Glendale bridgeplate experiment

[Jim.Collins]

The recent threads about Glendale products got me very interested in what changes, if any, could be realized by changing saddles and/or bridgeplates. I decided to hear for myself.

I have two Tele-style guitars. They are not Fenders, but are clones made by a well-known and respected guitar maker. Both guitars feature ash bodies, vintage style bridges with three brass, non-compensated saddles. One guitar has a round lam rosewood fretboard, and the other has a round lam maple fretboard (it is not a one-piece maple neck).

The original saddles were non-compensated, but the guitars intonated well enough that I would not have installed compensated saddles, just for the purpose of more precise intonation. I was actually more interested in the sonic difference between brass and steel saddles. I had never owned a Tele with steel saddles -- all of mine had brass saddles. So, I ordered two sets of Glendale heat treated steel saddles.

As advertised, the intonation was right on the money, better than the non-compensated saddles offered. How did they sound, though? Was there a significant difference?

There certainly was an audible difference. Each guitar still had a meaty tone, but there was a more interesting top end to that tone. Depending upon how you define "twang", there might have been a touch more. That was a good thing, as far as I was concerned. I actually wanted more of that.

I was intrigued by the discussion of the effect of the bridgeplate on the tone. Each of these guitars had plated bridgeplates that would qualify as "magnetic", by Glendale's definition. They weren't actually magnets, but they did attract magnets. I decided to try a Glendale bridgeplate in each guitar, but the question remained as to whether I would go with magnetic or non-magnetic. Dale, from Glendale, suggested I go with one of each, and that is what I did. I elected to put the "magnetic" bridgeplate on the maple board Tele, and the non-magnetic on the rosewood board Tele.

The Glendale bridgeplates are definitely a thinner gauge than the bridgeplates that were on the guitars. I have no idea how much thickness is added by the plating, and Glendale bridgeplates are not plated. I am pretty sure the stock bridgeplates are not stainless steel, whereas the Glendale bridgeplates are.

The difference between either Glendale bridgeplate and the stock bridgeplates is definitely noticeable. Each guitar sounds more lively than it did before the change. I would have to say the the before/after difference is greater with the non-magnetic bridgeplate (on the rosewood board guitar).

Remember that the new bridgeplates were installed after the new saddles had been on the guitars for a week. There was an slight increase in that elusive quality known as "twang" with the steel saddles, and an increase over and above that, with the new bridgeplates. Both bridgeplates gave me better punch on the top end, and harmonics really jumped out. The non-magnetic bridgeplate is definitely the brighter of the two, but that doesn't mean the sound is thinner. Each guitar is still meaty sounding, but the top end is stronger. The top end, with the non-magnetic bridge, is even stronger.

Of the two changes -- saddles and bridgeplates -- I'd have to say the bridgeplates had a larger effect on the tone of the guitars. I was interested in the differences between steel and brass, so I would have tried the steel saddles, anyway, but if I were looking for a certain sound, rather than just trying an experiment, the bridgeplates, alone, might have made enough of a difference to satisfy me.

[LarryR]

for the input Jim. that is going to be the next phase of my experiment, the bridgeplates, and your info is very helpful. I have the heat treated set with a wideintone aluminum on the low E-A strings as I use a 38-50 there. For the heck of it, I pulled the aluminum and tried the regular heat treated steel one on the low end and could tell right away that it was not intonating as well ,as it was harder to dial in. I dropped the wide intone back in and it tweaked right up....I think I will be trying the non-mag to add a bit more highs to my setup.

[Fuzzyhead]

And all this time I was under the impression that magnetic bridges were more desirable in terms of twang (whatever that really is, *laugh*).

[Mark Davis]

Great review.

I think the main thing they did right was to keep the bridge thin so it would twang.

Most of the aftermarket bridges are so thick they improve sustain but kill the twang seems like the Glendale ones keep the twang and sustain better also.

[TY]

Were you re-using the same strings after each swap?

[andrew]

Great post jim!! I don't own anything from Dale, but I think he is on to something, as I have told my friend, who bought one set at a guitar show, then ended up ordering a set for each guitar.

I can see the future I might have to spend some money with Dale.

[Jim.Collins]

Originally Posted by TY

Were you re-using the same strings after each swap?

That is a reasonable question. The strings were pretty new when I installed the new saddles, so I kept them through that change. (I usually keep the strings pretty fresh, anyway.) Normally, on a change requiring intonation, I'd use new strings, but two things coerced me into keeping the old strings on. They were pretty new, to begin with, and I suspected I'd soon be making a change that would require new strings, anyway, so I thought I'd conserve a set.

It is difficult to preserve strings when changing a bridgeplate, so I changed them at that time.

So, how much of the change can be attributed to new strings, and how much can be attributed to the new bridgeplates? The answer will necessarily be subjective. I know these guitars well, and I know how much of a change to expect when I put on new strings. Because I keep the strings on my guitars pretty fresh, the change in tone I normally experience with a string change is rather minimal. It is there, but it is minimal.

All playing was done through the same amp (Victoria Deluxe) with the same cord, same settings, and no effects.

One could also suggest that by installing a new bridgeplate, my bridge pickup could be at a different height, giving me a different sound. I anticipated that before making any changes, and tried to make the before and after setups as close as possible. Still, human error could creep in.

[boogaloo]

for sharing your results. Although it's got me jonesin' even more for the bridgeplate and saddles...

Brian

[TY]

Jim, thanks for the comments. It is very apparent that you are well aware of the issues involved. I merely asked because, as I'm sure you are aware, some folks will post about how much more vibrant, harmonic, dynamic, etc, their new [whatever] is, after also happened to change their 9 month old set of rusty wires.

[Fuzzyhead]

Originally Posted by TY

I merely asked because, as I'm sure you are aware, some folks will post about how much more vibrant, harmonic, dynamic, etc, their new [whatever] is, after also happened to change their 9 month old set of rusty wires.

That's right. You see that all the time. I mostly reuse my strings after a bridge swap. It's not that difficult at all if you leave enought length around the poles in the first place...

[GuitarJonz]

[quote="FuzzyheadThat's right. You see that all the time. I mostly reuse my strings after a bridge swap. It's not that difficult at all if you leave enought length around the poles in the first place...[/quote]

Oh, but getting those curled up ends of the used strings through the body holes is murder!!

[yegbert]

Originally Posted by GuitarJonz

Oh, but getting those curled up ends of the used strings through the body holes is murder!!

If you're changing the saddles but not the bridge plate, as in Jim's example when he kept the strings, you can just loosen the strings but not remove them from the tuning posts.

I like to do it this way even if the set of strings on the guitar are due for replacement, and in that case replace the strings only after the new saddles are in place, and the action and intonation both set are close as possible. This way the new strings aren't subjected to an additional amount of stresses from those setup steps.

I've never tried rethreading curled old string ends through the holes, I'd guess that would be a bear unless it's a toploader.

[0le FUZZY]

Well yew stolt my thunder Jim.

I wassa waiting for a Glendale post tew add my tew cents tew.

My test involved the same TELECASTER, same Glendale saddles and same old strings, same P/U and the exact same settings on the exact same day.

My results were the same as yers except I had compaired both Glendale saddles to a 52Reissue bridge.

Now as I look back on the tew Glendale bridges in retrospect I haff tew admit that the difference betwixt the tew was not near as noticable tew me as the saddle changes I did a few weeks back.

I haff used the stainless bridge before. It was won I made my own self and I new watt tew expect sound and tone wise.

I haff tew say that Dale has gained my respect and total admiration for all the work he has done and the research he has gone threw in the past years. His products reflect a huge amount of study and are most certainly what he represents them to be.

Packaged so perfect with spare screws and Allen wrenches these items are well worth the investement for the TELECASTER lover looking for the next step up in twang and intonation.

As most of yew noe I amma rascal whence it comes tew the latest bells and whistles tew come out but this time Dale has proven it tew me threw my own hands and ears. This is somethig we all can do tew our TELECASTERs and really tell we have done it right. and made a difference.

Dale is also a fellow picker who loves him some TELECASTER and who will speak with yew on a one on one basis and ant-sir any questions yew haff about his products and how he came about the different aspects of them. It is good tew haff a feller like him on our side.

Thank yew Dale ! Yew are the very best !
Go here and beleeb erry thang he has typed. ( I haff knott tried the Titanium or Stainless Steel saddles yet)



Please visit my page