greenscoe
Well-known member
When we pluck a uke string, the vibration is transferred via the saddle and bridge to the soundboard which then vibrates and amplifies the sound.
To make this process efficient, we try to make the soundboard and bridge as light as possible. However, this is compromised by the need of the soundboard to be capable of withstanding the forces exerted by the strings. Depending on the means of attaching the strings to the bridge, they either want to rip the bridge off the soundboard or else pull up under the bridge, in both cases distorting the top.
If the strings were not attached to the bridge as in a mandolin, a violin, a dulcimer etc the soundboard on a uke could be so much lighter.
Can anyone offer an explanation? Are there disadvantages acoustically of not fastening the strings to the bridge? Why is it that instruments such as the guitar, lute, uke normally attach the strings to the bridge unless an archtop is used, then a tailpiece comes into play?
To make this process efficient, we try to make the soundboard and bridge as light as possible. However, this is compromised by the need of the soundboard to be capable of withstanding the forces exerted by the strings. Depending on the means of attaching the strings to the bridge, they either want to rip the bridge off the soundboard or else pull up under the bridge, in both cases distorting the top.
If the strings were not attached to the bridge as in a mandolin, a violin, a dulcimer etc the soundboard on a uke could be so much lighter.
Can anyone offer an explanation? Are there disadvantages acoustically of not fastening the strings to the bridge? Why is it that instruments such as the guitar, lute, uke normally attach the strings to the bridge unless an archtop is used, then a tailpiece comes into play?