Weird Tele Bridge Mod Idea

[Mickguard]

Okay boys, here's my latest brainstorm...

I don't want to convert my tele to string through. I don't like the way it looks, don't believe the hype, and especially don't like my chances of getting those ferrules straight.

If top-load was good enough for those old Esquires, it's good enough for me.

So I'm looking at different ways of modding my bridge for top load.

The first is simple, do it the way Fender did it, just drill holes in the back plate.

But that means there's a loss in downward pressure on the saddles. (One of the reasons I've elminated the Bigsby from my telecaster, at least for the time being, is because of this issue--I don't like the loss in tension on the string.)

I got to wondering...suppose I find a way to get the strings to wrap around the saddles, like on a one-piece Gibson or PRS bridge. That is, the strings load from in front of the saddles then wrap around to the top.

For example, I have a hardtail bridge here. I could remove the saddles from that, and screw that into place in front of the saddle line.

Wouldn't that eliminate the problem of downward pressure?

And if that DOES work, wouldn't it be cool to be able to mod the tele bridge plate itself to do essentially the same thing? --i.e., drill the string holes then cut and bend that portion up...or weld a piece into place.

Luckily for me, I have a new tele bridge coming in the mail. So the current bridge will serve as a prototype.

By the way, in case you're wondering, part of all this is because I don't really like Fender's bridge designs-- I think they're flawed. Even with string through, there's a lack of downward pressure, the saddles aren't fixed so they can still dance around a bit. And they depend on screws to transfer vibrations to the surface of the guitar...just doesn't make sense to me.

Hey, don't hit me, I'm just wondering....

[crafty]

Leo Fender didn't like the Telecaster bridge either, that's why he developed the Saddle-Lock bridge for the G&L ASAT. Top-load, locks the saddles together for increased sustain. The Schaller roller-bridge uses a similar design.

[Mickguard]

Yep, I've read about the G&L bridge...try to find one though!

[soapbarstrat]

Stew-mac Part# 5304 (notches in base-plate--I've made my own like that)

[Mickguard]

Stew-mac Part# 5304  (notches in base-plate--I've made my own like that)

←

Cool, thanks for the # --I've been looking for a closeup of that.

Question --where do the ball ends go --did you route out under the bridge plate?

[soapbarstrat]

It's sort of like an acoustic bridge. The string-balls pull tight against the far end of the notch (towards neck), under string tension. You can rout a channel. or what I did it just drill some holes in the body under where each notch is. And as you probably already know, the ball-ends are right under the bridge-plate.

Maybe it doesn't fit all the requirements you listed above, but it's an option, or compromise.

Quite a good design, for a "travel guitar" (loosen strings, pop 'em out of the bridge, take neck off guitar for packing)

[Mickguard]

Maybe it doesn't fit all the requirements you listed above, but it's an option, or compromise.

←

Well it's advantage is that it's the easiest to implement. Also doesn't permanently alter the bridge, since it would still be useful as a string through, if I ever wanted to do that.

But I'm wondering why I couldn't do the same thing but reverse the holes and place them in front of the saddle --that way I could still do the wrap around thing...since this bridge is already trashed, I don't mind drilling holes everywhere, I suppose it's worth a try.

I'm wondering if anyone can come up with a NEGATIVE reason for doing it this way though?

[JoeAArthur]

But I'm wondering why I couldn't do the same thing but reverse the holes and place them in front of the saddle --that way I could still do the wrap around thing...since this bridge is already trashed, I don't mind drilling holes everywhere, I suppose it's worth a try.

I'm wondering if anyone can come up with a NEGATIVE reason for doing it this way though?

←

Ok... let me try.

As I understand what you want to do... your string(s) will go back UNDER the bridge, wrap around it, and then head on it's merry way toward the peghead.

Question: Won't there be some "up pressure" from the string going under the saddle?

Question: Won't the string be trying to primarily pull the saddle towards the headstock?

Assumption: I thought you wanted to increase the downward pressure of the string on the bridge.

Once you go past a 90 degree turn in back of the saddle, you won't get much downward pressure against the bridge saddle to bridge plate.

[Mickguard]

Question:  Won't there be some "up pressure" from the string going under the saddle?

Question:  Won't the string be trying to primarily pull the saddle towards the headstock?

Assumption:  I thought you wanted to increase the downward pressure of the string on the bridge.

←

I'm thinking that if I do it this way it will be more like the wraparound bridge on an LP Jr.

The downward pressure becomes less important precisely because of the force exerted by the string on the saddle. Or that's the theory at least.

Of course it'd be nice to anchor those saddles down too (and together)--you might be right, there might be too much upward pressure.

[JoeAArthur]

Question:  Won't there be some "up pressure" from the string going under the saddle?

Question:  Won't the string be trying to primarily pull the saddle towards the headstock?

Assumption:  I thought you wanted to increase the downward pressure of the string on the bridge.

←

I'm thinking that if I do it this way it will be more like the wraparound bridge on an LP Jr.

The downward pressure becomes less important precisely because of the force exerted by the string on the saddle. Or that's the theory at least.

Of course it'd be nice to anchor those saddles down too (and together)--you might be right, there might be too much upward pressure.

←

If you don't want to drill top mounting holes in the back of the plate where they normally are...

Why don't you just widen the string through holes so you can slip the ball end of the string through it... and then file a slot towards the peghead side so that the ball end will be captured. You will have to route a small channel underneath those string through holes, but it will be covered up by the bridge.

Just a thought...

[jmrentis]

Why don't you just widen the string through holes so you can slip the ball end of the string through it... and then file a slot towards the peghead side so that the ball end will be captured.

Ghetto speedloader!

[Mickguard]

Why don't you just widen the string through holes so you can slip the ball end of the string through it... and then file a slot towards the peghead side so that the ball end will be captured.  You will have to route a small channel underneath those string through holes, but it will be covered up by the bridge.

Just a thought...

←

That's what soapbarstrat is suggesting, and it's probably what I'll end up going with. I'm just wondering about different alternatives, that's all.

Right now the guitar is setup with Fender's top load method (holes in the back plate). It sounds and plays fine and it's been in tune for three days now...

If I go with the speedloader idea, I'll have to take wood out of the guitar--before I do that I want to investigate the different options.

But it seems to me that in terms of downward pressure on the saddles, the speedloader system has the advantage and will come closest to whatever sustain gain comes from a stringthrough setup.

[Drak]

Also depends on what your bridge is made out of, some steel can be extremely hard to cut thru, especially such a small slot with a tiny file or hacksaw blade, could be almost fruitless depending on the hardness of the bridgeplate material, brass should be easy.

But I also like that idea the best, slot the holes.

[thegarehanman]

I agree that having the ball ends in front of the strings is a bad idea. Depending on the distance the ball ends are from the bridge and where they initially contact the saddle, you could end up lifting your saddles off the body by a millimeter or so. Also, the strings would be exerting more pressure on the backs of the saddles(pulling them towards the nut) than they would downward, onto the saddles.

I just realized something. Guitars are phallic instruments. I said "ball" and "nut" in one paragraph.

peace,

russ

Edited September 10, 2005 by thegarehanman

[Mattia]

I just realized something. Guitars are phallic instruments. I said "ball" and "nut" in one paragraph.

←

Heh. And working 'shaft' into it somewhere wouldn't have been terribly difficult either.

[Mickguard]

Leo Fender didn't like the Telecaster bridge either, that's why he developed the Saddle-Lock bridge for the G&L ASAT. Top-load, locks the saddles together for increased sustain. The Schaller roller-bridge uses a similar design.

←

Bringing this back up because I found this quote on Callahan's site:

"Sympathetic vibrations from one string can now influence the vibrations of another string causing dissonant overtones to occur that will drive you crazy, especially at high volume. It is this type of vibration that occurs on acoustic guitars, with their single saddle, that causes beat tones when certain chords are played and phasing problems on other chords. We purposely try to avoid firm large contact between our saddles for this reason."

Seems to go against G&L's idea.

[crafty]

Yeah, but keep in mind Leo was ALWAYS coming up with something new because he believed in the constant "evolution" of his designs. The ASAT bridge was designed to improve sustain, Callaham is designing their bridges to sound more vintage.

I like Callaham's stuff and I'll probably buy one of their sustain blocks for my MIM's trem, but I honestly think shill like that is more Ed Romanesque BS that's intended to market their own ideas and products rather than give useful ideas to players.

BTW, all guitars, regardless of their bridge design, are going to have beat tones and phasing problems on certain chords.

[frank falbo]

Nice reply, Crafty. I agree, and would add that any "release" of contact between the saddles is a direct tradeoff in sustain and vibrational transfer to the body. In other words, the more a bridge becomes a solid mass, the more efficient it is in transfering vibration. The exception to that would be a 2 Tek bridge or an individual saddle bridge where each saddle was very firmly attatched to the body with it's own two screws. Then you'd have separation AND solid contact.

The biggest laugh of that "romanism" is that he's talking about a three saddle tele bridge. So there are two strings per saddle! How does he stop those two strings from interacting?

It's the same kind of debate when guys say you need the stamped strat bridge to sound "like a strat". But it's clear that a heavier, more solid bridge like the Gotoh HQ butted against the body is "better". But "better" doesn't always sound "better" to our ears. Sometimes less efficient sounds better to us, and we don't need junk science to validate it. We just like the way vintage sounds sometimes. Sometimes cheap crappy guitars sound cool, too. It's art.

So I say if he likes the way the bridge sounds with the saddles separated, that's great. Just don't make up some bogus junk science to validate it. Just say "We think it sounds better when the saddles aren't touching eachother, because we feel there's less crosstalk between the saddles." Using acoustics as a validator is plain stupid. It's got nothing to do with one long saddle or individual saddles. It has to do with the huge resonating acoustic guitar top. It has to simultaneously resonate all frequencies across 1/8" wooden plate with bracing interrupting the flow all over the place. Separating the saddles would do nothing for that. I've made electric guitars with one long compensated acoustic saddle and a piezo. They have better string separation and sustain than any other traditional bridge I've played.

[frank falbo]

Hey check out this hysterical typo I found on his website:

"This creates unnecessary fiction"

His statement (he meant friction) is accurate in context, but the typo was too funny to let go!

He's a sharp guy, and most of what he says is right, but then he throws the occasional romanism in there, and I lose respect.

[crafty]

Yeah, I'd really respect him more if he just said, "We're Callaham Guitars. We fabricate parts and build guitars for the discriminating vintage and Eric Johnson-type player."

Of course, I'm one to talk. I play a Strat with a vintage-style bridge, albeit made out of whatever pot-metal Ping uses, and a Les Paul with an ABR-1. But I have played an ASAT or two and the saddle-lock bridge is quite a nice evolution. Matter of fact, I'm thinking of building a tele or ASAT with the Schaller version of the saddle-lock.

[Mickguard]

thinking of building a tele or ASAT with the Schaller version of the saddle-lock.

←

That exists? Do you have a link?

[Drak]

But "better" doesn't always sound "better" to our ears. Sometimes less efficient sounds better to us, and we don't need junk science to validate it. We just like the way vintage sounds sometimes. Sometimes cheap crappy guitars sound cool, too. It's art.

I could not agree more.

This simple truth flys over the head of tecchies and vintage police alike.

It's not necessarily better, it's what are you looking for in your sound, that's all.

There is not necessarily better, just different.

I was cringing when I read Franks' post because I thought he was going to slam the vintage bridges for a minute there, and I JUST came back from the Post Office where I picked up 4 brand new NOS Fender gold-plated Telecaster bridges.

Holy Crap am I loving these babies!

I chose these bridges because I want a particular sound. I know I will catch hell from all sides because I am using original Fender (vintage sounding) bridgeplates (in gold) with Glendale intonated 3-set saddles, but hooked up to an EMG harness with a pre-amp (Afterburner) and some of their pots, so everybody will have a beef, the purists and the tecchies, but I made these decisions based on what I WANTED.

These guitars are a complete melting pot of what I consider the best choices from all the possibilities. Some choices are vintage in origin, but that's what I wanted in that 'slot', some choices are very modern, because that's what I wanted in THAT 'slot', I am not driven by some vintage purist vision, or some high-tech vision, these parts all do different things, and I chose based solely on what sound I was looking for in what department, not to fit into one group or another, or what is better than something else. It's only 'better' because it fits the slot I was looking to fill, that's all.

[crafty]

That exists? Do you have a link?

At StewMac