I suggest that the bridge is the way it is largely because it is known to work. By using what is tried and true, one eliminates/reduces the risk of failure.
For most designs, the bridge is the largest, stiffest brace in the central area of the guitar top. That stiffness could be achieved by other means than a large, heavy bridge.
Theory suggests that the response of the instrument is related to stiffness and mass. Typical bridge design offers one range of combinations of those two variables. One could create a new bridge design with a new balance of stiffness and mass, though the resulting response is unknown.
As I've reported before, in the late 1970's Charles Fox made a guitar with 6 small, individual bridges, one per string, one per bridge pin. He told me that he found the sound lacking sympathetic resonance.
Kasha/Schneider went the other way, with a much larger bridge in which one half was tall and narrow (stiff/low mass) and one half low and wide (low stiffness/higher mass), split in the middle to allow independence of each half. Back in the day, a fair bit of work to make that style of bridge, though it looks "modern" and interesting. (With today's CNC machines, the added work to make the bridge is, for many, irrelevant.) I've changed too many variables to say what result the bridge, itself, has on the mix.
|