Query failed: connection to localhost:9312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused).
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
https://liquidmetal.com
It is an amorphous alloy, flash cooled before 'normal' crystalline structures start forming.
I smell a teeny hint of marketing snake oil, but I have no experience of the pins or any real desire to shell out to try them
YMMV
Martin's claims? Liquid metal pins "reflect" sound rather than absorb it. They increase volume and sustain without sacrificing tone. They are durable and last longer.
I don't really understand the first of these. Bridge pins ensure contact between string, saddle and bridge. They must vibrate with that part of the guitar because they are in it. Not sure "reflection" of sound convinces me as a concept. Nor that bridge pins absorb much sound.
The second claim is, as ever, subjective. Many reviewers say they are a little brighter and louder than non-metallic pins like ebony, bone, tusq or plastic.
The 3rd claim is true. Metal (Liquid Metal is a Zirconium alloy) is harder wearing than non-metals. As a keen amateur playing non-vintage acoustics, I have never (in 45y) needed to replace bridge pins because they wore out.
Cost is the biggie innit. Liquid Metal $199.99 (£145.55). Amazon price for a set of brass pins £5.99. Ebony £10.99. Bone £10.90. Tusq £21.41. Plastic £4.
I've tried all bridge pins over the years. I have brass on my Yamaha FG5. Otherwise I prefer bone.
I would love to try Liquid Metal but I cannot justify the cost.
Make them cheaper Martin. Make them even £20-30 and a shed load more of us will try them - (and you'll probably make more money from vastly greater sale volumes with lower margins!!)