Page 14 of 15
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:43 pm
by ken cierp
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"
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:51 pm
by Dave Bagwill
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...
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:11 pm
by ken cierp
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?
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:33 pm
by John Parchem
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.
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:57 pm
by Dave Bagwill
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??
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:03 pm
by John Parchem
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.
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:46 pm
by Dave Bagwill
A lot of guys use shims, is what I hear.