RE: Better response and sound

Costs are rising and times are tough.
Please consider a donation to keep this
place going.

Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.

This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.

We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.

You are logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >>Discussions >>Lutherie >>

Page: << < 1 [2]

Message

<< Newer Topic Older Topic >>

Per Hallgren

Posts: 241
Joined: Jul. 1 2006
From: Sweden

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Doitsujin)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doitsujin

What happens if you use lowtension strings and you hammer a hard Rumba. Could it be that the strings flipping in the gaps of the bone?

The edge of the saddle where the strings go is totally the same as on a traditional bone without the arches. There's no risk of flipping the string in a gap because there are no gaps.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 26 2006 12:31:59

Per Hallgren

Posts: 241
Joined: Jul. 1 2006
From: Sweden

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Patrick)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Patrick

Hi Jim, long time no talk.

So here is what I did to an extra saddle for my DeVoe negra last night. I put an extra arch on the ends of the saddle. Don't know if that makes any difference or not. OK, the verdict is still out. I can hear a definite difference on the bass strings, but no change (that I can tell) on the trebles. What it has done is cleaned up the basses and focused the sound a bit more. It has also given the basses more of an edge to them. The basses seem to have a bit more volume as well.

Now the negative. The one thing it has done for sure is reduced the wonderful overtones. In fact it has given it more of a blanca harshness to it. Now that may be a good thing for a lot of negra's that suffer from sounding like classical's. But my DeVoe has a lot of edge to it to start with.

I’ll play it a bit more and put the old saddle in to do a comparison.

From my understanding of this technique there is no need for the arches at the ends of the saddle.

The reduce of the overtones could be from a less than perfect fit of the bone or just a reaction from the guitar having been without string tension for a while. Hopefully it will recover.

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 26 2006 12:36:00

Doitsujin

Posts: 5078
Joined: Apr. 10 2005

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

I meant it like that.I tryed to show it with the arrows on the screenshot. The strings could easyly flip into te gaps when using lowtension strings and playing hard coz they dont have much room to moove on the bone. I can see on my old guitars how big movements the stings do. Its viewable on bones which I used for a longer time. Couldnt that cause problems?

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 26 2006 13:53:28

ykabban

Posts: 251
Joined: Jan. 11 2006

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

No, it's not a problem. By the way, the other one that Patrick made is inverted, not a problem there either.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 26 2006 14:37:52

Patrick

Posts: 1189
Joined: Jul. 7 2003
From: Portland, Oregon

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

quote:

No, it's not a problem. By the way, the other one that Patrick made is inverted, not a problem there either.

Actually no. The one Jim and Per are talking about is like mine with no dips on the top of the saddle, they are on the bottom. Reread what Jim and Per wrote.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 26 2006 14:57:48

Patrick

Posts: 1189
Joined: Jul. 7 2003
From: Portland, Oregon

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

ykabban,

quote:

The edge of the saddle where the strings go is totally the same as on a traditional bone without the arches. There's no risk of flipping the string in a gap because there are no gaps.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 26 2006 14:59:38

ykabban

Posts: 251
Joined: Jan. 11 2006

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

That's what I said Pat, yours is an inverted version of mine. I know it's on the bottom, that's the reason I thought it was funny, we did the same thing facing different directions.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 26 2006 15:16:49

Jim Opfer

Posts: 1876
Joined: Jul. 19 2003
From: Glasgow, Scotland.

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to ykabban)

quote:

same thing facing different directions.

I think this would give two totally different results. The top arch pattern is more decorative whilst the 'arch bridge' pattern definatly does change the intensity on sound.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 26 2006 15:28:58

Patrick

Posts: 1189
Joined: Jul. 7 2003
From: Portland, Oregon

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

ykabban,

Now I understand what you are saying.

quote:

we did the same thing facing different directions.

Isn't that an oxymoron? LOL

Military Intelligence

Deja Vu All Over Again

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 26 2006 15:33:24

ykabban

Posts: 251
Joined: Jan. 11 2006

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

Different results........ absolutely. I'm not changing this one because the guitar sounds great, but I think I'll make an "arch bridge", and test it on another guitar, I would not scallop the ends though.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 26 2006 15:41:28

Guest

[Deleted] (in reply to Patrick)

[Deleted by Admins]

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 26 2006 20:45:31

Exitao

Posts: 907
Joined: Mar. 13 2006
From: Vancouver, Canada

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

I was considering this during an odd moment today and it occured to me that while the idea is interesting, I think it might be flawed. If I'm wrong, please explain to me how so.

The feet of the arches of the saddle would be held fast by the slot in the bridge. The bottoms and sides of the feet would be in contact with the bridge which sits on top of the soundboard and thus should cause the vibrations to spread through the bridge before being transmitted to the soundboard.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 27 2006 2:45:58

Per Hallgren

Posts: 241
Joined: Jul. 1 2006
From: Sweden

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Exitao)

I think it is very simple and clear. The purpose of the arches is only to make the saddle more likely to bend together with the bridge. Nothing as leading vibrations in a certain pattern or whatever. To transmit vibrations as good as possible the saddle need a perfect fit, both along the sides and along the bottom of the slot. The fit should be so tight that you would be able to lift the guitar with one hand at the saddle and one hand under the neck (Don't try this at home folks! You could drop it...). Of course it should not be so tight that the saddle is difficult to remove. Who said it was simple?

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 27 2006 9:14:00

Jim Opfer

Posts: 1876
Joined: Jul. 19 2003
From: Glasgow, Scotland.

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Exitao)

quote:

I think it might be flawed. If I'm wrong, please explain to me how so.

I can't confirm the science.
My own thought is that it's a combination of two things:

1 - Better contact between saddle and bridge.
2 - The arches direct and concentrate the sound energy down onto the bridge and then the soundboard, in the same way that a stone arch would control and distribute structural loadings.

Bottom line is that you have to try it to find out for yourself.

Jim.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 27 2006 10:48:12

edgar884

Posts: 1975
Joined: Nov. 16 2005

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Jim Opfer)

Ok well I bought some new Saverez strings (alliance) today along with 2 round files course and fine a vise and hollowed out arches in my bridge saddle and my Nut saddle.

Holy crap it gives my guitar a deeper way brighter and controled sound especially with low note high note combinations.

Thanks for the tip it made a big enough difference that I could tell when I started tuning it up..

It gave my guitar a bouncier feel to it as well. If that makes sense, it's like the string vibration is going in to guitar body instead of the Bridge saddle and then Bridge then body...

Much Thanx to all on the thread for that...

especially JIm

_____________________________

May we find God through Flamenco instead of Angels and Demons

www.gabrieledgar.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 28 2006 3:08:04

mentrida

Posts: 55
Joined: Jun. 19 2004

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

I like this idea. I recently did a saddle but like Doit, I filed the top mostly cuz I like the way it looks.

I'll try the bottom with a new one, but I have a question, why are the arches under the string? Wouldn't more vibrations be carried down to the soundboard if the arches were between strings and the bone sections directly below the string?

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 28 2006 3:44:22

edgar884

Posts: 1975
Joined: Nov. 16 2005

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

I did it with the arches on the top.

_____________________________

May we find God through Flamenco instead of Angels and Demons

www.gabrieledgar.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 28 2006 4:29:55

Per Hallgren

Posts: 241
Joined: Jul. 1 2006
From: Sweden

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to mentrida)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mentrida

I'll try the bottom with a new one, but I have a question, why are the arches under the string? Wouldn't more vibrations be carried down to the soundboard if the arches were between strings and the bone sections directly below the string?

The arches shall be between the strings, i.e. the string shall be over the "bonepillar".

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 28 2006 7:32:48

Per Hallgren

Posts: 241
Joined: Jul. 1 2006
From: Sweden

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to edgar884)

quote:

ORIGINAL: edgar884

Ok well I bought some new Saverez strings (alliance) today along with 2 round files course and fine a vise and hollowed out arches in my bridge saddle and my Nut saddle.

Why did you file arches in your nut?

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 28 2006 7:34:07

Jim Opfer

Posts: 1876
Joined: Jul. 19 2003
From: Glasgow, Scotland.

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

quote:

Why did you file arches in your nut

Per,

This is something I've been considering doing.
I have a theory that the neck is overlooked and is in fact a very important element in passing sound to the guitar.
Valeriano Bernal for example, hollows out the necks on his guitars below the fingerboard to act like I trumpet, carrying sound down to the body. I had one of his guitars (now owned by Ron M) and the volume was impressive. So I guess that arching the nut might also increase the guitars response.

Jim.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 28 2006 10:10:47

Jim Opfer

Posts: 1876
Joined: Jul. 19 2003
From: Glasgow, Scotland.

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to edgar884)

quote:

Thanks for the tip it made a big enough difference that I could tell when I started tuning it up..

I'm pleased to hear it worked for you.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 28 2006 10:14:31

Per Hallgren

Posts: 241
Joined: Jul. 1 2006
From: Sweden

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Jim Opfer)

Everyone is free to have his own theory about how guitar works and my belief is that guitars is so complicated that our theories are extremely hard to verify, thus will we always continue to argue who's theory is the best.

I have tried to be clear about mine concerning the arched saddle. For me this is only something that has to do with the bending of the bridge and the saddle and that we want to have as good as possible fit of the saddle.

An arched nut, in my thinking, will only be lighter in weight (which is in line with my thinking of the weight of the neck). But I strongly doubt that the arches make any real difference. It is not supposed to bend, only to be seated tight and firm between the fingerboard and the head plate.

My thinking about the neck is in line with yours. It is often over looked as the important vibrating part of the guitar that it is. However, my thinking is that the way the neck passes on vibrations to the body of the guitar is more about how it is tuned compared to certain resonances of the body and how stiff certain parts of the body are. I don't doubt the volume and quality of the Bernal guitar, even if I don't agree with his theory "about trumpets".

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 28 2006 13:25:20

aarongreen

Posts: 367
Joined: Jan. 16 2004

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

I have yet to try the arches theory but I have to say for me it's a hard sell. A well fit saddle is your best bet for improving the sound of the guitar, if the one that is there is not well fit that is.

Insofar as trumpets are concerned, I have to say that seems out to lunch to me. For one thing, a trumpet only works when air is blowing through it. Hollowing the neck out is not only a potential structural issue but I don't see how it mimics a trumpet. It does certainly lighten the neck up and depending on what the body is doing and where the relevant resonances come in, that might help or hinder. I don't doubt that the guitar was a good one, but it certainly isn't due to any trumpet action.

All these things are only relevant to how they relate to the whole. Going back to the arched saddle question, well, it might help, there is an equal chance that there would be no change at all. It is unllikely that it would hurt the sound of the guitar but you may not like the "improvements" either. It really depends.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 28 2006 14:00:51

Jim Opfer

Posts: 1876
Joined: Jul. 19 2003
From: Glasgow, Scotland.

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

quote:

"about trumpets".

Per / Aaron,

Please be clear that the term 'trumpet' comes from me.
I don't want anyone to think that this is how Valeriano Bernal thinks or is part of any theory he may or may not have. It was just a word I used to try to convey an idea that I had.
Likewise with the arch bridge, I'm just passing on something I read in the article I mentioned, something I later tried and found to be effective.

Jim.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 28 2006 14:45:48

Per Hallgren

Posts: 241
Joined: Jul. 1 2006
From: Sweden

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to aarongreen)

Aaron,
I believe we all could agree in that a perfect fit for the saddle improve the sound compared to a not perfect fit. The arches makes this perfect fit a little better/easier since the bone is flexible along it's length so that when the bottom of the bridge slot is bent because of string tension the saddle will follow the bridge. On low saddles this effect is less than on high classical saddles, so I agree Aaron, it depends on how high the bone is and how well it is seated at the bottom of the slot if it makes a change or not.

I also totally agree in that a good guitar is good because of the good balance between all the parts. There is never only one single detail making a good guitar.

Jim,
I understand that "trumpet" is your descripton of something you have seen or heard of, not the function itself.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 28 2006 17:05:41

Ramón

Posts: 440
Joined: Feb. 23 2005
From: La Jolla, Ca

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Jim Opfer)

Hola todo,

While waiting for my new blanca to cure for polishing, I decided to try this idea on my Negra. The action was a bit too low on the base side (tooooo much buzz), as it was, so I figured I might as well make a new saddle in the shop, with the 'pillars' idea.

Wow....Hmmmmm... Now I know there are lots of schools of thoughts; most won't hear the difference, but someone mentioned that this idea might just brighten up a Negra a bit, and I have to say, I'm somewhat surprised!

Much better sound, and a bit more punch, and I think it's brought up the volume a bit, too.

Koool...

I was going to sell this! Now, I changed my mind!!!

R

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

Attachment (1)

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 30 2006 22:13:54

Francisco

Posts: 879
Joined: Jun. 13 2005
From: SW USA

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

Hey Ramón, that's good news. I don't suppose you could give us a close up shot of the bridge post modification?

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 31 2006 2:00:24

Ramón

Posts: 440
Joined: Feb. 23 2005
From: La Jolla, Ca

RE: Better response and sound (in reply to Per Hallgren)

Ahhhh...I made it sooo fast that it wasn't worth a pic. Looks just like the drawings above in Patrick's post - without the cut at the ends. No point in that.

Does seem to have made a difference, which surprised me, but then again, it was like the thread about compensating the G, where I posted a pic of a bridge nut - and sometimes, raising the trebles higher than the bases.

Sometimes it works, and sometimes, no...

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Jul. 31 2006 14:56:47