
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
I had a followup from a tech question from a while back for you man - check your PMs when you get a moment. Thanks dude, I owe you! 

Been busy all day with stuff so haven't picked this up yet but still no PM? They are getting through from others though, strange. Cooking Friday nights grub for me the missus right now as it's my turn. Will reply with a comprehensive answer later.
We're having Saute d'agneau au paprika by the way and with a nice St Emillion. Give me about an hour and half..![]()
So extra string break (larger deflection) is good on an acoustic? The Les Paul nuts swear by the opposite to the extent that they recommend top-wrapping (putting the strings through the tailpiece from the neck side and wrapping them over the top). Different criteria I guess. They say it makes bending easier (I couldn't swear to it) and reduces string breakage at the bridge (definitely). Both of my tune-o-matic LPs are strung this way.
lou
I can only testify to it reducing breakage. It has for me. When I sometimes broke a string it was always at the bridge. I never break 'em now and I play fairly hard.I asked the Mutt about this once upon a time as I had read that 'improved tone'. He debunked that particular myth though I'm not sure about the impact of this on string-bending or breakage.
The string break thing is a bit of a myth. Yes you need a break angle but on an acoustic the main factors effecting the tone are the mass and the stiffness of the bridge and how the top itself is braced and the mass and stiffness of that. It's a real balancing act. Once you get to a certain level of downward pressure on the bridge plate thats kind of all you get. What little extra string energy transference you get is lost in the grand scheme of themes and in any case would result in a faster attack and by definition a shorter decay as there is a finite amount of energy in the string. To improve attack or decay rates you would have to either increase the amount of energy going into the string or make the model more efficient. Increasing the string break angle would achieve neither significantly.Odd. No harm asking here, I guess, though -
I ended up sanding the bridge down myself, rather than taking it in for a second round. Worked like a charm - I think it was actually smoother when I was done than when I got it back from the shop. And, not only was I able to get the action down a bit lower by subsequently sanding the underside of the saddle, I was able to increase the string break a bit more, so the guitar sounds noticably better now.
However, by sanding the 'top' of the bridge, I lowered the 'relative' depth of the, um, we'll call them 'string grooves' I guess. Eyeballing it, it looks kind of like if I deepened them as well, I could probably get even better string break, particularly on the low E:
Answered aboveSo, two questions. One, would this help, or am I crazy? And two,
I notice that Stew-Mac (a guitar building parts catalog - don't know if you have them in the UK) sells files/saws specifically for this purpose, in individual gauges for each string. My sense with them is that not only is a lot of their stuff just not necessary (i.e - it looks like the existing grooves are all the same size), but there are cheaper alternatives just as good down at my local (excellent) hardware store. So, is there something else I can grab locally that I should be using for this? Thanks!
I asked the Mutt about this once upon a time as I had read that 'improved tone'. He debunked that particular myth though I'm not sure about the impact of this on string-bending or breakage.
Mutt said an hour and a half didn't he?Maybe all that French food and wine got the old libido going.
![]()
Or he fell asleep.
lou