Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/279782
Page: 1 2
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/15/2014: 14:45:30
It’s been cold this winter, and I had to turn the heat down in my shop to conserve propane. Right now there’s about 2 feet of snow outside. Besides that, I have been going a little stir crazy, so here’s a winter “cabin fever” project - I can still make bridges down there.
People always want to know “If I make a bridge out of walnut, will it sound different than one made from cherry?” “Can you make a bridge from ebony?”, “Does maple really sound better?” etc etc. It’s an interesting subject to all players. A couple of years ago I did a bridge wood trial with 8 kinds of wood and 2 banjos. It was very interesting - half of it’s on my website.
Since then I’ve gotten better at making bridges and banjos, and have refined my designs in both cases. I decided to do it again with more kinds of wood in a more methodical manner - in the way Market research is often done (I’d love to do focus groups with blind comparisons). I’m going to use one of my own banjos as the control banjo.
First of all, I’m not trying to sell bridges, so this is purely an experiment, and I’m just as interested to see what happens as anyone else - there may be surprises, who knows?
Since I have a lot of experience and history with it, I’m going to use my regular bridge design that I’ve been using for about three years; - it’s a moon bridge with 2 arches, 3 feet, a crown and camber. This is the way I always make bridges nowadays - I’m not copying anyone else’s design:
An 11/16” red maple one weighs around 2.5 grams - that’s what I go for, and if I made a shorter one, like 5/8”, I would make it weigh 2.5 grams as well by adjusting the thickness a little. For what it’s worth, it has 351 sq. mm of “footprint area”, give or take a little, which works for me .
Here are some different bridge designs to give an idea of how many sq. mm of foot area different bridges can have. The design I’ll be using to compare wood species is the left hand one on the bottom of the picture - hitting the happy medium:
Of course, it would be interesting to compare these different designs, but that’s not what I’m doing here. Maybe another time - I have all the bridges.
What I want to find out here is how much difference there is between identical bridge designs on the same banjo, same set-up, same microphone, same player and tune, etc. etc., where the only difference I’m comparing is the kind of wood the bridge is made from. The saddles will all be the same 60 year old Brazilian rosewood, so we’re just comparing the bridge body itself.
All the bridges are different weights because of the density of the wood itself - the design and dimensions are exactly the same. I did not try to compensate and make them all be 2.5 grams, by making some thinner, or anything like that - they are all the same size - it’s about the wood, and some wood is just plain heavier than others, so the wood species determines the relative weight of the bridge.
All the red maple bridges in the trial are made from exactly the same piece of red maple, which was grown here in PA, normal growth, air dried, probably 30 years old stored outside under a roof, going through seasonal expansions and contractions, never submerged underwater- a primo piece of bridge wood, and as I said the saddles are all the same:
In the interest of establishing how much variation there is because of weight within the same kind of wood, I’m going to compare the same design in 3 different weights, once again with the red maple, which is my “control” species. I would like my red maple bridge for the test to be about 2.5 grams, so I made a lighter one and a heavier one to see what happens at the two extremes - there should be some audible difference here:
In anticipation of doing this, I made a LOT of bridges in an 18mm (11/16”) size:
For the actual trial, as I said, I am using a design and size where the red maple one weighs 2.5 grams - keep in mind that these are 11/16” so they are fairly tall bridges. I am NOT testing different heights - that would be for another day. I can’t compare everything, so I picked a range of different species for the trials, with spruce, long revered as the best wood for sounding boards, being the lightest, and ebony being the heaviest. I bought a very accurate gram scale, and I was surprised on a couple of accounts - my 40 year old pattern grade Honduras mahogany was lighter than I thought it would be, and I am using 250 year old walnut, which is also lighter than I thought it would be. The “submerged maple” looks more like beech or sycamore to me, and it’s very heavy - heavier than I thought it would be. Apple and cherry, are both rose family, closed grain, and would cover pearwood and peach which are very closely related. The hickory one represents all the hickory species and similar dense ring porous open grain woods like elm, ash, pecan, oak etc. Since maple is the most common wood for bridges, I have three maples - red, sugar and “submerged”. I added yellow birch (heavy, closed grain), recycled American Chestnut (very light, open grain) and bamboo, which might work out great. Black locust and amelanchier laevis, the smooth serviceberry are two of the heaviest North American woods. Amelanchier is the densest member of the rose family, black locust is VERY similar to Osage orange.
Then, of course, rosewood and ebony to see what the really dense hairy-chested ones sound like. The Brazilian Rosewood is 60 yrs old, and the same piece as the saddles are made from. The ebony is a nice piece, left over from a fingerboard billet, and you never know where it actually comes from. Every piece of wood here is a beautiful piece, all cut on the quarter and every bridge is made the same.
So here’s the lineup with their weights, the lightest ones on top,working down to the heaviest on the bottom:
I now have to pick a day and sit here playing the same little ditty over and over, switching bridges each time. I am waiting for a day when I am here by myself so I don’t drive other people crazy with this. Maybe next Tuesday.
I will be posting it as soon as I can get the files done. I was thinking of posting them blind, but that’s too much - I’ll just identify each one. I don’t know how many of these I’ll be able to post at once I want to do all of them at once, one after the other, so as not to have any changes in the recording setup. I’ll come up with a mercifully short piece top use for the music, and I think it has to be in the key of G. My playing will probably get better as I progress through the trials (maybe worse or faster).
Kurt Kemp - Posted - 02/15/2014: 15:53:04
This is going to be great! It's a wonderful thing your doing Ken. That's a lot of effort you're putting in to benefit us all.
i am anxious to hear the differences between all these and particularly interested in the black cherry. I have some black cherry bridges that are great but not on all banjos.
are you planning to give us the specs to the instrument you'll be using?
lazlototh - Posted - 02/15/2014: 15:56:20
Wow!
Can't wait to see (HEAR?!) the results.
tom (also getting buggy) in maine
swamplunker - Posted - 02/15/2014: 16:08:38
Although you're doing all the work, Ken, which entitles you to do it any way you want, I'd like to try having you pick out your own ten or so favorites, post the sound clips, and eliminate prejudices by not telling us what's what for about a week. Then, after everyone picks what they like, name them woods. What do you think?
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/15/2014: 16:09:04
quote:
Originally posted by The Pope
Live link to Ken's site: levanbanjos.levandesign.com/le...bout.html
This should take you 18 weeks since you want to leave a bridge on the banjo for a week to "settle in". 
Thanks! Actually, I thought about that. There is a red maple one on the banjo right now that's been there for a year and a half, and I have made a new one which I will switch, so none of the bridges will have more than about 5 minutes to settle in. Not the best, but it's apples to apples.
Maybe I ought to start with the one that's been on it for a year and a half and then switch to the other red maple one. I would then have another comparison - settled in vs not settled in.
Ken
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/15/2014: 16:26:15
quote:
Originally posted by swamplunker
Although you're doing all the work, Ken, which entitles you to do it any way you want, I'd like to try having you pick out your own ten or so favorites, post the sound clips, and eliminate prejudices by not telling us what's what for about a week. Then, after everyone picks what they like, name them woods. What do you think?
I am tempted to do that, I'll admit, and I have posted blind nut material comparisons before, which is a lot of fun, but there were only 4. They are still on my hangout home page music.
The problem is that in order to post these, I have to upload them all onto my hangout home page and I have to name them. If I call them "Bridge comparison A", "Bridge comparison B" etc etc, I'll then have to go back in, trash all the ones I uploaded, upload them again this time "Bridge comparison red maple" etc. It would be a lot of work.
I'll think about it. Maybe I can come up with a simple way.
Ken
Dan Drabek - Posted - 02/15/2014: 18:21:51
Ken, I got tired just reading your description of the experiment. A lot of work. Should be very interesting. Glad I didn't think of doing it. :->
I'll be looking forward to hearing your results. Thanks for making the effort.
DD
guitarman8491 - Posted - 02/15/2014: 19:51:55
Ken, Looking forward to your analysis, it is sure to be comprehensive....very impressive range of bridges that you made to do this analysis.
davidppp - Posted - 02/15/2014: 21:07:05
I just want to chime in to assure you that there must be LOTS of folks interested.
One request is that you keep the sound files downloadable (like the older ones are on your Web site). I'm curious about how you and others characterize the sound compared to what computer sound analysis reveals.
Best wishes on the weather. In my part of the world, we're desperate for rain.
gabeeg - Posted - 02/15/2014: 23:46:01
Really looking forward to this, thanks for doing it and sharing the info!
rudy - Posted - 02/16/2014: 04:39:45
quote:
Originally posted by Ken LeVan
quote:
Originally posted by swamplunker
Although you're doing all the work, Ken, which entitles you to do it any way you want, I'd like to try having you pick out your own ten or so favorites, post the sound clips, and eliminate prejudices by not telling us what's what for about a week. Then, after everyone picks what they like, name them woods. What do you think?
I am tempted to do that, I'll admit, and I have posted blind nut material comparisons before, which is a lot of fun, but there were only 4. They are still on my hangout home page music.
The problem is that in order to post these, I have to upload them all onto my hangout home page and I have to name them. If I call them "Bridge comparison A", "Bridge comparison B" etc etc, I'll then have to go back in, trash all the ones I uploaded, upload them again this time "Bridge comparison red maple" etc. It would be a lot of work.
I'll think about it. Maybe I can come up with a simple way.
Ken
You could add the more descriptive name in the comments section of each photo. That would eliminate the need for all the double work involved. Alternately, you would only need to rename them with the edit feature for photos. Just a thought...
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/16/2014: 05:14:04
quote:
Originally posted by rudy
You could add the more descriptive name in the comments section of each photo. That would eliminate the need for all the double work involved. Alternately, you would only need to rename them with the edit feature for photos. Just a thought...
Rudy, I went into my music files on my home page and tried to change the name of the first one and couldn't do it. If I click on the name, It plays. If I select it and try to change it, nothing happens.
Ken
chickenpickin - Posted - 02/16/2014: 05:30:10
Ken, just name them by the wood species only when you upload.....don't add the word(s) bridge, comparison, A, B, etc... or anything else other than the wood. As long as this is a wood comparison and not a guessing game of which wood is this.
Tim
Edited by - chickenpickin on 02/16/2014 05:33:43
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/16/2014: 05:52:29
quote:
Originally posted by chickenpickin
Ken, just name them by the wood species only when you upload.....don't add the word(s) bridge, comparison, A, B, etc... or anything else other than the wood. As long as this is a wood comparison and not a guessing game of which wood is this.
Tim
I'm a builder, not a performer, so virtually everything I post, music-wise is a comparison of one thing to another - tone rings, rims, banjos, nuts. I have other wood comparisons, like tap tones of rims of different species, and will probably do other things like this in the future - like rim construction, so I have to be specific and consistent with the naming or It becomes confusing to me. When I post these, I will get rid of the previous ones for good.
Another person on this thread suggested the blind test as something that would be interesting. I have decided I will not do that. It would be too much.
Months from now something will come up, and I could re-post two of them blind- what an ebony bridge sounds like compared to red maple for instance, or submerged maple vs non-submerged, walnut vs cherry, bridge weight, foot size, etc. "guess which is which". I will have all the files.
lazyarcher - Posted - 02/16/2014: 08:17:09
These are the kind of posts that keep me coming back to the BHO.
Thanks Ken for a VERY indepth no BS look at bridge construction with the sound files to back it up.
I'm really looking forward to this!!!
rudy - Posted - 02/16/2014: 08:40:33
quote:
Originally posted by Ken LeVan
quote:
Originally posted by rudy
You could add the more descriptive name in the comments section of each photo. That would eliminate the need for all the double work involved. Alternately, you would only need to rename them with the edit feature for photos. Just a thought...
Rudy, I went into my music files on my home page and tried to change the name of the first one and couldn't do it. If I click on the name, It plays. If I select it and try to change it, nothing happens.
Ken
Hi Ken.
I just edited one of my mp3 names just be verify it's easy to do.
Don't click on the name, there are two edit icons below your sound files, a pencil (to denote the edit function) and a delete icon. Select the edit function and you can do whatever you wish to do.
Edited by - rudy on 02/16/2014 08:51:20
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/16/2014: 09:08:34
Rudy, thanks.
That's great to know how to do.
Ken
saulsmanb - Posted - 02/16/2014: 09:27:52
Ken
Your posts are among the most interesting and informative I've seen on any forum. Thanks for all your contributions -- you obviously have invested a lot of time, talent, and thought into what you share and we are the beneficiaries.
All the best
Brian Saulsman
tobinsuke - Posted - 02/16/2014: 10:04:30
Ken, wow that's an ambitious project! Like everyone else I look forward to following this, and I appreciate you sharing with everyone. Thanks.
banjoman56 - Posted - 02/16/2014: 10:18:19
Thanks Ken! I'm looking forward this also.
Bufo Bill - Posted - 02/16/2014: 10:22:28
Ken, you are the guy who got me into making bridges for my own use, and it is a very satisfying area of my hobby. A couple of years later and I am starting to get some great results. So thanks for getting me started.
I always look forward to seeing your experiments that you post, there is always some element to them that makes me re-evaluate either my expectations or my ears (happens many-a-time, but never fails to amaze and unsettle).
Many thanks to you for taking the time to present these trials, your curiosity is of benefit to players and "banjo modifiers/builders" alike.
All the best from Bill. :D
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/18/2014: 16:39:34
So, I spent all day Monday making sound files. I made about 30. The bridge wood comparisons were done one after the other as fast as I could change the bridges and correct the tuning. There may be a few where I should have spent a little more time. The "two bits" ening of "shave and a haircut is a little rough on the amelanchier bridge, which alphabetically is the first one, although I didn't do them in that order.
I used a maple rimmed U-tube banjo with a raw brass tone ring. You can see the construction on my website on this page:
levanbanjos.levandesign.com/le...tube.html
Here's a pic of the banjo:
I recorded the files without the resonator. I used light ga strings - GHS PF150 10-12-14-22(phosphor bronze) 10.
I recorded them via GarbageBand on a mac with a Samson "Meteor Mic" usb microphone, nothing fancy. No effects on the recording. just straight into the mike. You may hear my dog singing in the background on a few. He seemed to like the hickory one a lot for some reason.
I used a simple little ditty that had high notes, low notes, pull-offs, a bend, harmonics and one verse of an actual tune. It looked like this in GarbageBand:
I got a graphic (whatever you call that) of each one from GarbageBand, and they are all a little different:
So, the question is, should I post all 18 sound files at once, or is that going to be too cumbersome?
I could do it in sections, or all at once.
Ken
Dan Drabek - Posted - 02/18/2014: 17:57:57
Ken, it will be like eating candy. I can handle it a few at a time, or pig out all at once. :->
It will be a fun experiment.
DD
rudy - Posted - 02/18/2014: 20:14:05
Great job, Ken. It's good to see an idea backed up with some science behind it.
The graphic shown is generally referred to as a single waveform. As long as it's represented by a continuous input it's a single waveform. Frequency or level can vary over the entire timeline and gaps (zero levels) don't matter as long as the input signal wasn't interrupted over the displayed time axis.
The Pope - Posted - 02/18/2014: 20:57:59
Ken, I'm not sure why you did the sound files w/o the resonator if it's a resonated banjo. Could you explain, please?
BTW, I also look forward to your (very interesting) posts! 
Yanni - Posted - 02/19/2014: 01:10:46
I'm also looking forward to it :) I will be starting my first build shortly and a member here has not only done me a rim and neck blank but also several bridges in different woods and combinations. It will be really interesting to see the differences, especially as mine will be a nylgut fretless! Thanks for all the work Ken :)
Ian
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/19/2014: 04:59:18
quote:
Originally posted by The Pope
Ken, I'm not sure why you did the sound files w/o the resonator if it's a resonated banjo. Could you explain, please?
BTW, I also look forward to your (very interesting) posts!
It's much easier to change the bridges without the resonator, plus the banjo has a much cleaner sound without the resonator - less confusing overtones, etc. I'm trying to focus in on the bridge sound here. IMO a resonator is just another variable that can be eliminated.
Ken
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/19/2014: 05:40:08
OK, so here it goes.
I'll post the picture of the bridges one more time.
This site will put the files into alphabetical order, so I can't control it. If I had my druthers, I would prefer to have an individual pic of each bridge with the file of that one underneath.
Please excuse the bad playing and hasty tuning. Listening to these one after the other will be boring, I'm sure. I tried to keep them short.
Ken
bnjojo62 - Posted - 02/19/2014: 06:15:31
I listened to 'em all, and they all sounded good, and similar. However, I liked the red maple sound. Full, clean, and purty. I did not like the ebony sound. I have done similar comparisons just for myself, using more woods than you have used, For instance, poplar, ash, holly etc. I always come back to the maple species for best response overall. Thanks for the effort, Ken. It made it easier for me to separate the woods sound, them being lumped together like you did.
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/19/2014: 06:26:40
quote:
Originally posted by bnjojo62
I listened to 'em all, and they all sounded good, and similar. However, I liked the red maple sound. Full, clean, and purty. I did not like the ebony sound. I have done similar comparisons just for myself, using more woods than you have used, For instance, poplar, ash, holly etc. I always come back to the maple species for best response overall. Thanks for the effort, Ken. It made it easier for me to separate the woods sound, them being lumped together like you did.
I'm not a fan of the ebony sound either, although it frequently comes up in discussions. I have done ash in the past, and it's in there with the hickory. I thought about poplar, wenge, jatoba, teak and elm, which I have in the shop. It gets to be too much. I decided to cut it off at this 18 species which covers a wide range of grain structure and density. It definitely gets the idea across of what the range of possibilities is.
I did other tests as well - weight and design, which I may post later.
PeterJ - Posted - 02/19/2014: 06:43:48
Wow, Ken -- what a job. Thanks for doing this; I can imagine how much work it was. What struck me was the similarities more than the differences, although a few definitely stood out as being more muffled, to my ears. But that might be what someone wants for a specific effect, so this is an awesome reference for people looking for wood characteristics. That said, like Joe said, the maples sound best to me for their overall response. The red maple had the tone I preferred, but only by a little.
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/19/2014: 07:34:03
Peter,
Thanks! Doing this is a valuable exercise and resource for me as well - keeps me honest. I also prefer the red maple. The banjo all the recordings were made with has a rim and neck made from red maple as well.
I agree with you that the similarities are more striking than the differences, and while I was making these recordings, I honestly couldn't hear the differences between many of them (the ebony sounded awful while I was playing it). I had to wait until I could hear them played back, and even then it's very subtle.
Bridges are right out there "in your face" in terms of direct sound transmission. It's easy to take the leap and imagine what the difference would be between rims and necks of similar design and different wood, which is even more subtle.
Ken
Dan Drabek - Posted - 02/19/2014: 09:02:23
Wow, that was an eye opener for me. Many surprises here. Like others, I was anticipating the maple being the best. As it turns out, my hands down favorites are the mahogany and the black walnut. To my ear, both have superior warmth and clarity. The maple is very good, with a rounder sound, but with less of the twang that I like. I will definitely have to try mahogany and walnut.
Of the maples, I liked the red maple best, with the submerged maple almost as well. The harder sugar maple sounded slightly muffled to my ear. Which brings up another surprise to me. I was actually expecting the harder, denser woods to have a sharper, harsher sound. In fact, the exact opposite seemed to be true. The harder woods sounded a bit muted, with less bite and clarity. The rosewood notably so, with the ebony clearly the worst of the entire group. I was very surprised to hear the softer woods like the spruce and the chestnut do as well as they did. The best sound, however seemed to come from the middle density woods.
I have read that ebony is acoustically dead. This test certainly appears to support that. Why we use ebony for steel stringed guitar bridges is a mystery to me. I would have to wonder whether even an ebony topped banjo bridge is losing some potential sound over a solid maple bridge.
One thing that can't come across in a sound file is the feel of the instrument when played. Only the person playing can sense the responsiveness under the hand, and Ken, I would guess some of your preferences and dislikes may be influenced by the tactile response you were getting from each bridge.
Overall, with some standout exceptions, I agree with others that there are not huge differences between many of the materials. And, not to be derisive, I has caused me to rethink the commonly claimed importance of the bridge in the sound of the banjo. Especially in relation to the supposed magical properties of specialty woods. I think the design and weight of the bridge is at least as important as the wood used, and Ken, it's a testament to your bridge design that you get such good tone out of such a variety of materials.
I'll add my thanks to the others for taking the time to do the experiment. It was not only a fun exercise, but a learning experience as well.
DD
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/19/2014: 10:20:43
Dan,
Thanks for the thoughtful response! I was really surprised by the walnut and mahogany, and expected the spruce and chestnut to sound "thinner" than they did. The spruce may be good for nylon strung banjos
The walnut is ancient walnut from a gristmill I used to own in PA that was built in 1744. It has too many worm holes in it for very any things, but I have made some rims out of it. I can use little pieces for bridges, and I might do more of them.
The mahogany, Honduras mahogany I got from the pattern shop at Corning Glass in the mid 70s, in 4" thick slabs 2 feet wide, is lighter than I expected it to be, and performed way better than I imagined it would. It brings to mind Clarence White's famous D-18 and the Nashville Studio Gibson Jumbo played by Russ Barenberg, both Honduras mahogany.
As for the maple, I like the red maple best, and it's still my overall favorite, probably because I'm used to it, and it is capable of great complexity. The spalted ones work really well on my archtop.
I must admit, I didn't expect the ebony and rosewood to be very good, and they weren't. The ebony one was more "underwater" than I even expected it to be.
Speaking of "underwater", I'm not sure that submerged maple is really maple. It looks more like sycamore or beech to me, especially beech - looks like a clothes hanger or bentwood chair:
I don't really trust the dudes who are dredging stuff up from rivers and lakes to be sending it to the Dep't of Forestry for microscopic ID. You get what you want - You vant maple? I give you maple.
They should call it "submerged whatever".
As for your closing thoughts, using the standard bridge in the bridge wood trials, I did make sound files of red maple from the same piece of wood in three weights:
And 6 different designs:
I may post these later.
Ken
Dan Drabek - Posted - 02/19/2014: 11:37:44
quote:
Originally posted by Ken LeVan
As for your closing thoughts, using the standard bridge in the bridge wood trials, I did make sound files of red maple from the same piece of wood in three weights...
...I may post these later.
Ken
That would be a very interesting comparison. I hope you do it.
DD
RandyZ - Posted - 02/19/2014: 12:09:26
just beautiful ken! love how youve backed it up with the scientific aspect. really nice work.
randy
guitarman8491 - Posted - 02/19/2014: 14:18:14
Ken, Thanks so much for doing such a comprehensive analysis...great job!
banjoman56 - Posted - 02/19/2014: 17:01:25
This was very interesting Ken. Here is my tone deaf opinion of the best sounding bridges. Red maple was best, followed by sugar and spalted maple, beech and birch. The ebony was by far the worst IMO.
Aradobanjo - Posted - 02/19/2014: 18:25:21
Hello Ken,
Thank for the many samples. I was surprised by the bamboo. I liked the spalted wood. What seems interesting with the graphs is the silence areas. Cutting off sound by design seems interesting. Having. A filter in the bridge seems useful unless it is not what you wanted.
5steve - Posted - 02/20/2014: 01:19:12
The cure for cabin fever! I liked the Apple bridge, The Maples , the sugar maple jumped out at me. The walnut and the birch also. Something about the apple really sounded nice to me I thought the tones had a nice balance to them. Ambitious test thanks. Steve
banjoman56 - Posted - 02/20/2014: 16:38:55
quote:I've wondered whether a maple bridge would sound better without the ebony cap also Dan. I'm sure some of these builders have tested them. Maybe someone will share their findings with us. It's my understanding that the biggest reason for topping bridges with ebony is to make them more durable, but if they sound better without it, I would be willing to build a new bridge when the old one wears out.
Originally posted by Dan Drabek
Wow, that was an eye opener for me. Many surprises here. Like others, I was anticipating the maple being the best. As it turns out, my hands down favorites are the mahogany and the black walnut. To my ear, both have superior warmth and clarity. The maple is very good, with a rounder sound, but with less of the twang that I like. I will definitely have to try mahogany and walnut.
Of the maples, I liked the red maple best, with the submerged maple almost as well. The harder sugar maple sounded slightly muffled to my ear. Which brings up another surprise to me. I was actually expecting the harder, denser woods to have a sharper, harsher sound. In fact, the exact opposite seemed to be true. The harder woods sounded a bit muted, with less bite and clarity. The rosewood notably so, with the ebony clearly the worst of the entire group. I was very surprised to hear the softer woods like the spruce and the chestnut do as well as they did. The best sound, however seemed to come from the middle density woods.
I have read that ebony is acoustically dead. This test certainly appears to support that. Why we use ebony for steel stringed guitar bridges is a mystery to me. I would have to wonder whether even an ebony topped banjo bridge is losing some potential sound over a solid maple bridge.
One thing that can't come across in a sound file is the feel of the instrument when played. Only the person playing can sense the responsiveness under the hand, and Ken, I would guess some of your preferences and dislikes may be influenced by the tactile response you were getting from each bridge.
Overall, with some standout exceptions, I agree with others that there are not huge differences between many of the materials. And, not to be derisive, I has caused me to rethink the commonly claimed importance of the bridge in the sound of the banjo. Especially in relation to the supposed magical properties of specialty woods. I think the design and weight of the bridge is at least as important as the wood used, and Ken, it's a testament to your bridge design that you get such good tone out of such a variety of materials.
I'll add my thanks to the others for taking the time to do the experiment. It was not only a fun exercise, but a learning experience as well.
DD
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/20/2014: 17:04:03
All the bridges I made had Brazilian rosewood saddles, not ebony. I just cut the saddle off a bridge and weighed it, and it was .1 gram, and my scale is accurate to .1 gram, so it's in that ballpark somewhere. My feeling is that such a tiny piece of wood is so insignificant, it would make no discernible difference.
However, being in the testing mode, and having made all these bridges, it's easy enough to take one of the red maple ones and put a red maple saddle on it and do a one-on-one test. In fact, I would use the same bridge, test it "as is" with the rosewood saddle, then put on a maple saddle and test it again that way.
This one, I would post blind.
Ken
Dan Drabek - Posted - 02/20/2014: 17:22:59
Or you could make a solid maple bridge, test it, then trim the top and glue on a rosewood or ebony saddle and test again. Just in case the glue joint itself makes a difference.
We could have you busy testing bridges for months, Ken. :->
DD
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/20/2014: 18:10:23
quote:
Originally posted by Dan Drabek
Or you could make a solid maple bridge, test it, then trim the top and glue on a rosewood or ebony saddle and test again. Just in case the glue joint itself makes a difference.
We could have you busy testing bridges for months, Ken. :->
DD
I realized after I wrote that , I would have to do it by making an all-maple one first, then cut it down and put a saddle on it.
It's worth doing because it's another variable. I haven't even posted all the other ones I did.
All these comparisons will be useful for different things later on.
banjoman56 - Posted - 02/21/2014: 07:29:59
That would be interesting, and you're right, the only way to be sure would be to use the same bridge.
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/21/2014: 08:02:20
quote:
Originally posted by banjoman56
That would be interesting, and you're right, the only way to be sure would be to use the same bridge.
I just did it this morning but I screwed up and the first recording, without the saddle did not record, which I didn't find out until it was too late and I had cut it down and put a saddle on it, so I made another one and will do it maybe tomorrow AM.
One thing I can say, is that the bridge with no saddle is lighter weight. I may include that one in with my weight comparisons, too, as another variation.
Ken LeVan - Posted - 02/21/2014: 11:27:09
I made another one and got a chance to do the sound files - I made a bridge with no saddle, played it, then cut off the top and added a Brazilian rosewood saddle.
They are both lightweight, although the one with the saddle weighs .1 gram more, which means that the piece of rosewood probably weighs between .15 and .2 grams.
I said I was going to post these blind, so here is "A" and "B", and you can see which you like the best.
Page: 1 2
