Yet another math question

Things that matter and not -- Just keep it wholesome
ken cierp
Posts: 3924
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:23 pm

Re: Yet another math question

Post by ken cierp » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:43 pm

Is it more efficient than a "tight fitting" saddle that does not tilt toward the nut? I really like 1/4" saddles. Most don't like the way they look. I don't think 3/16" saddles are prone to tipping either. The widest I supply are only 1/8"

Dave Bagwill
Posts: 5952
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Yet another math question

Post by Dave Bagwill » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:51 pm

Efficient? Yeah I think probably - there is more force into the slot when the saddle is angled back, and less force toward the nut. I'm not concerned about UST's anyway, unless someone wants one installed on a new build, in which case I would do the back angle thing.
Haven't heard from Bob Taylor yet on why he insists on the back angle of the saddle. Could be he's busy...
-Under permanent construction

ken cierp
Posts: 3924
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:23 pm

Re: Yet another math question

Post by ken cierp » Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:11 pm

I wonder if the saddle tipping in the slot is not the real focus -- but rather the entire bridge rolling toward the nut and tilting the saddle as a result -- then if the saddle is tipped back its more likely to be on the designed plane?

John Parchem
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:33 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Yet another math question

Post by John Parchem » Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:33 pm

ken cierp wrote:I wonder if the saddle tipping in the slot is not the real focus -- but rather the entire bridge rolling toward the nut and tilting the saddle as a result -- then if the saddle is tipped back its more likely to be on the designed plane?
That was what I thought. Although I think a lot of standard compensation factors added to the scale length include a bit to deal with rotation under tension.

Dave Bagwill
Posts: 5952
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Yet another math question

Post by Dave Bagwill » Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:57 pm

The people I quoted above were convinced that that was not the only issue. More direct pressure on the bridge, more direct contact on ust's, and easier and better intonation were the leading factors.
From SCGC: "Dan ( one of the two heads of the company) told me about an experiment he'd been trying, which involved tilting the bridge saddle backwards (toward the bridge pins) at a 10-degree angle. This provided for an increased break angle, and allowed more string-to-saddle contact; thus allowing for more control over intonation compensation.

Anyway, that is their reasoning, and why they do it now as a matter of course. I'll bet Taylor used the same reasoning??
-Under permanent construction

John Parchem
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:33 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Yet another math question

Post by John Parchem » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:03 pm

My tools and jigs do not really allow me to tilt the saddle slot. I have been wanting a mini-mill. Maybe I could shim under one side of my router.

Dave Bagwill
Posts: 5952
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Yet another math question

Post by Dave Bagwill » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:46 pm

A lot of guys use shims, is what I hear.
-Under permanent construction

Post Reply