"thru" saddles vs standard length saddles?

[darylcrisp]

so i noticed this the other day while demoing a Martin standard D-28 and a Martin HD28V. I did not know the specs of each guitar at that time, but the saddle on the HD28V caught my eye quickly. It extended outwardly towards the sides of the bridge much more than the standard D-28. One of the shop workers said it supposed to vibrate the top more and deliver more tone.

So to you players/owners/luthiers out there, what do you say in your findings over the years-do you think the thru saddles deliver more?

And if so, why wouldn't a builder(say boutique or Martin and Taylor), do each guitar this way while building it. It would be far easy at the building stage to have the machinery setup just to cut thru the bridge a little more, and shape the saddle just a little longer-there can't be that much additional charge in marterials or time-at the building stage.

Are there any disadvantages to the thru saddles?
(I personally find them to look cooler-they just look right IMO)

what say ye?

thanks
daryl

[Brent Hutto]

One disadvantage is that it makes the bridge weaker and increases the chance of the saddle to cause the bridge to crack. But on a well-made modern guitar that is still an extremely unlikely event with either kind of saddle.

Another disadvantage is that the ends will no longer match up with the shape of the bridge if you raise the saddle with a shim or lower it by sanding the bottom. So to keep the cosmetics looking OK you have to lower it by recontouring the top of the saddle which is somewhat more trouble than working from the bottom.

And the other disadvantage is that a few guitar glue those through saddles in place which makes removing or replacing them something you'll have to pay a luthier to do. Fortunately, the idea of gluing them in is pretty much obsolete nowadays.

Oh, and if you want to use an undersaddle pickup (although why anyone would do that is a mystery to me) that's more difficult to install and more prone to not working well than with a conventional drop-in saddle.

The only advantage is that it looks cool. Some guitars many years ago had through saddles that were cut through like that. Eventually everyone figure out that a drop-in saddle is a far superior design. But if you want a "vintage" look to a guitar the through saddle is one way to get it. Any supposed mechanical or tone advantages are wishful thinking.

P.S. I ought to mention that one of my three guitars has a "through" saddle. I also have one with a drop-in saddle and one with a tie-block saddle (classical). They all sound good to me.

[Stephen W.]

Let me get this straight, you were told that the length of the saddle dictates how much, (or how little) the top will vibrate? Longer being better.
Well, that's a new one on me. Lets think about this for a moment. The saddle holds the string. The vibrations from that string are transmitted to the top via the bridge which holds the saddle. If all the strings were to vibrate at once, (as in strumming a chord) then only the area directly below a given string would be able to transmit those vibrations. Vibrations moving in either direction from one string would be cancelled out by the vibrations of the adjacent strings. So only the first and last strings would benefit from this theory, if it were proven true.
However, I believe this to be false.

Steve Klein (as well as others) have used individual saddles for each string.

http://www.kleinguitars.com/KleinGuitarLinks/l45.htm

I have to agree with Brent's final statement; "Any supposed mechanical or tone advantages are wishful thinking."

[35fingerpicker]

"...Oh, and if you want to use an undersaddle pickup (although why anyone would do that is a mystery to me)..."

Only good reason I can think of is if you use it in conjunction with the Ellipse Aura, which is designed for use with an undersaddle pickup. I've got the Aura in my D-35 and my D-18VS. Intallation in the D-35 was very simple but in the VS (with the long saddle), we had to work a little harder to get it right. But in both cases, it was worth it.

Bud

[Tim McKnight]

Brent & Steven's comments are 100% correct. The only advantage of a through saddle is in cutting the slot. This is easily and quickly done on a table saw whereas cutting a drop in saddle slot requires a special jig to hold the bridge while plunge cutting the slot with a router. Another method is to cut the slot with a CNC.

I believe string break angle and saddle height are both more mechanically and critically important to the transmission of vibrations into the top than the actual slot length itself.

Other related topics that could be discussed along this line are saddle angle and the saddle width. Both play important roles enhancing the performance of the central point of excitation, the bridge "system".

[grantgsc]

I have an OM28 Marquis which has a through saddle. I have toyed with the idea of having the slot filled in so it has a "regular" saddle slot, thus making it easier to adjust the action, add a P/U or change the type of material. One can always adjust the through saddle by removing bone material from the top, but what if later the action needs to be raised? This requires a tricky and difficult fabrication of a new saddle. I personally think that Martin and other makers who insist on this "vintage" look need to rethink...