What's the builders' consensus on the Breedlove-type bridge truss?

[zoopeda]

I'm curious to know if other builders are adapting this technology and if it truly allows for builders to get away with thinner tops and more reverberating tops. Does this technology work as theorized, or is it more of a gimmick?

[Bruce Sexauer]

No respect for the doctor here.

[zoopeda]

Interesting. Can you explain your reasoning and experience?

[Mark Hatcher]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

No respect for the doctor here.

+1 I agree with Bruce

[dberkowitz]

I guess I'll have to be the outlier here and say it depends.

Breedlove was started by Larry Breedlove and Steve Henderson who at the time had left Taylor to start their own concern, as well as handling warranty service for Taylor. They were trying to get more bottom end out of the guitars, but their prototype guitars were failing structurally. Don Kendall, one of the partners in the Bridge Doctor, called them trying to sell them on its use as a repair device. Of his own volition, Don drove from Roswell all the way up to Tumalo, OR. Their design was a pinless bridge which wouldn't work with his device, but at the suggestion of Steve and Larry, they simply screwed it into the bridge with a drywall screw. The guitar came back and they were happy with the results.

People can quibble about Breedloves, and whether that's a sound that appeals to them. Breedloves of that era had the X scalloped all the way down to the bridge plate ~.100," so they were relying heavily on the Bridge Doctor for their structure. It's a different sound, less attack, much more bottom. Definitely a fingerstyle instrument and decidedly not a flatpickers. There are a lot of modern fingerstyle guitars that get to this sonic footprint without using a Bridge Doctor -- huge basses, scooped midrange, softer and rounder presentation, only modest headroom and very little cut, but I digress.

I've been using them in my baritones, only, for twenty years. They are a tool, not an end in and of themselves. I never scalloped my braces as severely as Breedlove, and got completely away from scalloped top bracing about fifteen years ago or so. But I continued to use the Bridge Doctor on my baritones because I feel they added something, namely taking some of the chimey-ness of phosphor bronze strings on an instrument that was almost a bass. I consider the baritone a different instrument than simply a low tuned guitar. They're either a half octave or a 1/5th below standard pitch, and I want them to sound like that and emphasize the lower harmonics rather than the string compositional overtones. I find that the Bridge Doctor rounds out the attack transient in a way that I like without compromising dynamics or headroom -- my guitars are made for a wide variety of playing styles and so can be played with verve without choking out.

It's a tool, and used with discretion it can bring something to the table. I know of one other prominent builder, who like me, uses them in his baritones, but no one I know has followed Breedlove and used them on standard instruments.

[zoopeda]

So is it actually true that Breedlove uses thinner bracing and thinner tops on models that use the bridge truss? I'm not at all trying to start a "What do you think of BREEDLOVE?" thread and am really just curious to know if this technology truly allows for a different design and, therefore, sound.

Could it be that the biggest advantage is that it gives some longterm stability to a top that might be more prone to splitting or bubbling out? Why exactly are so many reputable guitar-makers forgoing the installation of this technology? On the one hand, it seems like "it can't hurt and maybe could help." On the other, "it really doesn't have any effect on the instrument at all." What do people notice here?

Thank you for the conversation!

There are many ways to kill tone. One of the "best" is adding weight to the bridge and then wedging that against the tail block

[dberkowitz]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

So is it actually true that Breedlove uses thinner bracing and thinner tops on models that use the bridge truss? I'm not at all trying to start a "What do you think of BREEDLOVE?" thread and am really just curious to know if this technology truly allows for a different design and, therefore, sound.

Could it be that the biggest advantage is that it gives some longterm stability to a top that might be more prone to splitting or bubbling out? Why exactly are so many reputable guitar-makers forgoing the installation of this technology? On the one hand, it seems like "it can't hurt and maybe could help." On the other, "it really doesn't have any effect on the instrument at all." What do people notice here?

Thank you for the conversation!

In the case of the original Breedloves, and bear in mind they now have several lines, and in my mind I'm thinking of the original ones that were very lightly braced, they need the structural assist of the Bridge Doctor to function. They're designed around that. Now it's not everyone's cup of tea, so its adoption has been limited. As I mentioned earlier, I don't use it on anything but my baritones, and I don't implement it the same way.

It's use as a repair tool is effective. It's not a panacea, but it is a fairly non-destructive way of repairing an underbraced top. Is it going to change how it sounds? Yes. But there in lies the question, is it better to have an unplayable guitar or one whose sound is different than its intention, but nonetheless usable. I'd take the latter.

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

There are many ways to kill tone. One of the "best" is adding weight to the bridge and then wedging that against the tail block

Again, this is subjective, and requires context. I don't advocate its use on guitars that aren't failing. I think its a tool to salvage a failing instrument and in that regard it works fairly well, but it does come with compromises. I also think it's useful within a properly designed system. Breedlove's bracing system is incredibly light and the Bridge Doctor isn't impeding anything. The better Breedloves have lots of tone; whether you like it's sonic footprint is another matter altogether.

[Pitar]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

Interesting. Can you explain your reasoning and experience?

Not from a physics stand-point. From a sonic stand-point it has such a small footprint at each of its two fitments I'd like to hear the arguments against it.

From a buffoonery stand-point (owners who think they should fiddle with it and do) I agree with him.

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

So is it actually true that Breedlove uses thinner bracing and thinner tops on models that use the bridge truss? I'm not at all trying to start a "What do you think of BREEDLOVE?" thread and am really just curious to know if this technology truly allows for a different design and, therefore, sound.

Actually, David already gave a very accurate description of what the Bridge Doctor/JLD Bridge System cantilever does to the tone and performance characteristics of an acoustic guitar:

Originally Posted by dberkowitz

P It's a different sound, less attack, much more bottom. Definitely a fingerstyle instrument and decidedly not a flatpickers. There are a lot of modern fingerstyle guitars that get to this sonic footprint without using a Bridge Doctor -- huge basses, scooped midrange, softer and rounder presentation, only modest headroom and very little cut, but I digress.

I can corroborate David's description: guitars that are built with the Bridge Doctor/JLD as part of the design tend to be very good for light touch fingerstyle playing, but not a good choice for playing with a flatpick. They can and do get overdriven quite easily, "blatting out," as I put it, with surprisingly little energy input from a pick.

That's the "modest headroom" that David mentioned. It's been very noticeable on Bridge Doctor/JLD-equipped guitars that I've had a chance to play. They're very easy to overdrive.

What's more, aside from that issue there tends to be a volume level where these guitars stop, and can't be made to play any louder. Of course, that can be overcome with an electronic pickup easily enough, but that won't help in an acoustic jam session where nobody is plugged in.

Originally Posted by zoopeda

Could it be that the biggest advantage is that it gives some longterm stability to a top that might be more prone to splitting or bubbling out? Why exactly are so many reputable guitar-makers forgoing the installation of this technology? On the one hand, it seems like "it can't hurt and maybe could help." On the other, "it really doesn't have any effect on the instrument at all." What do people notice here?

Thank you for the conversation!

I think you're confusing two issues here, one of which is putting a Bridge Doctor into an existing instrument, and the other being building a guitar designed around the Bridge Doctor/JLD to begin with.

If it's about designing a guitar around this cantilever structure, your statement "it can't hurt and maybe could help" is entirely off-base. Using a cantilever to hold the bridge, bridgeplate and top in place is entirely different than the various bracing patterns that are standard throughout the guitar industry. This definitely affects the tone and playing characteristics of the instrument.

I've liked the tone and responsiveness of the Breedlove guitars I've played, but they don't work particularly well for the music I play. They're also not especially versatile instruments.

As for installing a Bridge Doctor into a traditionally X-braced acoustic guitar, that also has a tonal effect. It does seem to increase perceived volume, but it changes the tone at the same time, most noticeably in the midrange (which is noticeably diminished) and the trebles, which become more pronounced.

Quite frankly, I didn't like the effect on the one guitar of mine I put a Bridge Doctor into - it made it sound like a large, bad-tempered mosquito. Yes, there was more treble response to it, but it had a nasal quality that I hated. So I removed it.

I've observed the same effect to varying degrees in other guitars that have had Bridge Doctors installed. Mind you, not everyone dislikes the sound: some people love it. But I haven't cared for the effect on any of the guitars with it I've played.

So your second statement "it really doesn't have any effect on the instrument at all" is also inaccurate. It most definitely has an effect on the instrument, but it's not an effect that most guitar builders admire or desire.

To summarize, the cantilever system called the Bridge Doctor definitely has an impact on the sound of the guitars it's mounted in, either as original equipment or as a retrofit. Most of the custom guitar hand builders I've talked to (on those occasions when the subject has come up) have expressed a strong dislike for the tonal impact that Bridge Doctors have. One luthier, the Canadian gypsy jazz guitar builder Shelley Park, referred to them as "tone-killers," and that's an attitude that's very common among the guitar builders I've spoken to.

David Berkowitz has figured out a way to make the Bridge Doctor/JLD work for the acoustic baritone guitars that he builds, but if you go back and re-read his post you'll see that he uses them in his baritones only, not his standard guitars or his acoustic bass guitars.

So, simply put, the reason that most guitar builders don't use the JLD Bridge System in their guitars is that most of them just flat dislike the effect on the tone and response that the JLD has.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

[AZLiberty]

Breedlove's implementation is designed around the JDL system, and the top bracing is lighter to compensate.

These guitars tend to be very responsive with a lot of sustain. I like them. Now I've never even learned how to hold a flatpick much less use one, and someone who plays with a heavy pick probably thinks they sound muddy.

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by AZLiberty

Breedlove's implementation is designed around the JDL system, and the top bracing is lighter to compensate.

Right.

Originally Posted by AZLiberty

These guitars tend to be very responsive with a lot of sustain. I like them. Now I've never even learned how to hold a flatpick much less use one, and someone who plays with a heavy pick probably thinks they sound muddy.

For me the main problem with them is that they don't project as well as a traditionally-braced guitar. They also tend to get to a certain volume level and just stop. Those playing techniques I have that are virtues on Martin-inspired guitars are a detriment on Breedloves, so overall they're just a bad match for me.


whm

[Gerald Sheppard]

Good question, great replies. I can't add much to this because I've never used, nor tinkered with them. But, bottom line, and bottom line being what matters subjectively to me... I've played two Breedloves extensively that were owned by friends - both had bridge doctors in them... they had a different voice than mine...but I loved everything about those two guitars. It's kinda like well made pizza. I like ham, and I like pepperoni too. Hand me either one.

Originally Posted by AZLiberty

Breedlove's implementation is designed around the JDL system, and the top bracing is lighter to compensate.

That's what the advertisements say, but I don't see it. Looking inside these guitars, they are not lightly braced, not compared to guitars I consider lightly braced. The Bridge Doctor adds mass and ties the bridge to the tail block. That will certainly change the tone and increase sustain. If you like that effect, you'll like guitars with it installed. It's just not what I want in a guitar.

Bruce Sexauer was the first to post in this thread. Look inside his guitars and you won't braces this heavy or a BD.

[Ted @ LA Guitar Sales]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

There are many ways to kill tone. One of the "best" is adding weight to the bridge and then wedging that against the tail block

In theory yes, but not in practice. Others have commented on this already so I will just add that Breedlove models using the JLD system were designed with that in mind. Larry and Kim Breedlove, as well as Steve Henderson are some of the most respected luthiers in the industry, to suggest they would add anything to one of their guitars that would "kill tone" is absurd.

My favorite Breedlove models are the ones with the JLD system, they are wonderful instruments. Yes, they can be expensive, and no, they don't sound like Martins. Fact is, currently Breedlove builds only around 5000 guitars a year in Bend, Oregon, which means they are more of a boutique brand, Like McPherson, and like McPherson, they don't follow convention, and that's just fine by me. One week I might play nothing but one of my Breedlove Masterclass guitars while the next I might be in the mood to dig in to my Martin D-45V cannon. In my guitar room there is no favoritism, only great guitars.