The ADJ

[TRU]

What is your opinion on the traditional bridge vs the adjustable bridge?

To all of the "it's subjective, " ... "which ever guitar you love is the best," etc folks - move on to another topic.
No **** its subjective.
If your conscience won't allow you to type a definitive opinion here, that's fine. I'm sure there's plenty of topics about Guitar Center that would love to hear from you.

Nonetheless...

I'm going to get a vintage Gibson.

There are tiny aspects of these guitars that a vast many people find to be important and variable, such as:
pickguard (teardrop vs longer "wing-style")
bridge (straight rectangle vs belly down vs belly up), and
saddle (traditional vs adjustable).

Feel free to comment on all of the above, however, I am most interested in your opinion on the bridge.

[Silly Moustache]

Once had a J-50 with the adj bridge. very disappointing.
Think I might have had an SJ200 with one too. No likee.

Can't stand the reverse belly bridge - just silly.

Last two times I thought about buying a gibson, I couldn't find new one that didn't have significant finish issues and/or set up problems.
That's all I got.

[Wade Hampton]

Tru, the shape of the bridge doesn’t seem to have much if any impact on the sound, though those immense moustache bridges with pearl inlay in them are a bit too much, in my opinion - too much additional mass.

With pickguards, unless you’re talking about double batwing Everly Brothers model pickguards, again, not a lot of effect. The most negative impact is with the really thick, molded ones, and Gibson hasn’t used those in decades.

But the adjustable bridge is a real tone killer. I know some people like them, but there’s so much additional weight from the mechanism used to raise and lower the string height that it has an inevitable impact on the sound, and not a good one.

So I would strongly recommend that you avoid the adjustable bridge.

Hope this helps.


Wade Hampton Miller

[jspe]

I agree with Wade. I had '64 Hummingbird when I was starting out, and really loved it until some friends started getting Martins. I tried a D18 and traded for it, the tone difference was huge. I've since gone to a 2012 J45, and I'm taking that one with me.

[Mandobart]

I'm used to adjustable bridges (meaning individually adjustable saddles) on electric instruments.

My only adjustable bridge acoustic is my Eastman archtop. Originally built as an MDC-805 mandocello, I converted it to a 6 string guitar after getting a custom built 10 string mandocello.

The conversion required a new nut and a new bridge. I carved a new bone nut and decided to buy a rosewood archtop bridge with adjustable brass saddles from Stew-Mac. I added a Kent Armstrong floating neck magnetic pickup and ebony pickguard to mount the volume and tone pots to.

I like the bridge - I sanded the feet to match the top of the guitar. Kept the two 4-on-a-plate mando tuning machines (upgraded to Schaller ebony button machines) with two unused rollers. I can convert it back to a mandocello by swapping back to the original nut and bridge if desired. The acoustic tone is still very good. I'm currently using Ernie Ball aluminum bronze 13's. Plenty loud and punchy. I've also had good results with Newtones, Martin Retro monels and I have a set of Curt Mangan monels to try next. But that's an archtop, not exactly what you asked about.

I don't know if there is anything similar in an adjustable bridge for a flattop where the fretboard is right on the body vs elevated like my archtop. I've always been able to achieve good intonation with a compensated saddle on my flattops.

[J Patrick]

The only ADJ Gibson I ever owned was a 65 J-50….. it sounded good and certainly had the Gibson tone…. but it was definitely not in the same class as earlier 40’s through early 50’s Gibsons….important to note I think that the clunky ADJ bridge is only part of the reason that Gibsons from that era don’t measure up to their older models….the structural differences probably have even more to with it….personally if I’m looking for a vintage Gibson J-45 or 50 I’m not looking at anything post 1954…. I’d rather buy a newer Gibson or one of the Gibson style guitars from other companies than an ADJ model for sure….

[pagedr]

It’s subjective

[Br1ck]

The adjustable bridge sounds different, but I will always council that a lot of what people don't like about them is they are attached to sub par guitars. I took my 65 Texan to three different luthiers, two attached to store selling them, and all three advised doing nothing to the guitar. But all three did the conversion to what were lifeless guitars, trying to make them better. They do, but not really enough IMHO to make up for 60s Gibson quality.

The adj bridge is a part of what I like about the tone of my Texan. It is a guitar with real character. You are going to love it or hate it. Sure. it has a 1 5/8 nut, a plywood bridge plate, and a ceramic saddle. People seem to like the tone a lot. Wonderful to sing with. It does the late 60s early 70s Rolling Stones acoustic sound perfectly.

[Lillis]

Originally Posted by pagedr

It’s subjective

I think this is the best answer given how the post was put forth.

[Rudy4]

The only design choice worse than Gibson's choice of using an adjustable bridge on acoustic guitar was their foray into using an adjustable nut. (IMO...)

[TRU]

Originally Posted by Lillis

I think this is the best answer given how the post was put forth.

most taylor and seagull owners would think so.

[TRU]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

Tru, the shape of the bridge doesn’t seem to have much if any impact on the sound, though those immense moustache bridges with pearl inlay in them are a bit too much, in my opinion - too much additional mass.

With pickguards, unless you’re talking about double batwing Everly Brothers model pickguards, again, not a lot of effect. The most negative impact is with the really thick, molded ones, and Gibson hasn’t used those in decades.

But the adjustable bridge is a real tone killer. I know some people like them, but there’s so much additional weight from the mechanism used to raise and lower the string height that it has an inevitable impact on the sound, and not a good one.

So I would strongly recommend that you avoid the adjustable bridge.

Hope this helps.


Wade Hampton Miller

Do you know when ADJs became standard?

[bufflehead]

Originally Posted by Lillis

I think this is the best answer given how the post was put forth.

Lots of rules on how not to answer.

Are we allowed to point out that adjustable saddles suck on acoustic guitars?

[TRU]

Originally Posted by bufflehead

Lots of rules on how not to answer.

Are we allowed to point out that adjustable saddles suck on acoustic guitars?

Allowed??? No.
Rather, you did exactly what was wanted.
Great job wading through the exhausting quagmire of rules and coming out on top. You knocked it out of the park.
Thanks!

[Mark Stone]

Originally Posted by TRU

What is your opinion on the traditional bridge vs the adjustable bridge?

To all of the "it's subjective, " ... "which ever guitar you love is the best," etc folks - move on to another topic.
No **** its subjective.
If your conscience won't allow you to type a definitive opinion here, that's fine. I'm sure there's plenty of topics about Guitar Center that would love to hear from you.

Nonetheless...

I'm going to get a vintage Gibson.

There are tiny aspects of these guitars that a vast many people find to be important and variable, such as:
pickguard (teardrop vs longer "wing-style")
bridge (straight rectangle vs belly down vs belly up), and
saddle (traditional vs adjustable).

Feel free to comment on all of the above, however, I am most interested in your opinion on the bridge.

I had a Gibson J-50 with an adjustable bridge, and it was a part of a long line of Gibson acoustics I owned and used. The J-50's tone was a little dead, not as "Gibsony" as the others I used. It probably was because of the extra hardware on the bridge, however that was only a part of the picture - Gibsons of that era were purposefully overbuilt, and suffered tonally. Nevertheless, the bridge was probably the largest factor.

I think the period in question was from about 1970 to perhaps 1978(?) and we call that their Norlin era. I may be incorrect on the dates, so anyone with better information can chime in.

Nevertheless, that particular J-50 still sounded good -- although not as good as other Gibsons -- and I used it on stage for about 7 or 8 years. So, if you want a great Gibson guitar - go for it. If you want that pure Gibson sound - I dunno.