Bridges and compensation for bases?? (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
- - - Bridges and compensation for bases??: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=87706



Message

Ramón -> Bridges and compensation for bases?? (Mar. 13 2008 4:33:54)

I just had an interesting talk with my neighbor, classical guitarist Randy Pile. I was looking at his newer Little Pepe Romero brazilian classical, his 65' Rodriguez classical, and another builder's classical... We started talking about bridges, and Yuris Zeltzin had explained to him that bridges should be compensated for the thickness of the base strings, and the bridge is therefore NOT square from the top's glueup line, but set long for the bases - or set square, and the bridge-slot is cut at an angle to give more length on the bases...

Okay. This one is new to me......... I see Blackshear's plans and he talks about a "2mm comensation at the nut", but I assumed it was overall, but perhaps it wasn't clarified? Was he compensating at the nut and not the bridge?

The Romero is straight, no compensation; 655 across. The Rodriguez HAS 2mm compensation for the bases (657 base E, 655 treble E), and the other's was actually 1mm longer on the trebles (mistake? Newer builder... Don't know..)

I'd assumed Blackshear's "2mm compensation" was overall, but was I mistaken?

What are you guys doing? Tom, Anders, Pers, etc..?



TANúñez -> RE: Bridges and compensation for bases?? (Mar. 13 2008 5:44:48)

All I do is mark where the saddle would be if it were place exactly at half the scale length, then bump it back about 2mm's. I glue my bridge so that the saddle will be at this location.

I was looking over Blackshears plan and don't see any mention of 2mm compensation at the nut. He mentions that the nut should have a 2mm lift from a staightline.

I don't agree with Zeltzin's theory. I understand what he's talking about though. Most makers just slant the saddle and not the bridge. This would achieve the same thing. IMO. A classical or flamenco guitar would look strange with a slightly slanted bridge. I've seen them but don't like them.

Maybe he's right and my way is wrong but so far, I haven't had any problems with intonation doing it my way.



Ramón -> RE: Bridges and compensation for bases?? (Mar. 13 2008 5:53:53)

Hey Tom,

Yea, you helped me with my first 'mistake' in that I ended up setting the bridge back - evenly - 2mm, as we had discussed on the phone, but then this discussion had come up, and I'd never heard about the comensation of JUST the bases, so I thought I'd post. (I don't have my Reyes plans in front of me, they're at the shop with 2 new guitars (in stages) on top of them....)

So I was curious and posted, as I'd never heard of this... And like I said, the Rodriguez IS compensated. I'll have to get a square and figure out what Miguel did to get this, but there IS 2mm more on those bases...



TANúñez -> RE: Bridges and compensation for bases?? (Mar. 13 2008 6:19:01)

Well take what I say with a grain of salt as there are MANY ways to achieve the same result. Sometimes if the saddle is angled, it can give you an optical illustion that the bridge is angle.

Who know's, perhaps Miguel did actually slant his bridge a little on the bass side. Some makers actually do this. I just don't. I don't think there is any ONE way of doing things. You do what suits your needs and what YOU feel gives you the results you want.



nhills -> RE: Bridges and compensation for bases?? (Mar. 13 2008 7:25:50)

The question of compensation for intonation correction is not that simple:

Intonation

Fortunately the low action of a flamenco means that a simplified version (moving the saddle back 2 mm or even none) may be enough. Many old Spanish makers didn't compensate at all.

Norman



Ramón -> RE: Bridges and compensation for bases?? (Mar. 12 2008 23:42:30)

Ohhhhh! I seeeeeee..... Thanks!

Well, I'm off... I have some unfinished work at JPL on a new fuel delivery system for trans-ionespheric commerical flight applications.... [8|]

But seriously, I'd never noticed this until I saw a classical brdige that 'looked a bit off'.... But had never seen that in any Spanish flamenco. Nor read anything about it in the Guitar Building books...

(I'm actually reading the article. Even better - I understand most of it! lol)



Anders Eliasson -> RE: Bridges and compensation for bases?? (Mar. 13 2008 8:26:47)

String compensation is VERY important. On a Flamenco I Compensate 1,5 to 2mm on the bass and 1mm less on trebles. I do this by slanting the saddle.
In general I prefer compensating the last tenth on the saddle bone itself. The reason is that if you compensate to much on the bridge position the guitar will be out of tune and nothing can be done, it´l tune flat. Compensating a little less wil always give you place for fine adjustment on the saddle bone.
String compensation depends on strings, brands and especially thickness of the strings, so a guitar will tune different with different strings. The reason we compensate is mainly because the string is "stiffer" right after passing the saddle from the tieblock. This explains why thicker string should have more compensation.
I had a Bellido in the workshop without compensation and it was impossible to tune it. A new saddle slot had to be made.



Ramón -> RE: Bridges and compensation for bases?? (Mar. 13 2008 12:21:36)

Interesting... I have truly never seen, heard, nor noticed this on a guitar. Yes, steel string acoustic, and I've seen some ideas about super-adjustable bridges, where every string had it's own saddle that could be individually adjusted...

Hmmmm....Looking at your website pics, Anders. Looks like the Conde-ish orange finish is noticeably compensated in the bone-slot, yes?

I'm kind of blown away... I've never seen nor read this on plans - nor in guitar making books. I set my saddle back 2mm overall- even, and the tone is outstanding - or so I'm told. What would change with only the bases compensated??

Which begs a question; Why don't we make 2, ½-length slots? 1 side for base, set slightly back, like this. Would this be easier? Or just something that 'breaks tradition' and would not be accepted?

Or does the slight taper account for the string's diameters more evenly??

Just curious....

Anders; have you ever NOT compensated so, and what were the results?

Thanks all!



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



Anders Eliasson -> RE: Bridges and compensation for bases?? (Mar. 14 2008 6:38:31)

quote:

Anders; have you ever NOT compensated so, and what were the results?


Nope, and I will ever no never not be not compensating.

To be honest I´m not totally sure about what you mean. Compensating normally means putting the bridge some 1 - 2mm back. Are you talking about that or about slanting the bone?

I will always place the bridge some 1 - 2mm behind the actuel scale length.
I have made equal compensation bridges (no slanting of the bone and its ok, I just find that a little slant makes final tuning easyer. Besides I find that 2mm is to much for the 1st string it normally pitches high with so much compensating

The one on your drawing is not a good idea. The 3rd string normally needs to be compensated more than the 4th string. That is if its nylon. If its composite like Savarez Alianza trebles, it needs a little less compensating because its thinner. Same goes with wound 3rd strings.



Ramón -> RE: Bridges and compensation for bases?? (Mar. 14 2008 13:04:13)

Hi Anders,

Okay. Here is what I mean. My Reyes plans say to "set the neck forward 2mm to compensate". The luthier I work for told me that Reyes seems to comensate at the head nut, not the bridge. I did not do this on #1, so Tom (La Falseta) said to "set the bridge back 2mm", and it worked out just fine.

What I was 'discovering', was an angled bridge - or saddle nut on some guitars - mostly classical, but.... This is what threw me! And it appears that you (Anders) angle the bridge bone-slot, also? Is this correct?

So total compensation would be 1-2mm behind the scale length, and then add 1mm with the angle of the bone??

I drew this to help....



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




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