Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

[Masta' C]

Ok, I want to get some opinions...

As some of you know, I just picked up a brand new 2016 Schecter V-1 last week. I've checked everything over and the factory setup is in spec according to my handy dandy measuring tools.

However, the bridge seems REALLY low compared to my other tune-o-matic equipped guitars. I'd estimate there's less than a full turn on the posts before the bridge would be bottomed out, particularly on the treble side.

I'm really concerned about long-term adjustability as the guitar gets played and ages.

What do you think...is this "normal"? Would you be comfortable seeing this on a brand new guitar?

 

[AlexR]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

Bridge heights don't have a 'standard', nor is there a level of acceptability for new used or otherwise. Bridge height is based on neck angle, top profile and the amount of back angle of strings to their termination behind the bridge.

And I can't see why action would change over time unless your whole neck is pulling up or down.

 

[astrozombie]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

There's probably more bow in the neck than usual.

Am i right? Lots of relief?

 

[Zarg]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

well it looks like the strings almost touch the bridge again behind the saddles, towards the holes in the body where the strings are fed through, and you don't really want them to touch there. It wouldn't concern me to see the TOM bridge that low, if it feels well and plays good, its fine. It's most likely lower than other TOM guitars because its a string through

 

[greekdude]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

Ok, I want to get some opinions...

As some of you know, I just picked up a brand new 2016 Schecter V-1 last week. I've checked everything over and the factory setup is in spec according to my handy dandy measuring tools.

However, the bridge seems REALLY low compared to my other tune-o-matic equipped guitars. I'd estimate there's less than a full turn on the posts before the bridge would be bottomed out, particularly on the treble side.

I'm really concerned about long-term adjustability as the guitar gets played and ages.

What do you think...is this "normal"? Would you be comfortable seeing this on a brand new guitar?

How's your action? Relief? If you feel that relief is low (~flat) and that the action is still high, and you were right in your initial assessment about low margin before bridge touches the bottom then by all means return the guitar.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

For a string-through body I actually like it this way. The reason is that I don't want excessive pressure on the back of the bridge where the strings touch the frame, if they do. You cannot adjust that without a tailpiece.

But as asked about, how's the neck bow/relief?

 

[Darg1911]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

How's your action? Relief? If you feel that relief is low (~flat) and that the action is still high, and you were right in your initial assessment about low margin before bridge touches the bottom then by all means return the guitar.

Agreed. You have almost nowhere to go if action is high and the neck is already flat. But I'd be checking relief first. Most of my guitars use a TOM and they are all over the place. As someone else said, there is no standard.

 

[vinta9e]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

Lower is better for stability in general, especially in a through body setup like this.

 

[Masta' C]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

Relief is pretty much ideal (.011" on 1st string and .015" on 6th string)

It seems I'm overthinking this...

I didn't have a chance to check the guitar out before I ordered it, so I'm probably suffering from some subconscious insecurities

Also, I was comparing this to my tune-o-matic equipped guitars that have a traditional tailpiece and you guys make some valid points about the string-through necessitating a lower bridge height. The string-through definitely yields a sharper break angle and I see how raising the bridge would result in greater string contact behind the saddles. It's been a while since I owned a string-through setup, so I didn't have anything identical to compare it with.

Thanks guys!

 

[crusty philtrum]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

I built a LP-style guitar with a set neck, and had the luxury/ terror of creating the angle at which the neck was set back (i.e. how high the bridge would be above the body). I noticed many or most LPs seemed to have their bridges high above the body, and it didn't make sense to me .... once a guitar's action is so low as to be unplayable, there's no need for further downward adjustment. Plus i would imagine that the more of the post is threaded in to it's ferrule, the better the tone will be.

So ... if the bridge allows you to lower the strings until they touch the frets when set to it's lowest, the low bridge height when set up is a good thing, in my book.

 

[AlexR]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

Pictures of a guitar I made using an abr. The neck angle I chose manually to ensure a nice low abr height. Not only does it make the whole bridge assembly stronger (even a nashville/import is the same, as the thumbwheel section has more threads engaged into the bushings), but the guitar is 'easier' to play as your hand is not resting so high over the body.

As mentioned, if you have your action low and its set up well, the only way this could change is if the neck is physically pulling out of the body

And as yet the 'low bridge height' police have yet to come calling.

 

[Masta' C]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

Ha ha ha! Thanks, AlexR and Crusty

Yes, it plays great. Action is on par with my #1 Jackson Rhoads and the fretwork is just as nice.

I feel better about the whole thing. Thanks for helping me sort through the mental noise

 

[AlexR]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

Just remember that bridge height is only a worry if you can't get the action where you like within the normal range of bridge adjustment.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

If the strings are already as low as you would ever set them, then you're fine.

Also, it doesn't look like your saddles are notched. Having them properly notched to the right string widths and depths will lower the strings, allowing you to raise the bridge the corresponding amount.

I prefer a bit more neck angle on a Gibson-style guitar, myself. But I don't think here's anything wrong with your guitar in terms of bridge height. It does, however, look like your threaded inserts aren't fully seated into the body.

Also, don't worry about your strings touching the bridge behind the saddles. There is no problem with that.

 

[dominus]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

The lower, the better. I've been recessing my tune-o-matics after flattening out the heel. Obviously that's only doable on a bolt-on.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

It's most likely lower than other TOM guitars because its a string through

NO!! It has nothing to do with that.

Like AlexR said, it's due to the neck angle.

 

[Johnny the Kid]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

It's fine, but Zarg raises a good point about the break angle of those strings. Usually TOM's are recessed if they're not paired with a stopbar. In this case, looking at how close the strings come to touching, if not touching, this bridge should have been recessed as well and wasn't, I'm guessing to more accurately recreate a Gibson V. However, the strings should have been placed farther back to reduce the break angle.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

NO!! It has nothing to do with that.

Like AlexR said, it's due to the neck angle.

Of course it's because of the neck set angle. Zarg knows that if anyone here on the Forum does. There is no reason to shout at him as if he is ignorant. He is, in fact, one of the most technically knowledgeable posters on this forum. I read his statement as meaning that this particular guitar model was probably designed with a shallower neck angle specifically in order to lower the bridge. The strings are coming over the bridge from a relatively low point, it being a string-through guitar, and Schecter wanted to keep them from wrapping over the back edge of the bridge. Their solution: use a shallower neck angle so they can run the bridge lower.

 

[GuitarDoc]

Re: Tune-o-matic Bridge Height...Is This Acceptable?

Not a bad idea to notch the saddle.