Saddles angled back

[Craig]

You are viewing a re-constructed thread by the ANZLF recovery team. For more information click here.

"Originally Posted on:"Jun 04, 2010 "

It was Rick Turner who first put me on to this . He says his pick-ups perform a whole lot better if the saddle is angled back toward the break angle between pin and bridge. , rather than have the saddle slot at 90`to the bridge surface .

My thinking is that if this saddle back angle excites the pick-up more , surely it must be exciting the bridge more as a whole. I'm trying it for the first time , but I know others already have . What are your views ? and what angle have you found to be suitable ?

[Bob Connor]

Craig

We've found that one icy pole stick, chucked under the forward edge of the router, is the perfect angle.

Regards

[Craig]

bob wrote:

Craig

We've found that one icy pole stick, chucked under the forward edge of the router, is the perfect angle.

Regards

That's sounds an easy way to go about it Bob A whole lot easier than the set up I currently have on my bench .

. Do you think it has made a sound improvement ?

I've calculated my break angle to be around 25 to 30 degree , so I'm thinking about tilting back around 8 or 9 degrees

[Bob Connor]

Don't know about a sound improvement but it would have to put less stress on the front area of the bridge.

It would have to drive the bridge saddle down on a UST more efficiently but I doubt whether you would hear the the difference in something like a K&K pickup which attaches to the bridge plate.

Speaking of which I note that Dtar are now offering a pickup very similar to the K&K.

Regards

[Craig]

bob wrote:
Don't know about a sound improvement but it would have to put less stress on the front area of the bridge.

That in itself is enough reason to tilt it back ,but I can't help thinking that if it improves a pick-ups performance it must be exciting the bridge more. I know Rick strongly believes in the improvement . Incidently. I'm not concerned about pick-up performance , I'm more concerned with acoustic performance

[Bob Connor]

I think we're talking bees dicks here Craig.

There are plenty of pre-war Martins with 90 degree bridge saddles that sound better than anything that I'd ever build.

But I still try and incorporate anything that will contribute to the instrument overall and this is probably a good example of where the devil is in the details.

I can think of no reason why you wouldn't do this.

[Craig]

As you say ,it's in the details . A Bee's Dick here and a Bee's Dick there all add up .

Thanks for your views Bob

[WaddyT]

Having seen Al Carruth's discussions on this subject. His view is that it reduces the rotaional force on the front of the bridge, and gives a slight increase in the downward, or in this case, angled force against the saddle, which he seems to believe is a good thing for sound, both for pickups and for acoustic properties. If I'm not mistaken, he does it on his classical guitars too, but maybe at a lesser angle, so as not to look too non-traditional.

[Allen]

On the guitars I've been using 8-9 degrees, and on ukes I settled on 5 degrees in the Spanish Style tie block bridge.

It would be hard for me to say if it makes an acoustic difference, as each instrument that I've been building since I change to the this method has improved a fair bit just from better technique.

My observation though is that it certainly drives the saddle down into the slot more than wanting to roll the bridge over.

[liam_fnq]

Quote:

My observation though is that it certainly drives the saddle down into the slot more than wanting to roll the bridge over.

this is my understanding of the reason the pickups work better.

the force is acting closer to straight down on the peizo rather than trying to rotate the saddle thereby acting more on the front edge of the peizo.

i imagine more efficient and even energy transfer to the peizo. i'm not convinced this means more efficient and even energy transfer to the top itself though.

cross your finger craig and rick might chime in himself. he prob knows more about this than the rest of us combined.

[Tom West]

It also helps with the intonation problem. Higher saddle further back,lower saddle closer to the nut.
Tom

[Craig]

WaddyT wrote:

Having seen Al Carruth's discussions on this subject. His view is that it reduces the rotaional force on the front of the bridge, and gives a slight increase in the downward, or in this case, angled force against the saddle, which he seems to believe is a good thing for sound, both for pickups and for acoustic properties.

Thanks for all your input guys.

If Al Carruth's view is correct in that it reduces the rotational force on the front of the bridge ,then I'm guessing that it would also reduce the long dipole , in favour of the main diplole ( up and down pumping action ). .. Make sense ? ,, Good or bad thing ?

[Bob Connor]

I would have thought that long dipole response would be more a function of the angle of the X-brace than anything else Craig.

The angled bridge saddle will reduce the amount of compression in front of the bridge and tension behind it (as compared to a standard bridge saddle but I don't reckon it would influence the long dipole too much.

[Nick]

Craig wrote:

If Al Carruth's view is correct in that it reduces the rotational force on the front of the bridge ,then I'm guessing that it would also reduce the long dipole , in favour of the main diplole ( up and down pumping action ). .. Make sense ?

The way I see it Craig would be that the long dipole would still remain intact as the string is still acting on a fulcrum point (Saddle) with the bridge pins acting as anchor, to move the bridge as a whole (as it does 'normally'). What I think (& the way I'm reading it) Al Carruth is refering to is the reduction of rotational force acting on the thin section of bridge immediately infront of the saddle trying to tear it out?

[WaddyT]

I'd like to make one more point, and that is that Rick Turner turned Al onto this tilted saddle. Al, though, has made some of the observations that I mentioned above. Credit should be given where it's due.

[Craig]

Here's a link from Feb '07' .

http://www.taylorguitarforum.com/forums ... hp?t=95601

[jeffhigh]

It does not make a difference to the overall forces the bridge exerts on the top. so no real unplugged acoustic benefit or disadvantage
Certainly going to help with a UST
Alan Caruth's reference to reducing rotational forces on the front of the bridge would be referring to the force trying to break the front of the bridge off at the slot.
IMHO, its a good idea, but I haven't got off my butt yet to implement it and since I don't use a UST no urgency.

[vandenboom]

FWIW, here is a post from late last year with Rick'r response.

viewtopic.php?t=1707&highlight=

As Bob and others have said, I can't be sure about the extent of any improvement, but as long it ain't can take me backwards, I'll go for whatever I can get.

In terms of approach, rather than sit the router at an angle, I made up a 9 degree shim to sit under the bridge, as I prefer to keep the router base flat while it's moving.

Frank

[seeaxe]

A few thoughts about this topic, FWIW, as Frank so succintly says! I've no idea whether any of it makes any difference, but the mechanics of it are interesting.

The amount of applied torque, rotational force, or whatever you want to call it is ... the total tension force in the strings times the distance the strings are from the soundboard. If the saddle is the same height tilted as it is vertical, then the torque is the same. Tilting the saddle by itself doesnt reduce the torque.

Theoretically, to avoid any force tending to tip the saddle over, the saddle should be tilted to bisect the angle betweeen the strings in front of and behind the saddle. So if the strings make say a 45 degree angle down to the pins, then the saddle should be tilted back at 22.5 degrees to thevertical. Thats a lot of tilt!!

However for this to be true the strings need to be able to move without friction over the saddle, which they dont. I suspect that when the strings are tightened they will still tend to pull the saddle forwards at the top.

With a tilted saddle you are adding some more shear (horizontal) force to the bridge/soundboard joint as the force that was acting vertically downwards before is now pointing forwards a bit. For the angles people are talking about here (a few degrees), its not much.

Cheers

[liam_fnq]

Quote:

With a tilted saddle you are adding some more shear (horizontal) force to the bridge/soundboard joint as the force that was acting vertically downwards before is now pointing forwards a bit. For the angles people are talking about here (a few degrees), its not much.

i'm aware of HOW vector forces work but i'd love to see someone do the the calculations. sometimes in these situations a couple of degrees make a huge difference and sometimes they make bugger all.

should have listened in year 11 physics in stead of staring at the girls next to me's........................................

[jeffhigh]

Liam, you are reading too much Somogyi if you are using the term "vector force"
There is no such term.

"Definition: A vector is a mathematical quantity that has both a magnitude and direction. It is often represented in variable form in boldface with an arrow above it. Many quantities in physics are vector quantities. "

All forces have both magnitude and direction and so are always vectors.

Saddle angle will not affect shear forces at the glue joint, the overall forces applied to the bridge have not changed.

[liam_fnq]

so..........your.......saying.........

vector forces don't exist but all forces act as vectors?

[jeffhigh]

ALL Forces are Vectors

The TERM "vector force" is what does not exist
It is a redundancy like saying "cured pig flesh bacon" instead of just asking for bacon.

[Craig]

jeffhigh wrote:

Saddle angle will not affect shear forces at the glue joint, the overall forces applied to the bridge have not changed.

But , the way those forces are being applied to the bridge from the saddle Have changed . An angled slot has the saddle put more of a force to the bottom of the slot , whereas a 90 ` slot puts more force to the front wall of the slot .

I would think the saddle better at distributing it's excitment to the bridge via the bottom of the slot rather than via the front wall of the slot .

This has become an interesting thread . Many thanks to all

This is the final re-constructed message of this topic posted by the ANZLF help team.