Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was looking at the design here http://www.the2tek.com/data/inspect.asp?Item=3

Their claim is "The performance enhancements of the 2TEK® Bridge comes from individual string isolation coupled with maximum interaction between it and the natural resonance of the instrument body and neck materials. Each string saddle sits on its own individual “tonal finger”, which separates each string from the rest.

The result is improved individual note articulation, especially in complex chords and playing techniques. This isolation also allows each string to vibrate for a greater length of time producing superior sustain."

However, looking at the design, it appears that all the bridge pieces are still connected at the bottom of the bridge, and furthermore, instead of promoting string vibration and resonation, it would appear that the extended length of the bridge "fingers" would do the opposite by dampening the vibrations of the string in the finger. Not to mention, it looks like you have to take a good chunk of wood out to install one of these, not helping resonance with the body and neck at all, unlike their claim.

Ive read where people claim that the notes are articulating more and whatnot, but what I think they are experiencing is the initial hype of course, but then the actual dampening of the string which will make it ring out more independently versus other strings, as they will all be dampened at a different rate just due to sheer difference in string vibration from one gauge to another.

I could be wrong, but I've got a pretty good "design" oriented mind, and the overall design looks like a sustain and tone killer to me.

What are some of your thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like a bad design idea and its effectiveness seems limited.

Typically the resonance affecting all strings is a good thing. That's part of what makes a guitar sound like it does. All of those saddles are eventually all linked together and it seems as though those long pieces of metal would dampen the string's vibrations, causing a loss of sustain and harmonics/richness of tone.

I you want to dampen string vibration, you'd need those long metal pieces going down to be of different mass so that it can actually be musical and the damping is more evenly distributed for all strings, but then... what about the nut? For ultra clarity, would you not need separate nut saddles for each string? What about the neck? Would individual necks be the best solution? The whole idea seems flawed. The bridge doesn't even touch the surface of the guitar or any wood where its most important.

I would also say that if clarity is the goal, I say work on your technique. Too many people think that more gear, more expensive gear is the answer.

Edited by guitar2005
Link to post
Share on other sites
sounds like a bad design idea and its effectiveness seems limited.

Typically the resonance affecting all strings is a good thing. That's part of what makes a guitar sound like it does. All of those saddles are eventually all linked together and it seems as though those long pieces of metal would dampen the string's vibrations, causing a loss of sustain and harmonics/richness of tone.

I you want to dampen string vibration, you'd need those long metal pieces going down to be of different mass so that it can actually be musical and the damping is more evenly distributed for all strings, but then... what about the nut? For ultra clarity, would you not need separate nut saddles for each string? What about the neck? Would individual necks be the best solution? The whole idea seems flawed. The bridge doesn't even touch the surface of the guitar or any wood where its most important.

I would also say that if clarity is the goal, I say work on your technique. Too many people think that more gear, more expensive gear is the answer.

That's a good point about having a seperate nut for each string. Seems his design forgets to entail that. I think with it all attaching at the bottom like it does certainly kills vibration, not to mention the big chunk you have to route out to install it won't help resonance in the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked it over - it seems like its meant to go into a tremolo route? Got the plate for attaching it to the back of the body ( I'm guessing. ) ... that is quite a big chunk of metal there.......

I don't think you'd have to remove any more material then you would for a tremolo unit, and those bodies have good sustain. Heck , a Strat has a bolt-on neck AND a tremolo cavity and they ring like a bell. Well... the good ones do.

I think it's the whole "mass" of the thing that'd make it sound good. I know I've added small-ish weights to the back of my headstocks before to add sustain . They seem to have done it individually to each string.......... a tight mount of that unit would probably yeild great tonal improvements..... < [/voodoo]

I might just have to try one on for size...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, i don't know about the guitar version but every bass player i've met who has the bass version (which they've been making for years) say it's the absolute dogs nuts and most have retired any basses that don't have one.

I could see it working better for a bass than a guitar, just because the longer scale length, thicker gauge strings, and overall pitch of a bass, it seems like it's built in dampening properties would better suit a bass.

On a guitar, I can just see it sucking the tone and resonance out of the strings and body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,I don't know..I would like to see more than just a computer image of one..but if you look at the OEM dealers section,you will see Ron Thorn's name...

Good enough for me.May not be the best thing for every guitar,but I have to assume that it is a well made product or it would not be linked to Thorn's name?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well,I don't know..I would like to see more than just a computer image of one..but if you look at the OEM dealers section,you will see Ron Thorn's name...

Good enough for me.May not be the best thing for every guitar,but I have to assume that it is a well made product or it would not be linked to Thorn's name?

Ron Thorn is also the only one dealing these. I wonder how many he actually sells.

Edited by jessejames
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well,I don't know..I would like to see more than just a computer image of one..but if you look at the OEM dealers section,you will see Ron Thorn's name...

Good enough for me.May not be the best thing for every guitar,but I have to assume that it is a well made product or it would not be linked to Thorn's name?

Ron Thorn is also the only one dealing these. I wonder how many he actually sells.

I offer them as an optional bridge on my SoCal line.

So far, I've installed around 40 of them: http://thornguitars.com/socal-htm/socal-ga...-gallery-01.htm

They can be purchased direct from the manufacturer, I do not sell them separately - no time/desire for that.

They perform exactly as described and are far from a "sustain killer".

The cubic area of wood removed from the body for the 2Tek is less than the total area for a standard trem/spring set-up.

Cheers,

Ron

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know you are a world class luthier Mr. Thorn.

I certainly don't mean any disrespect to you or the 2tek guys.

I just don't see how it can add sustain yet reduce vibration at the same time.

A similar principal to a kalimba. The fingers act as tines.

No worries about disrespect, it's just a bridge :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kalimba's are cool. My brother and I made an instrument that was kind of the illegitimate child of a kalimba and a zither, 27 strings, microtonal, blah blah.

As for increasing sustain while reducing vibration, it is reducing the vibration beyond the saddles that increases sustain. This is because you are more closely approximating the rigid boundary condition for a vibrating string, which means that the string retains more energy for vibration, which means it vibrates for a longer period of time. Since metal is more dense, the same amount of volume will present itself as a smaller "energy sink" when using metal, thus the string rings out longer. Of course, you can never completely decouple the strings in a guitar. I think it is interesting that they are going for the opposite effect that a sitar uses (drone strings). All depends on what you like. Me, I find coupled systems to be cool and think that the bridges I use for now are just fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...