Wraparound Bridge In Wood.

[WezV]

ah wes, i was only kidding - afterall it was suggested recently i should grow a sense of humour.

I dont personally like active pickups, i am aware some people do and dont really have a problem with that. I even did a guitar a few years ago with a 25th anniversary set of EMG's in engraved chrome covers, they were not too bad at all, just not my tastes. The pickups i recently put in my spalted maple guitar are a set of passive pickups voiced to sound like EMG's, that was never going to be a guitar i kept but i know they appeal to lots of people. I have also used bartolini's before but i really prefer there passive pickups with an active preamp

It certainly does solve the grounding issue with a wooden bridge but for me (and a lot of other players) that would be too much of a compromise. Another solution i have seen suggested on this forum would have been to have a brass nut and ground one string, but again that would be too much of a compromise to the tone for me.

Personally i feel the idea of having a metal string retainer built into the bridge would make grounding easiest. Although there will still be a tonal difference of course.

Its possibly worth pointing out that the tonal change brought about by EMG's or indeed a brass nut could help a wooden bridged guitars tone - again it comes down to experimentation and personal preference

[Rick500]

Carvin's pickups are actually all passive (their C22B bridge pickup is really nice). They have an "active electronics" module with a preamp. I have it in a couple of my guitars, but I rarely power it up.

Edited November 15, 2007 by Rick500

[GregP]

Wes, I haven't been a teacher for 2 years. Besides that, a person's profession isn't "who" they are, it's what they do.

I don't know of many active pickups other than EMG that use a different coil archetecture. As far as I know, Bartolinis can also work in "passive" mode, implying that they're basically passives with a preamp. I could be wrong-- Bart's website is terrible.

Epiphone has some new actives, I see. THey're passives with an integrated (on-board) pre-amp. Lord only knows if they're good or not, but they should have chosen a better name than "Epi-Act" or whatever it was... Epi-something...

Greg

[westhemann]

Wes, I haven't been a teacher for 2 years. Besides that, a person's profession isn't "who" they are, it's what they do.

If you say so.But I swear that those of similar proffesions tend to act quite simmilar themselves,for the most part.All of my teachers talked like you write,at any rate.

Well,EMG bigotry aside,they do have quite the selevction,even some jazz musicians like them,and they do solve the ground issue.Other than that,I have no truly practical solution,aside from grounding to the insert,then drilling a small hole through the length of the bridge and running a small rod...at just the right position for the strings to "lay" over it as they wrap under the bridge.See what I mean?the rod would be under the bridge?

[billm90]

if you are talking a bridge like a tune-o-matic... I tried to build one. it bows in the middle. the studs offer support but the middle was too weak. I built mine the same dimensions as the tune-o-matic.

it went out of tune constantly. this was on nylon strings.

perhaps if you copied an arch top bridge it would work. those things are pretty strong.

or put it on the body. I am thinking that is a good idea.

[GregP]

If you say so.But I swear that those of similar proffesions tend to act quite simmilar themselves,for the most part.All of my teachers talked like you write,at any rate.

I didn't realize you were so narrow-minded. If you also think that all accountants act alike and all mechanics act alike, then I'm certainly not going to be able to change your fundamental mindset by explaining how skewed that worldview is. I do wonder why you always have to try to make personal digs at me, though. Even when I simply point out that you made a good joke, you have to turn it around and throw an insult in there. Typical "angry metalhead" behaviour, I guess. As for the talking like I write thing, heck, *I* don't even talk like I write (for example, I probably wouldn't choose the term "skewed worldview", now that I'm rereading it and imagining it... I'd just say "I'm not going to convince you how f***ed that is"), so I highly doubt you know anybody who talks like this. I think you have a particular coloured (and revisionist) memory of your high school years that you haven't let go of, but I don't buy for a second that you currently know teachers who ACTUALLY talk like this, especially outside of the classroom over a beer.

In any event, I wasn't always a teacher, I sort of became one accidentally (though I loved it), and I'm not a teacher now. I restate: a person's job is not who they are but what they do. Discarding personality shortcuts (stereotyping) is a sign of maturity you haven't quite reached yet, it seems. It works fine when you're a kid in high school (avoiding or gravitating toward nerds, jocks, metalheads, or whatever), but it's kind of sad to see in a grown man in his thirties. And you've called people "nerds" enough to show that really... you *haven't* discarded stereotyping yet.

Well,EMG bigotry aside,they do have quite the selevction,even some jazz musicians like them,and they do solve the ground issue.Other than that,I have no truly practical solution,aside from grounding to the insert,then drilling a small hole through the length of the bridge and running a small rod...at just the right position for the strings to "lay" over it as they wrap under the bridge.See what I mean?the rod would be under the bridge?

I haven't seen any EMG bigotry. :-/ Wasn't his position already clarified that he's not anti-EMG? As for me, not even the least bit. I don't have a tonne of "hands-on" experience with EMG, but to me they're the most compelling pickup company around, with Lace coming in second (I like that both do not use traditional passive technologies but are improving on (or at least making lateral moves, depending on your value system) the technology). I don't actually own any guitars with EMGs (yet), but I keep trying to find excuses to buy a set for my LG, and they'll certainly be going into my engagement guitar.

Greg

[WezV]

I haven't seen any EMG bigotry.

i did say they were naff, and even added a to show i was just having fun. childish and hypocrytical of me but heck, i am only human!!

And dont forget Greg that Wes also knows i am a teacher so you maybe shouldnt take his post completely personally!!

[GregP]

Heck, I literally *DID* forget that you're a teacher. Or I never knew. I'm not sure which. In any event, I'm not upset like my post may read. Wes's... approach... does tend to wear me down a bit, I have to admit, but my habit of over-explaining (which is the only thing Wes has ever gotten right about me) might make it look like I'm taking it more personally than I really am. C'est la vie. I'm not perfect, either.

[westhemann]

Sorry Greg...Once again I tuned out of your rebuttal after the first sentence.Blame it on the proliferation of television dramas,but I can't stay focused on such dry,dusty posts.

I am sure it was great though...I bet you really told me something.

which is the only thing Wes has ever gotten right about me

You know me.I take what I see and make broad based generalizations about the comic tendencies of your personality pitfalls...it's what I do and is also a good comic technique.

[marksound]

Sorry Greg...Once again I tuned out of your rebuttal after the first sentence.Blame it on the proliferation of television dramas,but I can't stay focused on such dry,dusty posts.

I am sure it was great though...I bet you really told me something.

which is the only thing Wes has ever gotten right about me

You know me.I take what I see and make broad based generalizations about the comic tendencies of your personality pitfalls...it's what I do and is also a good comic technique.

[GregP]

I think your own posts are saying more about you than I ever could, Wes.

If mine are that boring to you (which is fine by me... I never tried entertaining you or anyone else... I have nothing to prove and never claimed to be writing for anyone's entertainment) then you're welcome to not only pretend to not read them, but pretend you don't want to reply to them and then REALLY do just that. It would bring a smile to my face. It would save me from writing boring replies to your even more boring attempts to provoke... what? Some sort of weird little fight? Not interested.

You're really just a typical internet troll, but you don't know it. Troll, begone!

"Wes The Man." Even your name says it all. You're the man all right, Wes... you're the man... rock on with your bad self. <lol>

[Blackdog]

if you are talking a bridge like a tune-o-matic... I tried to build one. it bows in the middle. the studs offer support but the middle was too weak. I built mine the same dimensions as the tune-o-matic.

it went out of tune constantly. this was on nylon strings.

That is an interesting point you make here. I never thought of bowing.

However in a TOM configuration (with a separate tailpiece) there's a considerable string down pressure that is not there in a wraparound (with the strings anchored to the same piece). It's more of a torsion force. If there is any bowing is probably going to be the piece deforming and leaning forward, I guess.

or put it on the body. I am thinking that is a good idea.

That is definitely a good idea for a new design, but I'm not working on a new design, I simply thought that something like this would look cool in ebony or rosewood.

I still think it might be worth a try.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

[fryovanni]

if you are talking a bridge like a tune-o-matic... I tried to build one. it bows in the middle. the studs offer support but the middle was too weak. I built mine the same dimensions as the tune-o-matic.

it went out of tune constantly. this was on nylon strings.

That is an interesting point you make here. I never thought of bowing.

However in a TOM configuration (with a separate tailpiece) there's a considerable string down pressure that is not there in a wraparound (with the strings anchored to the same piece). It's more of a torsion force. If there is any bowing is probably going to be the piece deforming and leaning forward, I guess.

or put it on the body. I am thinking that is a good idea.

That is definitely a good idea for a new design, but I'm not working on a new design, I simply thought that something like this would look cool in ebony or rosewood.

I still think it might be worth a try.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

A couple questions for you to think about.

Why use studs?

How much adjustment is needed with a fixed bridge, if your guitar is well constructed? How often do you use strings of different gauges (personally I do not change regularly)?

Do you think you would be able to get a bridge placed within about 1/8" of where it should be?

If you are going to make a bridge from scratch, why emulate a current design to the T?

Just a couple things to think about. Bridge design is something I really get into.

Peace,Rich

[westhemann]

I think your own posts are saying more about you than I ever could, Wes.

True 'dat...for a guy with a good command of the english language,you really do say alot without really saying anything,don't you?Which I guess is my point...I am sure I am not the only one who has a hard time reading through your posts...My eyes glaze over,which is what I am attepting to relay to you in a mostly humorous manner in the hopes that you may eventually do us all a big favor(or just me,if you wish to think I am the only one bored with the verbosity devoid of meaning that is your meat and potatoes)and cut to the point.

But your last post was pretty concise...good job there,homie..I know it was an attempt at an insult of some type,but somehow I still feel okay about myself...Monster ego maybe?

More likely,being an observer of human foibles and fallabilities(I know the words are similar in meaning,but they are slightly different in connotation.)I also find humor in my own eccentricities(to put my foibles kindly)

To put it simply,I find my own personality pitfalls to be more humorous than even yours...which I think is what you don't get...I am not just poking fun at you...but myself as well.

Troll?No...I never wish to start a little internet war or anything like that...just trying to engage in what I find to be a scintillating conversation.

Now how was that for a long,boring post?I think I just pulled a Greg!

Don't be offended ,man.I love you like a dorky little brother.

on topic...What about a wooden strat style bridge?You could still have all of the strings on the top of the guitar,but there would be much less torsion.

[orgmorg]

on topic...What about a wooden strat style bridge?You could still have all of the strings on the top of the guitar,but there would be much less torsion.

Plus, strat and tele saddles/springs,etc are readily available in many different styles.

[WezV]

I think it might be hard to get the strength into a strat style baseplate without incresing the dimensions significantly. I did do some experiments with single string style strat baseplates in wood and that was a complete failure even slighty oversized, obviously a full size 6 string baseplate would stand a better chance but i still dont think it would work without a redesign.

I am making an through neck sg with a schaller style wraparound with tonepros studs soon so maybe i will make a drop in replacement wooden bridge to try out on it

[GregP]

Bleah... I guess the "pretend you don't want to reply to them and then REALLY do just that" was too difficult, but if you insist... I'm apparently always game for more boring blather. Be warned, this one's a doozy-- and despite the friendly way your last post was written, I'm not really interested in pretending that I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy from it, so I'm not going to bother. I suppose that'll make me a boring wet blanket. <eyeroll>

True 'dat...for a guy with a good command of the english language,you really do say alot without really saying anything,don't you?

I don't know what you want, Wes. You're the one trying to drag an absolutely boring debate out of me (twice bumping a thread 2 months dead) and then calling me on saying nothing interesting. I can say an awful lot on many given subjects, but I certainly can't (and don't care to) "divine" what it is you want me to say. This whole thing is a non-debate in the first place, and is boring primarily because you insist on dragging it out. Good lord, man, take some ownership for how tear-jerkingly boring this all is.

Which I guess is my point...I am sure I am not the only one who has a hard time reading through your posts...My eyes glaze over

I, on the other hand, am quite positive that nobody CARES about these particular posts. It's not that they're bored per se...though they might be, and it's still an irrelevant ad-populem point... but like me, they just really couldn't care less about the 'entertainment factor'. You're the only audience for these replies, and most people wisely skip past.

And as I already stated (but apparently must repeat), I'm not even trying to entertain anyone, least of all you. So, not only is your point ad-populem, but also a straw man. While you're the only person actively interested in trying to demonstrate to me how "boring" I am (or whatever), I've had countless PMs on this and other forums thanking me for my approach to peer-based support, as well as friendly chatter. When I'm actually writing and hoping to entertain, I'm successful enough (for example, writing an email travelogue of a long-distance bike trip I took). You win some, you lose some, and since I was never trying to "keep you interested" in the first place, I'm quite fine with losing you. Not everyone likes to read Jose Saramago, either, but some people find him absolutely compelling. <shrug>

which is what I am attepting to relay to you in a mostly humorous manner in the hopes that you may eventually do us all a big favor(or just me,if you wish to think I am the only one bored with the verbosity devoid of meaning that is your meat and potatoes)and cut to the point.

Well aren't you a saint? Crusading on behalf of the legions of people who have complained that I'm... er... a boring poster with what some might see as a "wandering" style. Congrats. You've sure taught me a lesson and brought justice to the world. Never again will they have to skip past my posts, because thanks to you, they'll now be more interesting! New and improved interesting! Oh wait, no they won't... and oh... oops... skipping past them is actually a perfectly valid solution to the "Greg bores me" problem; one that you yourself could easily take. Nice try with the follow-up phrase, btw, but frankly it's a non-statement. "The verbosity devoid of meaning that is your meat and potatoes" doesn't even truly make sense, though I can suss your meaning.

Ironically, you're not cutting to the point. What IS your point? As far as I can tell, it's, "Greg, I'm calling you out as being someone who bores me and uses too many words. Haha, gotcha!" Since I never claimed to be entertaining you and I enjoy my own "verbosity" enough (it's just a part of who I am that I'm not ashamed of... plus I type at blazing speeds that make it a non-effort...), it's just another straw man to add to your growing army.

As for humour, sorry, but not quite. Your posts did not communicate a sense of humour until this most recent one, which WAS ultimately a success as a lighthearted reply. Rather, your previous posts communicated pettiness and perhaps some bitterness, too. And that's on you, not on me. You can't just say, "Look, I was being funny" and make it so. Either you were funny or you weren't. And Wes, you weren't.

But your last post was pretty concise...good job there,homie..I know it was an attempt at an insult of some type,but somehow I still feel okay about myself...Monster ego maybe?

Actually, it wasn't concise at all. "Your own words say more about you than I can" is a vague and evasive statement that puts the onus of interpretation back on you. That's your style of rhetoric, and I was praying beyond all hope that it would finally Shut you TFU, but no dice. And yet it's being mentioned as a step toward concision. :-/

More likely,being an observer of human foibles and fallabilities(I know the words are similar in meaning,but they are slightly different in connotation.) I also find humor in my own eccentricities(to put my foibles kindly)

Dude, you over-glorify your own insights. Surely you don't think you're the only person who has achieved a level of self-actualization, and you must know that you're not the only person who fancies themselves an observer of other people? It's practically a cliche. I gave up that conceit ("conceit" in the literary sense) years ago when I noticed the astonishing number of people who are rather insightful and self-actualized, and realized that I wasn't so special in that regard after all. You'll get there some day, too.

More importantly, if you had simply ASKED, "Greg, what are your own personality shortcomings?" I probably would have listed my tendency to over-explain and subdivide my points into smaller "teachable" units. Not everyone needs to be told what a "straw man" is... they either know, or they can look it up in Wikipedia (or wherever). Nonetheless, I DO tend to explain stuff like that. You don't get a merit badge for that insight.

Troll?No...I never wish to start a little internet war or anything like that...just trying to engage in what I find to be a scintillating conversation.

Like I said, you don't even realize it. You totally trolled. As for the second part, I can only imagine that you're being sarcastic-- after talking about how boring it is, you must mean "scintillating" ironically. Which again brings us to the question-- "then why continue, if it's so boring?"

Don't be offended ,man.I love you like a dorky little brother.

Classic. This rhetoric positions you as the light-toned one between us, while also asserting your upper-hand or "superior" position as the "older brother". It's transparent; to me, at least. I don't buy it and it doesn't really wash. You know, I'm not even sure you realize what you do with your rhetoric sometimes (which is a shame, because I could then at least give you credit for being clever about it), but half of the "boringness" you provoke in me comes down to explaining to you that your poor logic and weak rhetoric don't fly in these parts.

As for the actual point you're making: objectively speaking, I can't imagine anyone reading either of our posts would see us as anything other than equal peers. There's not really any sibling dynamic at all, never mind an "older/younger brother" one. Taking it even further, and perhaps me being a bit condescending (though, since being patronizing and condescending is your specialty, I shouldn't feel guilty about it), it's really more the opposite. I've had rich and varied world experiences (which you might even know about had you ever asked about instead of making assumptions about), I tend to approach people with more respect than you do, I try to be genuinely helpful where possible (I only know X amount about guitar building, but I always cop to my actual level), and I don't pop into threads seemingly for no other reason than to make value judgements about people's character.

And yet, I wouldn't deign to try to play "older brother" to you. I suggest you fine-tune your power of insight if you really do feel like the "older brother," because that's a rather shaky delusion.

Which brings me to my final point:

While you are claiming to be an observer of "foibles and fallabilities", I tend to take the opposite approach. I try my best to instead look for the good in people. It's easy to find people's flaws. It's tougher to notice their flaws and still be willing to look for value. So congrats for noticing that I can be boring and long-winded. It wasn't hard to spot. But instead of saying that I "regurgitate", you could have remembered the countless times (including this very post) in which my information or arguments were forwarded with nothing but my own words and thoughts. Even when you try to question my logic, I counter and run circles around you (of course, with my own words and thoughts) until you run behind your usual insults and half-jokes.

Instead of also seeing my guitar-related posts as "regurgitating," an insightful Wes would have noticed that I simply absorb new information like a sponge and enjoy sharing it with people who haven't found it yet. Long-windedness, another criticism of yours, can also sometimes be "explaining things from different angles to accomodate all readers." (Or, it can be "long-windedness", I don't deny it).

Then, instead of passing a blanket judgement on teachers that was negative, you could have also noted the positive that comes from the profession. I had a grade 6 student (an age at which the boys are starting to try too hard to be badasses) tell me that he sees me as a second father, and a "slow learner" succeeded in my math class because I worked at finding alternative ways to explain the concepts to her. The list of judgements and counter-arguments could go on....

Too tricky for you, or does it just make you feel more "clever" to be the sarcastic negative type? Or are you just hardwired to enjoy pointing out flaws too much to bother taking pleasure in noticing something else?

So there it is.

I get to be the "a-hole" after your relatively friendly post, but I don't mind. The casual reader, and even YOU, Wes, might think I took something too hard or too seriously, but that's fine... I know the score (I didn't take anything "too hard", I'm just tired of you), and that's enough for me. Long-winded or not, this post DOES contain my points in no uncertain terms, explained in a way you'd be hard-pressed to ever duplicate. I'd be just as hard-pressed to duplicate the way you evade and veil yourself behind half-clever 2-liners (though, when I do, I seem to score unasked-for "Wes Points" from it), so I guess we're even. Either way, I'm not really interested in derailing the thread more. I'm rather sorry that I made my (actually jokey and actually light-hearted) comment about you that started this all up again. It would have been better and more predictable to wait for you to bump the other thread in another 2 months.

I haven't the faintest clue how a wooden wraparound bridge would work, btw, for the OP.

[thegarehanman]

Wes, greg, I want 30 minutes of my life back.

wait for it....

wait for it....

there ya go, now you can be certain i was joking.

now kiss and make up already.

[Exoticwood]

Ok, now ~ that was fantastic, I don't usually read all of the intricate details of these types of debates but I got sucked into the snappy repartee' ( have no idea if i spelled that right ). As a personality study it was really interesting and stimulates my quest to understand human behavior. Can't draw any conclusions because I don't know either of you, however it does give me pause to ponder and for that I thank you both.

[fryovanni]

I think it might be hard to get the strength into a strat style baseplate without incresing the dimensions significantly. I did do some experiments with single string style strat baseplates in wood and that was a complete failure even slighty oversized, obviously a full size 6 string baseplate would stand a better chance but i still dont think it would work without a redesign.

I am making an through neck sg with a schaller style wraparound with tonepros studs soon so maybe i will make a drop in replacement wooden bridge to try out on it

Wez,

If I am following what you attempted correctly. You tried using small individual string saddles glued to the body? The failure of the glue joint on bridges usually occurs from peel (lifting in the rear of the bridge) which will lead to rapid failure on acoustic bridges. You do need to have a foot print that will be able to resist this force. On an acoustic there is not enough soundboard to recess a bridge at all, but on an electric it would be very doable(which would give you a better joint). You can also reinforce with screws which is a problem on an acoustic because of weight. If adjustability is a must, a one piece bridge with compensated saddle, and two slots down either side with inserts in the body would allow for bridge position adjustment. It could be done with individual saddles and an individual insert for each, but I would imagine using a string through configuration would be a better bet for stability in that situation.

The only trick I see to studs and a wood wrap around is the bridge deflecting over time, and or cracking leading to failure. You are asking the small piece of wood to do a lot more work when you place the full load on two small points at each end. The forces are going to try to pull and twist at those points. The beauty of taking it back down to the body is that you can make use of a bigger footprint, and spread the load on the bridge more evenly (better coupling, stability, and durability, not to mention you can do this with no neck angle if your design is the right height).

Peace,Rich

Wes and Greg maybe it would be more respectful if you took your "war of words / internet sparring match" over to the off topics section.

[WezV]

nah, not glued - i basically tried to make a wooden strat baseplate that was cut into 6. It was slightly oversized and i knew it would most likely fail but i wanted to try it anyway i had two screws in each one so it was never going to work

The only reason i see for using the studs in a wraparound bridge design is that it will let you swap and change and experiment as you see fit - i agree its asking a lot of the studs which is why in my second post i drew something that fully contacted the top and was bolted down with toneprose to remove a lot of the stress from the design

So here is what i have in mind for a wooden wraparound.

1. It must be a direct swap for a schaller wraparound, so it needs to slot over the studs

2. It will be thicker than a normal wraparound so the base will fully contact the face of the guitar . this will, stop it deforming from downward string presure, stop it twisting from the pull of the strings and also allow more wood for the strings to pass through the bottom.

3. It must be wider to allow more wood either side of the studs for extra strengh.

4. It will use tone pros studs that allow it to be firmly bolted down to the guitar top - but still removable and swapable

5. It will be shaped with an angled ridge on top with intonation accurately set in place - but sadly not adjustable!!

Hopefully like that any downward force is fully accounted for and the force from the wraparound design should be reduced as well depending on the woods used

we will see

[Mattia]

The allure of a standard-looking bridge, for me, is largely aesthetic. And frankly, the adjustable bridge on electric guitars is a design advantage compared to acoustics; no, you don't need one, but having one makes things a whole lot easier to set up a whole lot more accurately, for example if you want to drop your tuning at some point or something similar.

Wes: a point: there is little to no downward string pressure to speak of on a wraparound. TOM, yes, wraparound, no. Torsion and horizontal pull up the wazzoo, but not a whole lot of downward tension.

[WezV]

Wes: a point: there is little to no downward string pressure to speak of on a wraparound. TOM, yes, wraparound, no. Torsion and horizontal pull up the wazzoo, but not a whole lot of downward tension.

yeah, i know there aint as much as a TOM. Either way, a couple of people have mentioned cracking or deformation as a possible problem and i think my way goes a long way to counteracting that... the fact it sits flat on the body should help to prevent any twisting as well and will provide support for the weaker areas. I reckon i can do something like this without making it look much larger than a standard wraparound from the front, it will just look different from certain angles because it will have no gap underneath it

[billm90]

back on to this bridge issue...

with the style of the posted picture, you will defently have a forward towards the neck and slightly upward force on it.

if you for lack of a better term machine it perfectly and leave some meat around where the studs are, I think you may get in the ball park.

Maybe if you can get a bigger stud head, or put a hlaf washer over the wood where it meets the studs on the top, the force will be displaced over the wood area reducing cracking.

I made a neck plate out of wood for a guitar I wanted to put together really quick one night. to prevent the wood from cracking when I tightened the neck bolts, I covered the entire wood neck plate with super glue and let it absorb it for a bit, then wiped it off. It gave it a flat finish, but it has held up to numerous removals, and reinstalls with an electric screwdriver.

[Mattia]

One person mentioned deformationg, but I'd look at archtop bridges, or David Myka's firefly wood and bone bridges, which are all wood only on studs with plenty of downward force, and they don't seem massively over-engineered or thick.

Frankly, deformation is not a worry I'd have with a stiff wood (rosewood or ebony) and a standard size (TOM or regular wraparound size). It's the studs I'm worried about most.