Split saddle logic
Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:12 am
I've been ask if there is an advantage to a "split saddle" vs the common long saddle. Well its all in the math/science of intonation -- quick refresher, the amount of compensation needed for each string is relative to the thickness of the string "core" not overall diameter. So in reality the "G" is most often the "thinnest" string in the set -- sometimes the "B" is the "thickest." Now, looking at the standard 3 degree angled saddle one can see that the "G" string contact point will automatically be compensated more (farther from the nut) than the 1st "E" -- not good. And even with an 1/8" saddle, the thick "B" string in many medium gage sets could use a touch more comp. Of course the "split saddle is a remedy for this situation.
Now I have constructed and modified plenty of guitars to include a full 3/16" or even 1/4" saddle -- its a personal thing, but I do not like the look.
Another problem with these intonations improvement strategies comes when its decided that a amplification system is wanted/needed. I know of no split saddle piezos and the wider undersaddle units are mostly if not completely limited to factory replacement parts -- I know Yamaha and Takamine have them. For me the solution is a no brainer since I am a fan of the JJB and K&K type systems -- though not crazy about the "CA" glue installation process which is another topic.
Now I have constructed and modified plenty of guitars to include a full 3/16" or even 1/4" saddle -- its a personal thing, but I do not like the look.
Another problem with these intonations improvement strategies comes when its decided that a amplification system is wanted/needed. I know of no split saddle piezos and the wider undersaddle units are mostly if not completely limited to factory replacement parts -- I know Yamaha and Takamine have them. For me the solution is a no brainer since I am a fan of the JJB and K&K type systems -- though not crazy about the "CA" glue installation process which is another topic.