Pin bridge vs Pinless

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

The string breaks forward as it emerges from the bridge . This creates a downward force at that place . This also happens with a pin bridge . What does not happen is the upward force on the bridge itself that is trying to pull the bridge from the top via the pins with a pin bridge .

Have you ever pulled out a bridge pin while the strings are at full tension?

Are you getting it ?

Sorry, not really.

As I understand it, bridge pins don't pull upwards on a bridge, particularly those with a taper that expands in the direction of the supposed developed force.

As I understand it, the primary purpose of a bridge pin is to displace the ball end of the string, keeping the ball end of the string resting against the bridge plate, which then takes the load.

Originally Posted by Otterhound

With what I am doing , you can actually increase break angle by using a thicker piece of Lexan .

Now you've completely lost me.

[Otterhound]

Originally Posted by Tony Done

They're a deal breaker for me on steel string guitars. I don't like the idea of all that string tension hanging off a glue joint, even with bolts I wouldn't like it.

Ponder this .
What are your pins anchored to ?
With a pin bridge , you not only have basic string tension and torsional load at the saddle , but you also have a load upwards on the rear of the bridge caused by the pins being anchored to the bridge . Yes , those pesky strings are pulling upwards on those pins . Do you really believe that those pins are held in place by a thin piece of spruce or a just as thin piece of bridge plate ? They are held in place by the bridge . What are you reaming when you set the pins in place ?

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

Ponder this .
What are your pins anchored to ?
With a pin bridge , you not only have basic string tension and torsional load at the saddle , but you also have a load upwards on the rear of the bridge caused by the pins being anchored to the bridge . Yes , those pesky strings are pulling upwards on those pins . Do you really believe that those pins are held in place by a thin piece of spruce or a just as thin piece of bridge plate ? They are held in place by the bridge . What are you reaming when you set the pins in place ?

I think the force of the ball end pushing the pin BACK is greater than the string pulling the pin UP, unless the fitment of the pin was so tight. Because even if you have a pin that was so loose that you could twist it in the pin hole, it and the string would not pop out no matter how much tension you put on the string. Of course if the pin is too loose then the ball end will cause some damage to the bridge plate. In fact, before I started splurging on bridge pins, I used to make my own with hardwood dowels and zero taper. I would notch the bridge pin holes just a hair deeper than each string's thickness. I think most folks that notch the bridge would testify that they can actually pull the pin out, and the string will still remain in place, at full pitch. You couldn't play all day that way of course... But I even made a bridge once with keyholes to hold each string.

[Quickstep192]

So, what about tone?

Does the fact that the ball ends of a pinned bridge rest on the bridge plate make a difference in tone?

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Quickstep192

So, what about tone?

Does the fact that the ball ends of a pinned bridge rest on the bridge plate make a difference in tone?

I don't know. But my best guess is probably not. It's not, and shouldn't be, moving, other than the fact that it is moving in concert with everything else moving. It would only affect tone in my view as far as they add mass to the whole bridge/pin system. But it's almost like adding a hubcap to a steel wheel and asking if it affects the ride of the car...

Of course, if the ball end was not fully seated, causing it to buzz against the pin or bridge plate, that's another story...

[Otterhound]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

I think the force of the ball end pushing the pin BACK is greater than the string pulling the pin UP, unless the fitment of the pin was so tight. Because even if you have a pin that was so loose that you could twist it in the pin hole, it and the string would not pop out no matter how much tension you put on the string. Of course if the pin is too loose then the ball end will cause some damage to the bridge plate. In fact, before I started splurging on bridge pins, I used to make my own with hardwood dowels and zero taper. I would notch the bridge pin holes just a hair deeper than each string's thickness. I think most folks that notch the bridge would testify that they can actually pull the pin out, and the string will still remain in place, at full pitch. You couldn't play all day that way of course... But I even made a bridge once with keyholes to hold each string.

Even if it was 100 times greater , it is still pulling upwards
Talk is just talk . The proof is in how it works . Lexan is relatively expensive . Give this a try and then you will have evidence .

[hat]

Some of this discussion calls to my mind the more recent Yairi bridges, in which the string anchor is separated from the saddle, thus breaking the tie in between the string angle torque and the string anchor. I'm not sure how that factors in, but an interesting discussion none the less.

[murrmac123]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

I believe Murray has such a product. ...

Had , Louie ... had such a product. I sold plenty, and I never had any complaints, but I no longer have any interest in promoting new ideas which clash with established and entrenched viewpoints.

The ebay listing has long been cancelled but can still be viewed Here

FWIW this is how I string all my own guitars. Massive improvement in tuning stability IMO.

[Alan Carruth]

I'm not seeing any real difference in the way the bridge is loaded with this system as compared with pins. As has been pointed out, pins are simply toggles to keep the knot/ball end of the string in place. With slotted holes you can remove the pins once the strings are up to tension. If there is a change in the tone in that case it's due to the open pin holes, which you can easily confirm with a piece of masking tape.

fazool wrote:
:The only thing I've heard that might make sense is that a pinned bridge can achieve greater break angle behind the saddle and, thus, better downward force which can affect the guitars output."

So long as there's 'enough' down force on the saddle top all of the string signal is transmitted to the bridge, if the experiments I've done are correct. It's not entirely clear how much is 'enough', but IMO it's not nearly as much as many people think it needs to be. I'd say something on the order of 12-15 degrees is 'enough'. Anything more just puts unnecessary tipping force on the saddle, which tends to distort or break out the front of the slot.

[Ned Milburn]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

Ponder this .
What are your pins anchored to ?
With a pin bridge , you not only have basic string tension and torsional load at the saddle , but you also have a load upwards on the rear of the bridge caused by the pins being anchored to the bridge . Yes , those pesky strings are pulling upwards on those pins . Do you really believe that those pins are held in place by a thin piece of spruce or a just as thin piece of bridge plate ? They are held in place by the bridge . What are you reaming when you set the pins in place ?

I am with Charles, above... A little bit lost with your logic...

A pinned or pinless bridge has a rotational twisting force being placed on it. Logic would suggest there is more shear force on a pinless bridge. But both bridge types have a rotational force trying to "lift" the rear of the bridge as the front edge of the bridge compresses in toward the soundboard and body cavity.

Bridge pins are sometimes pulled upward by strings due to anchoring issues, but this doesn't translate into bridge pins pulling the bridge upward. That is flawed logic.

And yes, a thin bridgeplate (and hardwood is best for pinned bridges) can serve well to prevent the balls from pulling through.

If a slotted pinned bridge system is made well, it will even hold strings WITHOUT ANY BRIDGE PINS!!! So the bridge pins do not pull/push up on the bridge.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Otterhound

Even if it was 100 times greater , it is still pulling upwards
Talk is just talk . The proof is in how it works . Lexan is relatively expensive . Give this a try and then you will have evidence .

I don't think anyone denies that the concept you speak of works; rather I raise skepticism that any of the claimed benefits outweigh the negatives.

As far as the strings pulling up on the pins, as I mentioned I see this happening only in the case that the fitment of pin to pin hole (regardless of whether the pin or pin hole was slotted) was so tight that it caused the string to jam in the hole. I see this quite a bit when a ball end is not properly seated, or possibly the pins which may have been properly fitted were mixed up. Once the ball end is seated on the bridge plate, and against the pin, the string cannot move. You can tune the string up one full step, and the string would have only stretched a little more than a sixteenth of an inch, if that, over a string length of some 28 inches or so. If you had a frictionless saddle that would equate to a "pull" of about .002" from ball end to saddle. It takes far less force to pull a bridge pin out than any supposed upward "push" of the pin by the string, yet miraculously, the pin doesn't pull out [because of string tension.]

Where I see the back of the bridge pull away from the top is on vintage, and vintage-style instruments, where the bridge plate is exactly the same footprint as the bridge. I've also seen this on quite a few import guitars with plywood tops, that were maybe left in a less-than-optimal location like by a radiator. Then when the top starts to deform, with the bridge "pivoting" from its front as the back of the bridge raises, there is a "peeling" effect much like the way one peels a sticker off its backing. You can't lift the sticker straight up, and it would take quite a bit of force to push it aside, but bend the backing and it lifts right off. With more modern bridge plate designs that extend a certain distance past the back of the bridge, it moves that bend spot away from the bridge back, helping to resist the bridge peeling off the top.

Rear-loaded pinless bridges are not always done out of just pure preference. With quite a few luthiers, it is done out of necessity to facilitate the freedom in placement of bracing, lattice bracing in particular, without having the need to worry about pin placement. In other words, pin placement does not dictate the positioning of bracing.

I'll conclude that for any "engineering" problem, there are always pros and cons that have to be weighed to the desire and needs of the individual. There is no free lunch either - one benefit or increase in function always comes at an expense, whether it is time, materials, or complexity. And efficiency and simplicity can come at the expense of inconvenience, aesthetics, or marketability. So there is no right or wrong.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Ned Milburn

If a slotted pinned bridge system is made well, it will even hold strings WITHOUT ANY BRIDGE PINS!!! So the bridge pins do not pull/push up on the bridge.

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

With slotted holes you can remove the pins once the strings are up to tension

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

I think most folks that notch the bridge would testify that they can actually pull the pin out, and the string will still remain in place, at full pitch. You couldn't play all day that way of course... But I even made a bridge once with keyholes to hold each string.

Originally Posted by Charles Tauber

Have you ever pulled out a bridge pin while the strings are at full tension?

This is one reason why I much prefer slotting the bridge pin holes to the pins themselves. In fact I'll put a bend right at the ball end of the string, in order to ensure that the ball ends seats against the bridge plate the way I'd like it.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Ned Milburn

Logic would suggest there is more shear force on a pinless bridge.

I believe Michael Greenfield uses locator pins to accurately datum the bridge location after finishing, so I would guess that the pins must help in terms of combating sheer movement in the bridge.

[Otterhound]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

I don't think anyone denies that the concept you speak of works; rather I raise skepticism that any of the claimed benefits outweigh the negatives.

As far as the strings pulling up on the pins, as I mentioned I see this happening only in the case that the fitment of pin to pin hole (regardless of whether the pin or pin hole was slotted) was so tight that it caused the string to jam in the hole. I see this quite a bit when a ball end is not properly seated, or possibly the pins which may have been properly fitted were mixed up. Once the ball end is seated on the bridge plate, and against the pin, the string cannot move. You can tune the string up one full step, and the string would have only stretched a little more than a sixteenth of an inch, if that, over a string length of some 28 inches or so. If you had a frictionless saddle that would equate to a "pull" of about .002" from ball end to saddle. It takes far less force to pull a bridge pin out than any supposed upward "push" of the pin by the string, yet miraculously, the pin doesn't pull out [because of string tension.]

Where I see the back of the bridge pull away from the top is on vintage, and vintage-style instruments, where the bridge plate is exactly the same footprint as the bridge. I've also seen this on quite a few import guitars with plywood tops, that were maybe left in a less-than-optimal location like by a radiator. Then when the top starts to deform, with the bridge "pivoting" from its front as the back of the bridge raises, there is a "peeling" effect much like the way one peels a sticker off its backing. You can't lift the sticker straight up, and it would take quite a bit of force to push it aside, but bend the backing and it lifts right off. With more modern bridge plate designs that extend a certain distance past the back of the bridge, it moves that bend spot away from the bridge back, helping to resist the bridge peeling off the top.

Rear-loaded pinless bridges are not always done out of just pure preference. With quite a few luthiers, it is done out of necessity to facilitate the freedom in placement of bracing, lattice bracing in particular, without having the need to worry about pin placement. In other words, pin placement does not dictate the positioning of bracing.

I'll conclude that for any "engineering" problem, there are always pros and cons that have to be weighed to the desire and needs of the individual. There is no free lunch either - one benefit or increase in function always comes at an expense, whether it is time, materials, or complexity. And efficiency and simplicity can come at the expense of inconvenience, aesthetics, or marketability. So there is no right or wrong.

What are the negatives ?

[Otterhound]

Originally Posted by Ned Milburn

Bridge pins are sometimes pulled upward by strings due to anchoring issues, but this doesn't translate into bridge pins pulling the bridge upward. That is flawed logic.

If bridge pins are pulling upwards because of anchoring issues , what are they anchored to ?