Thanks Guys!
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Question for Fellow Classical Builders http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=6617 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | EBarajas [ Wed May 10, 2006 6:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Why don't more classical builders use a slanted saddle for compensation rather than moving the saddle back 1.5-2mm? In the past I always just moved the sadlle back and it worked ok, but now I compensate the saddle by slanting it. On almost every one, those that played them said they couldn't believe how great the intonation was even when using a capo. So I'm a little confused, is it more tradition? Finicky Players? Cosmetics? Or is a straight saddle better? |
|
| Author: | Alan Carruth [ Wed May 10, 2006 7:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Saddle compensation is, at least in part, used to make up for the way the strings get tighter when you fret them. Nylon stretches more than steel, so the tension changes less, and there's less pitch shift. Thus there's less need for compensation. Nylon strings also tend to have fewer partials than steel strings, owing to the higher damping factor of the nylon. This, and the inherent anharmonicity of the relatively thick strings gives a less 'secure'or 'fuzzier' sense of pitch with nylon, so you notice small differences in tuning less. Hence nylon string guitars have had less need of angled saddles, and have not generally used them. The players get used to the straight saddle, and look at you funny if you make it otherwise, so 'tradition' plays a part as well. Recently more classical makers, inspired and instructed by Greg Byers, have been using saddle and nut compensation to try for better intonation. With the variations in string materials and construction methods you have to know what's going to be used on the guitar to set it up well, but it seems to work nicely. The amount of compensation needed for all but the G string is not great, and can usualy be acommodated on a 'normal saddle if it's in the right place to begin with. |
|
| Author: | csullivan [ Wed May 10, 2006 7:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Good question. I'd like to hear what some of you classical builders have to say about this, too. I'm guessing it has more to do with tradition and the fact there's not as much room on a standard shaped classical bridge to add much slope? Craig S. |
|
| Author: | Michael McBroom [ Wed May 10, 2006 9:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Ramirez 1a I used to own has a slanted saddle. This appears to be the exception rather than the rule, though, and I suspect Ramirez did this because of their habit of rather sharply contouring the bass side of the fingerboard for additional string clearance. I personally haven't felt the need to make bridges with slanted saddles. But something I do that many other classical builders don't is I use a wider saddle -- about 0.110" typically, where the standard seems to be closer to 3/32" (0.094" or roughly 2.5mm). I'm even thinking of trying 1/8" saddles, which should allow for any additional intonation adjustment, if needed. I don't see what the harm would be, if any, by going with a 1/8" wide saddle. Best, Michael |
|
| Author: | Aust Tonewoods [ Wed May 10, 2006 10:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have used a wider saddle, located the saddle at the compensated scale length then fine tuned each string with a Peterson VS Tuner. It is time consuming but worth the effort. Tim |
|
| Author: | EBarajas [ Wed May 10, 2006 11:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Michael, I have seen other high end Ramirez Guitars with the same slanted saddle that is why I went to it. I had figured, if it was good enough for Ramirez it should be good enough for me. I find it easier to create the slanted saddle rather than compensating a wider saddle. I've heard that when you compensate at the nut or wider saddle it has to be set up for a specific set of strings is this true? I'm sure the same would be with the slanted saddle but I've never really noticed a difference. The only people that didn't like the slanted saddle were other luthiers. Most of the time people don't even notice it. |
|
| Author: | Michael McBroom [ Wed May 10, 2006 2:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ed, Back when I first started building, I bought a couple of nice Braz rosewood bridges off eBay. I've never used them, mostly because they have slanted saddle slots. I wasn't sure where to set the saddle line with respect to the setback. I use a setback of about 1.5mm, and I'm thinking that if I set the middle of the saddle slot (between the 3rd and 4th string) at that setback, then the intonation will be off somewhat for the E and B strings. Not only that, as I mentioned my suspicions in the above post that Ramirez may do this because of the rather drastic countour it does to the bass side of the fingerboard, it seems to me that if I don't drastically contour the fb, the bass side's intonation may be off as well. So those two saddles sit on the shelf. So where do you place your saddle centerline with respect to the offset? Best, Michael |
|
| Author: | jfrench [ Wed May 10, 2006 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
While things may have changed and I haven't checked, LMI or Stewmac used to sell a bridge with a slanted saddle for classical guitars. I won't use it. Its another of those "crossover" things that don't really sit well with the purists. I prefer a saddle straight across, and I use Greg Byers method of nut and saddle compensation. It leaves plenty of room for different strings, in my opinion. At worst one might have to re-compensate the saddle to make the intonation more perfect, but in general the results are already far better than just setting the saddle back 2mm, as on most guitars. Ramirez are production guitars, even when luthiers make them (ie. no allowable deviation from the design, thicknesses, etc). Many people love them, but I would be very reluctant (with all due respect, and I'm only presenting an opinion) to ever accept that what's good enough for them is good enough for me. In terms if saddle placement, when combined with nut compensation, Greg Byers' and John Gilbert's methods are light years beyond Ramirez. I have no idea how one would use a slanted saddle with this method, but I can assure you that the Byers method is far superior to a basic slanted saddle. I rarely get an order where a customer doesn't inquire as to how I approach intonation, and they are always pleased with this method. |
|
| Author: | EBarajas [ Wed May 10, 2006 4:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Joshua, Micheal, I'm willing to try anything new, do you know where I can find a nice tutorial on Greg Byers or John Gilberts method? And which one do you prefer? Micheal, I'll have to measure the compensation. I use a jig now to set my bridges |
|
| Author: | Jeff Doty [ Wed May 10, 2006 11:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ed, I think this is the article Joshua is refering to. Jeff Byers Intonation article. |
|
| Author: | Michael McBroom [ Thu May 11, 2006 12:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here's a link to John Gilbert's article on fret placement and intonation. It's a bear to get through, though. I actually went to the trouble of building a spreadsheet a couple years ago that would allow me to determine fret spacing and nut and saddle placement for any string length using his method. This required cutting the frets by hand, though. That's the way I built my first five classicals. Having to cut the fret slots by hand was a chore, and inevitably introduced some error. I was commenting about this to Brian Burns a while back, and he told me of a "modified" Gilbert method that he and other builders he know use -- namely to cut 1/32" off the nut end of the fb and to set the saddle back 0.060". I have used this simplified method ever since. It has resulted in well-compensated instrument so far. But I definitely would like to try Byers' method someday. Regarding Byer's method, the above link is to his PDF article, which is pretty heady stuff, complete with partial differential equations and the like. If you'd like a more accessible version, you can find it here. There is also Paul Jacobson's method. It appears to be functionally very similar to Byers' method. I tried this on one guitar, and wasn't happy with the results, even when using the same strings he specified. I can't entirely blame his method, though, since I also cut the fret slots by hand on this guitar, so there's most likely some error there. Best, Michael |
|
| Author: | EBarajas [ Thu May 11, 2006 2:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks Guys!
|
|
| Author: | Shawn [ Fri May 12, 2006 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Im with Joshua...I am a traditionalist when it comes to the saddle. I use a 3 mm saddle and use the same method of compensation (nut and saddle) that Greg Byer uses and Gilbert first described. For a classical guitar and its conservative stylized nature, it is a matter of balance and form to the overall components. It is about symmetry...for most classical players you cant add a cutaway and still cal it a classical..they would take one look and say, "give it to Earl Klugh, he plays Jazz". The same is true with a slanted saddle...even though I understand its function I can build a very proper traditional look and still have plenty of room for compensation if I compensate at the nut and saddle. |
|
| Author: | Shawn [ Fri May 12, 2006 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I collect classical and Pre-Torres guitars and have a French LaCote school (Mirecourt) guitar circa ~1830 that has bar frets that are ivory inset into the fingerboard. They protrude so slightly that when playing they feel like tyed frets on a lute. The top extends onto the playing surface of the neck with frets inset into it as well. Trying to figure out fret deflection on this would be a difficult task... How was it solved?... the saddle was 4mm, solid brass, inset into the bridge but the saddle was shaped to compensate for each string. And that was without any kind of peterson tuners ... they tackled it with the technology of the day but still know what in tune up and down the fingerboard should sound like.
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|