Is this what Batson does for a bridge?

[Dave Bagwill]

I think the Batson guitars - flat tops, but using a tailpiece like an archtop - run the strings from the tailpiece into the bridge and up and over the saddle, thence to the headstock.

Would this in your opinion give enough down-force at the bridge to cause the bridge action we are striving for?



Let me be more clear, I attach a photo of a Batson with this type of bridge. Now obviously it works for Batson, but Batson also has a sound that is more 'jazzy' than wide-open acoustic, and I don't know if the bridge configuration is a part of that. I don't want to build a jazz guitar.

Added a very clear picture.

[ken cierp]

Too weird! Seems bound to fail (shear off the at the entry holes) and very heavy because it huge. I believe a pin-less bridge is a better choice. The same angle of attack over the saddle is accomplished in a far more simple (proven) arrangement. $.02

[TonyinNYC]

I think the Batson bridge is exactly why they have a jazzy sound. A big part of the force that the bridge can apply to the sound board is the pull of the strings on the bridge. You are removing the pull by moving the end point to a tail piece. I don't think you can ever get a true acoustic guitar sound from that style of bridge. I have never heard a Batson, mind you, I am basing my opinion strictly on the physics of the system as a whole.

[Dave Bagwill]

I asked Mike Doolin about this, in relation to flat-tops. He replied that the advantages of this type of tailpiece/bridge are that you can brace very lightly, since almost all the shear force is taken by the tailpiece, and the only force on the bridge is downward (plus a little rotational force); disadvantage is that the break angle over the saddle does not provide as much downward force.

I looked on the Batson site, in the FAQ section, and the site addressed the issues. Their first instruments had a regular archtop-type tailpiece and bridge, and the flattop sounded more like an archtop. They then took two steps: first, made the tailpiece completely rigid, so that none of the string force was dissipated at that point; second, directed the strings INTO the bridge and up and over the saddle, to give more downward force. As well, by removing the soundhole from the top, they are able to use very light fan bracing.

I don't know if they are successful at producing what we here might agree on as an 'acoustic guitar' sound, but they think they have.

[ken cierp]

What's the point of "waisting/disipating" the string tension energy to any place but the sound-board? To my eye there is nothing elegant about that bridge or the tail piece.

Kinda makes me grin -- if one wants a guitar that sounds like an acoustic flat top -- just seems logical to me, that you make or buy "an acoustic flattop."

[Dave Bagwill]

I don't know if my experience is 'typical' or not - but I think we all get to the point where we say "Okay, I can actually do this. Build a solid, good looking , and musical instrument. And I can go a little further and make it a very easy to play instrument. Go further and tweak it to get more sound out of it. And maybe make it more shiny. I can do these things. I can also improve my skill at them as I go along."

And then, not content to be able to make something that sounds like and looks like everyone else's, maybe try something different. And we discover that we can do that, and make a fine instrument, but in reality it does not sound better than our stock models, or play any easier, and we realize that the basic ways that things have traditionally developed do give the results that we measure our efforts by - i.e., the Martin/Gibson models and their variations. We are not going to 'improve' the basic model that much. We can certainly achieve a different sound quality but the more it varies from what people expect, the less attractive it is; it is different, but maybe not better.

And also - we really cannot compete with the good factories, either in product or price. We CAN build a custom guitar for a given customer, and that is our niche. That, and word of mouth. Relatives, etc.

But we are all different and can honor those differences in one another. For some, making an excellent clone of an excellent Martin/Gibson is very fulfilling thing:Tradition and the strength and beauty of tradition. For some, passing along the skills and information they have learned is the key. For some it is the adventure of change for change's sake - just to see what shakes out, and indulge one's creativity. Also, places like this Forum give a sense of belonging and fellowship in this age of social media. And some of us are a compilation of all these things.

For me, selling a bunch of guitars has never been the goal. I have very modest talents, but I do get a kick out of using them. Creativity outside the given - is what it is all about for me, and making a few bucks teaching some good people, to the level I am able, is the gravy.

[Paul C]

That was a very nice input Dave. I enjoyed reading it. Thanx.