[devellis]

I'll defer to others who say that slotting the bridge improves tone but I'll confess t not understanding how this works. The string is stopped at the saddle, which is the primary point of vibrational transfer from the string to the top. I wouldn't expect the short length of string between the saddle and the bottom of the bridge to convey much energy to the top in comparison to the portion between the nut and saddle. Also, at least a portion of any vibrations propagating past the saddle along the short string length should get captured, I would have thought, by the contact between the bridge plate and the ball end. So, only what little energy is dissipated by the bridge pin should be lost (in my primitive and perhaps inaccurate model of how this all works).

I understand the argument that slotted pins can contribute to bridge plate erosion and I can imagine a bit more clearly how that might impact tone (if for no other reason than removing mass from a top "brace"). I also note that the most enthusiastic supporters of unslotted pins are people who frequently work on vintage guitars where bridge plates may have gotten pretty chewed up by poorly seated ball ends and insufficiently rigid plastic pins. Also, I have negligible first-hand experience with any of this and, as I said, defer to those who have tons of experience. But it would help if someone could explain how this all works and why my reasoning about the small impact on tone of the string beyond the saddle (on the short end) is incorrect.

I don't really see any downside to slotting the bridge and using unslotted pins. I'm just having a hard time understanding the downside of slotted pins when ball ends are seated properly and rigid pins are used.