Bridge weight (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - Lutherie: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=22
- - - Bridge weight: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=116715



Message

diazf -> Bridge weight (Sep. 27 2009 13:15:58)

Any thoughts or suggestions on the optimum bridge weight for a flamenco bridge? The lighter the better for flamenco? Bogdanovich recommends between 15 and 25 grams but his book is on classical guitars.
Cheers,
--Fabian



Mike_Kinny -> RE: Bridge weight (Sep. 28 2009 1:12:57)

I think it would be real hard to make a bridge lighter than 15g. The lightest ever I have made is 16g.

I think as lighter a bridge as better.



diazf -> RE: Bridge weight (Sep. 28 2009 17:36:23)

Agree, the rosewood bridge I made is thinner and slightly narrower at the saddle width than customary and weighs in at around 19 grams. And I still have to add the bone inlay for the strings. Thanks.



Armando -> RE: Bridge weight (Sep. 29 2009 11:29:09)

Hi

The bridge in deed plays an important role for the sound of a guitar. Generally i think the importance of the bridge on the sound of the guitar is often underestimated. Not only the weight is important but also it's size, stiffness, shape and height.

I prefere brazilian rosewood for bridges due to it's bell like tone and it's visual beauty. Indian rosewood is often used for bridges as well and it's not much lighter than my brazilian, but it's resonance is quite much lower and less bright.

Generally speaking it's good to have a lighter bridge particularly on flamenco guitars. A heavy bridge means a lower top resonance, more mass to be put in motion and therefore less attack. R.E. Bruné wrote in one of his articles that mahogany and padauk would be a good choices for a flamenco guitar from an acoustic point of view. Of course we all know, that mahogany would waer out quickly due to it's softness, while padauk is hard enough but lighter than rosewood and with a very nice ringing tone. The only problem with padauk is it's red colour which might probably not look that attractive on a spruce top guitar.

I manage to build my bridges of brazilian rosewood at 15 to 16 grams including the bone inlay. Lower than 15 grams was'nt possible, but it shouldn't be more than that either. I would reject any bridge for a flamanco guitar heavier than 16 grams. I think that the stiffness and the tonal properties of the brazilian rosewood do more than compensate it's weight. I would never use ebony for a bridge as it has high damping properties.



kd0afk -> RE: Bridge weight (Feb. 8 2012 17:30:27)

I am building my first classical guitar and am using a pre-made compensated bridge from LMI. Beautiful thing. pretty nearly flawless. It weighs in at around 24.1g. I know I will be removing stock when I contour it, but where is a good place to start to get it down to around 19g or 20g? What on the bridge do I NOT want to touch? How thin can the wings be?
Is the shape of the bridge important? for instance, could I make a oval brige? (never will, but I'm just saying).
And one final question: I saw what I think is a classical guitar that had separate saddles for each string. I know that for intonation, it would be the best way to go, but it might draw ire from traditionalists.
Comments, tips and good word are always welcome.



kd0afk -> RE: Bridge weight (Feb. 8 2012 17:40:45)

Also, I saw a guitar made by a German maker, Short name cant remember right now, but they pierce thier bridges with a tiny lattice pattern. If you weighed one of their bridges it would probably weigh out at 10g. And they pierce the sound board and all.
The question lends itself to acoustics always. What would this do to the sound of the guitar?
If a person were to pierce just the bridge in this fashion it would lighten it but would it harm it? Also as a side note, could a person taper the bridge from the tie block to about 1mm at the tips?



keith -> RE: Bridge weight (Feb. 11 2012 16:55:35)

i should preface this comment/question by stating i am not a luthier. the idea brought up by kd0afk about a lattice bridge got me thinking--could one lighten the bridge by removing wood from the underneath of the wings--maybe drill small holes throughout or would that reduce the surface area for energy to be transferred to the top? what about thinning the wings? per brune's idea, i wonder if a wood like zircote or bocte, both attrative enought for a bridge, would work? lastly would dalbergia stevensonii, honduras rosewood, be a better wood given it used to make xylophones and marimbas?



Sean -> RE: Bridge weight (Feb. 11 2012 17:38:08)

Be nice to see a pic.
If the bridge uses carbon fiber and epoxy count me out, I'm not a fan of epoxy on a soundboard. Drilling holes in the underside of the bridge would decrease the gluing surface and possibly make the bridge too flexible. I think flat thin wings make a lot of sense for a lattice braced top guitar where a stiffer, heavier more traditional bridge would be unnecessary. The bridge itself is the most important brace on the top its weight and stiffness have a huge impact on the way the guitar reacts and sounds. I've used Ziricote once it pings nicely but it is heavier then EIR, I made the wings thinner then usual which didn't seem to be a problem as it was a lot stiffer then EIR. Ziricote I think straddles the line of usable/unusable depending on the makers bridge design and density of the piece they may find themselves unable to get the bridge to a usable weight.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET