X-170 Replacement bridge?

[alw]

I've been around for a while, but this is my first post. Anyway, hoping you fine folks might have a recomendation for the best repacement bridge for my 97 X-170. Someone previously slotted the original to deeply.

 

[Default]

callahamguitars.com/abr1.htm

It's a buck and a half, pretty pricey ( I know) for a tunematic, but the people who have bought one hav e raved about it. TruArcs are another option, but I have a weird ear. Using an unwound g on my sf3's wound g bigsby bridge sets my teeth on edge and I can't understand how a bar bridge can intonate properly. That being said, folks that use them love the sound too. It may be that Truarcs intonate better with heavier gage strings than I use.

 

[AcornHouse]

You'll have to fine tune the fit, but Stewmac has a selection.
http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Bridges,_tailpieces/Archtop_guitar_bridges.html

 

[Default]

I was thinking like a blues/rock player. If you play jazz, an ebony or rosewood bridge would be more appropriate.

Heckuva lot cheaper too!

 

[kakerlak]

If it's just that the slots are too deep, I'd sand down the top of the bridge to the point that they're no longer so. Would be simple, free and you'd get to keep the OEM part on the guitar. You'd end up spending some time sanding the underside of a new bridge to match the top's contours anyway...

 

[kakerlak]

callahamguitars.com/abr1.htm

It's a buck and a half, pretty pricey ( I know) for a tunematic, but the people who have bought one hav e raved about it. TruArcs are another option, but I have a weird ear. Using an unwound g on my sf3's wound g bigsby bridge sets my teeth on edge and I can't understand how a bar bridge can intonate properly. That being said, folks that use them love the sound too. It may be that Truarcs intonate better with heavier gage strings than I use.

It won't; you just angle it on a line of best fit and hope everything's "close." (Same set up you get w/ a flattop acoustic.) On the other hand, it should be a lot closer to correct than a fixed-compensated bridge is with a plain G, since the saddles are staggered in the wrong direction from D-to-G-to-B, rather than just not staggered.

 

[alw]

If it's just that the slots are too deep, I'd sand down the top of the bridge to the point that they're no longer so. Would be simple, free and you'd get to keep the OEM part on the guitar. You'd end up spending some time sanding the underside of a new bridge to match the top's contours anyway...

Thanks for the advice. I thought of this, but had a couple of concerns. Because I'd probaby need to take it down a 1/16" or so, not changing the top radius of the bridge and because the saddles are tapered the thickness at the top when done.

 

[kakerlak]

If it's just that the slots are too deep, I'd sand down the top of the bridge to the point that they're no longer so. Would be simple, free and you'd get to keep the OEM part on the guitar. You'd end up spending some time sanding the underside of a new bridge to match the top's contours anyway...

Thanks for the advice. I thought of this, but had a couple of concerns. Because I'd probaby need to take it down a 1/16" or so, not changing the top radius of the bridge and because the saddles are tapered the thickness at the top when done.

You won't actually change the radius of the strings themselves, unless you re-file the string slots; you'll just be clearing away some of the excess wood that's standing proud of the strings. If the bottoms of the string slots form a resonably useable radius as-is, then I'd give it a shot. Particularly true if you're going to scrap the bridge anyway.

You are correct, though, in noting that the saddles will be wider across the strings. Depending on the time you want to spend, you could needle-file the tapers a bit to restore them to a narrower width. If the slots are appropriately tight laterally, it shouldn't make too much difference how ling they are (width of the wood the strings cross). Theoretically, the strings vibrate from the leading edge of the saddle forward.

 

[alw]

If it's just that the slots are too deep, I'd sand down the top of the bridge to the point that they're no longer so. Would be simple, free and you'd get to keep the OEM part on the guitar. You'd end up spending some time sanding the underside of a new bridge to match the top's contours anyway...

Thanks for the advice. I thought of this, but had a couple of concerns. Because I'd probaby need to take it down a 1/16" or so, not changing the top radius of the bridge and because the saddles are tapered the thickness at the top when done.

You won't actually change the radius of the strings themselves, unless you re-file the string slots; you'll just be clearing away some of the excess wood that's standing proud of the strings. If the bottoms of the string slots form a resonably useable radius as-is, then I'd give it a shot. Particularly true if you're going to scrap the bridge anyway.

You are correct, though, in noting that the saddles will be wider across the strings. Depending on the time you want to spend, you could needle-file the tapers a bit to restore them to a narrower width. If the slots are appropriately tight laterally, it shouldn't make too much difference how ling they are (width of the wood the strings cross). Theoretically, the strings vibrate from the leading edge of the saddle forward.

Thanks again kakerlak. Good info, and you're right, I might a well give it a shot, was going to replace the bridge anyway,

 

[guildman63]

alw,

I just recently purchased an original rosewood X-170 bridge and a harp tailpiece from Hans to convert my orange X-170T to an X-170, so if you are interested in replacing your bridge with the real thing give him a shout as he should be able to help you out. Good luck!

 

[parker_knoll]

I can't understand how a bar bridge can intonate properly. That being said, folks that use them love the sound too. It may be that Truarcs intonate better with heavier gauge strings than I use.

If we really want to quibble nothing can intonate properly, since...

a) in now-standard (once new and exciting) equal tempered tuning nothing is really in tune, it's a compromise to prevent you having to retune for each key, invented primarily for keyboard instruments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_temperament

b) frets in themselves are a compromise and for the notes to be properly in tune you'd have to have the frets differently placed for every single string. Fretless instruments like violins can play properly in tune since you can finger the note different for each string and even each key, but guitars can't.

But a properly compensated bridge will help you be more in tune than an uncompensated one, as will a compensated nut. But you can never be in tune everywhere on the neck, despite what Lou Reed once told me. (I didn't argue with him though). I prefer to use a properly compensated bridge if i can.

 

[alw]

alw,

I just recently purchased an original rosewood X-170 bridge and a harp tailpiece from Hans to convert my orange X-170T to an X-170, so if you are interested in replacing your bridge with the real thing give him a shout as he should be able to help you out. Good luck!

Thanks for the suggestion guildman63. I'll give that a try as well.