Saddle Thickness

cactus bum · Post by **cactus bum** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:21 am

Hi all, In a thread I read that someone recommends a bone saddle be double the normal thickness. I think it was Bob who made the remark, or maybe Sebastiaan. Anyway, there was not very much stated reasoning behind the recommendation so I wondered if anyone would like to speak to this. A friend of mine has unbleached bone nuts and saddles for me, but I have to choose thick or thin.

I have tried to locate an independent thread dealing with this subject but the search engine has failed me somehow. If I have missed the thread where this is discussed at length, please advise which thread it is. I do not wish to cause redundency. Thanks, Cactus

Kim · Post by **Kim** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 am

One reason for double thickness of the saddle could be that it extends the surface area which can be adjusted when filing in the intonation.

Cheers

Kim

Bob Connor · Post by **Bob Connor** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:23 am

I think it's Craig that likes thick saddles Michael. and for the reason Kim said - more wriggle room to set the intonation.

sebastiaan56 · Post by **sebastiaan56** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:59 pm

Hi Cactus,

Wasnt me, but Ive learnt something from you asking the question so thanks!

I asked the missus, she said that one should always choose the thicker one....

Dennis Leahy · Post by **Dennis Leahy** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:32 pm

100% of all of the guitars I have ever built in my entire life have had 1/4" (6mm) wide saddle. 'Nuff said.

OK, maybe that isn't enough said (having completed only one guitar), but yes, it does give a nice big platform for intonation. I think I first heard about Ervin Somogyi using wide saddles, and then Mike Doolin. Somogyi says (hypothesizes?) that more string energy can be delivered to the soundboard with more of the string wrapping over the wider saddle.

My first guitar sounds good (in spite of the fact I glued the bridge on more than 1/8" forward from where it should have been.) Hahahahah so if you're an idiot like me and miss by a mile, a wide saddle can save your arse!

Dennis

Allen · Post by **Allen** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:21 pm

I've been using 1/8 inch saddles and haven't had problems with intonation, and like the look of the slimmer ones. Though to be fair, everyone has different tastes, and I do like the look of the fairer species a little big boned.

Hesh1956 · Post by **Hesh1956** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:58 pm

1/8th inch here too and I find that 1/8" gives ample room for individual string intonation but without the additional mass, that has to be driven..., of a thicker, more massive saddle.

Kim · Post by **Kim** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:21 pm

Hesh1956 wrote:1/8th inch here too and I find that 1/8" gives ample room for individual string intonation but without the additional mass, that has to be driven..., of a thicker, more massive saddle.

Sorry mate, but I just don't get that statement. What would be the difference between the strings energy needing to drive the mass of an 1/8", 3/16" or 1/4" thick bit of 4" long bone compared to the bridge material that did not get routed away because you choose one width over the other?

It's the bridge we are talking about here not the top. Surely 'all' of the bridge needs to be driven from back to front from one end to the other across it's supportive bracing in order to drive the top, isn't that the reason we brace the way we do with the bridge plate just wider than the bridge foot print?. In reality isn't the saddle merely an actuator, an exciter, a component of the bridge as a unit?

IMHO this is one of those things where too much contemplation on how to best give a scientific reason for what we do only clouds the issue, and within reason, the thickness of the saddle is just a matter of personal choice with very little bearing on tone, volume, headway or anything else.

IMO what 'does' make a significant difference in these areas is the choice of 'material' one uses for the saddle, the bridge, and the bridge plate, but that is a different topic all together.

Cheers

Kim

Craig · Post by **Craig** » Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:46 pm

bob wrote:I think it's Craig that likes thick saddles Michael. and for the reason Kim said - more wriggle room to set the intonation.

Well, it was ideal when intonating a 12 string. Whether it's better to have a 3/16" saddle or 1/8 " saddle for a six string, is still up for debate ( in my mind anyway)

A wide saddle allows more room for intonation , but also allows more of a ramp leading to the strings leaving point . In particular the low E and the B strings. This means more of the string having contact with the saddle rather than the string resting on almost a knife edge as is the case with a narrow saddle . Some ( Somogyi and others ) believe a wide saddle therefor imparts more information to the bridge .
As I haven't replaced a 1/8" saddle with 3/16 " on the same guitar ,I can't say for certain one is better than the other , but I do like the idea of the low E and B strings having at least a small rear ramp before the leaving point . It avoids the B string cutting into the saddle's intonation ridge and also allows a little more wiggle room when setting the low E intonation. Have you noticed the low E usually wants a little more string length ?

A wider saddle set-up doesn't add a heap of mass ,as Kim said above ( maybe a gram or two) . It's the bridge as a whole exciting the soundboard . One of the saddle's main roles is handling the wear that 6 or 12 strings can offer. It's other job is being able to transfer those string's excitement to the bridge as efficiently as it can . Different saddle material , i.e. Bone ,Tusq. Ivory, M.O.P. Ebony etc. behave in different ways and have the instrument sound different . I don't know if there is any right or wrong saddle material , it's what suit's the individual builder,,, ,or instrument.

I like the rear ramp of the saddle to have slightly less angle than the bridge pin to saddle " break angle " This produces less wear on the saddle , but if we are to believe Somogyi and others , provides more information to the bridge.

Then there is the question of whether the saddle should be seated at an angle into the bridge ,somewhere near half of the "break angle " . It's been fairly popular of late to find some builders having their slot at around six degree . This not only helps stress on the narrow bridge area in front of the saddle ( where they are known to split ) but also alters the downbearing fulcrum . More of a direct downbearing rather than a lever affect.

All different things to try out and what makes building so interesting

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Fri May 01, 2009 6:05 am

Craig wrote:Some ( Somogyi and others ) believe a wide saddle therefor imparts more information to the bridge .

Hmmm, I think this is very much a case of different builders using different methods and fitting a valid reason for it's use. I'm not knocking Mr Somogyi (god forbid! He's been doing this a lot longer than I have!) & I'm not saying one method or reason is particularly better than the other.
But the way I understand it to be, is that on a fixed bridge steel string (or nylon for that matter) the string vibration rocks the bridge as a whole as they shorten and lengthen in motion, imparting motion to the soundboard. Following this line of thinking the saddle is merely acting as a lever with it's top most point being the point at which the string is fixed to & acts upon it, hence a higher action(i.e saddle height) gives a longer lever hence more excitation/movement of the top = more volume . I would think that the amount of vibration actually passing down through any saddle material would be an extremely small percentage of the total vibrations affecting the soundboard.
At the end of the day, the actual string contact point on the saddle should be just that....a minimal contact, warranted the string does continue to make contact with the saddle as it angles down to it's anchor point but the amount the string is vibrating in this area is 0 because it's energy has already been dampened and transfered at the scale length or breakover point. So if your are worrying about full transfer of sound/ information to bridge (going back to the original supposition) surely there won't be any more than is already being transfered at this 'footprint' point. Sorry if this sounds muddled but once the old grey matter gets going, structure sometimes suffers

.
Following this line of maybe misguided (?:oops: ) logic, it would be more important to worry about the mass/size of the bridge than the saddle thickness. I would surmise that saddle thickness is good for intonation setting but of small affect in the overall sound of the instrument.

Just my 10 cents worth into the pot (seeing as that's our smallest currency level now).

Hesh1956 · Post by **Hesh1956** » Fri May 01, 2009 7:37 am

Right - like many things in guitar building I agree that this is being over thought.

Kim bro what I meant to say was that the extra mass in a 1/4" wide saddle over say my 1/8" saddle is in fact extra mass that in addition to the bridge, plate, top, pins has to be driven.

There is a difference in mass between bone and say the bridge material, let's use BRW for example. Nonetheless there is a difference and it is a several grams by my measurements.

Now since you guys are brining up Ervin, Ervin says that he believes that there is a optimum weight for a bridge and he uses 36 grams (see his article on his site). Now I have no idea if there is an optimum weight for a bridge and of course since, to me...., a guitar is a "system" I suspect that the optimum weight for a bridge and all of it's associated components will vary depending on many things. Things such as guitar size, bracing, top material, thickness, luck...., and more.

Anyway I try to have my bridges, my Stealth bridge, and my saddles weigh about 36 grams combined. Why? Because my results using this number on D*eads and OMs has been positive and I try to limit variables when I build.

So here are some pics and one that did not turn out of some BRW binding in a quantity sufficient to make a 1/8" saddle. You will see that my 1/8" saddle weighs 3.8 grams. If this was a 1/4" saddle the number would be around 7.6 grams. Bone is heavy and again with my bridge design which is also heavy it's prudent for me to use a saddle that does not need to go to Weight Watcher meetings.....

Mind you YMMV (translation - your mileage may vary) and so too may your goals when considering your saddle/bridge/plate/pin system and design.

So in my case if I used a 1/4" saddle (bone - the only thing I use) I would add 3.8 grams to my bridge system minus the routed out bridge material (note this material is not the same volume as a saddle since it only exists from the surface of the bridge down). What I saw before I lost the pic that I took was that the additional BRW material that would be routed out of a bridge for a 1/4" saddle over a 1/8" saddle was less than a gram. This means that if I used a 1/4" saddle over my 1/8" saddle and including the routed out material I would see approx. a 3 gram increase in bridge system weight.

Again with my bridge design this is too much weight for me and the possible benefits of a Somogyi, curved back 1/4" saddle are not worth the extra mass in my case when I am already walking a fine line here.

kiwigeo · Post by **kiwigeo** » Fri May 01, 2009 7:44 am

Cute little set of coke scales there Hesh

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Fri May 01, 2009 7:50 am

kiwigeo wrote:Cute little set of coke scales there Hesh

How do you know what coke scales look like?

DarwinStrings · Post by **DarwinStrings** » Fri May 01, 2009 9:48 am

Nick I thought exactly the same thing regarding the Somogyi hypothesis in that the bridge is rocked by the shortening of the strings. But what Craig says about the wearing of the bridge makes sense to justify that bit of ramp just behind the point of vibration.

Hesh I suppose if you are comfy with what you have then taking your variables out is fair enough but why do you weigh soda pop.

Jim

Hesh1956 · Post by **Hesh1956** » Fri May 01, 2009 10:34 am

Jim bro I weigh everything - that's why I am divorced....

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Fri May 01, 2009 10:45 am

Jim,not being of opposite opinion here but merely chucking another thought into the mix, granted a wider saddle (and longer ramp behind the intonation point) would allow the string to find a new seating point as wear occured at the old point, but as the original point wore then the intonation point would continue to progressively move backwards giving the string an incorrect intonation,possibly anything up to 1/4 inch if the break point was originally at the front of the saddle, that's over exagerating I know but I used that as an example. If the saddle is only an 1/8th wide to start with then the most the intonation could ever possibly be out is an 1/8th as opposed to 1/4.
I would (& this is only my opinion of course!) consider the fit of the saddle in the bridge slot to be more important than the width in order to transfer the full string movement & energy through to the top effectively, a sloppy fit & much of the vibrating string's energy will lost & only a small portion will go into driving or 'rocking' the bridge (and the audience)

DarwinStrings · Post by **DarwinStrings** » Fri May 01, 2009 11:04 am

Sorry to hear about your divorce Hesh, it's sweet that you still keep her photo though, or is that the new one?

I just get the feeling that a little extra contact with the bridge will make for slower wear Nick and I too like a snug fit.

Jim

Stephen Kinnaird · Post by **Stephen Kinnaird** » Sun May 03, 2009 2:25 pm

Interesting thread! Nick let me speak to your comment: "...saddle thickness is...of small affect in the overall sound of the instrument". I would say that I once thought so as well.
But here's my anecdote:
A guitar from a regional builder of note came to our shop for some intonation troubles. ("Of note" means he was famous for violins--but the rare guitar came out of his shop from time to time, and this was one of those.) It was a maple, small-bodied guitar with a thunderous bass. But, again the intonation needed help. The saddle was too far forward, as if there was zero compensation. Which was true. Lucky for me, the saddle was quite wide--if memory serves, something over 1/8", pushing 3/16".
Easy fix--shim the front of the slot, shave the saddle down to 3/32", and I could buy the owner enough compensation without corrective surgery on the bridge. I was so proud of myself.
The only trouble? The thunderous bass was gone. Oh it played much better in tune, but I had killed the magic. This bothered me so much I re-routed the saddle slot to the original width, only in the correct place. And as fate would have it, the original saddle had been ground down to the 3/32" thickness, so I had to fashion a new saddle like the old one, to fit that shiny new w-i-d-e slot. The happy result was that the magic came back, bass was restored, and that baby played in tune.

The moral of that story is that the wider saddle did indeed make a difference in sound. Proved it to myself the hard way. But is this 100% conclusive evidence? Good heavens no. It does give me pause, though, when the temptation is on me to change things carelessly.

.04

Steve

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon May 04, 2009 5:53 am

Interesting case & thanks for relaying the experience Steve. Just goes to show how this craft continues to remain interesting, just when you think you're starting to understand things somebody brings along a job that throws your preconceived ideas into the toilet!

That's what makes it fun and probably why there are so many different luthiers doing things to achieve the 'ultimate' sound and yet differently from each other!

Stephen Kinnaird · Post by **Stephen Kinnaird** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:48 am

Agreed! Actually, I think it's more important what color socks one wears than how thick the saddle is.

SK

DarwinStrings · Post by **DarwinStrings** » Mon May 04, 2009 10:33 am

That being the case then Steve I would like to know what colour they were when you built that last twelve string?

Oh ...and Cactus couldn't you find a better way to get that plant home.

Jim

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon May 04, 2009 11:07 am

Stephen Kinnaird wrote:Agreed! Actually, I think it's more important what color socks one wears than how thick the saddle is.

SK

You're darn tootin'! The wrong attire can ruin months of work

Hence Allens penchant for backless chaps

Stephen Kinnaird · Post by **Stephen Kinnaird** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:36 pm

You bet, Jim. Here's a shot of the footwear of choice, when superior tone is a complete must:

Nick, you speak like a man who's spent time in Texas.
We're really starting to connect here.

Steve

Kim · Post by **Kim** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:57 pm

Yeah, I hear those backless chaps were invented in Texas.

Stephen Kinnaird · Post by **Stephen Kinnaird** » Mon May 04, 2009 11:46 pm

Kim, you're right. Would you like a pic of Hesh modeling some?

Australian/New Zealand Luthiers Forum

Saddle Thickness

Saddle Thickness

Who is online