Hatted Frau's latest Bigsby question.

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

Several of you have explained to me why some guitars need a bigsby that is screwed to the top (or, in Upshur County, nailed.) Simply put, the strings on the bigsby side of the saddle can't be perpendicular to the saddle. Instead, they have to rise up toward the saddle at roughly a 45% angle. (Right so far?)
http://groups.msn.com/HattedFrausOrange/shoebox.msnw

So here's the solution (which I'm sure Paul Bigsby thought of and knew why it wouldn't work).

1) You make the hinge so that once it's screwed in around the endpin, you put the bigsby down on the top of the guitar, and the pin in the hinge can be tightened so it doesn't move. So now you have solved problem one: getting the bigsby to lay on the top without screwing it down. But you still have to get the strings to approach the saddle at a favorable angle.

2) You make the bigsby so long that it goes up close to the saddle, almost touching it.

3) You make the bar (to which the strings are attached) so low that it almost touches the guitar. (Any part of the bigsby touching the top of the guitar would be covered with felt or the like.)

4) You make the bar of the smallest diameter possible (to further increase the angle of the strings as they approach the saddle).

5) You have the strings come out from under the bar, and you have a kind of "reverse gear" so that pushing down on the handle still lowers, and pulling up still raises.

Should I move this to the comedy section?

hf

 

[Dreamlander]

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Reverse gear? might take away from the simplicity of them a bit :lol: :lol:

 

[Jeff]

)


So here's the solution (which I'm sure Paul Bigsby thought of and knew why it wouldn't work).


4) You make the bar of the smallest diameter possible (to further increase the angle of the strings as they approach the saddle).

5) You have the strings come out from under the bar, and you have a kind of "reverse gear" so that pushing down on the handle still lowers, and pulling up still raises.

Should I move this to the comedy section?

hf

# 1 ref# 4, reducing the diameter of the bar(where the strings are attached correct?) would change the leverage ratio resulting in more travel necessary to achieve same tonal variation,

#2 You could get a SF III, no screws in the top. I'm assuming the contact points are cushioned.

#3 Is an unkind sugestion & I apologize.

 

[Walter Broes]

Hey, keep this up, and you might re-invent the Floyd Rose!

Seriously though, Paul Bigsby did think of it, and that's how he came up with the B5 and B7. They work well if set up well, I wouldn't "mutilate" a vintage guitar with one either, but there's always the option to keep looking until you find an example of the guitar you're looking for with the Bigsby already installed.

Pretty much the only thing that's ever bothered me about Bigsbies is that the guitar goes badly out of tune if you break a string. Got any engineering ideas for that one Darryl?

 

[dklsplace]

Pretty much the only thing that's ever bothered me about Bigsbies is that the guitar goes badly out of tune if you break a string. Got any engineering ideas for that one Darryl?

Sure, just install the new automatic tuners that Gibson is showcasing. :lol:

 

[Walter Broes]

Ah, yes, I'll drill out the old X175 for those tuners, and all the wiring and the computer brain... :lol: :lol: :lol: But I'll be able to break strings much as I want!!!! :twisted:

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

Dreamlander,

Reverse gear? might take away from the simplicity of them a bit

I don't know, but after reading these posts, I think #4 and #5 have to go. Yet even without them, the string angle might be good enough.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter,

....you might re-invent the Floyd Rose!

If I could get David Gilmour to endorse it, I'd call it a Pink Rose. And if you're playing blues, it's better if it's out of tune.

Seriously though, would the shortest Bigsby bigsby, the B 3, improve the angle a bit?

-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff,

Thanks for pointing out the problem of smaller diameter.

Would it be possible to have the strings come out from under the bar and then have a "reverse gear" so that moving the handle down would still lower pitch, and raising the handle would raise the pitch?

#3 Is an unkind sugestion & I apologize.

Since I always follow directions, there's no room left. It's full of marriage proposals, job applications, loan requests, etc.

hf

 

[Walter Broes]

Darryl, a B3 does sometimes work on an archtop where a B6 doesn't, but the difference is minimal.

I have a '59/60 X175 I got from Hans quite a few years back, and I used to have it set up with a Bigsby, which wasn't ideal in this guitar's case - the string to bridge angle was just barely enough.

As I've recently bought the twin to my beloved '62 X175, and it came with a harp tailpiece (that fits the earlier guitar, not all of them do...), so I switched tailpieces on the guitars. (the "new" 62 has great neck angle, just like my original one)

The '59/60 that got the harp...wow! The difference is not subtle at all : almost every problem I was having with the guitar dissappeared immediately - it sounds better and more even from string to string unplugged as well as plugged in, has more sustain ànd resonance (!), stays in tune better, ...

And that's not easy for me to admit, as I have a major fetish for Bigsbies. I don't think the difference on the other, later X175's would be as big, as those guitars have a taller bridge/steeper neck angle to begin with, and are slightly heavier, stiffer guitars (much thicker tops on both 62's than the '60 has - twice as thick actually) and they both sound great with the Bigsby.

I guess my point is that some guitars just weren't meant to have them..

 

[teleharmonium]

Ah, yes, I'll drill out the old X175 for those tuners, and all the wiring and the computer brain... :lol: :lol: :lol: But I'll be able to break strings much as I want!!!! :twisted:

I was gonna say, you should go with some "lifetime" strings, made of titanium wrapped around a core of 500 lb test fishing line. But you probably already have a hacksaw, or at least a bread knife, so your idea is more practical.

 

[danerectal]

Your reverse gear problem is solved by how the strings are attached to the vibrato. Whether they go over or under the "first" bar on a two bar system is what allows for reversing.

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

Walter,

It's good to find out that all of the subtle differences from one year to the next can make such a difference, even with the same model. It suggests that you might find a Bluesbird or later starfire 4 that might work with a short bigsby.

I'm beginning to see that the importance of string angle is not just the angle of the strings as they go from the bigsby to the saddle, but also the angle of the strings from the saddle to the nut. The more favorable the neck angle, the less rise from bigsby to saddle is needed. Right?

Dan,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But I think you mean the following, which gets around the need for a reverse gearing on the handle. If the bigsby had a lockable hinge (and thus didn't fasten to the top), then the strings could go over the first (rear) bar and under the second (front) bar, so you would need no reverse gear effect on the handle. Is that what you mean?

BTW folks, I think it would be easy to design a bigsby that required no screws around the end pin. You could make the ear (the part that goes around the end pin) so that something attaches to the endpin in such a way that the ear locks to the end pin and can't move. But you might have to expamd the endpin hole for a bigger endpin.

With all of this, you could retro fit old aristocrats and post-1966 starfire fours, fives, and sixes without any additional holes. Then you could switch between the harp tp and the bigsby, and you could sell the guitar without there being any new holes.

It would be a lot easier to retrofit a fixed bridge: http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Bridges,_ta ... ml#details
Are they putting these on any new guitars? This might be better than a bigsby on a new guitar. Have any of you used one?

 

[john_kidder]

Pardon my bottomless ignorance one more time. I'm considering putting an old B6 on my old X-400 - it's full of non-original bits anyway, so no damage done.

I'm unclear about the bridge/string break angle requirement on an electric guitar. I understand it well enough on an acoustic, where the string pressure on the saddle transmits vibrations to the bridge and thence to the top. But on an archtop, surely the contribution of the acoustic sound is less of an issue? Unless it were played unplugged, of course. So it would seem to me that if the break angle were sufficient to ensure that the string was the proper length, hence intonated correctly, all should be well?

I'm sure I'm missing something fundamental, and I await enlightenment from my elders and betters. Well, betters anyway.

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

John,

As I've been trying to finger this out, I believe the angle of the strings (on each side of the nut) might be more important for a moveable bridge than a fixed bridge. As I understand it, the steeper angles create more pressure on the traditional aluminum saddle, which is necessary to make the saddle work right when you move the bigsby's handle.

I'm also wondering if a moveable bridge with a different type saddle might not need so much pressure.

I also wonder if as much pressure is necessary on fixed bridges.

So the question is, what type of saddles for moveable and for fixed bridges might work with the least amount of pressure?

My recent startfire 5 with a fixed bridge has a screw-to-the-top Guild bigsby, but I'm wondering if they could have used a bigsby that didn't screw to the top.
Hatted Frau (Elder)

 

[matsickma]

I believe Guild changed to the "newer" roll bar Bigsby that screws to the top of the guitar back in 1967 after they changed the fret where the neck attaches to the body. The pre 1967 SF4/5/6 had a considerable number of frets that ran on top of the body. This certainty limited access to the upper neck. If you look at a Gibson 335 the neck is located completely off the body. This is also true of the SG. The Gibsons offer excellent access to the upper frets. However the penality is you need to constantly play the instruments with your arm extended away from your body. It always appeared to me that Guild split the difference between the origional neck location (i.e., similar to a SF2/3) and the Gibson 335 when arriving at the newer SF4/5/6 neck location.

At the new location there is insufficient tension applied to the bridge if a floating Bigsby is used. You need to have the roller bar model to get the right tension.

Guild also elected to use the new neck location on the SGish S100. For the S100 Deluxe, Guild took the older floating Bigsby's and machined off the hinge, etc. They then added a custom roller bar to provide the needed bridge tension to the flat guitar.

M

 

[Walter Broes]

Guys, you're making this waaaaay too complicated!

You want some break angle on a guitar's bridge, or the strings will start acting funny, jump out of the saddle when you hit them, have weird tension on them, and generally sound like poop.

It's really as simple as that, nothing more to it. Compare it to a guitar headstock, it needs to be angled back in a lot of designs, or there would be no string angle over the nut. Take the string retainer(s) off a strat or tele headstock, strum or bend some strings violently, and see what happens.

That's all there is to it.

 

[john_kidder]

Thanks all, and special thanks Walter. Clean and simple.

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

Walter,

So if you tried all of the different bridges and saddles on one moveable bridge guitar, there would be no differences in funtionality or sound?

 

[Walter Broes]

Darryl, of course different bridges would sound different, but how does that relate to your Bigsby quest(ion)?

My "it's as simple as that" remark was about bridge height/neck angle on a guitar - the height of the bridge goes hand in hand with the neck angle of the guitar, of course.

The bridge doesn't really play that much of a role in this, except it needs to be a certain height to make a Bigsby work, but a better way of saying "bridge has to have certain height" is to say "guitar has to have certain neck angle".

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

Walter,

My purpose was to find a way of putting a bigsby on a post-1967 starfire 4 without screwing it to the top. So I'm hoping that on a guitar with a moveable bridge, a short bigsby might work if I used an adjustomatic or Melita etc. A fixed roller bridge works, so the bridge doesn't have to be a rocking saddle type.

dh/hf

 

[Walter Broes]

Oh, OK, I see.

That would depend on the neck angle on said starfire (I know, broken record... ), I've seen some variation on vintage ones.
I don't have a B3 here, otherwise I could tell you at which height the strings sit coming from the roller.

It could work, but it's really something to see on a case-by-case basis.

Oh, and about bridges - I don't like roller, rocking, etc...bridges a lot. Roller bridges often don't "roll" and are tonesinks, and rocking bridges often don't "rock back" to their original position, throwing the guitar out of tune.
A plain old Tune-a-matic has worked best for me, tone- and tuning-wise, and I like Bigsby saddles on a wood base for some guitars. (the Bigsby ones are great for a guitar with a shallow neck angle : they're not very tall at all)