sydney
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 579
Registered: 12-9-2003
Location: Down Under
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bastanikar
|
|
Question to Oud Makers only
Hello oud masters, 
My question is ...
Can Floating Bridge Oud be converted to normal Bridge oud?
Thank you
Kind Regards,
------------------
Emad
|
|
oudmaker
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 220
Registered: 12-23-2004
Location: Philadelphia-USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Yes.
If you put a new top with it.
Dincer
|
|
Dr. Oud
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 1370
Registered: 12-18-2002
Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: better than before
|
|
As Dincer implies, the soundboard structure and bracing is very different for a floating bridge. The sound of the oud would be different with
unpredictable results. Otherwise, there is no risk converting from a floating bridge to a conventional one, unlike the reverse. Converting a
conventional glued on bridge to a floating bridge is likely to fail with a collapse of the face.
|
|
sydney
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 579
Registered: 12-9-2003
Location: Down Under
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bastanikar
|
|
Normal bridge
Quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Oud
As Dincer implies, the soundboard structure and bracing is very different for a floating bridge. The sound of the oud would be different with
unpredictable results. Otherwise, there is no risk converting from a floating bridge to a conventional one, unlike the reverse. Converting a
conventional glued on bridge to a floating bridge is likely to fail with a collapse of the face. |
Hello master Richard,
I thank you for you kind input.
Unpredictable sound / result is a worry if one wanted to go on with such a change to a floating bridge oud but as long as you see this won't danger
the oud then I guess it is worth changing if it will save running around for a special strings length as well as special tension too.
Thank you
Kind Regards,
------------------
Emad
|
|
Ronny Andersson
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 724
Registered: 8-15-2003
Location: Sweden
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by sydney
Quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Oud
As Dincer implies, the soundboard structure and bracing is very different for a floating bridge. The sound of the oud would be different with
unpredictable results. Otherwise, there is no risk converting from a floating bridge to a conventional one, unlike the reverse. Converting a
conventional glued on bridge to a floating bridge is likely to fail with a collapse of the face. |
Hello master Richard,
I thank you for you kind input.
Unpredictable sound / result is a worry if one wanted to go on with such a change to a floating bridge oud but as long as you see this won't danger
the oud then I guess it is worth changing if it will save running around for a special strings length as well as special tension too.
Thank you |
Yes I know I'm not a maker Emad but I asked an Iraqi maker and Richard is probably right, you can go ahead with the converting.
Best wishes
Ronny
|
|
Elie Riachi
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 582
Registered: 4-9-2004
Location: Kansas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Gebran Tueni Lives For Ever, 12-12-05.
|
|
I am not an oud maker either and I know a thing or two about physics so naturally when I read the question it sparked my curiosity and I have been
itching to participate in the thread. Excuse the intrusion Emad, but I have been thinking about this interesting question as Statics problem, I would
deduce that for an oud which has been constructed to perform optimally for a particular type bridge, the following probably apply:
- Floating bridge type: Force on the soundboard is mainly downward with a small component at the base of bridge parallel to the soundboard. The
resultant force is not as great as the fixed bridge type. In this case I would think that the bracing doesn't have to be as stout as the fixed bridge
type and the top/brace system can be lighter than fixed bridge type.
- Fixed bridge type: The tension in the string produces a torque which causes the bridge to sympathetically rock back and forth as the string vibrates
setting corresponding vibrations in the soundboard. The taller the bridge the less tension is required to produce the same torque since you have more
"leverage" here. So ouds with taller bridges should be louder with the same tension and other variables being equal within practical limits.
So it sounds to me that to convert from floating to fixed might be taking a risk of damaging the soundboard. Unless of course the bracing is always
made like the fixed bridge type. The maker of the oud should be able to give a definite advice.
Just my thoughts here. I would be very interested in what actually happens if you go ahead with this modification.
Elie
|
|
sydney
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 579
Registered: 12-9-2003
Location: Down Under
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bastanikar
|
|
RE: Your Participation
Quote: | Originally posted by Elie Riachi
I am not an oud maker either and I know a thing or two about physics so naturally when I read the question it sparked my curiosity and I have been
itching to participate in the thread.
So it sounds to me that to convert from floating to fixed might be taking a risk of damaging the soundboard. Unless of course the bracing is always
made like the fixed bridge type. The maker of the oud should be able to give a definite advice.
Just my thoughts here. I would be very interested in what actually happens if you go ahead with this modification.
Elie |
Elie,
Your Participation is welcomed indeed. I am sure you understand why I directed my question to oud makers.
I have taken some photos of the inside of the oud but they came out too bright that bracing can not be seen. I really wanted to share them with all
the oud makers to help them help me. But since things are not a 100% secure to change and I am not skilled enough to go on with the change.
I guess it is wiser to leave the oud alone. It took one good oud maker a lot of effort to make it as such. I do not think I should do something I am
not sure of.
I am so thankfull to all the masters who helped me with their answers in this regards.
Kind Regards,
------------------
Emad
|
|
Elie Riachi
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 582
Registered: 4-9-2004
Location: Kansas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Gebran Tueni Lives For Ever, 12-12-05.
|
|
If the problem is string length, I have an idea for you, make some permanent extensions of string tied to the end of the bowl where you normally tie
the strings and then tie the regular strings to these extensions. Where you tie to the extension will of course be before the bridge. Another
approach would be to make or have made an extension plate (like you find on violins, cellos, stand up bass and arch-top guitars.)
Elie
|
|
sydney
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 579
Registered: 12-9-2003
Location: Down Under
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bastanikar
|
|
Your Ideas
Hi Elie 
Very nice of you that you cared about this problem of mine. Man, it is annoying that I can not use the strings I bought a while ago because they are
short for the floating bridge style.
I find the second idea is more reasonable. It will still make the oud look good and will do the trick. Actually I can make the extension plate my
self. I can make it out of reasonably thin brass to give it that old look. I will let you know about it when I do it.
Thanks Elie.
Stay well
Kind Regards,
------------------
Emad
|
|
Dr. Oud
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 1370
Registered: 12-18-2002
Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: better than before
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Elie Riachi...
So it sounds to me that to convert from floating to fixed might be taking a risk of damaging the soundboard. Unless of course the bracing is always
made like the fixed bridge type. The maker of the oud should be able to give a definite advice.... |
OK Mr. Science, - while the physics of the vibration moments may lead you to believe the fixed bridge requires greater structural integrity, there are
some fatctors you need to factor in:
1. The floating bridge is usually tuned higher or with heavier strings to produce the same or greater volume than a fixed bridge. This induces a
relatively higher load downward than the fixed bridge's torque load.
2. The fixed bridge's torque moment is offset somewhat by the tension component through the soundboard itself, resisted by the tail block. The forces
at the bridge arwa are therefore mitigated to the rockin' (and rollin') in the imediate area of the face, which requires lighter bracing and edge
support to produce the same volume as would the floating bridge.
3. Historical evidence of conversions and uninformed builds of floating bridge ouds have often resulted in a collapse of the face under the floating
bridge.
4. The structural details of the original (and successful) Bashir design executed by Mohamed Fadel Hussein show a more robust structure - a thicker
soundboard, heavier braces and additional edge supports (corner blocking).
-just a bit of empirical evidence to ground your theory...
|
|
Elie Riachi
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 582
Registered: 4-9-2004
Location: Kansas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Gebran Tueni Lives For Ever, 12-12-05.
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Dr. Oud
OK Mr. Science, - while the physics of the vibration moments may lead you to believe the fixed bridge requires greater structural integrity, there are
some fatctors you need to factor in:
1. The floating bridge is usually tuned higher or with heavier strings to produce the same or greater volume than a fixed bridge. This induces a
relatively higher load downward than the fixed bridge's torque load.
2. The fixed bridge's torque moment is offset somewhat by the tension component through the soundboard itself, resisted by the tail block. The forces
at the bridge arwa are therefore mitigated to the rockin' (and rollin') in the imediate area of the face, which requires lighter bracing and edge
support to produce the same volume as would the floating bridge.
3. Historical evidence of conversions and uninformed builds of floating bridge ouds have often resulted in a collapse of the face under the floating
bridge.
4. The structural details of the original (and successful) Bashir design executed by Mohamed Fadel Hussein show a more robust structure - a thicker
soundboard, heavier braces and additional edge supports (corner blocking).
-just a bit of empirical evidence to ground your theory...
|
Hi Doc,
I figured that the tension would be higher on the floating to increase the downward component and bring the volume to the level of a fixed bridge with
lower tensions as you stated in (1).
I am guessing with higher tensions of the floating type the strings are tied to the end of the bowl and pull it towards the neck (not the case in the
fixed type) causing the bowl to want to expand at the waist or middle and that is probably the reason for the corner blocking in (4). The absence of
corner blocking in the case of a conversion of from fixed to floating may have lead to the collapse as a result of the budging of the bowl in the
middle and not just the downward force.
Do you think that heavier bracing is needed for a floating type or would it be more effective to use the corner blocking and lighter bracing (I am
thinking that the latter would be optimal, I may try that when I build my third oud)?
But according to your account that the floating types you know of are built stouter, then if that is the case for certain then I do not see a risk of
physical damage as a result of the conversion to fixed.
Oh I just thought of the banjo; here you have a floating bridge, corners locked down, a thin membrane for sound board and no bracing other than the
longitudinal bar extending from neck to bottom and the closed back types are louder than you know what.
Very interesting thread. Thanks all.
|
|
Dr. Oud
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 1370
Registered: 12-18-2002
Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: better than before
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Elie Riachi....I am guessing with higher tensions of the floating type the strings are tied to the end of the bowl and
pull it towards the neck (not the case in the fixed type) causing the bowl to want to expand at the waist or middle and that is probably the reason
for the corner blocking in (4). The absence of corner blocking in the case of a conversion of from fixed to floating may have lead to the collapse as
a result of the budging of the bowl in the middle and not just the downward force.
Do you think that heavier bracing is needed for a floating type or would it be more effective to use the corner blocking and lighter bracing (I am
thinking that the latter would be optimal, I may try that when I build my third oud)?
But according to your account that the floating types you know of are built stouter, then if that is the case for certain then I do not see a risk of
physical damage as a result of the conversion to fixed.
Oh I just thought of the banjo; here you have a floating bridge, corners locked down, a thin membrane for sound board and no bracing other than the
longitudinal bar extending from neck to bottom and the closed back types are louder than you know what.
Very interesting thread. Thanks all. |
The expaning waist is an interesting thought, especially as I am experiencing the same phenomenon myself. Perhaps my own bridge should be converted to
fixed? The corner blocks would certainly help avoid the side poping out, but I have not heard of that type of failure. I know that some floaters
simply deepress the face until it's unplayable or collapse completely into the bowel. The fixed bridge also pulls at the tail, but through the
soundboard itself. I think the force is very similar at the end of the bowel, but very different in the bridge area.
As for the banjo - the dynamics of a skin membrane vs a thin wooden plate don't seem to be very similar to me, but maybe my layman's brain just can't
grasp the concept. Perhaps you could enlighten us in that area, professor?
|
|
SamirCanada
Moderator
    
Posts: 3405
Registered: 6-4-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
I found a picture of when I did this conversion from fixed to floating brige oud. I was verry worried about that phenomenon and although Iam not a
physics major or a wood worker by any means I came up with a way of stoping the downward pressure from the floating brige. I used Jameel's (TM) lap sanding technique to fit them and I clamped them to each side under the braces so
that it barely rests on them. So far my oud hasnt collapsed.
The down sides I have experianced doing this conversion is that for some odd reason the action is really high now. Either the neck shifted when I took
the face off? or Iam using to high a brige for a floating brige oud. Another thing is that the sound is extremely bright in the nylon strings and
absolutely dead in the wound strings. The wound strings now sound more like a guitar would sound like. I can blame the fact that I resused the same
face to do the oud which was bad quality to start with. My workmanship isnt the greatest concidering all I had was a saw and carpenter's glue so I was
restricted in that sence.
I wonder tho if using such stopers for the brace was a bad idea sound wise? is it stoping the brace from vibrating?
Now I dont know really what the effect on the sound was from this
|
|
Elie Riachi
Oud Junkie
   
Posts: 582
Registered: 4-9-2004
Location: Kansas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Gebran Tueni Lives For Ever, 12-12-05.
|
|
Samir,
It sounds like the sound board isn't doing its job and you are mainly getting the vibrations from strings. This could happen if the bridge is on a
brace or too close to one. Or maybe there isn't enough tension in the strings to supply the downward force, like the good Doc mentioned, floaters end
up needing more string tension.
Well Doc (I know it is a deep subject, the well that is ) it was just a thought
about the banjo. I also heard of new acoustic guitars having only one brace!
Could it be as the strings of the floater pull the edge of the bottom towards the neck which in turn pushes that end of the sound board along with it
creating a crate around the bridge. While the fixed bridge will also pull the board towards the neck but it pulls upwards also raising the action
over time as this happens and the oud is not completely dead in this case? Just some thoughts!
Regarding the busting at the sides for us humans seems to work the other way -- when we bust out, its all around especially at this time of the year
with all the festivity foods and desserts.
|
|
Greg
Administrator
      
Posts: 929
Registered: 7-22-2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Serene
|
|
I am hesitant to express a point of view in this thread, because:
1/ I am not an oudmaker
2/ I lack the scientific knowledge of the other posters
But here's my .02c worth.
I do not think one should generalise that ALL floating bridge ouds have thicker sound boards, that ALL floating bridge ouds need heavier gauge strings
to perform optimally and that ALL makers use similar bracing patterns in their floating bridge ouds.
I base this on the fact that I have tried a few different gauges of strings on my Bashir style oud by Nazih Ghadban.
The heaviest of these (and therefore the best if higher tension is the measure) was a set of Aquila Nylgut Arabic strings. At first I liked them, but
I soon realised they did not sound as good (on that instrument) as the lower tension Pyramid lute strings that were fitted previously. I have now
fitted a super light set of Pyramid lute strings. I had to use a slightly higher bridge to avoid buzz, but the sound, whilst not quite as loud, is
excellent. The lower tension also allows me to play faster and cleaner.
The vibrating stringlength is 60 cm. For those interested, here are the gauges and tensions:
cc .650 mm = 3.3 kg - (PVF unwound) 32.36 Newton
All other strings are Silver- plated wire wound on special
multifilaments with high tensile strength and low tension.
gg .906 mm = 3.4 kg 33.34 Newton
DD 1.010 mm = 3.4 kg 33.34 Newton
AA 1.017 mm = 3.6 kg 35.30 Newton
FF 1.025 mm = 3.6 kg 35.30 Newton
C 1.237mm = 3.6 kg 35.30 Newton
I don't know a thing about torque and AFAIK the only thing that rocks backward and forwards is the guy playing it, but I know what I like 
Regards,
Greg
|
|