Semi hollow stop tailpiece

[cosmic gumbo]

I've experimented with raising my tailpiece to reduce the angle of the strings as they pass over the bridge. I don't find much difference in tone or playability regardless of where the tailpiece is set. There are a million pictures of semi hollows on the web, found easily at google images. My observation is that 99% of the pictures show the tailpiece locked down tight to the body. Any personal experiences with setting the tailpiece at a height that seems to have any advantages? I know there's lots of semi hollow players out there...

[Tom Karol]

Good question! If the 'best' position is locked down tight, then why is a stop tailpiece adjustable for height at all? I've also seen pictures (below) of the strings inserted from the pickup side and wrapped around the top. What's the purpose of that - locked down for better sustain, and wrapped around the top for a shallower string angle over the bridge? As I said, good question!

[fivebells]

I've experimented with raising my tailpiece, but all that happens is that the neighbourhood dogs come round to sniff it.

[cosmic gumbo]

Time to bump this thread again. C'mon guys, you're experts when it comes to useless stuff, time to make yerselves useful. I know lots of you play semis with a stop tailpiece, is everyone that apathetic about the adjustment?

[oldane]

Ah, those tailpiece design discussions are a can of worms. Here's my humble opinion. Others may well beg to differ.

I can't see how the break angle over the bridge could influence the sound audibly on a solid or semi solid guitar (with center block). However, someone at Gibson must have seen it since they invented that adjustable stop tailpiece. It may also have been just as much a sales gimmick, and Gibson had its share of that in the Ted McCarthy era. As for pickups, Seth Lower himself said (years after he left Gibson) that to his ears the adjustable polepieces of his humbucker pickup didn't make too much of a difference, but the sales department insisted on them as a feature which could promote sales, now that they had them on the P90s.

Back to tailpieces. It's another matter with acoustic or semi acoustic archtops (without center blocks). Here a more acute break angle (evething else equal) will increase the downward pressure on the top which may or may not give a change in tone. The same effect is seen when thicker strings are used (though the thickness of the string in it self also influences the sound - likely more than the changed downward bridge pressure). On some archtops, too great a downward pressure can lead to loss of tone because the heavy downward pressure "chokes" the movement of the top. This is apparent with my Bendetto Fratello which sounds better, mellower and more alive with 12-52 than 13-56 strings. This is of course heard most in the acoustic tone, less in the amplified tone from a magnetic pickup (but again, the thickness of the string plays a role in itself).

One sometimes hears that the break angle changes the tension of the string. That is nonsense. A given string at a given length tuned to a given pitch can have one and only one tension. If the tension was increased, the pitch would raise, and if it was reduced, it would drop. The lenght of string between bridge and tailpiece can in theory influence the percieved tension in the sense that the strings may feel a little (very little!) easier to fret with a long length of string between bridge and tailpiece, because a longer total string length is a bit more elastic than a short one. This is debated, however. Some think they can feel a difference. For my part, I can't feel it. This effect is said to have been the rationale between the Frequensator tailpiece on the Epiphone guitars. I also read somewhere that Epiphone after some time concluded that it didn't work as intended to any significant degree, but nevertheless they decided to stick with the Frequensator tailpiece because it had by then become a brand identifier, which signalled "Epiphone" from farther away than the reading distance of the headstock logo.

[vinlander]

What about the strings getting out of the stop tailpiece at too big an angle making the strings grooving in the metal at the top of the holes of the tailpiece instead of getting out straight and clean ?
If I completely screw down the tailpiece on my guitar that increases the angle thus the pressure on the metal.
Maybe it is not an issue but I am curious about it

[stevedenver]

this tipic is debated a lot in the Les paul forum
first i agree with oldane for the most part in all things-
the stop tail is adjustable, im sure, in order to 'adjust' 2with the height of the bridge it self-you dont want the strings hitting the edge of the bridge-but coming cleanly off the saddles-so it needs to be adjustable for this reason-if it hits the back of the bridge edge-it really doesnt do anything other than making adjusting the sadeels more of a pain

second-too much force-ie screwed all the way down to the top increases the break angle and adds a lot of pressure to the bridge-i know becuase they will deflect after sometiem with this amount of force-and this can vary with the type of guitar-even among les pauls -as some have different neck angles than others -and this in turn affects how high the bridge needs to be-on some the bridge is pretty high-even with low action-add to this a stop bar on the top iteslef-and you can get a dramatic angle

i use a moderate angle on all of my les pauls to avoid this-actually i prefer my stops not to close to the tops at all-and im probably wierd among those that know of this tech aspect-i have more or less ignored the popular trends (on the forum at least) becuase i have had a bridge deflect -a late 70's schaller-basically the opposite contour of the board after ..30 years!!

i disagree with oldane -the break angle does affect tension-but i think more theoretically than practically--but not a lot-you are ever so slightly elongating the string-and this changes the tension-regardless of where the but and bridge are situated-again its minute and i too cant really feel it-but you can when you go to an extreme gauge-like 8s or 13's

the length of the string changes as you screw down the stop -it gets a bit longer-add to this a higher bridge -and youve lengthened the string -and thus it has to be tuned a bit taughter to get the same pitch-the entire string takes the tension-not simply the portion between the nut and bridge saddle

this is why some screw all the way down and use a top wrap (this means you go out the back and wrap over toward the bridge-and will wear/groove the top surface of the stop -supposedly al the way down increases connection and sustain-and the top wrap relieves the added string tension-

the strings 'getting out of the stop straight and clean-isnt an issue-the bridge takes care of the point on which they actually rest-its not an issue for the stop-if by chance you get a sympathetic sound-like on a mando-simply tape it or use felt -ive never experienced this nor heard of it on a guitar

i can say, that only barely-the materail of a stop tail does affect tone a bit-light alu makes things a bit airier woodier-it affects the ranges that are emphasized -somthing like steel or white metal tend to make things sound a bit more focus and tight-but were splitting hairs here

i think the thing to do is experiment and pay attention-to how it feels, sounds, and what is happening to the bridge-i tend to like to ease off on the tension-be it a metal (cheap white metal or zinc-as that is what they use) gibson ABR, nashville, or ebony bridge-all will be affected over time-

the reason i think so many screw to the top is -one-guys see more threads and think-its not as far as it can go-secondly-guys think -ill get better coupling connection, sustain etc-ie theres less play in the posts to absorb vibration-my experience is that how deep isnt affecting the sound-to my ear-materials however-such as steel posts and post bushings in the tops instead of other materials does make a change-again minute but audible in 'clincial' settings-dont think youd hear it with a drummer , or any other ambient sounds--but you likely will sitting alone and listening for it-all part of the cork sniffing regime at the LP forum-LOL

i did buy a special handmade stop for my les paul from pigtail-steve rowen -now gone-out of the same alu desing and specs originally used for 50's les pauls-the sound difference is negligible over other lightwieght tailpieces -the price wasnt-it is notable howver compared to the modern heavier metal stops-dont ask me the physics because i cant tell you-but i do hear something that i prefer-even on the solid body!!

[PTChristopher]

I'll jump in on this one.

I think Les Paul lore is the only thing that beats fad diets for remarkable claims and analysis.

Oldane and stevedenver: Gents - I am joining you here in a friendly discussion. So while we may disagree here and there, please understand that I am here kicking the subject around as part of a forum.

First off, a semi-hollow or solid body guitar is a FAR different animal than an acoustic flat or arch top.

And let's maybe leave flat tops (with the traditional flat top bridge) aside since it is a much different can o' worms than an archtop acoustic.

On an archtop acoustic, as commonly configured, the downward pressure on the bridge both helps transfer of energy to the top, and can potentially inhibit top vibration. Balancing these factors is part of why a builder may want a given bridge height, neck angle, arch shape, and tailpiece configuration. On something like an Ibanez GB, or the Gibson Le Grand, the adjustability of the tailpiece can make a VERY slight difference to some players.

The Le Grand tailpiece is actually derived from a Banjo tailpiece design, where it had a FAR greater effect. It looks cool anyway, and if I can find a black one, I'd put it on my current build.

But the practical difference of the downward pressure on an archtop is not at all in actual string tension, rather there can be a slight difference in both transmission of vibration to the top, and the damping that the bridge can cause to vibrations.

It is not so much that the guitar gets much louder or softer acoustically, but that the mix of harmonics and overtones changes slightly.

Note that the basic stop tailpiece as used on an LP is a co-purposing of what was also a design for a bridge. So it works just fine for its tailpiece purpose, but some aspects of the design are arguably incidental to the use as a tailpiece.

It is handy to be able to get the break angle on a stop-tailpiece guitar sufficient to limit unwanted rattles and resonances in the bridge and mounting screws. And I agree with Steve that keeping the backs of the strings off the bridge body is at least tidy. Also, many ABR-1 type bridges were collapsed by excessive downward force. (And try explaining to a customer that it is really not all that practical to bend an ABR-1 back, the expose it to the same conditions again.)

Anything beyond a modest break angle does not provide any sustain increase that I have even been able to measure in any way whatsoever. "Modest" can vary depending on the actual bridge design, but once the strings are not moving around in the slots, and the bridge is not vibrating on the posts, you have hit the point of diminishing (or non-existent) returns.

>>> the break angle does affect tension

This is very easy to measure and disprove. But it raises a VERY big point that is often misunderstood in luthio-dom.

"Tension", as commonly used, means two very different things.

One is the tension of the string to create a given note over a given length. "String Tension", can I shorten this to ST?

The other is the deflection pressure needed to move the string from its open position to a fretted position. "Deflection Pressure", likewise shortened to DP.

And this difference in meaning is the source of some remarkable debates based on misunderstanding.

ST and DP are related, but NOT the same thing, and it is very possible to change DP without changing ST to the same extent.

**********************************

I'm going to post this now, then come back to add to it.

[stevedenver]

absolutely agree-especially as youve noted on real archtops
i presumed that as a semi hollow-it likely has an interior bolck under bridge-as so many do

and i agree theres an awful lot of mythology floating about-and
as a result -i often i will try things and then make my own determination

in fact to your point, the L5 used to have a talipiece that could be raised or lowered and the casting, to this day, still has the original holes that were once used for that purpose-

and i think too jimmy DA also did that on his tailpieces

[PTChristopher]

OK, back to it.

Some minor things:

Gravity, air density, the magnetic pull of pickups, hysteresis, and probably some other factors all can affect string tension in both of the ways we think of it. But for the purposes of this topic I think it is reasonable to ignore them and get to the parts that fuel actual guitar adjustments (and maybe some out-of-control LP forum debate).

String tension (ST), measured as the actual tension in pounds or kilos along the length of the string is determined, for the purposes of this topic, by the configuration of the string (gauge, and winding vs. core size), the VIBRATING length of the string, and the note to which it is tuned. The string length past the nut and bridge have no bearing on the ST of an open string. Likewise the break angle at the nut or bridge have no bearing on the ST of an open string.

The string length past the nut and bridge have a direct effect on Deflection Pressure (DP). The more string length that there is past the nut and bridge the LOWER the DP will be for a given ST.

No, really.

Let's ignore friction over the nut and bridge for a moment.

Imagine a 50" long string. 12.5 inches from the tuning peg to the nut, 25" of vibrating length, and 12.5 inches to the tailpiece.

You have a given starting ST, and zero DP.

If you fret that string, the trip from nut to bridge is no longer straight. The string must be stretched slightly to accommodate this change. There is a change in ST, but you feel this in your weary fingers as DP.

The stretch has been done to a full 50" of string.

Now imagine a more normal situation with a 25" scale guitar and maybe 30" of total string length.

The same string will be at the same starting ST. Now when you fret the note, the increase in string length will be the same amount, but there is less total string length to stretch to the extra length. There will be a larger increase in ST, and you will feel this as a larger DP.

You end up cheating and giving up on tricky chords late in the set. Your friends all laugh at you. But your guitar looks a lot more normal, so there is some positive tradeoff.

I'll blather about break angle and nut/bridge friction later.

[PTChristopher]

Hi Steve:

>>>i agree theres an awful lot of mythology floating about

Yep. And it is really not all that complicated. But I guess if one gets invested in a given angle on things it can be hard to sort out the basic physics of it all.

Unfortunately, some product sales literature (or manufacturer sponsored YouTubes) can also contribute to the misunderstandings.

>>> often i will try things and then make my own determination

Oh-no. You'd be a failure in corporate training, where you LEARN that collective wisdom is always better.

EDIT: Steve - I mean the above as a joke. I 100% agree that there is no substitute for figuring it out yourself and even maybe adding a new angle on the subject while you are at it. Sorry if this came across wrongly.

Chris

[oldane]

>>> the break angle does affect tension

This is very easy to measure and disprove. But it raises a VERY big point that is often misunderstood in luthio-dom.

"Tension", as commonly used, means two very different things.

One is the tension of the string to create a given note over a given length. "String Tension", can I shorten this to ST?

The other is the deflection pressure needed to move the string from its open position to a fretted position. "Deflection Pressure", likewise shortened to DP.

And this difference in meaning is the source of some remarkable debates based on misunderstanding.

ST and DP are related, but NOT the same thing, and it is very possible to change DP without changing ST to the same extent.

We are on the same page here. What you call ST and DT is what I call "string tension" and "percieved string tension", but I'm pretty sure we talk about the same things.

magine a 50" long string. 12.5 inches from the tuning peg to the nut, 25" of vibrating length, and 12.5 inches to the tailpiece.

You have a given starting ST, and zero DP.

If you fret that string, the trip from nut to bridge is no longer straight. The string must be stretched slightly to accommodate this change. There is a change in ST, but you feel this in your weary fingers as DP.

The stretch has been done to a full 50" of string.

Now imagine a more normal situation with a 25" scale guitar and maybe 30" of total string length.

The same string will be at the same starting ST. Now when you fret the note, the increase in string length will be the same amount, but there is less total string length to stretch to the extra length. There will be a larger increase in ST, and you will feel this as a larger DP.

Again, I fully agree and feel we are talking about the same thing only with slightly different words. It's just that real guitars doen't have 25" of string past the nut and the bridge. The rather small differencies between guitars in those string lengths can not be felt by me as a difference in DT or "percieved tension". But of course I can't deny that others with more sensitive fingers than mine actually can.

I find these discussions interesting from a theoretical point of view. But in daily life with the guitars, I think one should not be too preoccupied with such matters. If a particular guitar needs a DT/fretting resistance that is a bit stiffer for some purpose (acoustic rhythm playing for example) - well, so be it. It just takes some woodshedding and one will soon get accustomed to it, and then one can go on with what it's really about - the music. Freddie Green got accustomed to a horredous ½" string height. We should rule our tools, not be ruled by them.

[PTChristopher]

Hi Oldane,

Yes, I think we are definitely saying substantially the same thing. Sometimes a couple of sets of words helps to broaden the audience. I suppose sometimes it just makes for more confusion opportunities.

In practice, I definitely find that the small differences in break angles and in overall string length are minor at best.

This forum is about gear, and if beating the bushes helps someone get more out of their gear, that's great.

But I am with you on the big picture. Gear is a step toward the music, and not much of an end in itself. It's great to have your reminder of that while the hardware details get hashed over.

EDIT to add:

>>> I find these discussions interesting from a theoretical point of view. But in daily life with the guitars, I think one should not be too preoccupied with such matters.

And on that note I'll leave the thread alone - better than to swamp things with dreary detail.

[PTChristopher]

Stevedenver,

It occurs to me that I may have unintentionally been rude earlier, so I tried to clarify my flip remark:

*********************

[stevedenver] >>> often i will try things and then make my own determination

[PTChristopher] >>Oh-no. You'd be a failure in corporate training, where you LEARN that collective wisdom is always better.

EDIT: Steve - I mean the above as a joke. I 100% agree that there is no substitute for figuring it out yourself and even maybe adding a new angle on the subject while you are at it. Sorry if this came across wrongly.

Chris

[stevedenver]

not at all-
not even close-it was clear from your first post it was a discussion-

my comment is more that i try to be my own scientist-or learn first hand rather than simply taking lore at face value-i have more than a few guitars some purchased in the course of 'tuition'-long ago - i used to build lutes and guitars-so im more than a little interested in this stuff - in this way im kinda a sucker as i might buy soemthing just to find out for myself



in fact not only are you a great and pleasant instructor
-but i learned something i 'knew', in a way, from observation and touch but not as precisely as youve articualted
well done and thanks

as for corporate wisdom-i make my living digging companies out of thier acts of 'wisdom'-collective thought can be wonderful-if embraced in a healthy 'academic sense'-
-but-more often than not, imho -its more political in the sense that the folks at the top are 'more wise' than others-a presumption of authority and legitimacy-when in fact there are a sometimes numptys at the top-

[Gitarguy]

The stop tail arrangement is used on several different styles of guitars, so it makes sense it should be adjustable. Also, the neck angle might vary within a tolerance, and people like their action (bridges) set differently.

There is actually a correct way to set the stop tailpiece, but most people ignore it.

Basically, the strings should not touch the bridge at all, except for the saddles themselves. Set the tailpiece accordingly. You should be able to slip a small paper strip between the bottom of the string and the back edge of the bridge.

[Donelson]

Load the strings "backwards", so they pass over the tailpiece. Screw the tailpiece all the way down into the body.

Works great, at least for me!

[Hammertone]

One of the criticisms of the Schaller nashville design is that the back edge of the bridge chassis sometimes interferes with the string path between the bridge and the tailpiece.

My solution:

[Gitarguy]

One of the criticisms of the Schaller nashville design is that the back edge of the bridge chassis sometimes interferes with the string path between the bridge and the tailpiece.

That's why it's adjustable.

[Hammertone]

Leave it to the Furutama to solve:

[cosmic gumbo]

Much better response than last time. I've heard the reason that the tailpiece is usually down tight to the body is for better sustain. There seems to be a certain logic to that, but proof could be lacking. In the end, it looks like a matter of personal preference.

The design of the quick change tailpiece eliminates the option of users wrapping strings around over the top.

[Donelson]

My Ibanez AGS83 came with one of those "quick change" tailpieces. I swapped out for a regular one.

I doubt that screwing the stop tailpiece down all the way adds sustain, or anything, but it does get it out of the way more.

[Hammertone]

That's why it's adjustable.

Yes, I agree. I've chosen to adjust it tight to the body - I believe that provides better sustain based on trying it various different ways. The partial wrapover works well with the Nashville on that guitar. It's all good.

I also love the brass hardware on the Furutama. OK, it's my Polytone Improv II. Very 1980. Has anyone seen this on any other guitars?

[RAQ]

I've experimented with raising my tailpiece to reduce the angle of the strings as they pass over the bridge. I don't find much difference in tone or playability regardless of where the tailpiece is set. There are a million pictures of semi hollows on the web, found easily at google images. My observation is that 99% of the pictures show the tailpiece locked down tight to the body. Any personal experiences with setting the tailpiece at a height that seems to have any advantages? I know there's lots of semi hollow players out there...

I've noticed that the relative distances between the bridge and stop-bar vary slightly from guitar to guitar - the closer they are, the steeper the angle of the strings as they come off the bridge. On my ES137 it was virtually impossible to avoid the bass strings fouling the bridge body - even with the stop bar set up high. To get the bass strings clear, the stop-bar had to be set so high there seemed to me to be insufficent threads left to hold the stop-bar securely in the top. This problem has been dupilcated to varying degrees on other 335 styles guitars I have done battle with, the amount of clearance between the strings and the bridge dependending upon the distance between the bridge and the stop-bar. In the end I have settled for the universal solution of screwing the stop-bar down to the top and using the 'wrap over' method for the strings. None of this had much to do with 'sustain', but was all about getting the strings to clear the bridge body - all, that is, except an Epi DOT; this didn't have the string 'clearance problem' in the first place and wrapping the strings over the stop bar produced such a shallow angle there seemed to be insufficient downforce on the bridge. In the cases in which I have used it the wrap-over method it produces about the same string angle from the bridge on a semi as that provided by hollowbody tailpieces. You would think (as in the case of the Tele, where the strings come off the saddles at virtually 90 degrees) that the angle does affect tone/sustain to some extent, but if there is a difference it has never bothered me.

[Durban]

Much better response than last time. I've heard the reason that the tailpiece is usually down tight to the body is for better sustain. There seems to be a certain logic to that, but proof could be lacking. In the end, it looks like a matter of personal preference.

The design of the quick change tailpiece eliminates the option of users wrapping strings around over the top.

hi cosmic old post, i have an 83 Ibanez AS200, it has this kind of tailpiece end i am not technical at all, but noticed
the bridge is sort locked down low, i want to adjust to raise the tailpiece hieight, i want less tension, i use 13-56 chromes, my GB10 has 2 screws on tailpiece, this definately helps withless tension, i googled Quick change ii did not get far, i is very stiff dont want to force and which way do you turn it, not good at this, D