Musings on a wider saddle a la Somogyi

[riverrummed]

I decided to post this question here instead of the general discussion section as I figure most here have given this some thought at one time or another. But I was looking at the recent post of Tom Sands guitars, which took me on to Somogyi guitars. If one had a guitar with intonation problems why isn't it more common to route the saddle slot wider and go with a wider saddle (a la Somogyi and Sands) to buy some more room to compensate the problematic strings? This pre-supposes that there is room to do it without getting too close to the bridge pin holes or too close to the bridge edge. I can't come up with underlying structural issues with the bridge plate or soundboard but I figure I'm not taking something into consideration. Anyone?

[Tim McKnight]

Because it would require moving the [existing] bridge closer to the sound hole to maintain the same wood thickness in front of the saddle. If you routed a wider slot, in an existing bridge, it could make the [thinner] leading edge more prone to [crack] failure if you maintained the existing saddle centerline. I have used a wide saddle for over 10 years, since studying with Ervin. I rout the saddle slot a tad further back, in the bridge, to provide enough "meat" in the wood, in front of the bridge, to be structurally strong enough to prevent wood failure.

Another benefit the wider saddle has, besides more room for intonation adjustment, is a wider foot print of pressure on the bridge into the top. Theoretically this could spread the string pressure / downward force over a wider surface area. Consider the analogy or effect of tossing a boulder into a pond verses the impact a pebble would produce. Ervin suspects a wider saddle may have an impact on tone though its difficult to prove.

[riverrummed]

I've seen some guitars with quite a bit of wood in front of the saddle slot (belly up bridges come to mind) that I think would probably allow for at least an eighth of an inch more saddle in front. And too, I can't see why a more isosceles triangular shape saddle wouldn't function OK to account for the high E string usually being so close to the leading edge of the bridge. What do you consider the minimum amount of bridge wood you would want left in front of the leading edge? I definitely get the wider footprint of pressure benefit. I suspect there aren't a lot of under saddle transducer type pick ups used with these kinds of saddles!

[Bruce Sexauer]

On the other side of the coin, there is no reason why a 3/32" saddle cannot be intonated properly if it is placed in exactly the right spot and the guitar is maintained in optimal playing condition.

Bone weighs more than the wood it displaces.

Making the bridge larger to facilitate a larger saddle adds to the weight of driven mass.

An increased footprint of the saddle itself in the bridge increases the likelihood of a poor fit.

A greater margin of error is possible for poor intonation in the real world given the apparent dearth of Un-enlightened technicians.

And two for the first side of the coin:

A wider saddle can be closer to the front edge of the bridge than a narrow one because it's larger foot print means it is less reliant on the bridge for its stability.

Also, the intonation issue is rarely that the saddle needs to be closer to the FB, but rather that it does not extend far enough away.

[Tim McKnight]

Originally Posted by riverrummed

And too, I can't see why a more isosceles triangular shape saddle wouldn't function OK to account for the high E string usually being so close to the leading edge of the bridge.

Perhaps it would work but cutting the saddle and saddle slot may prove difficult.

Originally Posted by riverrummed

What do you consider the minimum amount of bridge wood you would want left in front of the leading edge?

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.

Originally Posted by riverrummed

I suspect there aren't a lot of under saddle transducer type pick ups used with these kinds of saddles!

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.

[Glenn23]

The wider saddle also allows the break angle to have a larger radius on the pin side, providing a longer string to bone interface, a la Somoygi.

[mc1]

could a saddle that is shaped like a T or fret or mushroom (when the saddle is viewed end on) work?

it would be narrow on the bottom, where it goes into the slot, then wider above the bridge to allow for better intonation.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by Glenn23

The wider saddle also allows the break angle to have a larger radius on the pin side, providing a longer string to bone interface, a la Somoygi.

I agree, but I'm not convinced this is necessarily/always a good thing.

I have one guitar with a full 1/4" saddle width. Intonating the saddle wasn't a problem for the luthier, and there is a large amount of string to saddle contact.

I've had another luthier built guitar in the past where the luthier intentionally minimized, to the extent practical, the string to saddle contact surface. I believe his reasoning was for the purpose of clarity.

I'd say my favorite solution was used on my Carruth guitar. Alan compensated both the saddle and the nut. This method reduces the required saddle width for intonation purposes; no problem at all with a 1/10" saddle width. This method also does a very nice job of compensation for the frets near the nut.

[Tim McKnight]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

I'd say my favorite solution was used on my Carruth guitar. Alan compensated both the saddle and the nut. This method reduces the required saddle width for intonation purposes; no problem at all with a 1/10" saddle width. This method also does a very nice job of compensation for the frets near the nut.

Chuck,
Keep in mind that the nut compensation is only a valid point when playing open strings and is moot when strings are fretted. In the latter, intonation control falls back to only having adjustment at the saddle.

[Adamski]

I find these sort of debates very interesting, like "what's the best tonewood"...and I think that thick saddles are rather like Brazilian rosewood for back and sides - that is that a generalisation applies.

Some of the best guitars ah e thick saddles...some of the worst ones have thin saddles. It's not coincidence!

Having a thick saddle does not make a good guitar...but Somogyi, Kostal, Kraut, Greenfield, Sands, Gaffney, Matsuda, McKnight, Michaud all use thick saddles and rubbish guitars don't! 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.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by Tim McKnight

Chuck,
Keep in mind that the nut compensation is only a valid point when playing open strings and is moot when strings are fretted. In the latter, intonation control falls back to only having adjustment at the saddle.

this doesn't make a lot of sense to me or jibe with what i've read.

with open strings one can tune them however one wants, so i don't understand how a compensated nut would be any different from an uncompensated nut.

the only reason to compensate a nut would be to affect fretted string pitch.

[dekutree64]

Originally Posted by Tim McKnight

Chuck,
Keep in mind that the nut compensation is only a valid point when playing open strings and is moot when strings are fretted. In the latter, intonation control falls back to only having adjustment at the saddle.

Not quite, at least with the Gore/Gilet method. The saddle compensation is significantly less than with the standard method, so fretted notes are affected as well.

It all stems from the fact that there's a fundamental difference between open and fretted notes (that being the string stretch). Standard compensation tries to make open and fretted notes sound good at the same time, and doesn't get either of them quite right. The Gore/Gilet method positions the saddle to optimize the fretted notes, and then uses nut compensation to fix the open strings afterward.

[Tim McKnight]

Originally Posted by dekutree64

The Gore/Gilet method positions the saddle to optimize the fretted notes, and then uses nut compensation to fix the open strings afterward.

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.

[Adamski]

I find these sort of debates very interesting, like "what's the best tonewood"...and I think that thick saddles are rather like Brazilian rosewood for back and sides - that is that a generalisation applies.

Some of the best guitars ah e thick saddles...some of the worst ones have thin saddles. It's not coincidence!

Having a thick saddle does not make a good guitar...but Somogyi, Kostal, Kraut, Greenfield, Sands, Gaffney, Matsuda, McKnight, Michaud all use thick saddles and rubbish guitars don't! 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.

[Tim McKnight]

Originally Posted by mc1

this doesn't make a lot of sense to me or jibe with what i've read.

with open strings one can tune them however one wants, so i don't understand how a compensated nut would be any different from an uncompensated nut.

the only reason to compensate a nut would be to affect fretted string pitch.

Compensation is a means of manipulating string overall length, from the point where the string last touches the surface of the nut and or saddle surfaces.

When one frets a string the metal fret itself becomes the [new] nut and the [old] bone nut has no bearing or tonal influence on the note being played. The fretted string is dead and basically immobile above the fretted position. When the string is fretted the saddle alone controls the intonation of the fretted string length.