Brekke bridge questions [Archive]

instrumentality

Dec-01-2009, 6:04pm

Hey everyone -
I'm currently drooling over a Weber Gallatin A oval hole on the The Mandolin Store's website. I've got a bonus coming in a couple of weeks so this might actually be a possibility.

I'm wondering if anyone has experience with the different Brekke bridges; my Hyalite has what I guess is the standard Weber bridge; the one without the thumb wheels. The folks at the Mandolin store told me they don't use those and prefer to use the Traditional Brekke bridge in order to get the most tone out of the instrument.

Anyone want to share their experiences?
Thanks!

naoki

Dec-01-2009, 8:24pm

You may be interested in this:

http://www.petercoombe.com/jaamim4.html

I theoretically prefer lighter bridges.

man dough nollij

Dec-01-2009, 8:38pm

I have a Gallatin that came with the standard Brekke bridge. It sounds good, and is exceptionally loud. I have always thought it was a little weak on the E and maybe a tiny bit on the A, so I took it in to the Weber shop to have them fit a Brekke Traditional, more or less as an experiment. I remember talking to the guys at the Mandolin Store when I was back in AZ a while back, and if I remember right, they seemed to think the bridge change might help with the trebles. :mandosmiley:

doc holiday

Dec-01-2009, 8:56pm

A number of years ago I had a Weber Yellowstone varnish mandolin. It came with a Brekke Bridge. In my attempts to corner the mandolin sound I had in my head...I did some bridge switching. After the Brekke, I almost got a Weber traditional bridge, but I thought it was a bit on the clunky side and missed some of the design aesthetic of the Loar Bridge. I ended up with a Cumberland Acoustic Bridge, which did improve the tone. When I sold the mandolin it had the CA bridge on it and Greg Boyd told me the new owner left it on. Steve Smith was very helpful, and ultimately the fit was perfect.

Fretbear

Dec-01-2009, 9:21pm

bridge in order to get the most tone out of the instrument.

That would be one of Steve's CA's.....

Ivan Kelsall

Dec-02-2009, 1:11am

I have a Traditional Brekke bridge on my Weber Fern & it sounds as good as i could wish. I did have an 'Original' Brekke bridge on a Weber 'Beartooth' that i had for a few months & that Mandolin was LOUD !.Tonally it was fine as well. I have to admit that on the aesthetic side of things,the 'Original' Brekke design doesn't really knock me out,i'd rather have a Cumberland Acoustics style bridge,if i wanted a bit more meat on my bridge than the Trad.Brekke,
Ivan

BlueMt.

Dec-02-2009, 1:33am

My Weber Fern came with both Traditional and Original Brekke bridges. I guess I should try the Original Brekke one of these days.

red7flag

Dec-02-2009, 7:08am

I had a Bitterroot that had some problems. One was too much lacquer (was an older version, new ones do not have that problem) and a flat tone. I took it to Steve Mandovoodoo Perry. He did his Mandovoodoo magic and resplaced the bridge with a Steve Smith Cumberland Accoustics bridge and the problem was solved (except for the heavy lacquer which would have taken much too much work and cost for that instrument). The tone came out and it developed a very sweet voice (mahogany back and sides) very nice for Celtic music. I was able to AB the Origional Bridge with the CA bridge. The difference was dramaitc and the CA bridge was much better for that instrument. Not sure if that would be true for all the Weber line. I am happy with the Traditional Brekke on my Vintage A. I would be interested some day to compare with the CA bridge.

peter.coombe

Dec-02-2009, 5:52pm

The original Brekke is a bit weak in the treble, but my modifications (see above post) solve that problem (and more). I have used a CA bridge, but went back to the modified Brekke. However, the CA bridge I thought was the best sounding of the traditional style bridges I have used. The new Brekke bridges are different in that the saddle is thicker, and I think they sound a bit better. Why that is I have no idea, but it is definately an improvement. However, if you are not prepared to make the modifications, then you might be disappointed with the sound of the original Brekke. The modifications make a huge difference to the sound. It is a brilliant design, but has not been taken to it's full potential by STE, IMHO. Taken to it's full potential I think it sounds better than any other bridge I have tried.

Big Joe

Dec-02-2009, 11:32pm

Paul Hostetter

Dec-04-2009, 12:55am

I agree 100%. The muted sound of the Brekke isn't without merits to some folks, but I like to hear the unmuted voice of the mandolin which comes out much better with either a standard adjustable bridge like Cumberland offers now, or even a simple one-piece like Gibson used long ago.

The "traditional" Brekkes I've seen sagged in the middle and also sounded muted. To me they look clunky, not traditional.

My other issue with the older Brekke is that it lacks enough saddle thickness (meaning the insert that adjusts up and down) to allow for adequate compensation. They're never really in tune. Not my teacup.

Ivan Kelsall

Dec-04-2009, 1:17am

According to Weber,the Trad.Brekke bridges are reinforced with a small brass bar to prevent sagging.
From the Weber site :- " Because a brass bar embedded in the bottom of the saddle supports the entire string area of the saddle, the saddle can be made much smaller than the common old, historical-style saddle.
The bar also insures that the saddle will not bow, sag or break in the middle over time." .

The 'Original' Brekke bridge that was on my Weber Beartooth,was easily adjustable & always 'in-tune' because the insert is now wider to allow for proper compensation. Obviously Paul,the one(s) you've come across must have been the older model & i can see your point on that.
The Trad.bridge on my Fern shows no sign of sagging & if any Weber owner does have a Trad.bridge that IS sagging,i'm sure that the good folks at Weber will replace it in an instant,
Ivan

peter.coombe

Dec-05-2009, 6:43pm

It amazes me that years after I published my paper, practically no one has tried to modifiy the Brekke. As far as I know, only a couple of musicians have tried it and have been very happy with the results, and no one has said my mandolins sound "muted", or the intonation is out. Quite the contrary in fact. The saddle thickness has been increased, so there now can be greater compensation if required. All we seem to get now is that the Brekke bridge sound sucks, or words to that effect. There is a reason for that. For goodness sake, some of you try doing the modifications!! It is not a lot of work. Or don't you believe me? Even STE never implemented or even bothered to try the modications after asking for my permission to do so (permission was given). It is very frustrating to make this information freely available in the public domain so others can benefit, only to be completely ignored, and the Brekke bridge sucks dogma lives on. Sorry, end of rant, I am feeling quite frustrated about this at the moment. The modifications do make a difference, but it will vary from huge to small depending on the individual mandolin. Why some instruments benefit more than others I don't know.

Big Joe

Dec-05-2009, 11:02pm

Hey Peter...I have never had the opportunity to experiment with your bridges. It would be interesting to test them with what we usually consider a superior bridge to see what difference it may make. I have played your mandolins a couple times and they were very nice. I cannot say I remember the bridge design though. Old age is creeping in too quick :) . If I ever get the chance to test one I certainly will. Thank you for your response.

Ivan Kelsall

Dec-06-2009, 2:57am

Hi Peter - With all due respect,there may not be many of us (me included) who have had sight of your paper. I can undersatnd your frustration if you've come up with a modification(s) that do improve the tonal qualities of a bridge. Red Henry has also carried out extensive experimentation with wooden bridges of various designs & wood densities,& they are there for all of us to see on his website. Please point us in the right direction to view your findings & i'm sure many of us will have a good read.
Re." the sound of the Brekke bridge sucks !" - Harsh words,but i understand YOUR opinion.
On my Weber 'Beartooth' A-style Mandolin the (original) Brekke bridge sounded excellent (to my ears),if it hadn't i'd have swapped it out for a Cumberland Acoustics bridge,something i did with a previously owned instrument.
STE are a great company & usually 'come up with the goods',but i share your frustration in another thing. Myself & a few others on here are still awaiting the 'new' Weber tailpiece that we were lead to believe would be appearing in the not too distant future.That project seems to have taken a nose dive. I reckon that STE are just too busy building & selling Mandolins etc.,after all,that IS their main business,
Ivan;)

Kevin Briggs

Dec-06-2009, 7:48am

Here's my addition to the thread:

I've used the traditional Brekke bridge on two mandolins and have no complaints that I can attribute to the bridge. i am currently having some setup issues with my mandolin, but for almost two years I had no setup issues of significance, and the bridge has functioned as advertised. I also like the look of it, as I think it looks muscular. I typically get great volume out of my mandolin, and that was also the case with my previous mandolin. I know opinions vary, but this is my experience.

In fact, Weber recently helped fix up a junker mandolin that was donated to my work place, and I requested the Brekke traditional bridge. The mandolin came back perfectly setup and sounding loud and clear. So, that's a third instance where it has worked for me.

As far as the original Brekke goes, I played mandolins with that bridge about five or six years ago, and I think recently, and mostly heard positive things. In some cases the volume was extraordinarily loud, in others not so much. I had always attributed this to a shop owner who knows how to set it up vs. one who does not.

To me, that's where a lot of this negativity towards the Brekke originated. Before Weber reconfigured its dealer requirements, there were too many Webers sitting in shops where owners didn't know a setup from an elbow. So, the mandolins sounded bad. I think they've corrected some of that problem in recent years by putting more pressure on dealers somehow.

My $.02. It's good hearing the likes of Big Joe, Paul H. and Peter C. chime in. You are all well respected and your discussions are a great contribution to the Cafe.

Jill McAuley

Dec-06-2009, 12:05pm

Great thread, I might be sending my Gallatin back to the STE folks for some upgrades in the new year and swapping out my Original Brekke for a Traditional one might be on the cards now too.

Cheers,
Jill

peter.coombe

Dec-06-2009, 5:05pm

Ivan, the link to my paper is in the second post of this thread.

It was all triggored off by Red Henry, and I started making Maple one piece bridges after a post on Comando by Red. However, after trying various combinations of wood I ended up back with a Red Henry style of Ebony bridge that I preferred the sound of over all the Maple bridges and a traditional Loar style of bridge. The Maple bridges just did not sound as good as the Ebony to me. STE kindly made 2 Maple Brekke bridges for me but I still preferred Ebony. Red will disagree about Ebony, but others have also obtained better results with Ebony. I suspect Red's Ebony bridges were too heavy, the Brekke is quite a light bridge. The disadvantage of a one piece bridge is that it is not adjustable, and the penny dropped that the original Brekke was similar in shape to what I was fiddling around with and I could drill holes in the saddle without it collapsing, and of course it was adjustable. So I tried drilling holes in the saddle and thinning the base to a wedge shape. It worked - sounded very similar to the Ebony Red Henry style of bridge. The biggest change comes from the holes drilled in the saddle. Overall the changes make the Brekke sound much louder, with a stronger treble, and a overall richer tonal quality, quite a noticable difference. Some mandolins can be completely transformed by the modications, others show only a small improvement, but I have always obtained an improvement. I have no explanation as to why the modifications work, nor do I have any idea why the Red Henry bridges sound so different, but Red is certainly on to something.

Kevin Briggs

Dec-06-2009, 8:19pm

That's very interesting Peter. maybe it has something to do wit the way the vibrations from the strings now have to travel less of a distance. The holes might concentrate the vibrations around the holes, since the holes obviously can't transfer the vibrations, and thus it's like a mega transfer in the smaller area of wood on the bridge. It thus slams into the top of the mandolin creating a more profound vibration, resulting better tone. Somethign like:

v+h=t

Right?

Hey, give me a break, I read "A Beautiful Mind" and now fancy myself an expert in mathematics, or whatever its called that I was just talking about.

Ivan Kelsall

Dec-07-2009, 2:50am

Many thanks Peter - I'll certainly have a read. I wish i had the skill & equipment needed to experiment in such a manner as yourself & Red Henry (also a Mandolin that would take the hassle !),i'm sure it must be fascinating.
On the many occasions when i've read of Red Henry's bridge tinkering,i've thought that with Violin bridges,there's almost more holes /cut-outs than wood. I think that the holes allow the rest of the bridge to flex (vibrate) in a particular way which transmits the vibrations in a maner which is beneficial or detrimental to the sound.
All fascinating stuff,many thanks again Peter ,
Ivan;)

Ivan Kelsall

Dec-07-2009, 3:19am

OK ! - I've had my read of Peter's Mandolin bridge findings & very interesting they were.I have to admit that if i still had my Weber with the Brekke bridge on it i'd be tempted to try the modiification.
I have to assume that Peter is addressing his advice re.the modification,to those instruments already having an 'Original' Brekke bridge installed - which makes good sense.
It would be interesting indeed to find out what effect such a bridge would have on a variety of instruments,by different builders - but that could take a couple of lifetimes of experimentation,
Ivan :cool:

chasgrav

Feb-10-2010, 3:50pm

Horses for courses, I guess.

I liked my original Brekke (on a Weber Beartooth) well enough to also put one on my 1952 A-50. I guess maybe it is a bit "muted", but I prefer that to the sharper, more metallic sound the original Gibson bridge was giving me. It's woodier now, and more mellow --- less aggressive sounding.

chasray

Feb-10-2010, 4:17pm

To the OP, I would not be afraid of the traditional Brekke bridge on the oval hole Gallatin A. I have a Bridger with the same bridge.

I also have a Bitterroot (mahogany back made in 02) with the original Brekke bridge. I think that bridge with the mahogany gives it a mellow, even sound that a bluegrasser would not prefer. I know Peter is on to something.

250sc

Feb-10-2010, 5:02pm

Fortunately, with a little practice you can learn to fit a bridge and experiment for yourself. Try all of them for a fairly low cost and see what works for you.

Ken Berner

Feb-10-2010, 5:13pm

chasgrav and I must have the same ears. I cannot speak to oval hole mandolins, but I have had more success with the original Brekke bridge on almost every mandolin I've owned. The first was a horrid Kentucky 250S (all solid wood with tone bars) which needed all the help it could get. I owned a 1993 Flatiron A5 Artist (X-braced) which was a cannon and I left the original Flatiron bridge alone. My '99 Weber Beartooth (X-braced) is perfect with it's original Brekke bridge. In 2001 I bought a '92 Flatiron F5 Artist (X-braced) which had been played very little, but was just too bright for my ears. The original Brekke bridge really transformed this mandolin and gave it great tonal character. We all hear differently, of course, but I prefer some depth rather than the jingle-jangle, tin can sound.

jim simpson

Feb-10-2010, 8:37pm

Years ago when I owned a Weber Yellowstone, I made a bone replacement for the upper bridge portion of the Brekke. To my ears, it seemed to produce a richer clearer sound.
I noticed some years later, a maker of bone (wooly mammoth?) replacement saddles offered a Brekke insert like the one I made. I figured great minds work alike?!

man dough nollij

Mar-05-2010, 10:35pm

I'm back in the states now, and I am reunited with my Gallatin, which now has a Brekke traditional bridge. It had a new Brekke bridge on it as delivered. It sounded really good before, and was a particularly loud mandolin. It seemed a little muted on the high strings, though. I really like the change with the traditional bridge. It's much more balanced, and the high strings sound clearer. I'm waiting for the new strings to settle in a little, so I can get a fuller picture. So far, it seems to have been a very successful modification.

Jill McAuley

Mar-06-2010, 12:10am

Ah, good to hear that you're liking the Brekke traditional on your Gallatin, Lee - I'm thinking of doing the same with my Gallatin.

Cheers,
Jill

man dough nollij

Mar-06-2010, 12:54am

Ah, good to hear that you're liking the Brekke traditional on your Gallatin, Lee - I'm thinking of doing the same with my Gallatin.

Cheers,
Jill

Hey Jill,

Did you notice the same "choked" sound on the higher notes that I have noted? Bruce, Tony, and Brett at the Weber shop have noted that my Gallatin sounded like a hoss, but I always thought that it was explosive on the bass, but a little more quiet than I would like on the high end. With the new bridge, it is right where I would want it-- a very noticeable addition.

Lee

Jill McAuley

Mar-06-2010, 1:34am

Yeah, I do find the high end on mine a wee bit quiet - definitely looking forward to getting the traditional bridge on it now!

Cheers,
Jill

Bernie Daniel

Mar-06-2010, 9:07am

Peter from my view point as person who made his living as a research scientist I think you've laid out a very nice argument there I just wish I'd seen it sooner -- but that's my fault. I did read over Red's site from time to time. There is a question for you at the end of this.

BTW this a a bit tangential as the main subject is Brekke comparison -- but the topic seems to have broadened a bit anyway.

Currently I have 2 Gibson F-2 mandolins. One I have a 1919 F-2 with a Loar style adjustable bridge (its been on the mandolin since I bought it in 1972 and I do not have any idea who made it) and the other a 1920 model has the original one-piece Gibson bridge. Both are set up to my liking with nearly identical action across the strings -- I use D'Addario J73 (0.011" to 0.038") on both of them as the Gibson oval mandos have a tendency to top sag.

Personally, I do not have issues with either of them and on any given day either one could sound "better" to me -- the next day maybe I'll change my mind. But overall my impression is that the Loar style bridge produces a consistently "louder" sound and the fixed bridge is generally "sweeter" and maybe more balanced between the E and G. (no I have never switched the bridges nor will I ever do that -- leave well enough alone -- but hence its hard to really make much of my observations).

But your comment about the fixed bridge changing in the dry months is dead on. If I am not REALLY careful about keeping the woods on the 1920 (fixed bridge) model well hydrated in the winter it picks up an annoying buzz.

What do you think of trying a scaled-up Henry fixed bridge (in ebony?) on a K-1 mandocello? My current '36 K1 needs a new bridge. Right now I have a little ebony pillar or shim (circa 2 mm square) between the base and the saddle as the latter is cracked under the A-string. I think that I could much easier cut a Henry bridge for the 'cello then carve a new Loar saddle for it? :)

peter.coombe

Mar-08-2010, 6:58pm

Not sure I can answer your question since I have no experience with mandocellos. I guess anything is worth a try if you have the time and materials, and the results would certainly be interesting. The safest thing would be to make a new Loar saddle, but if you want to try something new, and perhaps get an improved sound, go for it. The probably of an improved sound is good, but there are no guarentees, and it could be a failure, but then you would have learned something new.

Bob Buckingham

Mar-08-2010, 7:42pm

I have 3 Webers. Two with the Brekke thumbwheel bridge and one with the original Brekke bridge. They all sound great. The one with the original bridge is older and has a flat fingerboard was closed in sounding until I took it to a dance and played all night long. It really opened up. The other day, a student who records her lessons told me that she has been listening to how that mandolin's sound has changed over the last year. It is the playing that opens them up. That is what they are made for, correct?

Kevin Briggs

Mar-08-2010, 8:59pm

Rob,

That's right. I never cease to be amazed at how incredible a good mandolin sounds after it gets warmed up. There also has to be some physiological explanation for that feeling I get that makes me just want to pick up that warmed up mandolin to keep playing it. I just want to hear that sound, and to feel it vibrating and sustaining. People who don't know it will never understand.

8ch(pl)

Mar-09-2010, 9:21am

I have a Samick solid top A style. The bridge that came with is adjustable, rosewood. I swapped it for one that I made from Beech. It is one piece, but not exactly like Red Henry's, I patterned it after my Mid Missouri bridge. It is also thinner than the original, about 9/32 in.

It made a real difference, it is louder and seems to bring the tone out in this instrument, which is usually kept at work or loaned to someone who is interested in learning mandolin.

brianf

Mar-09-2010, 7:53pm

My STE prototype came with an original Brekke bridge. The saddle was adjusted as high as it can go, in order to get proper string/fingerboard clearances. The A string and the G string sounded a little weak. The Saddle began to bow, and finally broke, and instead of trying to fit a new bridge to the top, I installed a new saddle. I added two very small, light stainless washers to the adjustment posts on each side, which gave a little support to the threaded rods, because the saddle was so high.
I was surprised and pleased to find that the response on all strings is now quite balanced and loud. When the G string is picked, i can feel the vibrations in the neck. The experiment may be unorthodox, but it sure sounds good, to me.

VernBrekke

Mar-11-2010, 4:29pm

This discussion seems to come up occasionally so I hope that it is ok to respond to a couple of comments that were made. We sell both bridges and we get nice letters from customers about instruments with either bridge. In general, we recommend the traditional bridge for those who mainly play Bluegrass and either the original or the traditional for most other styles according to the customer or dealers personal preference. The original bridge seems to work especially well on our larger instruments: mandola, octave and mandocello.

As far as our records indicate and any of us can remember, we have never had a customer or dealer contact us about a traditional bridge saddle that has sagged in the center. There are several thousand of them out there and customers usually let us know if there is a problem. If anyone should have a problem with one, we will of course fix it. Perhaps Paul could contact the customer with the sagging bridge and have him contact us. We would like to see the bridge and cover the cost of the repair.

We also appreciate that Peter has chosen to use our original bridge on his instruments and has done research to arrive at that decision. He is a talented luthier and that choice is a compliment to the basic design of the bridge. A while ago, a customer asked us if we would do Peter’s modifications to an instrument that was in the shop for some other upgrades. I asked Peter if it would be ok to use his modifications on that instrument. Although he gave us permission to use his modifications, we haven’t used them on our other bridges for a couple of reasons: it doesn’t seem right to use his research without compensating him; we have had very few problems or complaints with our current bridge over a fairly long period of time and with a lifetime warranty on potentially thousands of instruments we tend to be pretty conservative about making changes; and Bruce likes the sound we are getting from our instruments with the current bridge. Every luthier has a sound or tone that they are striving for in their instruments and we are very happy that Peter has found his tone with his modifications to our bridge on his instruments.

The wait for our new tailpiece was also mentioned a few posts back. When Rick mentioned on Mandolin Café that we were going to have a new tailpiece, he was planning to use another company’s tailpiece customized to our requirements. It was a very premature announcement and the deal did not work out. I have been working on a few new designs, but so far they have not been sufficiently better than our current design to warrant a change. I will keep searching for a combination that will meet our requirements of instrument tone, ease of use, durability and ability to be produced in fairly large quantities at a reasonable price. It’s difficult to meet those requirements without doing something that is already being done by someone else.

Thanks,

Vern Brekke

VernBrekke

Mar-11-2010, 4:49pm

I just saw the post from Brian F. Unfortunately, we sent out some of the STE Prototypes with aftermarket Loar style bridges instead of our own original or traditional bridges. It was in line with the lower price point of those instruments, but obviously was not a successful change and demonstrates why we like our bridges.

Brian please contact Tony at Sound To Earth about a warranty repair.

Thanks,

Vern

peter.coombe

Mar-11-2010, 6:15pm

I can second Vern's comments about larger instruments. I use an original Brekke that is S shaped on my mandolas and found them to be truly excellent. I used to use a Loar type bridge on my mandolas, but the Brekke is a significant improvement. The S shape will give you perfect intonation at the 12th fret, but before you go out and order one, they are signifantly more difficult to get a good fit to the top. I probably spend 2 or 3 times as long fitting a mandola bridge as I do a mandolin bridge, but the extra time is definately worth it. When I was using a Loar type bridge on my mandolas it was always a battle to get good intonation, but these S shaped Brekke mandola bridges really nail it. My modications do seem have a similar effect as the mandolin bridges, but not to the same extent, so I usually only bother to modify the saddle.

George R. Lane

Mar-11-2010, 6:52pm

I recently had Vern make a fossilized ivory saddle for my Gallatin and what a difference it made. The 'a' and 'e' strings just came to life, and it is much louder. The guys at our local store were so impressed that they have replaced their saddles. So you might want to give that a try. The price is a little on the high side but well worth it. Thanks Vern.

brianf

Mar-12-2010, 6:52am

Vern, thanks for your reply. I don't fault anyone for a flaw which can't be predicted nor seen. Installing a new saddle was good experience, and I am very pleased with the results. I was afraid that the addition of the little washers shims would adversely affect performance, and was surprised that the extra mass didn't seem to reduce the punch. Age and infirmity are hinting that I will never be a challenge to Thile or Monroe, so I'll just keep picking, with a smile on my face. My post wasn't meant to be a complaint, just informative.

Thanks,

Brian

epicentre

Mar-12-2010, 10:07am

I have replaced a good number of the Brekke with CA bridges and in every case it made a substantial improvement in the instrument. I think the concept of the Brekke is interesting, but just does not seem to perform as well as the CA bridge when properly fit and adjusted. Just my opinion.

Hi, Big Joe; Any Brekke Originals you have changed out and plan to discard, send'em this a way, would ya? Never used a CA bridge, but, it ain't over yet.

(I'll pay the postage)

Buck

Mar-18-2010, 9:55am

I have a '99 Big Sky (the first version) that I bought new. I am terminally cheap and almost never buy a new instrument. This one was so good that I had to have it - and I still don't regret that decision. It had the original Brekke bridge since that's all Weber offered at the time.

As noted, the mandolin sounded great and I was pleased. But being an engineer and tinkerer I was very curious when the "traditional" bridge came out. I had a conversation with Bruce Weber about it and he offered to send a bridge and I could fit it myself and try it, or I could send him the mandolin and he would fit it for me. Being an impatient engineer and tinkerer, I opted to have him send me the bridge. I fitted it to the mandolin and the difference was notable and immediate. I felt the response was stronger across all the strings, but A and E strings benefitted the most. Strong, thick trebles are what set an instrument apart to my ears. (That may be a poor explanation of tone, but sound is hard for me to describe.)

Many mandolins have a pretty good chop, but the treble strings lack power when playing leads. This Big Sky did not lack power with the original Brekke, which is partly why I bought it in the first place, but the power and tone was enhanced by the Traditional Brekke.

I have very little experience with the larger instruments in the mandolin family, but to my ears the Traditional Brekke is far better than the original for Bluegrass. It may very well be better for some other styles.

These days I spend much more time playing guitar, but I thought my experience with these two bridges might be helpful.

Kevin Briggs

Mar-18-2010, 3:38pm

It's good to see you on here, Vern. Thanks for chiming in.

I want to add for the good of the order that so much of a bridge working the right way is having a great setup. I was questioning all kinds of things about my bridge and my Weber a few months ago, but I also hadn't had it setup in about four season changes. plus, I moved to a colder climate. The setup, which I had done in the dead of winter, made a miraculous difference. I also switched strings which was a big difference too. It didn't have anything to do with the bridge or the amndolin, just how well she was in shape.

I've still yet to see any real evidence about how or why one bridge is "better" than the traditional Brekke. I think "better" is often substituted for "what we're used to." We have many wonderful years of the sound that put mandolins on most of our maps, and it's a very addicting sound. However, we are starting to accumulate a good amount of years where mandolins sound a little different than they used to. I'm not going for the Skaggs DMM sound, or even the MM sound. I'm going for something a little different, so my goal isn't to clone to Lloyd Loar sound. My goal is to have somethign I can call my own sound.

This perspective is a tough sell in many circles, music or not, but it's the way I see it. I like the sustain and the throaty chop I get. That ringing deep end that never quits is what I want. For me, I get that with the Brekke traditional, so why woudl I worry about changing it out? I'm not after something else.

Ivan Kelsall

Mar-20-2010, 2:48am

Vern - Re.the existing Weber tailpiece.The tiny gap that the strings pass thorough in order to get the string loops on the pins, is too small,especially for the 3rd & 4th string (IMHO).The string windings make the string very stiff at that point & bending the strings 'could' lead to breakage if one's not careful. One thing that you could do with your existing t/pieces,is at least make them with 'standard' hole spacings,so that any of us who would like to swap out the t/piece for a different type,can at least do so without having to resort to a luthier to remove/plug & re-drill for a 'standard' style t/piece.
Per se - the t/pieces are ok,but if you happen to have rather 'stiff' fingers then fiddly tailpieces are a real PITA !. The other thing that's cropped up here a few times,is to do with that piece of felt under the t/piece. It's too fragile to last very long.The string windings grab it & pull it forward. Mine lasted only a few months from brand new,then i had to remove the t/piece,scrape off the felt & glue, & attach a piece of soft leather - that's been in place now for nearly 3 years & shows no sign of coming off,
Ivan

Charlieshafer

Mar-20-2010, 6:54pm

Just toying with the idea of ordering up a Custom Vintage F mandocello from Weber, and this thread just touched on my one question, the fossilized ivory bridge offered as an option on either the traditional or vintage bridges. It's an extra $125, but the thing will be expensive enough anyway that it's relatively insignificant. I noted one previous poster used the ivory bridge, but just how many of you out there have had enough experience with the ivory bridges to be able to recommend the upgrade?

VernBrekke

Mar-23-2010, 1:42pm

Our tailpieces have the same hole pattern as the generic Gibson style tailpieces that we used on our instruments before the introduction of our cast tailpiece. We felt that we needed our new tailpiece to be consistent with our older instruments.

The main problem with hole spacing is that tailpieces are installed and drilled by hand. Most set-up people try to stay in the center of each hole (the tailpiece hole is 3/32 and the drill is 1/32), but there is still quite a bit of variation in the actual pattern of the holes.

Changes to our current cast tailpiece would require machining new aluminum casting molds which are expensive and, based on our past experience, not a process to be entered into lightly. We would rather invest in a new design. Any change would be based on the knowledge that we have had very few warranty issues over a fairly long period of time with a very large number of our current tailpieces in circulation.

I hope that this helps clarify some questions about our tailpieces.

Thanks,

Vern Brekke,
Sound To Earth, Ltd.

Kevin Briggs

Mar-23-2010, 2:50pm

Verne,

Thanks for the information. It must be a tough decision to go with a new design, and certainly a tough one to go forward with based on how successful the current design is.

For what it's worth, I'd hesitate to change your design at all. Yes, it is not the easiest design to work with when changing strings, but that's the only drawback as far as I can tell. The little piece of felt is negligible to me. Otherwise, it is a classy, heavy tailpiece that looks great and probably contributes to the sound in some way. I guess change is inevitable, but the track record is so successful that it's hard to justify a change just to make changing strings easier.

That's my two cents.

brianf

Apr-11-2010, 8:46am

Vern, Tony offered to replace the bridge with a Brekke tradditional, slotted and with a high rise base. I originally mistook the installed bridge as a Brekke "traditional" model, but Tony advises that it was an after-martket Loar model. It lacked the brass rod support, imbedded in the saddle, that is the true Brekke "traditional" model. Thank you for your suggestion, and Thanks to Tony and STE for their support.

Nonprophet

Mar-20-2011, 5:17pm

Peter I'm wondering if you have some pics of your mods to the original Brekke bridge base? In the link to your article I see pics showing the mods you made to the saddle insert (i.e. drilling out some material in the middle) but I don't yet understand exactly what your mods are to the bridge base itself. Also, do you find that your mods have the same impact on tone and volume of f hole, oval hole, and D hole bodies?

Lastly, I think the two biggest advantages to the Brekke original bridge are that A) you can adjust your action with de-tuning and re-tuning your strings--it works just fine under full tension and B) I like the fact that should the bridge ever roll over, the Brekke bridge won't damage/mar your top like the traditional metal thumbwheel bridges do.

NP

peter.coombe

Mar-21-2011, 6:01pm

I can't find any pictures of the base. All I do is to take wood off the top of the base so the base then becomes wedge shaped when observed from the side - i.e. thin at the top, thick at the bottom where it contacts the top. The modifications have the same effect on my F hole and oval hole mandolins, but there is a fair amount of variation. Some instruments benefit greatly, others less so, but there is always some improvement. Why the differences I don't know. The more recent bridges have a thicker saddle, so there is less room to remove wood from the base, but a recent experiment showed me that it is still worthwhile. By the way, I think the more recent bridges with the thicker saddle do sound better so that was a good move by STE.