Theories behind bridge designs?

[morningstar]

All these years and I still don't really understand all the different bridge designs. I do undertsand all the abstract physics of the size of the string, scale length, and all that basic stuff. I am wondering what the thought process or theory is behind these different types...

What the heck is the advantage of say a wraptail?

Are the different Floyds and clones different for any other reason than trying to beat Floyd Rose out of royalties?

String through vs. TOM

Other stoptails?

Other trems?

I suddenly need to know this stuff.

Thanks

morningstar

[burningyen]

There's way too much going on with all the different bridges to just sum it up in a post. But I'm guessing some bridges (like wraptails and top-loader Tele bridges) came about purely for cost-cutting reasons and only had tonal or playability benefits by accident.

[murkat]

" for cost-cutting reasons and only had tonal or playability benefits by accident."

^ this.

for a floyd,

the ofr is a nice bridge.

But,

I just got a Gotoh floyd for the bengal. Ohmy.

way better than anything I have seen.

[Bennyboy-UK]

I'm sure that some of the floyd evolutions include some useful innovations.

One thing that I can't understand is if a string set of guages "x" is tuned up to concert pitch (for example) on a scale length of "y" on a TOM set up, how can it feel different to the same set up with a wrap tail - tension has to be the same, otherwise it wouldn't be in the same tuning. Wouldn't it?

Mind you I have several guitars set up with FRs and the same scale length and string guage - however some of the trems feel radically different between each other - even with the same number of strings in the back. Is that possible? I need to check there are the same number of springs in each of them now - to stop me being paranoid...

There must be some Hooks Law stuff going on that says less springs under tension to give string set "x" at scale length"y" in tune are more spongey or something than more springs holding tring set "x" at scale length"y" in tune, and are stifffer than the fewer springs...?

[tobereeno]

with Floyds, I'd guess that softer springs might allow for more give, and therefore a different string feel.

I've come to realize that with bending strings, the more length past the nut and saddle, the harder the bend. While going open nut (with locking Sperzels) sounded better, I went back to a locking nut because it just gives a softer string feel.

[onguitar]

Regarding the Wraparound vs Tune-o-matic bridge the difference is basically evolutionary, involving perceived functional improvements as well as cost considerations. Ted McCarty designed the Wraparound in 1952/3, it was cheap, one-piece, made of aluminum because of its light weight (but this required extra work because the molded aluminum needed to be filed, sanded, buffed and then plated with nickel). Problem was intonation was not adjustable - so the ABR-1 or Tune-o-matic was designed to fix this. McCarty was inspired by violin bows and the way bow-string tension could be adjusted with a screw attached to a block that moved back and forth. The old wraparound was modified and became the tailpiece, and the adjustable bridge was added. In 1955 the top of the line Les Pauls had the Tune-o-matic, while the cheaper Juniors and Specials kept the wraparound. The side effects of feel and perhaps sound differences have led to their continued use in different contexts.

Most of the differences in various bridge designs have the same mix involved in their invention, production and use - a perceived functional improvement has side effects of tone, feel, cost, and so on that may be seized on by players and manufacturers...

One thing that I can't understand is if a string set of guages "x" is tuned up to concert pitch (for example) on a scale length of "y" on a TOM set up, how can it feel different to the same set up with a wrap tail - tension has to be the same, otherwise it wouldn't be in the same tuning. Wouldn't it?

The tension of the vibrating part of the string is the same if the scale length and string gauge is the same. But the feel is different especially when bending strings near the nut or bridge due to the extra length of string in TOM setups (and diff tuner arrangements). It is easier to bend a longer piece of string than a shorter piece - with a TOM you are pulling string over the bridge from the length of string that goes to the tailstop, so it feels easier. some good diagrams here: http://www.frudua.co...ngs_tension.htm Strings are easier to bend on my guitar with a Bigsby than on my guitar with a floyd, though the scale length is the same.

ps: I realise this is the opposite of what Tobereeno just said, but heck it's just what I have found, YMMV.

[burningyen]

Yeah, my experience is the opposite of Toby's. With locking nuts or headless guitars, bends at the 2nd fret were always a nightmare for me.

[Hamer Dave]

Has to do with 'give' over the nut/saddle. If it is locked down, there is no 'give'. So there is a concentrated affect. When there is no locking, the stretching of the string is shared with some give beyond the stop point of the nut/saddle. Hope that comes across making sense. Not sure what I prefer, as I've played nearly everything, and adapt.

[Bennyboy-UK]

Yarp, I'm getting it now, the extra length for example behind the nut gives you some length of material to be part of the structure to 'give' when bent.

[Ting Ho Dung]

^^ It's called, "Behind the nut love."

[killerteddybear]

Of course, the rules are all different for acoustic gutars...