Full contact v two point contact ??? Thoughts
Full contact v two point contact ??? Thoughts
John Dudeck
John, I sent you a PM...Willie
this poses an interesting question - if we take the Gibson "Loar" sound as the ultimate instrument, then I would think that using the methods that sound is based on is what preserves that sound - so a bridge like the StewMac Randy Wood Bridge seems closest to the bridges Lloyd Loar made. If you change the lower half of the bridge, I would think the top carving might be changed to compensate. I took some measurement from a standard bridge (as installed on middle grade mandolins of as a middle price replacement bridge) and the CA bridge, and while the CA bridge is thinner, the gap is smaller making the contact area basically the same. I am playing a Loar LM-400 right now that has no tone bars, so it was clearly designed to give a certain sound with the stock bridge. I find the instrument has some of the warmth of a round sound hole (x brace) mandolin yet handles the hard playing (chop) of an f hole instrument. I modified a "Golden Gate" replacement bridge for it - I made the saddle piece similar to the CA - thinner and a little lighter then standard, and left the lower bridge piece fairly standard.
I know it has been brought up a few times over the years: HERE, HERE, and HERE.
I recently added a full contact bridge to my mando. At the time, I wasn't really going for full contact. But I had to remove a lot of material to match the top, and full contact is where it ended up. My guess is that the difference between the two are very, very subtle. When I added the full contact bridge I also put on a thicker fingerboard and taller frets which increased the string break angle. The greater break angle, I think, changed the character of the sound much more than the bridge.
The next time I work on the mando, I might do a little carving to get it back to two separate feet.
Matt Morgan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jztTl1mas94
Thanks Walt that was a big help.
John Dudeck
Bookmarks