PRS Tunamatic Bridge Saddle question . Old version vs. New

[Rod/]

I have a 2011 stripped 58 single cutaway that’s in my avatar that I absolutely love. It does have the original old bridge that has The big brass block bridge saddles. The new version of this bridge of course has the narrower bridge saddles with less mass. Does anyone that’s had both notice a difference in the tone of these?

 

[Rod/]

Anyone?

 

[JasonE]

We had a conversation in another thread about this. I have an SC-58 and a 2016 594. Both of mine have the same saddles. I can't really speak to a difference since mine are both the same. There seemed to be a liking of the older saddles over the newer ones but someone had changed theirs and said they didn't really hear a difference. The preference for the bigger flatter saddles was more for comfort. They feel less sharp under the palm when playing.

 

[Rod/]

We had a conversation in another thread about this. I have an SC-58 and a 2016 594. Both of mine have the same saddles. I can't really speak to a difference since mine are both the same. There seemed to be a liking of the older saddles over the newer ones but someone had changed theirs and said they didn't really hear a difference. The preference for the bigger flatter saddles was more for comfort. They feel less sharp under the palm when playing.

Thanks @JasonE

 

[xxxadixxx]

I have 594's from 2018 and 2021. For me, there is no difference in tone though I admit I do not play with a clean tone and everything is through a healthy gain. As @JasonE mentioned, I only notice a difference in feel when palm muting. The larger saddles (2018) are not noticeable when palm muting and the "sharper" ones (2021) can be felt, but are still comfortable.

 

[BrianC]

probably to be more like what people are use to when buying a SC - sales over what was thought to make the tone or sustain better??

 

[László]

probably to be more like what people are use to when buying a SC - sales over what was thought to make the tone or sustain better??

It's likely that PRS went to the newer saddle to deal with some arcane issue that Paul thought sounded better. The string's break angle might be a little different with the taller, narrower saddles. In theory, concentrating the string's vibration at a narrower point might also matter.

In any case, I don't think they did it as a marketing change, since the guitar was so well reviewed with the original saddles, and sales have always been strong with that model.

I have the flatter saddles on my 2014 McCarty SC PS, and had them on my 594s, and the tone is fine with me. But there's always change at PRS.

 

[JasonE]

It's likely that PRS went to the newer saddle to deal with some arcane issue that Paul thought sounded better. The string's break angle might be a little different with the taller, narrower saddles. In theory, concentrating the string's vibration at a narrower point might also matter.

In any case, I don't think they did it as a marketing change, since the guitar was so well reviewed with the original saddles, and sales have always been strong with that model.

I have the flatter saddles on my 2014 McCarty SC PS, and had them on my 594s, and the tone is fine with me. But there's always change at PRS.

I have no idea why they made the change in the saddles but I don't think they even announced it when they did. That tells me that it wasn't something that was thought to make a big difference in tone or sustain.

 

[Mozzi]

I'm sure they'll be some reason - even if its because they think it looks more 'premium' because each had to be shaped more (although you'd still get someone say to save a bit more money as all that brass adds up....) Anyway - whatever the reason, I as a player certainly wouldn't notice any 'tonal' difference myself but it may serve some other nuanced difference - like intonation for example...

But as a player I certainly don't care when my 594's sound the way they do and I have no issues with the bridge they came with. I'm certain that if I swapped bridge, I wouldn't notice enough of a difference between either to care - if ANY difference at all - but YMMV as they say...

 

[László]

But as a player I certainly don't care when my 594's sound the way they do and I have no issues with the bridge they came with. I'm certain that if I swapped bridge, I wouldn't notice enough of a difference between either to care - if ANY difference at all - but YMMV as they say...

It certainly isn't something I'd bother with on my McSC. The guitar has always sounded great, and I've always been happy with it.

Ain't broke, not fixin'.

 

[JasonE]

I'm sure they'll be some reason - even if its because they think it looks more 'premium' because each had to be shaped more (although you'd still get someone say to save a bit more money as all that brass adds up....) Anyway - whatever the reason, I as a player certainly wouldn't notice any 'tonal' difference myself but it may serve some other nuanced difference - like intonation for example...

But as a player I certainly don't care when my 594's sound the way they do and I have no issues with the bridge they came with. I'm certain that if I swapped bridge, I wouldn't notice enough of a difference between either to care - if ANY difference at all - but YMMV as they say...

I like the flatter saddles on the two I have. I doubt it was for intonation. Mine intonate perfectly. I have worked on many tun-o-matic bridges with the narrow top saddles to know that they intonate exactly the same. I don't dislike either. I am also in the camp that it works great so there is no reason to think about messing with it.

 

[Mozzi]

I like the flatter saddles on the two I have. I doubt it was for intonation. Mine intonate perfectly. I have worked on many tun-o-matic bridges with the narrow top saddles to know that they intonate exactly the same. I don't dislike either. I am also in the camp that it works great so there is no reason to think about messing with it.

I wasn't trying to insinuate that the older, flatter style is 'worse' for intonating specifically - just that it may have some tiny/nuanced difference that I myself couldn't really detect/notice and just throwing out an 'example' of something the saddles are used for. If there is 'any' difference, its so subtle/nuanced that I would think that it would be almost impossible to really detect with many other factors contributing to sound, feel etc.

It's not something that would affect me or my purchasing decisions, not something I'd even consider checking to see which version was fitted, not something I'd care about...

 

[andy474x]

I had the block style on my ‘19 core, and the triangle shape on my ‘21 S2 - they are interchangeable, so I swapped them around just for the heck of it. Maybe a tiny bit more twang to the note attack with the triangular saddles, but it’s very minor, if at all. I found the bridge on my core was bent, and ordered a new one from PRS, it came with the triangular saddles. I like it, but would’ve been fine with the blocks, too. Not worth changing from one to the other for its own sake.

 

[László]

I had the block style on my ‘19 core, and the triangle shape on my ‘21 S2 - they are interchangeable, so I swapped them around just for the heck of it. Maybe a tiny bit more twang to the note attack with the triangular saddles, but it’s very minor, if at all. I found the bridge on my core was bent, and ordered a new one from PRS, it came with the triangular saddles. I like it, but would’ve been fine with the blocks, too. Not worth changing from one to the other for its own sake.

I would like to take this opportunity to state that you are THE man for actually going to the trouble of swapping them just to see what would happen! I'm far too lazy to even think about doing that!

However, it makes sense that thinner saddles would allow the string to vibrate a tiny oonsky of a micro-scoche more freely, hence the agglomeration of Joy-Joy level on the Twang-O-Meter.

For those who haven't seen one, a Twang-O-Meter has three main divisions on the dial: Joy-Joy; Aw-Man-This-Is-A-Jazz-Box; and Ukulele, although each division is subdivided in increments of one to eleven.

All in all, I commend your patience and your perspicacity!