|
|
#2
12-11-2017, 08:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Since there is basically only 1 type of pin bridge that I am aware of ( numerous shapes but they all use pins in the same manner ) and there are numerous different pinless designs , it would help to clarify .
The pinless design as I use it has 1 disadvantage and that is convenience . Of course , there are those that will never inconvenience themselves by needing to feed their strings upwards from below via the sound hole . In my opinion , every other aspect about it is a plus . As far as I am concerned , the pin bridge is dead and buried . But since I am not a builder of importance , my opinion carries little or no weight . This could prove to be an interesting thread . 
|
|
#3
12-11-2017, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, there is the Elliott bridge that uses steel pins throughthe bridge into the bridge plate inside, of which the strings are anchored to from the top. Then there's those metal pins that allow the ball ends to pass through them from the back instead of into the body (forget its name.) So there are pins that function differently from the "standard" pins...
|
|
#4
12-11-2017, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am not dogmatic on this, but I do like the convenience of a pinless bridge for quick string replacement on gigs without worrying about dropping a pin and having to find it on some bar room floor.
Edit: If you do happen to lose the pin, get some toothpicks from the bartender. Last edited by Nymuso; 12-12-2017 at 08:22 AM. Reason: Handy hint added
|
|
#5
12-12-2017, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
12-12-2017, 07:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If a pinned and non-screw-anchored bridge fails, it's probably going to pop off completely. That said, I have never seen a pinned bridge come off completely. And of the few guitar types that use pinned bridges, I haven't ever needed to repair one. I find the pull-through pinless bridge style (Ovation and others) to be a nuisance, since you pretty much need to cut strings to pull them through the hole for removal. This is precisely why I, and others, have opted for using a drop-and-hook pinless bridge (with various methods for hooking). If there is the same string break angle across the saddle, I can't imagine there being a sonic difference if all other factors (total mass, size, shape, etc) are the same.
__________________
---- Ned Milburn NSDCC Master Artisan Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
|
|
#7
12-12-2017, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've seen pinned bridges fail catastrophically, although it's not common. It's not common to see pinless ones fail that way either, unless they've been done badly. The big problem comes from scoring into the wood along the back edge when marking the finish to scrape off the top. This creates a stress riser, and can cause the whole bridge to peel off, taking top wood with it. If that was not done people usually notice that there's a problem well before it gets to be catastrophic, as they do with pinned bridges.
Some stress models I've seen show that there is not a lot of difference in the loading of the glue joint between pinned and pinless bridges. If the string height off the top is the same they produce the same torque. There are some minor differences, such as the 'column' load at the pins that is not there on a pinless bridge, but it's hard to see how those would affect sound. IMO, the 'drop & hook' type of pinless bridge has much to recommend it, and I use that setup frequently. OTOH, since people are more used to it, it's easier to sell guitars with pinned bridges, so....
|
|
#8
12-12-2017, 01:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
There are pinless types that do not pull create any upwards pull on the bridge itself and that includes the string ends . Therefore , nothing is pulling or pealing the bridge away from the top wood .
I am doing this and it works fine . This is not imaginary or misleading in any way . My way of doing this creates a balance of forces on the bridge . At the saddle , there exists a downward and forward ( torsional ) load and at the rear of the bridge , there is a downward load which counters the torsional load at the saddle . In fact , converting a standard pin type bridge to this is supremely simple and requires no modification to any existing part of the guitar . If you don't like it , you can easily change it back to using pins should you choose to do so . If I dare to step out on the proverbial limb , it is even tunable in more than one way . I use the term tunable with some license because I lack the word to precisely use . Maybe tunable is even the correct term . Not sure quite yet . What I do know is that it is working for me . One last thing . The strings are terminating directly under the bridge area . Get them thinking caps on . 
|
|
#9
12-12-2017, 10:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
That and it's easy to change strings from the top..... And And it has made the cut of "Ideas that are still around after 200 years"
|
|
#10
12-12-2017, 11:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Back to the OP...
The main disadvantage of pinless bridges is that they don't have the string ball ends anchored to the bridge plate underneath acting as a safety net against the bridge tearing off and flying like it's been shot out of a slingshot... About 100% of conventional pinless bridge designs use bolts to provide that safety net.... And it's there for good reason! You also tend to see pinless bridges built more meatier... They have to have enough thickness to make room for the strings to run inside the bridge. They often also get extra depth to provide a bit more glue line.. Pin bridges have an advantage that their designs are mature.. We are right at 90 years of production instruments being sold with belly style pin bridges standard....
|
|
#11
12-13-2017, 06:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I can do everything that you attribute to a pinned bridge and more with what I am doing and there are no pins to lose . To me the pinned bridge is dead and buried . You may not share my view and that is OK . I have owned up to the convenience aspect and get it , but that is something that I am willing to pass on to have what I have .
|
|
#12
12-13-2017, 06:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
12-13-2017, 09:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
At this point, I'm unsure as to whether or not you have some clever new innovation or have simply badly applied statics. I have little idea of what your non-pinned bridge involves. I can understand if it is a proprietary design and you don't want to give away the idea, but that makes it difficult to have much of a rational discussion about it. Quote:
|
|
#14
12-13-2017, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't think there is much difference in mass at all with a pinless bridge. For one, the back is usually plowed to hide the ball ends. Second, the wood is displacing bridge pins that can weigh more than the wood itself.
As to bolts, while that may be a factory solution, not so much for the independent luthier. As mentioned there's likely enough sheer strength to hold a pinless bridge regardless of where the strings run through. The bridge plate plays just as much a role as the bridge itself in my estimation. I kniw of a few luthiers that use locator pins for their pinless bridge, and that must help in terms of sheer strength. As to change, a lot of that comes from economics, and as of now most pinless designs do not sell near at the level of pinned designs. That may change one day, but for most of the folks that do this for a living...
|
|
#15
12-13-2017, 12:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I find myself in a self imposed conflict .
While this concept is so simple , but effective , it would be so near impossible to enforce ownership . At the same time , I am so reluctant to just hand off this concept . Oh well . Shape a piece of Lexan ( polycarbonate ) as you wish . I am using 1/8" thick , but extra mass could come from either a larger piece and/or thicker . Less from the opposite should you prefer . I like the 1/8" because it will conform to contours with relative ease and provides some mass . The mass of the Lexan will counter that lost by having no pins . I basically match the shape of the bridge plate . It will be placed directly under the bridge , top and plate and drilled to match the string placing of the bridge . Of course , it can be pre drilled . I got this idea after the body and neck had been assembled and bridge attached , so I had to improvise . I have decided to use 1/8" holes for the Lexan . Strings will be fed upwards through the Lexan , bridge plate , top and bridge . String tension will hold the Lexan in place but an adhesive can be used . I prefer to use no adhesive as this will allow for ease of replacement from possible wear or experimentation with shapes , sizes and thicknesses . No adhesive also allows for an easy removal should you want to use pins again . This can be used on any standard pin bridge with no modification and can be removed to reuse pins , if so desired . So , you can keep those pins and reuse them as well . I like Lexan because of it's durability , mass and it seems to be sonically transparent . It is also readily available and easy to work with . By this loading the top from below and breaking over the bridge on the same plane , this design loads the rear of the bridge downward which helps counter the torsional load where the strings break over the saddle . Installing strings is more bothersome than difficult and as long as you don't remove all 6 or 12 of them , the Lexan piece will remain in place without adhesive . Even it you do allow it to fall , 1 string will quickly align everything enough to simplify the process going forward . I got this idea from seeing the Platemate . I will experiment with other synthetic materials , but the Lexan sure seems to work very well . I hope that one or some of you will also try different materials for this and post your findings . I feel that metals may not be so sonically transparent and they also tend to bend and stay bent , but I would love to hear input from the attempts . My biggest problem is figuring out what to call this thing . What do you think of the Otter plate ? I love simple . So , there you have it , better or worse .
|
