Saddle Height

[Firebird]

Does anybody know the Guild specification for saddle height? I'm looking for that distance from the top of the bridge to the top of the saddle. Thanks.

 

[adorshki]

Does anybody know the Guild specification for saddle height? I'm looking for that distance from the top of the bridge to the top of the saddle. Thanks.

Hi Firebird, I can see you've been around for a while and own a few guitars so maybe I'm not understanding the question but here's my take:
I've never seen a spec for saddle height. It's always for set-up height (action) at the 12th fret: 5-6/64ths for bass E and 4-5/64ths for treble E. The point being that the saddle is going to be one of the adjusted elements in a proper set-up over the life of the guitar. A better question might be what's the optimum break angle for the strings, since it sounds like you're trying to figure out if the saddle is too low. It gets too low after it's been shaved down for one if not both of these reasons: someone wanted the action very low, or the guitar needs its neck reset and lowering the saddle is the only way to get back to the proper setup height at the 12th fret. The break angle is the angle the string makes as it passes over the saddle from the bridge pins. The shallower (flatter) the angle, the less energy is transmmitted to the top from the strings through the saddle, so volume and sustain are compromised. Another point is that the saddles are curved to pretty closely match the radius of the fretboard (12" is the only spec I've ever seen other than flat, but that doesn't mean there weren't other specs on different models from different eras), but they're also gradually biased a few mils higher towards the bass side to get that extra action height on that side. So it's almost a trick question; Why are you asking?

 

[devellis]

I agree with Al. The neck angle is set in relation to the bridge location. Then a saddle is fit and its height adjusted to yield suitable action. Actually, some manufacturers initially set the action high because it's pretty easy to lower it by removing material from the bottom of the saddle. Raising requires either shimming the saddle or, preferably, putting in a taller saddle. So, to avoid having to supply additional saddles, manufacturers (Martin is a good example) may ship their guitars with the action a bit high. But if you measured the height of every saddle above the surface of the bridge, I doubt there would be a consistent distance. And even if there were, it would be an artifact of a standard neck angle, standard bridge thickness, and standard saddle installation, rather than a targeted "spec" for the guitar. If each part were cut on a CNC machine and the neck angle was always set identically, this latter scenario might apply. But the resultant height would be more a side-effect than a target, if you get my drift. The critical variables, as already noted, are the string height above the frets and the break angle across the saddle.

 

[adorshki]

So, to avoid having to supply additional saddles, manufacturers (Martin is a good example) may ship their guitars with the action a bit high.

In fact I suspect they all do for the reasons you described, it's a lot easier to lower it than to raise it back up, so why not just start "at the top". Personally I LIKE a high action and even my luthier thought it was going to be too "high" when I got the '25 re-fretted and told him I wanted the action at factory spec, and yet he was amazed at how easy to play it still was. Of course a little of that is nut slot depth but that's a slightly different subject.
What else occurs to me is all the references I see to "plenty of saddle height" on the internet used ads, but this completely sidesteps the question of whether or not the bridge itself might have been shaved down to allow for a lower saddle while compensating for that neck getting out of ideal angle. There is aftere all a sort of minimum clearance (saddle height) required so the strings don't hit the bridge while being strummed, and that in itself would depend on how the instrument was being played. And that's going to affect break angle too. It makes me wonder if that's why the bridges on my F65 and D40 are so much thicker than the D25, to allow for that in future. Or perhaps more likely they just needed to be that thick to get a good setup height as built.

 

[onewilyfool]

I agree that the 12th fret action is the measurement that needs to be done. HOWEVER, if you put a straight edge on the top of the frets, down the center, the bottom of the straight edge SHOULD hit just at the top of the bridge. If it is lower, it is starting to indicate that you need to look at neck angle.....When the saddle is as low as it can go, and the actions is 3/32" at the 12th fret, a straight edge will probably hit somewhere below the top of bridge.....time for neck reset.....

 

[devellis]

This discussion raises the issue of bridge shaving as a way to make a lower saddle work. Bridge shaving is controversial. For one thing, it makes the saddle slot more shallow. It also thins, and thus weakens, the bridge. Finally, it renders it difficult to determine when a neck reset is needed. If a straight edge laid along the frets would have hit 1/4 inch below the top of the bridge, but the bridge has been shaved by 1/8 inch, it will align only 1/8 inch below the lowered top. This might incorrectly suggest that the neck isn't in need of a reset. If a neck needs a reset and, if the bridge has been shaved, the bridge will need to be replaced because the taller saddle needed for the correct neck angle won't have enough slot depth to hold it securely without risking a bridge split (double jeopardy: more saddle height above the slot creates more leverage and a thinner bridge base is more fragile). So, when a neck reset is needed, shaving the bridge (a) makes this harder to recognize and (b) makes putting things right a more complicated and expensive process. Also, shaving the bridge won't do anything to help the shallower string break angle that may arise from having to lower the saddle to get decent action from a guitar that has a neck in need of a reset. Bridge shaving may be a cheap, temporary fix if you're running out of saddle clearance but it'll bite you in the backside over the long term and will be a red flag to an informed potential buyer if you try to sell it.

 

[adorshki]

Bridge shaving may be a cheap, temporary fix if you're running out of saddle clearance but it'll bite you in the backside over the long term and will be a red flag to an informed potential buyer if you try to sell it.

That was my point, but thanks for deeper explanation. It simply reinforces my original question: Why is the whole question of saddle height being asked? Is someone trying to use it as a selling point when maybe it's diverting attention from a real problem?

 

[kostask]

Bridge shaving is never a good idea. There may be some guitars in which the bridge is too thick, but for all of the better guitars, this wouldn't be an issue.

A better question might be: what is the factory specification for the height of the bridge above the soundboard? Or, what is the range of string heights above the sound board that is considered acceptable? In the first case, you would know directly that the bridge was shaved, and in the second, you would know that the strings are too high/too low, and could thereby know that the a neck reset was required, or that the action was set up for somebody who likes it higher than factory specification, which might explain why the guitar sounds so good, but is hard to play.

Kostas

 

[adorshki]

A better question might be: what is the factory specification for the height of the bridge above the soundboard? Or, what is the range of string heights above the sound board that is considered acceptable? Kostas

You must have been reading my mind! :lol: I was considering that probably while you were posting it. I'm wondering if that might also be one of those things for which there really isn't a spec for the same reasons there's really no spec for saddle height. I agree it sounds like a great way to check for good neck angle but I wonder if the potential range of acceptable height would be too wide to have practical use?
I hope we're not intimidating poor Firebird. Now I'm really curious what brought the original question on in the first place.

 

[Alec]

In "Guitarmaking" by Cumpiano & Natelson, p. 357, "If the fretboard is correctly inclined, proper action will be achieved with the saddle at an optimal height: approximately 1/8 inch over the bridges top surface, as measured down the guitar's centerline." For bridge height, on p. 343 "Begin with a billet . . . planed to 3/8 inch . . ."

I put this out there for reference, only, not some immutable principle.

My limited experience is that all else being equal, pushing the high side of 1/8 gives you a brighter, louder guitar, but any more than 5/32 will fail.