Martin's Liquid Metal Bridge Pins, Are they worth the $$$?

[LeDave]

Are Martin's liquid metal bridge pins worth the money? If you have them, post pics as well! Thanks.

Picture taken from Guitar.com

[printer2]

Depends on what you are looking for. More mass on the top will make for a slightly quieter guitar. It may shift the resonant frequency onto or off a note frequency. Get some Blu-Tack and stick a lump on your bridge.

[martingitdave]

Short answer: no. Long answer: I purchased a Modern Deluxe D-28s when they were released. It was a really great guitar. But I found the metal pins resulted in an annoying high frequency harmonic. I switched them for plastic and it sounded better. I traded the guitar towards a Martin Authentic D-28 that sounded amazing but the neck was terrible and hurt my hands. I sold that one for cash when the pandemic hit. I kept the pins in my parts box and tired them on a carbon fiber guitar from RainSong. There, it was somewhat of an improvement in volume.

The bottom line is that they are a different material that does not absorb sound like plastic. However the extra sound it reflects doesn't mean that it will sound better. It will technically be a little louder, but perhaps not in a pleasing way. For the record, the additional mass seems to have less of an impact on the sound than the sound reflective properties. The net is an increase in amplitude. Conversely, most heavy pins will deaden the sound.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by martingitdave

The net is an increase in amplitude.

Whatever else the pins might or might not do, increasing the amplitude isn't likely one of them.

The amplitude is a function of how far you displace the string while plucking it. That's all the energy input there is. For the pins to increase amplitude, they would have to add energy. They can't.

[martingitdave]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Whatever else the pins might or might not do, increasing the amplitude isn't likely one of them.

The amplitude is a function of how far you displace the string while plucking it. That's all the energy input there is. For the pins to increase amplitude, they would have to add energy. They can't.

Allow me to respectfully differ on a small point. I would agree assuming there is no other reduction of the string energy before it enters the top. Except, pins also absorb the kinetic energy and dampen certain frequencies. So, when you use an acoustically reflective material in the place of a dampening material you are effectively increasing the amplitude of the resulting sound wave in certain frequencies that would otherwise be dampened. This is the testing they did with this product. I've experienced it myself. Perhaps my choice of words in incorrect?

[Alan Carruth]

I'd like to see some data that shows that string vibration is being reflected off the pins. It's supposed to stop at the saddle. I keep asking for this information and nobody has provided it. Until I get it I'm going to apply Occam's razor, and assume that the simplest explanation holds; the working variable here is the mass of the pins.

[Talldad]

Luthiers try to make their soundboards as light and strong as possible. The lighter it is the easier it can vibrate, the more interesting the sound.
It maybe with a mass manufactured instrument built to tolerances that the extra weight of heavier bridge pins makes little difference to overall tone.

A luthier whose measured the weight of his soundboard, braces and bridge wouldn’t touch them.

[hubcapsc]

When Martin uses them, they use them with carbon fiber bridge plates (always?).

Does, then, the weight equal out?

I wouldn't know how to find out how much they weigh, or my regular
bridge pins, without weighing them myself. Is there a web site with
those kinds of measurements?

-Mike

[Alan Carruth]

If the pins are not rattling in their holes they are moving along with the bridge, and thus their mass adds to that of the bridge. The 'job' of the bridge is to tell the strings how long they are, so they will make the right pitch. This is a function of the 'impedance' of the bridge and top at the point where the strings stop vibrating; the top of the saddle, ideally. Impedance is a measure of how hard it is to move something, or, in some sense, of how hard the thing can push, at a particular frequency. Generally the impedance of the bridge should be higher than that of the strings so that most of the vibration energy stays in the strings, 'leaking' out slowly to move the top and produce sound. Impedance thus is determined by the distribution of mass and stiffness in the top as a whole, with 'lumps', like the bridge, that are right at the termination, being particularly influential. Again, there should be no string signal behind the saddle that can produce sound. Since the pins don't add anything to the bending stiffness of the bridge the only acoustic effect that can have is through their mass. I have yet to see any convincing objective data that shows otherwise. I admit that it would take a fair mount of work to do the measurements; that's one reason I haven't done so.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by martingitdave

So, when you use an acoustically reflective material in the place of a dampening material you are effectively increasing the amplitude of the resulting sound wave in certain frequencies that would otherwise be dampened.

What you are describing is a filter. Filters don't add amplitude or power: they prevent passage of selected portions of a response that is already there. Are you suggesting that the pins are an amplifier?

[cliff_the_stiff]

I prefer bone or ebony for my bridge pins.
Bone saddles and nut over tusq, and ebony bridges.
Charles Tauber mentioned the drawbacks of the added weight on the sound board- so I was easily convinced.
On my all hog 12 string I like bone pins on the wound strings and ebony on the plain steel.
Bone seems to enhance the volume while I like ebony for helping cut the zing off the treble strings.
I use 12’s on all of my acoustic 6 strings so that helps limit the treble zing as well.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by cliff_the_stiff

Charles Tauber mentioned the drawbacks of the added weight on the sound board- so I was easily convinced.

That was Alan. He knows much more about the science of it than I do.

[martingitdave]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

What you are describing is a filter. Filters don't add amplitude or power: they prevent passage of selected portions of a response that is already there. Are you suggesting that the pins are an amplifier?

No, I'm suggesting that the replacement of a filter with one that doesn't dampen results in a louder sound (in certain frequencies) leaving the guitar.

[Alan Carruth]

Mike wrote:
"I wouldn't know how to find out how much they weigh, or my regular
bridge pins, without weighing them myself. Is there a web site with
those kinds of measurements?"

I don't know if there's a site that gives all of the numbers. I've weighed some myself, and got, per set of six:

plastic 3 grams
ebony 5
bone 8.5
brass 26
'Power Pins' 31 : (with the bolts and all washers)

Other folks have posted on line:

Tusq 6
Liquid Metal ~16

For comparison sake, a Martin 'belly' bridge in ebony is about 30 grams, and in rosewood it's around 25, more or less.

[hubcapsc]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

Mike wrote:
"I wouldn't know how to find out how much they weigh, or my regular
bridge pins, without weighing them myself. Is there a web site with
those kinds of measurements?"

I don't know if there's a site that gives all of the numbers. I've weighed some myself, and got, per set of six:

plastic 3 grams
ebony 5
bone 8.5
brass 26
'Power Pins' 31 : (with the bolts and all washers)

Other folks have posted on line:

Tusq 6
Liquid Metal ~16

For comparison sake, a Martin 'belly' bridge in ebony is about 30 grams, and in rosewood it's around 25, more or less.

Thanks for the post! Sounds like good plastic ones (not the
deformed ones like on my d-28 ) are a good choice...

-Mike