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! 
muttley600
Banned
No PM yet mate? I just checked and all I have recently is a few from lou about some shady deal.
Are you talking about the Martin setup we discussed a while back? If so fire away.
Are you talking about the Martin setup we discussed a while back? If so fire away.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
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:
So, 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 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:
So, 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!
Chili
Site Moderator
Hey Drew, if you don't mind, I have a couple of questions for you.
What do you mean by string break? Is that the angle of the string over the saddle?? In your pics, the low-E string looks almost straight. Is there a P/U under the saddle? Why does it hang off the sloping side of the saddle like that? No fret buzz?
I was told a looong time ago, that you want the strings to bend a little when going over the top of the saddle so it transfers more energy to the p/u if there is one.
How much of the bridge did you sand down? How did you determine how much to take off? I'd like to do something similar to my martin because I'm still not totally happy with the action.
Thanks for posting here instead of through PM's.
peace,
What do you mean by string break? Is that the angle of the string over the saddle?? In your pics, the low-E string looks almost straight. Is there a P/U under the saddle? Why does it hang off the sloping side of the saddle like that? No fret buzz?
I was told a looong time ago, that you want the strings to bend a little when going over the top of the saddle so it transfers more energy to the p/u if there is one.
How much of the bridge did you sand down? How did you determine how much to take off? I'd like to do something similar to my martin because I'm still not totally happy with the action.
Thanks for posting here instead of through PM's.
peace,
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
Hey Chili,
Yep, you're exactly right, 'string break' is the amount of angle when the string comes across the saddle. And, you're right, the string break on my low E is definitely too low. Believe it or not, though, this is actually better than it was.
This does have a piezo pickup under the bridge... My original problem was just the action was just too high, as you moved up the neck. I'd been playing the guitar for years (I got it for a great price because I just fell in love with the tone) and had just gotten used to it, but maybe a year ago I was playing a couple D-series Martins in a shop and coundln't believe how much better they played.
I started by sanding down the underside of the saddle, but you can only take that so far before you run into problems with first string angle and then the saddle coming in more or less level with the bridge itself. So, realizing it was beyond my ability to fix singlehandedly, I brought it in to a MArtin repair center, figuring the neck needed to be re-set. The guy there suggested sanding the bridge instead. When I picked it up it was quite a bit better, but still not QUITE where I wanted it to be, so I PM'd Muttley with a few questions about taking it down further myself. Foir what it's worth, he recommended just bringing it back to the shop, but I'm stubborn and kind of a born DIY-er.
Tough to say how much I took down - I figure maybe a mm or 2, possibly a little more. Your biggest constraint is the depth of the saddle route - as long as it's deep enough to support the saddle, you're good to go. Remember that as you sand the bridge down, you're not actually changing the action - it's only as you start to take the saddle down afterwards to bring it lower on the now-lower bridge that the action changes, so if you go too low (provided there's still enough support on the saddle) you're probably still in the clear.
If you look at the low E, though, you can kind of see why I think I can still get better string angle - as the string comes out of the bridge, initially the angle is quite steep, but then it suddenly becomes very gradual. That's the 'channel' cut into the bridge for the string. I think if I (carefully) deepened and reshaped that, then I could get drastically better string break, and considering the improvement in tone I've already seen, I'm curious to try this.
Yep, you're exactly right, 'string break' is the amount of angle when the string comes across the saddle. And, you're right, the string break on my low E is definitely too low. Believe it or not, though, this is actually better than it was.
This does have a piezo pickup under the bridge... My original problem was just the action was just too high, as you moved up the neck. I'd been playing the guitar for years (I got it for a great price because I just fell in love with the tone) and had just gotten used to it, but maybe a year ago I was playing a couple D-series Martins in a shop and coundln't believe how much better they played.
I started by sanding down the underside of the saddle, but you can only take that so far before you run into problems with first string angle and then the saddle coming in more or less level with the bridge itself. So, realizing it was beyond my ability to fix singlehandedly, I brought it in to a MArtin repair center, figuring the neck needed to be re-set. The guy there suggested sanding the bridge instead. When I picked it up it was quite a bit better, but still not QUITE where I wanted it to be, so I PM'd Muttley with a few questions about taking it down further myself. Foir what it's worth, he recommended just bringing it back to the shop, but I'm stubborn and kind of a born DIY-er.
Tough to say how much I took down - I figure maybe a mm or 2, possibly a little more. Your biggest constraint is the depth of the saddle route - as long as it's deep enough to support the saddle, you're good to go. Remember that as you sand the bridge down, you're not actually changing the action - it's only as you start to take the saddle down afterwards to bring it lower on the now-lower bridge that the action changes, so if you go too low (provided there's still enough support on the saddle) you're probably still in the clear.
If you look at the low E, though, you can kind of see why I think I can still get better string angle - as the string comes out of the bridge, initially the angle is quite steep, but then it suddenly becomes very gradual. That's the 'channel' cut into the bridge for the string. I think if I (carefully) deepened and reshaped that, then I could get drastically better string break, and considering the improvement in tone I've already seen, I'm curious to try this.
muttley600
Banned
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..
We're having Saute d'agneau au paprika by the way and with a nice St Emillion. Give me about an hour and half..
Sky Blue Lou
Well-known member
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
lou
TelePaul
J to the R O C
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..
What's d'agneau?
TelePaul
J to the R O C
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.
Sky Blue Lou
Well-known member
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.
lou
Sky Blue Lou
Well-known member
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
Maybe all that French food and wine got the old libido going. Or he fell asleep.
lou
muttley600
Banned
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.
I suspect what you perceive as improvement is down to a litter bridge which would result in a more immediate and less boomy attack. It's a balancing act though because if you go to far the guitar will sound thin and weak as the mass of the bridge is no longer sufficient to drive the top at the lower frequencies. So onto your specific questions....
Answered above
We don't have Stew Mac over here but I'm well aware of them. A lot of what you say is true in that much of there tools are fashion or gimmick or just plain overkill. They are also expensive. There are very few "real" luthier specific tools that you need to do setups and basic repairs. Nearly all the stuff Stew Mac sells are commercial adaptations of jigs and tools that us luthiers come up with all the time.
What you are talking about is a bridge pin slot hole saw and you don't need them unless you are refitting a bridge with non grooved pins or replacing a bridge plate. The strings need to be held snug and secure against the bridge plate and the pins should be a good fit in the bridge holes thats all. That is actually one of most important aspects of acoustic guitar setup and maximising the possible response of the guitar.
muttley600
Banned
I debunked it on Electric setups. It is a little more complex on acoustics but not so much anyone should get hung up about it. There are far more significant things going on that influence tone and response. It is quite significant on Archtop guitars.
muttley600
Banned
Mutt said an hour and a half didn't he?
Or he fell asleep.
lou
Option two. Sorry guys.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
So pretty much, don't bother?
By the way, I checked my PMs - I'd sent it to some "muttley" guy, not "muttley600," and didn't notice my mistake.