# 8-string Hybrid Bridge (6 string vibrato/floating, 2 string fixed)?



## OzoneJunkie (Feb 4, 2009)

Was wondering about the feasibility of having an 8-string, with a Floyd or other type of vibrato/floating bridge for 6 strings (E through E), but have the low B and F# strings use a fixed bridge (string through or otherwise). Get around tuning issues, perhaps?

Anyone tried this? Wasn't sure if the low 2 strings would be obstructed by the floating bridge - guess depends on where the fixed part of the bridge would be...


----------



## Neil (Feb 4, 2009)

I doubt its possible because (on the lo pro at least) the tremolo extends far past the outside strings, so there is no where to put a fixed bridge, the pivot posts are in the way.


----------



## OzoneJunkie (Feb 4, 2009)

Yeah. But what about: putting 2 posts just past the bridge pickup - and having the low F# and B strings bend (at the post points) away from the bridge. The actual anchor point for those 2 strings would then be north of the bridge, enough to clear the bridge...


----------



## Kronpox (Feb 4, 2009)

then you'd have to have the frets on the low strings in a completely different spot than the rest to fix the intonation.

I don't think this is possible


----------



## OzoneJunkie (Feb 4, 2009)

hmmm... good point. Of course, though, putting the frets in a different spot I guess is possible, like on the true temperament guitar necks... assuming that the string lengths don't vary that much between the fixed and floating system...


----------



## Abhorred (Feb 4, 2009)

Conklin has actually done just such a thing, although I can't for the life of me find the info about it on their new site. I'll update if I can find it.


----------



## drezdin (Feb 4, 2009)

i build a 7 string with a 6 string floating bridge and a fixed 7th string.
i've seen several luthiers do it.
it can be done


----------



## whisper (Feb 4, 2009)

Abhorred said:


> Conklin has actually done just such a thing, although I can't for the life of me find the info about it on their new site. I'll update if I can find it.



I've seen this too. I think it was something wacky like the middle 4 strings were floating and the others fixed, or something like that.


----------



## GazPots (Feb 4, 2009)

I remember seeing a red/browney sort of ibanez (possibly a la custom job) which was a 7 but had a fender style bridge. 


It was as if they had sliced off the trems low b saddle and made just that one saddle a fixed bridge. The rest was just a standard 6 string trem.


I'll try to find pics of it but i cannot remember the last time i saw it.


----------



## OzoneJunkie (Feb 4, 2009)

Nice. Seriously considering a Sherman Custom... although I see he's doing an 8 with a Kahler... but I'm leaning more towards the 6-floating/2-fixed...


----------



## vansinn (Feb 4, 2009)

Last year, I asked Tremking (tremking.com) about a 7-string whammy.
Sheldon replied they have the TK2 version, which is their 6-string whammy with a fixed 7th string.

We didn't discuss 8-stringers. I haven't heard from him in several month, but also haven't written myself, so I can't tell about their status on the ongoing work on 7-string whammies.
His comment then was that they were working on a few issues with an upcoming 7-string version.

I don't find it inconceivable they might be able to add a fixed 8th string saddle next to the 7th, as already mentioned.


----------



## sworth9411 (Feb 4, 2009)

This is a sick Idea, and could end up being really awesome expanding a whole range of possibilities.....

I am really curious to check out someone whos done this and see some pics....


----------



## OzoneJunkie (Feb 4, 2009)

Yeah. I'm thinking about the idea of having a single guitar (to rule them all). Something like:

8 string, 27" scale, 6-string floating/2-string fixed bridge, with a neck PUP good for leads (maybe one that only handles 7 strings - EVO7), and something with clarity, but brutal in the bridge.

If it worked well for leads and rhythms, I'd likely sell my JP7 and my sixes...

... hence the consideration of the Sherman custom...


----------



## Andrew_B (Feb 4, 2009)

Big Flea


----------



## Ze Kink (Feb 4, 2009)

Yeah, I've seen the Conklin too, I think it was fanned too? Pretty weird looking bridge too. I don't think it can be done with a Floyd though, but a vintage style bridge might very well work.

Now that I think about it, I think I've seen a JEM that was owned by Vai, which had two trem bars, and the floating bridge was somehow split from the middle, so the other bar could bend the 3 lower strings, and the other the 3 higher strings...

I think it's a cool idea, as I've never liked trems on 7-strings. The B-string somehow goes out of tune so easily.

Ha, found it! http://www.vai.com/Machines/guitarpages/guitar108.html


----------



## auxioluck (Feb 4, 2009)

If you put the 2 low strings fixed behind the post on the Floyd to extend the scale....worth a shot, I'd say.


----------



## TomAwesome (Feb 4, 2009)

auxioluck said:


> If you put the 2 low strings fixed behind the post on the Floyd to extend the scale....worth a shot, I'd say.



That would only work if he split the fretboard into two sets of partial frets for the different scale lengths.


----------



## whisper (Feb 4, 2009)

Andrew_B said:


> Big Flea



that's the one!


----------



## troyguitar (Feb 5, 2009)

I've decided today that I'm going to attempt to build an 8-string like auxioluck and OzoneJunkie have described...

Neck-thru 8-string with modded OFR-6 on first 6 strings at 25.5" scale. Fixed bridge at 27" scale for the 7th and 6th strings.

I'm going to make a cheapo experimental prototype this month and see how it goes.

If it goes well, I might also pull a Uli Roth and make it 36 frets with the neck pickup underneath the fretboard.


----------



## OzoneJunkie (Feb 5, 2009)

wow, cool - looking forward to hearing about your progress.


----------



## troyguitar (Feb 6, 2009)

OzoneJunkie said:


> wow, cool - looking forward to hearing about your progress.



Well, I changed plans somewhat. I still intend to make the one I talked about, but the first prototype is going to be a bolt-on. I'm modding the body of my beater Jackson RR-EX and making a new neck for it. I started a little bit tonight.

(This is a hack job - I want to get it done and playable as fast as possible)

Here's the bridge(s?):


----------



## vansinn (Feb 6, 2009)

Without a separate scale and frets for the two low strings, it'll never intonate with the saddles this far back.

You could build kindof an arch structure, stretching from in front of the whammy post to behind (where your current 2-string mount is).
However, this would limit the dive range, and maybe not be sturdy enough tone/sustain wise.

Building it as a slight reverse V-shape would allow more dive, but in both cases I guess it'll be difficult setting the saddles low enough, unless you can accept the two low strings having a somewhat higher action as a tradeoff.

Maybe it's possible to cut off the part of the whammy base saying "Jack", leaving enough (the "son's" part) to support it against the post/mount.
It might make it possible aligning the two extra fixed saddled correctly.


----------



## troyguitar (Feb 6, 2009)

vansinn said:


> Without a separate scale and frets for the two low strings, it'll never intonate with the saddles this far back.



That's the plan!


----------



## Andrew_B (Feb 6, 2009)

or you could stop and think about what you are doing 

to make things work, 60% of the time you need to sacrifice.
in this case, you have to decide if this is truely what you want to attempt...
if you are going to attempt something you should do it properly,
you have to weigh up options...
you need to think... you need to look at it... you need to go slow.
you rush and you will waste time in the long run...

you will be sacrificing your bridge to attempt this properly....

well... this is my opinion... and im no pro... im just a guy with way too much time on my hands and i mind that thrives on new ideas and building shit.... lol

so that being said....






i think that would be more suited...
losing a bit of the top edge of the bridge shouldnt affect anything...
since its gonna be an 8, it will be tuned down , so there should be less tension to some degree?.
should be a ledge under that section you cut off, scuff up the faces and glue a bit of wood on it so the new saddles have some wood to bit into when you screw them down...
only other thing to think about is the string spacing....

well thats what i would do, if i had the money... 


gonna look mighty wierd when you rout the new neck pocket... lol


----------



## OzoneJunkie (Feb 7, 2009)

vansinn said:


> You could build kindof an arch structure, stretching from in front of the whammy post to behind (where your current 2-string mount is).



This is what I had in mind when I mentioned having "posts". But the thought was that instead of an arch structure, with the string distance-to-body varying, have this instead (see attached). Hoping to get the post points close to the bridge, so that string length to post would be similar to string length to bridge, attempting to preserve intonation.


Silver posts would be cylindrical, but have a slot/groove on the side, for the string.

Might necessitate moving the bridge PUP forward a bit...


----------



## Andrew_B (Feb 7, 2009)

then you have no intonation adjustment and fuck all palm muting capability.


----------



## Panterica (Feb 7, 2009)

this is awesome 
i approve


----------



## Chritar (Feb 7, 2009)

andrew b has a really good idea and i really think that its feasible. if done right there would still be just enough dive and pull up and you would still have the lower strings with their saddles in range for proper intonation... this is a real good idea


----------



## troyguitar (Feb 7, 2009)

I was going to do what Andrew B suggested if I wanted a straight 25.5" scale.

Since I've never tried the 27", and I feel like trying the challenge of the dual-scale fretboard, I went with it this way.

What I haven't decided is which way to do the pickup(s). I can just use a normal 8-string pickup, a pair of slanted hot rails, or possibly make/use a 2-string pickup above the bridge to get more of a "bridge pickup" tone on the 7th and 8th strings. I made a rough mockup of the first and third ideas...


----------



## Andrew_B (Feb 7, 2009)

dual scale will just be a pain in the ass in my opinion
so much fucking around that can easily be by-passed...

i would wind a pickup just for the two low strings
would be fun...
and with some thought towards switching/wireing, could be made into something really cool

or you could do what iv been thinking and go a step further and use 2 of those pezio saddle thingos
and have some fun with that....


----------



## vansinn (Feb 7, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> I was going to do what Andrew B suggested if I wanted a straight 25.5" scale.



 which is exactly what I meant in my previous post: _Maybe it's possible to cut off the part of the whammy base saying "Jack", leaving enough (the "son's" part) to support it against the post/mount.
It might make it possible aligning the two extra fixed saddled correctly._

Pictures and graphics always better than words.. 



> Since I've never tried the 27", and I feel like trying the challenge of the dual-scale fretboard, I went with it this way.
> 
> What I haven't decided is which way to do the pickup(s). I can just use a normal 8-string pickup, a pair of slanted hot rails, or possibly make/use a 2-string pickup above the bridge to get more of a "bridge pickup" tone on the 7th and 8th strings. I made a rough mockup of the first and third ideas...



Nonononono, save yourself the trouble of trying to make a two-string pickup sound like the other  You'll never make them match, that I promise you.
Just get that 8-string pup.


----------



## OzoneJunkie (Feb 7, 2009)

Andrew_B said:


> then you have no intonation adjustment and fuck all palm muting capability.



Good point. Palm muting = maybe, but intonation - yeah, no dice. Not without some way to slide the posts or something.


----------



## troyguitar (Feb 7, 2009)

vansinn said:


> Nonononono, save yourself the trouble of trying to make a two-string pickup sound like the other  You'll never make them match, that I promise you.
> Just get that 8-string pup.



The thing is: the 8-string pup will also sound different on strings 7 and 8 because its distance from the saddles will be closer to that of a "middle pickup" than a "bridge pickup" - and that will go against the whole point of moving the saddles back to get a tighter sound.


----------



## vansinn (Feb 7, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> The thing is: the 8-string pup will also sound different on strings 7 and 8 because its distance from the saddles will be closer to that of a "middle pickup" than a "bridge pickup" - and that will go against the whole point of moving the saddles back to get a tighter sound.



Dunno if we misunderstand oneanother..
I thought we both suggested placing the fixed two-string bridge/saddle thingy where those saddles would normally go on an eight-string bridge, i.e. almost in line with the other six saddles, just a tad further back for proper intonation.

Apart from this, I agree with the pup tone vs placement comment.
My comments about building a two-sting pup were aimed at how to obtain correct magnetic and impedance properties to match a six-string pup.


----------



## TomAwesome (Feb 7, 2009)

So you're really going to set the fretboard up with two sets of frets? Sorry, but I can't see this working well at all. I think a much better idea would be putting the extra two string saddles lined up with the existing ones and making the whole neck one fret longer. Having a separate set of frets for the bottom two strings is just going to make the guitar a lot more difficult to build and a lot less playable.


----------



## troyguitar (Feb 7, 2009)

Here's a quick doodle that shows the multi-scale idea a bit...

No, I'm not very good at drawing.








TomAwesome said:


> So you're really going to set the fretboard up with two sets of frets? Sorry, but I can't see this working well at all. I think a much better idea would be putting the extra two string saddles lined up with the existing ones and making the whole neck one fret longer. Having a separate set of frets for the bottom two strings is just going to make the guitar a lot more difficult to build and a lot less playable.



People play with fanned frets - why not like this?

Hell, some crazy people even have true-tempered fretboards...


----------



## TomAwesome (Feb 7, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> People play with fanned frets - why not like this?
> 
> Hell, some crazy people even have true-tempered fretboards...



That's completely different. Fanned frets are still perfectly in line across the board. You can still use the same chords and shapes just as easily on fanned frets; it will just be at a bit of an angle. True temperament is slightly closer to what you're doing, only it's really not at all. It's all on the same scale length, and each fret is in a different place for each string, but it's just very slight. The frets are still pretty much lined up, and the way you play it doesn't really change. What you're proposing is having the frets offset from each other by quite a bit from one string to the next. You might be able to get used to it, but there is no practical reason to do this. Also, the strings are going to sound a lot different between your E and B strings. Not only is a sudden jump in scale length going to change the sound, but either pickup solution you go with is going to muck things up between the two sets of strings.

You're trying to walk across the street by turning around and walking around the planet.

If you really want to have different scale lengths on only the bottom strings, a better solution would be to add the length to the other end as has been done on many classical guitars:






Rob Guz did the same on his 11-string electric.


----------



## troyguitar (Feb 7, 2009)

TomAwesome said:


> Rob Guz did the same on his 11-string electric.



Wow you're right. I'm an idiot.

I didn't realize the frets would all line up if you do it that way...



New plan - 27 frets on strings 1-6, 28 on strings 7-8.

Time to cut that bridge some more


----------



## Variant (Feb 7, 2009)

I like the split bridge idea myself, here's an idea that I cobbed together a while back:


----------



## vansinn (Feb 8, 2009)

@Troy: You're most definately not an idiot, rather adventurous 
@Tom: Great pics and explanations, thanks.
@Ryan: As always, great graphics, really illustrates the approach well.

Methinks this part-whammy-part-fixed arrangement sounds more interesting by the day!
Extending the two low strings at the headstock end seems to me to be the best approach.


Another possible way of handling the two extra fixed saddle issue, when/if not being able to arrange them alongside the 6'er bridge, could be simply have the two low strings fretless.
Do note, however, that this will still leave the player with an inconsistent scale layout.


----------



## dsm3sx (Feb 8, 2009)

I am a mechanical/design engineer.

This idea can be done but will need total fabrication of a new bridge plate.

You can probably salvage parts from another trem system as per personal preference. The new plate would share a lot with the old plate but would be able to to have equal string spacing. It will require some research.

This is some thing I *could* do as a 3D CAD model in solid works, but time for me is a commodity with 2 kids and work/school/practice. 

If some one is truly interested I could do a few quick models and probably be able to give rough prices how much it would be to have metal cut and treated. But it wouldn't be over night...


----------



## troyguitar (Feb 8, 2009)

dsm3sx said:


> I am a mechanical/design engineer.
> 
> This idea can be done but will need total fabrication of a new bridge plate.
> 
> ...



No worries my friend. I can machine or have machined a new base plate. I'm just doing this hack job first to see if it will be worth my time to do it "right".


----------



## Variant (Feb 8, 2009)

dsm3sx said:


> I am a mechanical/design engineer.
> 
> This idea can be done but will need total fabrication of a new bridge plate.
> 
> ...



I'm way ahead of you... 







I did this OFR for the 3D visualization of my Infinity Guitar Works designs, but actually, this is as only as close to as accurate as I could get without better drawings/measurements from the original... most importantly, the knife edge sections are *very* much ad-libed with a section drawing and whatnot. 

Given a few better measurements, I could get you guys CAD models for baseplates accommodating the aforementioned split bridge ideas, or 8-string OFR's... whatever... I just need better data to work from.


----------



## dsm3sx (Feb 9, 2009)

Variant said:


> I'm way ahead of you...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Very nice... 



I have been mulling over a few different bridge ideas especialy lately.
A personalized version of an Edge III fixed 7

When I time permits I will probally make this happen.


----------



## Xk6m6m5X (Feb 9, 2009)

so if u can machine anything u need...why not just got balls out and have a full on 8 string floating ..locking trem made?...just my thoughts tho


----------



## Variant (Feb 9, 2009)

Kornfann1024 said:


> so if u can machine anything u need...why not just got balls out and have a full on 8 string floating ..locking trem made?...just my thoughts tho



1. Cost.

2. Originally, I had some trepidation weather an eight-string trem would be considerably stiffer so far as feel compared to a six or seven, as my detuned sevens never felt as springy/snappy as my sixers so I started exploring the split bridge idea. After a bit of trem knowledge gleaned from gents here, a lot of that was likely do to poor setup & spring choice (< this makes a big difference on feel). Aditionally, Eelblack (Lee) snagged Rusty Cooley's RG8 with a double-locker on it and said that it worked wonderfully, and fluttered like a hummingbird. 






3. Cost.


----------



## Xk6m6m5X (Feb 10, 2009)

cost would suck...but it would still be nice to have a trem out there for an 8 other then a kahler


----------



## Shredcow (Apr 1, 2009)

Would this work?







+

2 x









Idea?


----------



## vansinn (Apr 1, 2009)

Well, if you compare the width/thickness of the whammy base between the saddles to the width/thickness of the base of the individual saddle/bridge, it looks to be doable, WRT string spacings.

The only concern I see is that the outer/end base width/thichness is a bit more, so the first individual bridge/saddle may end up having a small additional offset, so that string will be be offset.

This of course impossible to know without the specs and measurements. I'd guess specs are available from the manufacturer, ETS (IIRC).. As they claim being able to do custom jobs, trimming that seemingly too thick part shouldn't be much of an issue.
It also looks like placement of the posts won't get in the way for the additional fixed saddles.
I also like the whammy arm beng fully offset to the side, so it doesn't get in the way for palm muting (if such muting is doable at all with a pivoting whammy..)

Having the moving part and the fixed saddles made by the same manufacturer and from identical materials might be a Good Thing, tone/sustain-wise..


----------



## Shredcow (Apr 1, 2009)

I was thinking about the width/thickness aspect....

If it were a regular tuned, F# - e, 8 string - the question would be - who uses the low F# for soloing? I would think, really, most, if not all, do NOT use that low F# for anything other than extended chording and riffing. 

In this case, we don't really need to worry about the spacing methinks. Strumming and palm muted chugging - the string spacing isn't too crucial. Even for technical speed riffing or jazzy walking bass - i think the extra spacing COULD be beneficial! 



Also, we can do a 7 string trem + 1 fixed low F# individual bridge. However, I kinda think that this isn't too good an idea since the tone difference between fixed bridge + trem will be extremely apparent on such a low string. The fixed bridge F# will probably have a much stronger, deeper tone compared to the low B and E. Might not work out, could even overpower the B and E.

I think a 6 + 2 is still better.


----------



## vansinn (Apr 2, 2009)

Shredcow said:


> I was thinking about the width/thickness aspect....
> 
> If it were a regular tuned, F# - e, 8 string - the question would be - who uses the low F# for soloing? I would think, really, most, if not all, do NOT use that low F# for anything other than extended chording and riffing.
> 
> In this case, we don't really need to worry about the spacing methinks. Strumming and palm muted chugging - the string spacing isn't too crucial. Even for technical speed riffing or jazzy walking bass - i think the extra spacing COULD be beneficial!



Partly true; however, having had an axe with non-consistent string spacings, it's not something I'll enjoy again 
For low tuned chugga, it might work, though I can only see accepting such a layout as accepting an improper construction on a DIY basis. As in "oh well, shrug, I can't do it any better.."

For shredding in b1-A4 tuning, I couldn't accept it.



> Also, we can do a 7 string trem + 1 fixed low F# individual bridge. However, I kinda think that this isn't too good an idea since the tone difference between fixed bridge + trem will be extremely apparent on such a low string. The fixed bridge F# will probably have a much stronger, deeper tone compared to the low B and E. Might not work out, could even overpower the B and E.
> 
> I think a 6 + 2 is still better.



Any mix is practically doable. I think it's basically up to three key items: How many strings one needs to wank, the feel/stiffness/elasticity in a 6 vs 7 vs 8 string whammy, and how many low strings with a real solid feel is wanted.
Personally, I might even prefer three low fixed (for solid power chords) and a 5-string whammy - which would actually cover my whammy range needs.

Ahh! This of course means a nine stringer with three low fixed and a 6-er whammy  -now, where's my medication..


EDIT: I believe one very important issue has been overlooked: What happens when a 6-string whammy doesn't return to absolute pitch/zero relative to the two fixed strings? Go figure.. 
For this reason I believe this arrangement will need either a whammy which can be locked or has a fixed resting point, i.e. will only be able do dive.
Personally, I need the whammy only for down-bending, so I'd be fine with a fixed zero return point.


----------



## skeels (Sep 24, 2011)

Eddie Kramer built a multi scale guitar for Ry Cooder a while back. Couldn't find it but seems like might be an option for you.


----------



## John54 (Oct 2, 2011)

im curious if you used a new 'style' of trem, one that would engage strings individually instead of the original 6 trem 2 fixed concept. it definently would be more of an engineering task but maybe something with some locking pins for what saddles you you want to float that have a push pull movement. so instead of the whammy bar moving all saddles put a plate underneath all saddles to lock them in with pins and then you would have the ability to float any string. got to wonder how much space that will take up in the guitar though...

would be sick though right?

hope yall can understand my giberish


----------

