Is it worth to spend more for an Eastman archtop?

[coder]

Originally Posted by Mandobart

I put one of these bridges on my Eastman. The adjustable saddle did not fit the post spacing of the original Eastman bridge base. It's not hard to fit an arch top bridge base to the top.

Looks good. I would do the gold over ebony, ( strictly for looks, not much difference in price) and replace the saddles with Graphtec tusq.
Strange thing, it did fit for me. I have to look where exactly I got the bridge.
It may have been a Graphtec bridge.

[coder]

Originally Posted by rschultz

I’m an archtop rookie. I’d appreciate some discussion on how to handle the floating bridge. The Eastmans I’ve seen has a straight saddle, but if the G string is plain, it should be compensated differently than the D. Anyway, not sure how to put a tunomatic on as a floating bridge

If your g string is plain, the factory compensation on the eastman bridge is correct. Thincker strings tend to need to be pulled back more, assuming that the stings are of the same type ( wrapped or non-wrapped) .

The difference between a wrapped and un-wrapped g is that the wrapped G "falls in line" with the other wrapped strings. So its intonation point needs to be "moved"d towards the nut. OTOH an unwrapped G will "fall in" with the unwrapped strings, and the intonation point needs to be pulled back, relative to its companion unwrapped strings. Some acoustic guitar makers (Lowden, Takamine) actually break up the acoustic saddle into 2 pieces so what I am talking about is illustrated there.

If the g string is intonated the wrong way:
You may be familiar with the experience that the guitar is impossile to tune in a way that all chords sound equally good. This is the easiest to hear when you compare an open E chord, and and an open D chord. You can tweak your tuning so that one or the other will sound good, but it is impossible to get both to sound good. When you finally get to some tuning compromise, where both sound equally bad, then your C chord is out of whack. it is like playing whack-a-mole.

What I usually do, is build a new bridge crosspiece by laminating bone and ebony. A strip of bone between 2 pieces of ebony epoxied together, mostly for looks. I place the bone strip so that it forms the base where the hight adjuster discs sit.
Then I shape the piece, file the compensation into the new crosspiece to match the strings I am using. This unfortunately hard to reverse, and cannot just re-shape the bridge if I decide to use different strings.

Replacing the bridge cross-piece is a simple affair of taking off the current cross-piece, and putting on the custom made, or tune-o-matic cross piece. The latter may have different hole size (diameter) but if that is the case, the bridge should come with 2 adapter pieces.

Once this is done, you still have to manually position the bride (at the top and bottom E strings), and then break out the screwdriver and tweak the individual saddles to your liking. Somewhat tedious, but way easier than filing the Ebony. If the intonation inaccuracies do not bother you, then of course this is hopeless, because you probably will not be able to tell if you are off or not. You can still have someone do it for ya. Actually, the main difficulty with hand-sanding the compensation is that it is really difficult to hear which way you are off, when you are close. It is easy to hear that it is off by 5-10 cents, but which way? That is one of the reasons why I like the tune-o-matic approach, if I am adjusting the wrong way, it will quickly become apparent, as it will sound worse instead of better, and it is easy to reverse.
It goes like: "oh this last tweak made things worse.. I have to go the other way".

The rewards are magic. When every chord sounds good, regardless of what or where, it is just a beautiful thing. If you ever played a perfectly set up instrument, you know what I am talking about.

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by coder

Both superior to the Loar imo.

Funny how such comparisons come and go. When I started asking around on the jazzguitar.be forum many of course had (and still have) similar opinions, but there were also those who had the opposite opinion with arguments that resonated with me. I haven't regretted my choice yet. I don't doubt that a comparable Eastman (AR805ce) would be better constructed (even better; there's little to object about) and/or better finished. I doubt a bit more that I'll like its sound better to an extent that the price different would require.

Anyone can tell me how thick the Eastman tops are (at least around the f-holes)?

[coder]

For the Eastman, IMO it comes down to demonstrably better wood selection, and better workmanship. I happen to like their slightly longer scale compared to the common Gibson-esque 24 2/4" (Eastman is typically 25" ) and slightly wider nut (1.75") friendly to fingerpicking.

Comparing sound is treacherous territory. It is really hard to make a comparison that is meaningful. It is extremely subjective, and colored by expectations. We tend to hear what we want to hear. Then there is the famous dissonance reduction paradigm. People who are owners of a particular brand tend to be invested, and "want" to perceive their particular choice as a wise one, instad of having regrests. Human nature. To be clear I am not criticizing anybody's favorite brand, just saying it is hard to be objective.

When we start talking in poetical, colorful terms, that should give us a hint to be skeptical. Like: what is exactly "muddy" or "buttery smooth" ? No need to try to answer, I am just illustrating a point. It will mean a dozen different things to a dozen people. When we are at that level, the discussion will be probably passionate but rarely useful.