Best practices for a floating bridge

[Fluoroscope 5000]

I'd think the thin bent Steel saddles would absorb more upper-mids via resonance than thick modern solid saddles. I also suspect more loss of low end compared to thicker saddles, although I don't know how that would be -- some YT comparisons seem to show thinner saddles reduce low end punch. The thicker bent Callahan saddles in particular seem to yield more punch. Mick from TPS went through that with a few different saddles on a Strat, ultimately deciding on the thicker Callahan's, which do admittedly sound slightly more brittle as well.

It could just be that more low end sounds like less high end when driving a guitar amp. It's like how lowering a guitar pickup can sound like the relative high end output drops, when it's really just the loss of relative note fundamentals, and that the resulting weaker and less-exaggerated attack reduces the higher harmonic generation in the amp stages.

[Chuck H]

I'd think the thin bent Steel saddles would absorb more upper-mids via resonance than thick modern solid saddles. I also suspect more loss of low end compared to thicker saddles, although I don't know how that would be -- some YT comparisons seem to show thinner saddles reduce low end punch. The thicker bent Callahan saddles in particular seem to yield more punch. Mick from TPS went through that with a few different saddles on a Strat, ultimately deciding on the thicker Callahan's, which do admittedly sound slightly more brittle as well.

It could just be that more low end sounds like less high end when driving a guitar amp. It's like how lowering a guitar pickup can sound like the relative high end output drops, when it's really just the loss of relative note fundamentals, and that the resulting weaker and less-exaggerated attack reduces the higher harmonic generation in the amp stages.

I don't take "gear page" type discussions too seriously. Misconceptions and low tech interpretations abound. And terms like "more brittle" and "low end punch" are entirely subjective and undefined. This combined with the FACT that people tend to either love what they have or what they just bought, often attributing assets to it that aren't really there, has put me off of offering any consideration to un testable web commentary regarding tone. Sure, it can be said that people don't say things for no reason. But when such a high percentage of people only have reasons like ego and covetous it taints any ability to influence reality for logical minds.

JM2C on that. And I honestly don't intend any offence by it.

[Helmholtz]

I'd think the thin bent Steel saddles would absorb more upper-mids via resonance than modern solid saddles. I also suspect more loss of low end compared to thicker saddles

Saddles don't change "bass" (low frequency fundamental frequency) response.

In 2005 I bought 3 complete Callaham vibrato bridges + some extra saddles and hardware. I noticed that the saddles and the baseplate measured and looked identical (including tool marks) to Gotoh parts. Block was different, though.

The Callaham saddles are thinner than my original 1962 and 1969 strat saddles. BTW, the '62 saddles are hardened, the '69 saddles are soft.

[Chuck H]

BTW, the '62 saddles are hardened, the '69 saddles are soft.

I'm often amazed at the significant tidbits of knowledge you have regarding vintage gear. Especially how you connect these obscure pieces of information and how they relate to tonality. My thoughts on this latest piece of information:

1) Who was considering the austenitic properties of the saddles when these "assembly line" guitars were conceived?

2) Where was this information recorded that YOU now have access to it? (And how come I never heard of it before now?)

3) How do you remember all these things so you can reference them later?

4) Where do I get stamped type hardened saddles (short of buying an actual vintage bridge) so I can try them out and see if I hear a difference. Maybe I have to make them

[Helmholtz]

2) Where was this information recorded that YOU now have access to it? (And how come I never heard of it before now?)

Always experimenting. I prefer to rely on my own observations. With saddles I try a small file and/or see how easy they bend, carefully using a vise. Or compare indents from an automatic center punch. With hardened steel a file has no chance.

3) How do you remember all these things so you can reference them later?

No problem with things I am interested in, like everything that relates to guitars, wood, tube amps etc.. But I often take/took down notes stored in big folders.

4) Where do I get stamped type hardened saddles (short of buying an actual vintage bridge) so I can try them out and see if I hear a difference.

Fender Vintage Replacement parts.

2) Where was this information recorded that YOU now have access to it?

In my memory/folders

[Chuck H]

Well, with some searching I couldn't find any stamped saddles that were expressly indicated as heat treated. And I did find corroboration for your tests of the earlier saddles done by others. I also read one forum thread where it was speculated that the early sadles weren't heat treated, but work hardened. Work hardening metals is something that luthiers in the know have been doing to frets for a long time by radiusing them, straightening them and re radiusing them a couple of times before installation. But from my own personal experience with austenitic steels I would say that your file test indicates actual hardened steel for the earlier saddles. Callaham is believed to offer heat treated saddles by some posts I read, but they don't. On their site they make a point of mentioning that their bridge pivot screws are heat treated. If their saddles were too they would surely mention it, but they don't. Other aftermarket manufacturers say things like "Made with the same methods used for the original saddles" but that's all. So...

No heat treated saddles I'm afraid.

[Helmholtz]

No heat treated saddles I'm afraid.

???

From literature I know about steel hardening methods. Even did a vacation job in spring hardening when at school.
I assume the harder '62 saddles and the Fender Vintage Replacement saddles are case hardened, at least they test the same. Callaham saddles are certainly not case hardened but they test as harder than the '69 saddles.
Actually I care about results, not manufacturing methods. And I don't trust promotion/marketing statements and forums' opinions without verifiable evidence.

And I am not saying harder is better.

Certainly also tightly fitting screws are important.

[Mick Bailey]

Case hardened parts have a very hard skin and usually test harder than a regular heat treated steel. Thin parts are usually more economical to make from a heat treatable steel rather than to use a low-carbon steel and then case harden them. Case hardening will also crack off a sheet metal part if its bent and it can also render a thin part very brittle. I've never sectioned a Strat saddle and done a comparative hardness test on the surface compared to the core, so I can't say either way, though even if oil quenched a case hardened part will not bite with a file and all the genuine Strat saddles (both vintage and modern) I have do bite so I'm disinclined to believe they're case hardened.

If they were case hardened then the threads would need to be cut first. Once hardened the treads would be very brittle and easily prone to damage, though when I'm case hardening parts I mask off areas to remain soft but this seems to be an unlikely process to use in this case.

[Chuck H]

And I am not saying harder is better.

Of course. And I'm not either. I'm just saying I wanted to try them for myself.

In fact, in my search I did see some brass saddles that are machined into the same profile as the stamped and bent saddles. Tone not withstanding, they looked uber cool Expensive though so I think I'll live without them.

[Helmholtz]

... oil quenched a case hardened part will not bite with a file and all the genuine Strat saddles (both vintage and modern) I have do bite...

My '62 saddles as well as the contemporary Fender Vintage Replacement saddles do not "bite" at all (I thought I was clear on that). The latter changed over the years (I have samples dating back to the early 80s) and I am anxious to not generalize my results.

[Helmholtz]

I'm just saying I wanted to try them for myself.

Then try the Fender Vintage parts.

BTW, over the decades I tried and collected many different makes including "Pure Vintage" and KTS titanium saddles. The most annoying problem I find with most of the aftermarket saddles (including Callaham and Gotoh, excluding Fender and Allparts) is that they are just a bit to wide, forcing me to grind them down. In this process hardness shows as well.
(Brass is generally softer than steel.)

[Chuck H]

It seems I may have tried them already then. And I recall being vexed by the width of other saddles, but not for the same reasons as you I think. I have an American Standard size strat and I'm using a MIM size strat bridge. I didn't know about the difference in string spacing between the two at first. I consider it a happy accident because I really don't like having my E strings so tight to the edge of the fingerboard as many American Standard spaced bridges do. So I have an extra 20th of an inch or so on either side at my neck heel and I like it.

[Helmholtz]

It seems I may have tried them already then.

If you still have them, you might try the file test.

...a MIM size strat bridge

May not really matter here, but MIM bridges and saddles have just above/close to vintage string spacings, but I don't like the cast zinc blocks. Saddles are not hardened.

[Mick Bailey]

My '62 saddles as well as the contemporary Fender Vintage Replacement saddles do not "bite" at all (I thought I was clear on that).

Not clear to me - you didn't mention your test method, you just said they test the same, but I'm not clear in what context "the same" means - the same as each other, or the same as a verified case hardened part. I no longer have access to a hardness tester, otherwise I could have given a figure for the saddles I have for you to compare with the ones in your possession.

[Chuck H]

If you still have them, you might try the file test.

I "think" I may have given that bridge to someone that was building a guitar about ten years ago. Otherwise it's in a box under other boxes in a closet but I'm not even sure about that. In other words, it's a project for another time

May not really matter here, but MIM bridges and saddles have just above/close to vintage string spacings, but I don't like the cast zinc blocks. Saddles are not hardened.

EDIT: It turns out that Callaham is offering the MIM width stamped saddles I guess I'll have to get some.

I'm not exited about the cast zinc blocks either. But it beats having the E strings waggle off the fretboard when I play.

I'm not the only one to have this trouble either.