The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Custom Shop

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 08-04-2016, 02:03 PM
Tim McKnight's Avatar
Tim McKnight Tim McKnight is offline
AGF Sponsor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Morral, Ohio
Posts: 5,929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamski View Post
Having a thick saddle does not make a good guitar...
I agree ... Many of us have played great sounding instruments with thin saddles. Thick saddles are just another tool in the proverbial box.
__________________
tim...
www.mcknightguitars.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-04-2016, 02:13 PM
dekutree64 dekutree64 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 1,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim McKnight View Post
Isn't that the same as what I said that you quoted?

In my mind, nut compensation is only useful if you don't have enough room to intonate the saddle properly. If you run out of saddle real estate [width], to compensate an open string then you can compensate the nut to make the string even longer.
Nut compensation should always shorten the string, not lengthen it.

Here's another way to think of it... when playing a fretted note, the string stretch sharpens the pitch. So if you position the saddle to optimize all the fretted notes, then the open strings are flat by comparison. With nut compensation, you can shorten the open strings to sharpen them by the same amount that the stretch sharpens the fretted notes.

Standard compensation just adds a bunch more length to the saddle end, which flattens the fretted notes more quickly than the open notes, so it eventually fixes the discrepancy between fretted and open notes. But for reasons that I don't entirely understand, it introduces little errors here and there in the process.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-04-2016, 02:19 PM
Tim McKnight's Avatar
Tim McKnight Tim McKnight is offline
AGF Sponsor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Morral, Ohio
Posts: 5,929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dekutree64 View Post
Nut compensation should always shorten the string, not lengthen it.
I can't picture that in my mind. How does one shorten the string length, by compensating the nut, unless the nut is stepped or offset to hang over the fretboard?
__________________
tim...
www.mcknightguitars.com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-04-2016, 02:31 PM
dekutree64 dekutree64 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 1,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim McKnight View Post
I can't picture that in my mind. How does one shorten the string length, by compensating the nut, unless the nut is stepped or offset to hang over the fretboard?
That is correct. When building a new guitar, cut the board about 3/32" shorter at the nut end (reducing nut-to-1st fret distance). When retrofitting, use a nut with a shelf to hang over the fretboard end.

When retrofitting, there may not be enough room on the saddle to move the strings as far forward as they should be. But you can still get an improvement. Set the saddle as far forward as you can, and then adjust nut compensation until the 12th fret harmonic matches the 12th fret note. Then check notes all over the board and see if the error from equal temperament is any less than usual
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-04-2016, 02:31 PM
Howard Klepper Howard Klepper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Earthly Paradise of Northern California
Posts: 6,627
Default

The bridge transfers momentum from the string to the top. It does this in two motions: up and down; and rocking forward and back. Neither of these is affected by the width of the saddle.

The up and down bridge motion varies with the amplitude and direction of the transverse waves on the strings. The width of the saddle does not affect it.

The torque the string exerts on the bridge which creates the rocking motion is a function of the height of the saddle top above the guitar top, and the changes in string tension throughout the string's transverse wave cycle. The width of the saddle does not affect it.

The pressure of the string on the saddle results from the break angle, and serves to stop the string and determine its vibrating length. Saddle width has no effect here.

The downward component and the forward component of the pressure on the saddle created by the string having a break angle over it vary with the break angle, which changes with the height of the saddle and its distance from where the strings leave the bridge. The width of the saddle has no effect on this.

The downward force the string exerts on the saddle spreads outward through the saddle, so it is more dispersed where a wider saddle contacts the bridge on its bottom than it is with a narrower saddle. So, there is less pressure per unit area of the saddle bottom with a wider saddle. This will negatively affect the performance of a UST. Since the net pressure downward is unaffected by saddle width, I cannot see any way that it affects the sound of the guitar acoustically. The amount of downward pressure on the bridge and top is not affected by saddle width. Lowered pressure per unit area of the saddle bottom can't affect either the up and down or rocking motions of the bridge.

Bone has more mass than wood, so a wider saddle adds mass; most makers consider extra bridge mass to be a bad thing, but it isn't necessarily so. Unless it changes frictional damping, its effect is only to alter the time envelope of energy transfer from the string.

Contact between the string and saddle serves to stop the string's vibrating length. So long as pressure of the string against the saddle is adequate to do this, the string is stopped at the forwardmost point of contact. The remaining length of contact rearward of that point needs to be sufficient to prevent the damage to the string that would be caused by too sharp a break. Beyond that amount there is no gain from a greater contact length.

A saddle needs to be wide enough to do three things: have room for string intonation; have sufficient room behind the string's contact point to avoid a too-sharp bend; and be sufficiently rigid not to flex in any significant amount from the strings forward pressure on it.

I think the belief that a wider saddle better transfers vibration to the top stems from a mistaken conception of "sound" as some kind of fluid that flows down the string and into the bridge. One also sees this notion among those who think that the contact area of a neck joint helps the sound "flow" between neck and body. On this view, the saddle is like the neck of a bottle that would restrict flow if it is narrow. This conception is mistaken, since almost all string vibration (and probably all string vibration significant to a guitar's character) is transverse.

There is a component of vibration in the string that actually does fit this concept of a energy flow internal to the string and saddle that I have left for last: longitudinal waves that are internal to the string. These are compression and rarefaction of the atoms in the string. Sound in air is longitudinal waves, and they are pretty much the whole ball of wax in wind instruments. They have been little studied in stringed instruments, and most texts on acoustics do not even mention them with regard to strings. In the 1940's they were discovered to be an audible component of sound in pianos, and named "clang" tones. While they are no doubt present in vibrating guitar strings (in fact they are the form in which all the potential energy in a vibrating string is stored), there appear to be no studies that show they are audible in a guitar. They also are enharmonic (not integer multiples of the fundamental) so even if they are perceptible it would be as high frequency noise. There has been no work done on how they might transfer from a string to the saddle. At this point any question of how the width of a bone saddle might affect their perception (when we don't even know if they are perceived) is empty conjecture.

I want to point out that Adamski's argument is an example of the "genetic fallacy." It looks to who uses wide saddles as evidence of their benefit, without any causal explanation. If Ervin had decided it benefited a guitar to have a clown face carved in its headstock, and all his disciples followed him in that, they would still be building good guitars. But we would probably not be discussing whether the clown face contributes to that quality, and offering the argument that this is shown by all the great guitars made by builders who use it, and the lack of crappy guitars that have this feature.

I'm not gonna do nut compensation here. I've discussed it at length in other threads in the past. In this thread it is off topic.
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
--Paul Simon
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-04-2016, 02:47 PM
dekutree64 dekutree64 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 1,263
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
There is a component of vibration in the string that actually does fit this concept of a energy flow internal to the string and saddle that I have left for last: longitudinal waves that are internal to the string. These are compression and rarefaction of the atoms in the string. Sound in air is longitudinal waves, and they are pretty much the whole ball of wax in wind instruments. They have been little studied in stringed instruments, and most texts on acoustics do not even mention them with regard to strings. In the 1940's they were discovered to be an audible component of sound in pianos, and named "clang" tones. While they are no doubt present in vibrating guitar strings (in fact they are the form in which all the potential energy in a vibrating string is stored), there appear to be no studies that show they are audible in a guitar. They also are enharmonic (not integer multiples of the fundamental) so even if they are perceptible it would be as high frequency noise. There has been no work done on how they might transfer from a string to the saddle. At this point any question of how the width of a bone saddle might affect their perception (when we don't even know if they are perceived) is empty conjecture.
What about Ralph Novak? Wasn't that the basis for his patenting "fan frets"? The clang tone depends on string length and material only, not the diameter. So on a typical guitar, all the strings have equal clang tone and it adds up. But fanning the frets makes each string different length and thus different frequency clang so it's not as loud

I suspect it affects over-amped electrics a lot more than it does acoustics. I've never heard anything I could attribute to the clang tone, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-04-2016, 03:25 PM
Howard Klepper Howard Klepper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Earthly Paradise of Northern California
Posts: 6,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dekutree64 View Post
What about Ralph Novak? Wasn't that the basis for his patenting "fan frets"? The clang tone depends on string length and material only, not the diameter. So on a typical guitar, all the strings have equal clang tone and it adds up. But fanning the frets makes each string different length and thus different frequency clang so it's not as loud

I suspect it affects over-amped electrics a lot more than it does acoustics. I've never heard anything I could attribute to the clang tone, anyway.
Ralph speculated that clang tones were part of the difference in timbre between scale lengths. I'm not aware that he reliably measured them or showed that they are audible. And I think it had little or nothing to do with his patent.

It's not the case that clang tones are equally present on guitars and pianos, or on all the strings of a guitar. There are two types of longitudinal waves in strings: free resonance, where the frequency is determined by the material (the speed of sound in it) and length alone (but note that this only determines frequency and not amplitude; piano strings are much thicker and in the bass much more massive than guitar strings. They also are excited by hammering, which some think is why their clang tones are audible.); and induced, which have a non-linear (quadratic) mathematical relationship to the transverse wave frequency. If you want to geek out a bit on it, try this (an experiment on pianos that basically supported previous theory on longitudinal wave frequency): http://scholarship.rollins.edu/cgi/v...ntext=stud_fac.
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
--Paul Simon

Last edited by Howard Klepper; 08-04-2016 at 03:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-04-2016, 04:17 PM
maurerfan maurerfan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 350
Default

You may argue that a guitar you played with a thin saddle was better than any of these...but nobody would argue that these form a role call of some of the finest instruments available.

I dunno ... "better than" and "role call of the finest" both being subjective, I'm not sure what is being asserted here. I do have several very fine vintage Martins with skinny saddles that have 0 problems in the tone department, so I guess I'll take a pass on the fat saddle thing.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-04-2016, 04:43 PM
jessupe jessupe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Marin Co.Ca.
Posts: 721
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
The bridge transfers momentum from the string to the top. It does this in two motions: up and down; and rocking forward and back. Neither of these is affected by the width of the saddle.

The up and down bridge motion varies with the amplitude and direction of the transverse waves on the strings. The width of the saddle does not affect it.

The torque the string exerts on the bridge which creates the rocking motion is a function of the height of the saddle top above the guitar top, and the changes in string tension throughout the string's transverse wave cycle. The width of the saddle does not affect it.

The pressure of the string on the saddle results from the break angle, and serves to stop the string and determine its vibrating length. Saddle width has no effect here.

The downward component and the forward component of the pressure on the saddle created by the string having a break angle over it vary with the break angle, which changes with the height of the saddle and its distance from where the strings leave the bridge. The width of the saddle has no effect on this.

The downward force the string exerts on the saddle spreads outward through the saddle, so it is more dispersed where a wider saddle contacts the bridge on its bottom than it is with a narrower saddle. So, there is less pressure per unit area of the saddle bottom with a wider saddle. This will negatively affect the performance of a UST. Since the net pressure downward is unaffected by saddle width, I cannot see any way that it affects the sound of the guitar acoustically. The amount of downward pressure on the bridge and top is not affected by saddle width. Lowered pressure per unit area of the saddle bottom can't affect either the up and down or rocking motions of the bridge.

Bone has more mass than wood, so a wider saddle adds mass; most makers consider extra bridge mass to be a bad thing, but it isn't necessarily so. Unless it changes frictional damping, its effect is only to alter the time envelope of energy transfer from the string.

Contact between the string and saddle serves to stop the string's vibrating length. So long as pressure of the string against the saddle is adequate to do this, the string is stopped at the forwardmost point of contact. The remaining length of contact rearward of that point needs to be sufficient to prevent the damage to the string that would be caused by too sharp a break. Beyond that amount there is no gain from a greater contact length.

A saddle needs to be wide enough to do three things: have room for string intonation; have sufficient room behind the string's contact point to avoid a too-sharp bend; and be sufficiently rigid not to flex in any significant amount from the strings forward pressure on it.

I think the belief that a wider saddle better transfers vibration to the top stems from a mistaken conception of "sound" as some kind of fluid that flows down the string and into the bridge. One also sees this notion among those who think that the contact area of a neck joint helps the sound "flow" between neck and body. On this view, the saddle is like the neck of a bottle that would restrict flow if it is narrow. This conception is mistaken, since almost all string vibration (and probably all string vibration significant to a guitar's character) is transverse.

There is a component of vibration in the string that actually does fit this concept of a energy flow internal to the string and saddle that I have left for last: longitudinal waves that are internal to the string. These are compression and rarefaction of the atoms in the string. Sound in air is longitudinal waves, and they are pretty much the whole ball of wax in wind instruments. They have been little studied in stringed instruments, and most texts on acoustics do not even mention them with regard to strings. In the 1940's they were discovered to be an audible component of sound in pianos, and named "clang" tones. While they are no doubt present in vibrating guitar strings (in fact they are the form in which all the potential energy in a vibrating string is stored), there appear to be no studies that show they are audible in a guitar. They also are enharmonic (not integer multiples of the fundamental) so even if they are perceptible it would be as high frequency noise. There has been no work done on how they might transfer from a string to the saddle. At this point any question of how the width of a bone saddle might affect their perception (when we don't even know if they are perceived) is empty conjecture.

I want to point out that Adamski's argument is an example of the "genetic fallacy." It looks to who uses wide saddles as evidence of their benefit, without any causal explanation. If Ervin had decided it benefited a guitar to have a clown face carved in its headstock, and all his disciples followed him in that, they would still be building good guitars. But we would probably not be discussing whether the clown face contributes to that quality, and offering the argument that this is shown by all the great guitars made by builders who use it, and the lack of crappy guitars that have this feature.

I'm not gonna do nut compensation here. I've discussed it at length in other threads in the past. In this thread it is off topic.
I agree that additional mass would be the only beneficial thing, aside from more room the compensate, if it is needed. My guitars generally benefit from additional mass but I will generally try to get that with the bridge material and design. My tops being carved arches distribute load differently and or the path of the load and where it "pools" is slightly different from a flat flattop. My graduations, and or thickness can have areas that are thicker than a standard flat top and therefore may benefit from more mass. The load on the arch makes it so more force is loaded into the plate itself whereas the flat flattop rely's on the braces to carry the load. I make braces that are made from balsa and in the right dimensions are very complementary to assisting the load on the plate and allows for maximum range of motion.

All of this is very dependent on all the other factors related to all the other materials that the guitar is made from. What may work for one guitar doesn't for another, I agree that it doesn't make a guitar better or worse, just another way of doing it.

Of course all this assumes you have the clown, because we all know it's the clown that's the "secret"
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-04-2016, 06:26 PM
jkostal jkostal is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Queen Creek, AZ
Posts: 104
Default

I have been using a wide saddle for about 8 years now, ever since I began my apprenticeship with Ervin, and try not to do anything on my guitars just because Ervin did it. Everything we do has a reason and purpose, and what works for one person may not be right for another.

As Howard pointed out, the overall affect on the tonality of the guitar is minimal at best with a wide saddle, and really isn't hugely necessary for intonation in standard tuning either. The main reason that I use it is that many of my clients do not play in standard tuning. They play in a multitude of alternate tunings, some ranging as low as B on the sixth string. Given the notes that the client uses most regularly, many have asked me to intonate the guitar for their most used tuning as opposed to standard. You see this most with players that stay primarily in DADGAD or such, but I also do it for C and B based tunings where the low and high strings are all over the map in terms of note separation. The result for me is that the standard orientation of a saddle with a thin saddle does not allow me to intonate all of the strings properly, with some either needing to move forward or back from the normal crown point provided by a standard thin saddle. Having the wider saddle gives me a bit more room, almost like a tunamatic bridge, and also allows me to create different saddles, with different intonation points for separate tunings without having to change the orientation or location of the saddle. This is the main reason that I use this method. It can be problematic, as Howard pointed out, with some under saddle pickups, but there are ways to overcome this.

The other benefit is that the normal method of intonating a standard thin saddle, as I was taught, was to essentially shape the profile of the saddle, and them locate the saddle so that the High E and Low E intonate and account for compensation, and everything else will fall into place within a margin of error that is acceptable to us, and doesn't sound too sharp or flat. Different people hear to different degrees though. My understanding is that most people hear within 6 cents of perfect pitch and that anything within that margin will sound good to most people, but I have also had people whose hearing is much more refined than that and having that level of difference can be hard for them to accept. The wider saddle allows me to intonate each string individually, using a strobe and a variation on some of the mathematical formulas out there to determine location based on how sharp or flat the note is. I can then move the crown point by filing it until the string intonates on a strobe within 1-2 cents.

These are the two main reasons I use this saddle.

Jason
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-04-2016, 07:24 PM
Howard Klepper Howard Klepper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Earthly Paradise of Northern California
Posts: 6,627
Default

Having clients who tune over a pitch range from B to E may well require interchangeable, wider saddles. Thanks, Jason, for pointing that out.

While many people may set the E strings to a tuning meter and then do the others by pattern (which can be very accurate if the builder is experienced with the strings and scale being used), there is enough room on a standard saddle (I like to go a bit wider than 3/32." My usual is 7/64", but now that I have a source of saddle blanks that come a bit wider I sometimes use 1/8") to set each string individually if the angle of the whole saddle is right.
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
--Paul Simon
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-04-2016, 08:39 PM
riverrummed riverrummed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,218
Default

My reason for asking the original question was curiosity as to how one would go about seriously fine tuning the intonation on an existing production guitar? Intonation would be the primary attribute I would want addressed but any additional benefits, if they could be had, would be a bonus from whatever method is chosen over others possible. Joe Satriani had a Gibson J-50 that has some work done on it that had two separate saddles, one for the B and high E strings and another for the remaining four (a la Takamine guitars). But I think this required removing the existing bridge and mounting an altogether new one to accommodate this approach. It just strikes me that, assuming there is room in an existing bridge, the wider saddle approach makes time and money sense. What Bruce said about existing technicians I am finding to be the case (especially living where I do) and I wanted to investigate possibilities in the event I want to pursue this issue. The guitar I have in mind most probably has fret issues and maybe other issues that can be addressed that will bring the guitar around, but the wide saddle thing was something I noticed in looking at the Tom Sands post in the forum and it spawned the question. I tell you what though, reading the many different approaches for dealing with these kinds of issues gives me a deep appreciation for the thought processes you guys go through on just this one aspect of building a guitar. And when I think of all the various parts that have to work together to achieve whatever level of tone you guys seek in your builds I am humbled. Thanks to all of you for weighing in. Wish I were a monetarily rich man; there'd be no room to live as the guitars I would get from you guys would take up all the space!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-04-2016, 11:01 PM
jessupe jessupe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Marin Co.Ca.
Posts: 721
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkostal View Post
I have been using a wide saddle for about 8 years now, ever since I began my apprenticeship with Ervin, and try not to do anything on my guitars just because Ervin did it. Everything we do has a reason and purpose, and what works for one person may not be right for another.

As Howard pointed out, the overall affect on the tonality of the guitar is minimal at best with a wide saddle, and really isn't hugely necessary for intonation in standard tuning either. The main reason that I use it is that many of my clients do not play in standard tuning. They play in a multitude of alternate tunings, some ranging as low as B on the sixth string. Given the notes that the client uses most regularly, many have asked me to intonate the guitar for their most used tuning as opposed to standard. You see this most with players that stay primarily in DADGAD or such, but I also do it for C and B based tunings where the low and high strings are all over the map in terms of note separation. The result for me is that the standard orientation of a saddle with a thin saddle does not allow me to intonate all of the strings properly, with some either needing to move forward or back from the normal crown point provided by a standard thin saddle. Having the wider saddle gives me a bit more room, almost like a tunamatic bridge, and also allows me to create different saddles, with different intonation points for separate tunings without having to change the orientation or location of the saddle. This is the main reason that I use this method. It can be problematic, as Howard pointed out, with some under saddle pickups, but there are ways to overcome this.

The other benefit is that the normal method of intonating a standard thin saddle, as I was taught, was to essentially shape the profile of the saddle, and them locate the saddle so that the High E and Low E intonate and account for compensation, and everything else will fall into place within a margin of error that is acceptable to us, and doesn't sound too sharp or flat. Different people hear to different degrees though. My understanding is that most people hear within 6 cents of perfect pitch and that anything within that margin will sound good to most people, but I have also had people whose hearing is much more refined than that and having that level of difference can be hard for them to accept. The wider saddle allows me to intonate each string individually, using a strobe and a variation on some of the mathematical formulas out there to determine location based on how sharp or flat the note is. I can then move the crown point by filing it until the string intonates on a strobe within 1-2 cents.

These are the two main reasons I use this saddle.

Jason
Good point, I am also finding fewer and fewer people using standard tuning, or perhaps more and more people using lower alternates.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-05-2016, 08:33 AM
Larry Pattis's Avatar
Larry Pattis Larry Pattis is offline
Humanist
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,947
Default

A side note (no pun) on the 3/16" and 1/4" saddles of the world.

Installation of a standard flat/hard UST is somewhat problematic with this arrangement. One can try to shim or rout, but the end result will be (IMO) less than optimal in regards to overall saddle/pick-up/wood contact, etc.

OTOH, the wider saddles are quite-perfect for a good and proper installation of the coaxial-cable pick-ups, such as the Highlander IP-1.

I've been using the IP-1 exclusively for nearly a decade, now.

When properly installed, the coaxial cable is partially buried in a channel (routed) that runs down the center of the saddle slot (slightly to the front side, actually...not the exact center). The cable is then compressed by the saddle, and the bottom of the saddle makes full-contact with the front and back ledges of the slot. The routed channel is deep enough that the cable does not compress fully, i.e., the saddle does not pivot on the cable...it simply compresses it, and then rests on the ledges.

Installation of the routed channel (depth!) is crucial, of course.

The wider slot creates more wood "ledge" for the saddle to make contact with.

It's a perfect arrangement.

If one simply uses a microphone or a SBT, well, this is a moot point...but there are indeed plenty of good reasons presented in this thread as to why many of us like the wider saddle.

I prefer the wider saddle, regardless...but the pick-up thing is worth noting.
__________________
Larry Pattis on Spotify and Pandora
LarryPattis.com
American Guitar Masters
100 Greatest Acoustic Guitarists

Steel-string guitars by Rebecca Urlacher and Simon Fay
Classical guitars by Anders Sterner

Last edited by Larry Pattis; 08-05-2016 at 08:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-05-2016, 09:07 PM
D.Kwasnycia D.Kwasnycia is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chatham Ontario Canada
Posts: 1,401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim McKnight View Post
Perhaps it would work but cutting the saddle and saddle slot may prove difficult.





I measured mine and I have 11/64" of wood, measured in line with the small e string. This is the thickness of bridge wood, measured between the front leading edge of the bridge and the front edge of the saddle slot. I have never had a bridge crack or fail to date so it seems to be about right.






None that I have found thus far. I have routed a shallow slot, under the centerline of the saddle, to accept the piezo transducer ribbon, on a couple occasions.
Hey Tim, I haven't yet had to install a under saddle pickup yet on the wider saddles either, But now that has changed and Im about to do one and see that you have cut a slot in the centre line of the saddle slot, How deep did you go, half the depth of the piezo transducer or just shy of the full depth? I have thought about this for a while and not liking the idea of the wider saddle and not having the full contact it should have. It's a bit of a step backwards in my mind, but really no other way to do it.
__________________
Dennis,
www.kwasnyciaguitars.com
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Custom Shop

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=