculating this? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chemical_ali Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 it would seem like you place the high e saddle the exact distance of the scale length that you used to position the frets. don't take this advice! i am only speculating. i am a newbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setch Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 Sorry, I can't really be more specific - Just a hair over Seriously, I've often tried to pin down an exact measurement from builders & techs etc, but they've always said 'just a tiny bit' past the end of the theoretical scale length. I think this is because neck pitch and other variables affect the actual string length, so people are wary of specifying an exact distance, lest it be wrong for a specific instrument. IMO, the best solution is to fit the stop tail, then slide the tunamatic back and forwards under correct string tension until you get it to intonate perfectly. You'll probably have to raise it using small wooden wedges to get an acceptable action. Once it's right, mark that position and drill for the studs. With fender style bridges you have more room for adjustment, so like Ali says, simply place the bridge so the treble saddle is at the end of the scale length when 90% of the way forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gw_guitars Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 I think Setch is right. But you have to make sure what scale it is, if your building the neck yourself. If you have the neck already bought or build check the scale, and adjust the measurments according to it When you're getting the bridge on (with the wooden wedges under it) make sure the saddles are in the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 just to add clarity keep in mind that gibson places their bridges at 24 5/8" on a 24 3/4" scale guitar.it is called compensation because it compensates theoretically for the extra stretching of a string that occurs when you fret it.(fretting pulls the string down to the fretboard.)most guitar companies don't do this though.it seems nonsensical to me though because when you intonate you place the saddle at the proper distance anyway so i don't see the validity of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setch Posted June 24, 2003 Report Share Posted June 24, 2003 just to add clarity keep in mind that gibson places their bridges at 24 5/8" on a 24 3/4" scale guitar.it is called compensation because it compensates theoretically for the extra stretching of a string that occurs when you fret it.(fretting pulls the string down to the fretboard.)most guitar companies don't do this though.it seems nonsensical to me though because when you intonate you place the saddle at the proper distance anyway so i don't see the validity of it. When you intonate a guitar, you are setting the compenastion. The only reason Gibson angle the bridge is because of the limited adjustment range you get from a tunamatic - Without the angle you couldn't get enough compensation, and the guitar wouldn't intonate . If you measure the saddle position on any guitar, be it a Gibson, a Fender or a Martin, you'll find the distance from 12th fret to bridge is slightly longer than the 12th fret to nut, with more compensation on the bass side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 just to add clarity keep in mind that gibson places their bridges at 24 5/8" on a 24 3/4" scale guitar.it is called compensation because it compensates theoretically for the extra stretching of a string that occurs when you fret it.(fretting pulls the string down to the fretboard.)most guitar companies don't do this though.it seems nonsensical to me though because when you intonate you place the saddle at the proper distance anyway so i don't see the validity of it. When you intonate a guitar, you are setting the compenastion. The only reason Gibson angle the bridge is because of the limited adjustment range you get from a tunamatic - Without the angle you couldn't get enough compensation, and the guitar wouldn't intonate . If you measure the saddle position on any guitar, be it a Gibson, a Fender or a Martin, you'll find the distance from 12th fret to bridge is slightly longer than the 12th fret to nut, with more compensation on the bass side. yes i know that.you are refering to a different form of compensation.the angling of the bridge of course is necesary.read page 15 of "make your own electric guitar "by melvyn hiscock and you will see that i am refering to something else entirely.please be assured that i generally don't reply to a topic unless i have something factual to add.when i propose an opinion or a theory i make it clear. peace(of course there are some exceptions to the rule but i try not to give misinformation) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 Kinda makes you wonder if it would be possible to do the compensated scale thing on a new construction vs say the buzz fenton system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the third eye Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 vs say the buzz fenton system it's feiten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setch Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 Guys, there is no difference in the type of compensation on a Gibson style instrument, a Fender style, or an accoustic. All compensation is is the lengthening of a guitar string past it's theoretical scale length to take into account the affect of fretting a note. Brian - Everytime you build an instrument, you have to 'do the compensated scale thing' otherwise it wouldn't play in tune! Wes - All page 15 says (as far as I can see) is that Gibson's scale length is often quoted as 24 3/4, but that figure is incorrect. If you read the fretting table in the back of the book you'll see it's actually 24 9/16. All Melvyn is pointing out is that the figures given for scale length by Fender etc are true scale lengths, where as the oft quoted 24 3/4 is an approximation based on the compensated string length. Read page 199 for more information. Peace to you too - I'm not trying to pick a fight, just correct a missapprehension. In brief, most instruments will need between between 0 and 1/8 compenssation on the treble side, and between 1/8 and 1/4 on the bass side. How this compensation is achieved depends on the bridge. An accostic needs the cempensation permenently set by angling the saddle. A Gibson needs it's bridge angled to allow the compensation to be set within it's limited adjustement range, and a Fender can be compensated entirely with adjustable saddles since it has a greater range of adjustment. Despite these differences you are doing exactly the same thing in every case. p.s - Please don't raise the Buzz Feiten issue, that's way beyond my meagre brain. Besides, we all no buzz is bad on guitars, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 notice i did say in my post about it that it was theoretical and that i did not agree with it. and what he says on page 15 is what i paraphrased.almost to the word."the gibson les paul has a slightly shorter scale length as the published measurement refers to the string length,which is slightly longer than the scale lengthsince the bridge is moved away from the nut by a small amount to allow for the stretch of the string when it is fretted.this is known as compensation....."there you go.please direct your future disagreements on this issue to melvyn hiscock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setch Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 notice i did say in my post about it that it was theoretical and that i did not agree with it. and what he says on page 15 is what i paraphrased.almost to the word."the gibson les paul has a slightly shorter scale length as the published measurement refers to the string length,which is slightly longer than the scale lengthsince the bridge is moved away from the nut by a small amount to allow for the stretch of the string when it is fretted.this is known as compensation....."there you go.please direct your future disagreements on this issue to melvyn hiscock. I have no dissagreements with Mr.Hiscock, and the paragraph you posted is perfectly correct. Your paragraph varied from his in one important aspect - you described the gibson scale length as being 24 3/4. The whole purpose of the Mr.Hiscock's paragraph is too explain that 24 3/4 IS NOT the Gibson scale length, but is infact it's string length. I understood your original post to say that adding comensation to scale length was theoretical, and nonsensical, which it clearly isn't. I now think that what you were saying is that you disagree with Gibson describing their instruments as having a 24 3/4 scale - if this is the case I entirely agree! However, if you disagree with this confusing practice, why did you yourself describe Gibsons as having a 24 3/4 inch scale in that very post!! I hope I haven't come across as being faecitious or rude, I was simply trying to prevent any missunderstanding, so please accept my apologies if I caused any offence. Best wishes, -Setch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 I've got a guitar on the drawing board right now, and the type of bridge I'm gonna be using is irritating me. I'm a big fan of gibson guitars which tend to use the tunematic bridges, so I'm looking into using them, but they seem a little fiddly. I'm also worried that I might have action problems if I use a tunematic wit ha stop tailpiece. I'm a complete beginner as well, so i'm really looking for the easy route. I'm thinking that a fender-style bridge would be easier, since there's no need for a tailpiece, and it seems easier to build in, but my main concern is that it's a little too low for my liking. I'm also on a budget, so I can't really get any high-quality bridges, so it's a question of whether a cheap tunematic or a cheap fender-style bridge will be more durable. (I'm not spending a lot of money, since I'm a beginner, and the guitar probably on't be all that good, being my first, so I see little point in pumping a lot of cash into it.) I have another thing that's plaguing my mind - tremolo or non tremolo (If I opt for the strat-style bridge) I'm thinking non-trem since I play an epiphone les paul copy which has a tunematic bridge, and I'm not really used to using tremolo when I play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 notice i did say in my post about it that it was theoretical and that i did not agree with it. and what he says on page 15 is what i paraphrased.almost to the word."the gibson les paul has a slightly shorter scale length as the published measurement refers to the string length,which is slightly longer than the scale lengthsince the bridge is moved away from the nut by a small amount to allow for the stretch of the string when it is fretted.this is known as compensation....."there you go.please direct your future disagreements on this issue to melvyn hiscock. I have no dissagreements with Mr.Hiscock, and the paragraph you posted is perfectly correct. Your paragraph varied from his in one important aspect - you described the gibson scale length as being 24 3/4. The whole purpose of the Mr.Hiscock's paragraph is too explain that 24 3/4 IS NOT the Gibson scale length, but is infact it's string length. I understood your original post to say that adding comensation to scale length was theoretical, and nonsensical, which it clearly isn't. I now think that what you were saying is that you disagree with Gibson describing their instruments as having a 24 3/4 scale - if this is the case I entirely agree! However, if you disagree with this confusing practice, why did you yourself describe Gibsons as having a 24 3/4 inch scale in that very post!! I hope I haven't come across as being faecitious or rude, I was simply trying to prevent any missunderstanding, so please accept my apologies if I caused any offence. Best wishes, -Setch. obviously you are never going to understand the intent of what i am conveying so let's just write it off to the confusion of the written word and the limitations of the english language.you are new so you probably have not read some of my former posts in which i explain that after a 100 degree day in the texas sun putting up iron i am sometimes unable to properly state what i intended to.just rest assured that me and you are talking about the exact same issue but you are nitpicking fine points in order to properly misunderstand me. anyway just about everyone on this forum has this book and can read it and at least understand the issue. to recap just so we can finally move away from this.you are right.i am right.we are trying to explain the same issue but in our own words.o.k.? and what i quoted is word for word what is in the book. and gibson does call it a 24 3/4" scale.so everything i posted is correct.my post is not the bible.it doesn't need to be interpreted.there are no hidden meanings. and i stand by my original post.let's just move on shall we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted June 25, 2003 Report Share Posted June 25, 2003 by the way my post sounds petulant.please don't take it that way i am just too tired to write diplomatically.come on and give me a kiss big guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Jem Posted June 26, 2003 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2003 To get back to the origional topic... Which way do you think is best? 1) Finding the scale length and just using that, or 2) Putting on the tailpiece and moving the bridge until i get it right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted June 26, 2003 Report Share Posted June 26, 2003 To get back to the origional topic... Which way do you think is best? 1) Finding the scale length and just using that, or 2) Putting on the tailpiece and moving the bridge until i get it right here is what i do with a t.o.m.... measure the correct scale length from the nut and make a square line. place the t.o.m. on the square line(centered on the body in the other direction)and,while keeping the stud hole on the high e side exactly on this line,move the low e side about 3/16" back(away from the nut.) this is where you place the bridge.works for me. this puts the high e saddle slightly over the scale length(as setch said) and puts the low e side further away as reccomended. keep in mind too that some t.o.m. bridges(like the tone pros) offer a greater area of intonation.this makes it a more forgiving choice in case of a small error in placement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted June 26, 2003 Report Share Posted June 26, 2003 I've got a guitar on the drawing board right now, and the type of bridge I'm gonna be using is irritating me. I'm a big fan of gibson guitars which tend to use the tunematic bridges, so I'm looking into using them, but they seem a little fiddly. I'm also worried that I might have action problems if I use a tunematic wit ha stop tailpiece. I'm a complete beginner as well, so i'm really looking for the easy route. I'm thinking that a fender-style bridge would be easier, since there's no need for a tailpiece, and it seems easier to build in, but my main concern is that it's a little too low for my liking. I'm also on a budget, so I can't really get any high-quality bridges, so it's a question of whether a cheap tunematic or a cheap fender-style bridge will be more durable. (I'm not spending a lot of money, since I'm a beginner, and the guitar probably on't be all that good, being my first, so I see little point in pumping a lot of cash into it.) I have another thing that's plaguing my mind - tremolo or non tremolo (If I opt for the strat-style bridge) I'm thinking non-trem since I play an epiphone les paul copy which has a tunematic bridge, and I'm not really used to using tremolo when I play. they are both equally durable but the fender style is easier to place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.