-
Someone posted a suggestion (I can't find the post
) wondering how an inverted "V" finger style tailpiece would go,
in the style of the Selmer tailpiece I think they said??
Made reference to matching the string length from the nut to to the tuning machine pegs???
Anyway, seeing as how I have a superb Selmer copy I took a deep breath and ordered a ABM 1500g
to my specs, 140, 152, 165, 165, 152, 140 (mm lengths of fingers) and have just fitted it to my
Sonntag 18" Augusta. J18X.
Great guitar but it was just a little too muddy for my liking (not Stefans fault...he made what I ordered)
After some considerable research on this Forum I decided to have a bone saddle made (an exact copy of Stefans Ebony one)
Great result.......heading in the right direction......
Next decision...the tailpiece.......???? what to do????
Here is a picture of the suggested inverted "V".
Very, very happy with the result. What a great guitar this has now turned into
Thankyou whoever made the suggestion!
-
10-22-2017 04:52 AM
-
That tack can be tried and probably has been, but a "claim" on a patent that is fraudulent, false, and or in fact unusable as stated in the "claims" may be grounds for patent invalidation if the patent is contested. Intent to deceive may be difficult to prove, but if an invention does not actually perform to "claims" it gets easier to contest.
Originally Posted by JazzNote
For example "claims" that purport the patented object(s) will make you a better player, or on a car give far better gas mileage, or a refrigerator that substantially saves on electric bills when in fact they can proven to be false could be grounds to contest validity of a patent.
I am not a patent attorney, but have authored, and re-authored many existing patents to update a product line with new / enhanced features and have worked with several patent attorneys, and my opinion(s) is / are a bit more than anecdotal so bear this in mind.
AFAIK, a patent is awarded assuming claims are factual and can be validated, and if invalidated a patent may not be invalidated on a line item basis but the whole patent is or can be invalidated. I doubt this happens often but patents are scrutinized pretty carefully by the attorneys I have worked with (in the computer field) to not only make them enforceable but to be factual. Also, there are folks that scrutinize current patents to look for "holes" that can be exploited to come up with a "new" invention, so patent submissions need to be doubly scrutinized to prevent "hole" exploitation :-)
Believe it or not, many products / inventions are not patented at all or the patents were not enforced (ex. VGA and the ISA bus on the PC), or exploited by the original patent owner and some ultimately get exploited after the time span (Rollerblades) of the patent protection has expired, so nowadays the finger TP idea should not under the protection of a patent blanket and can be made by most anyone, that is unless a new patent is somehow awarded.
Grantc, I'm generally not visually influenced by features, but that "V" for some reason looks proper to me. I always wondered why the Gretsch, D'Angelico and finger TP's have the bass side longer.
-
DO NOT TIGHTEN TO MUCH. I think I cracked my HJS (fresh from Arizona) to much and cracked the very dry top. But I agree with Max as to string tension. And it can increase or decrease volume also. Originally Posted by QAman
-
They provide break angle adjustment which can add or lower downward pressure on the top.
I see them more as tension feel tuner than a pitch adjusting unit.
I did experiment with break angle on my former Emp Regent by having the TP first screwed higher and then very low and too much angle and downward pressure can choke the instrument.
Makes sense it could damage a very dry thinner top, in the case of my Regent there was no chance I could stand on that thick non resonant dipped in plastic top but on a thinner carved top...
There seems to be a sweet spot for break angle where the top is getting enough pressure to resonate freely without chocking, I don't think these TP are good to mess with too much.Last edited by vinlander; 10-22-2017 at 09:33 AM. Reason: adding precision
-
I also have never quite understood the principal behind the D'Angelico tailpiece or the "standard" Finger Style form.
We only fitted the tailpiece late yesterday afternoon......so only a few hours of looking, playing, fiddling with it......
Up this morning and looking at it after a sleep and it is definately pleasing to the eye. I love it!
One thing for sure...it works......
Maybe because this guitar is an 18" X braced???, not sure, but the 6th string was way to "strong" acoustically. I was down to a 48 on the bottom!!!
This configuration has definately solved that problem! And the D and G strings are standing out as I expected.
Anyway I will play around with the tension adjustment on each string over the next couple of days and see what results I get.
Very happy indeed!
-
AG, Originally Posted by Archtop Guy
Damn. I’m sorry to hear about that man.
JD
-
The L5S has a TP6 tail piece with fine tuners. I used them all the time. But, that was mostly because the stock tuners were imprecise. With good tuners on the headstock, I wouldn't miss the fine tuners.
Has anyone touched on the effect of string between the bridge and tailpiece?
Here's my understanding of it.
If string can slide over the bridge and nut, if you stretch the string, you're stretching it from tuning peg to tailpiece. Meaning the the non-vibrating portion of the string stretches.
When you tune a string to pitch, the scale length and string gauge determine the tension in the string. The non-vibrating length doesn't change that.
But, if you try to deflect the string, either by fretting a note or, more extremely, by bending a note, the amount of force it takes depends partly on the non-vibrating length.
As I understand it, the longer the non-vibrating length, the less pressure it takes to deflect the string.
BUT, the further you have to bend it to reach a given pitch.
So, as I understand it, the longer the distance between bridge and tailpiece, the easier the action will feel. I believe this is noticeable to the player. That's also true for the headstock.
This seems to raise a question. Would you want more non-vibrating length on the higher pitched strings or the lower?
My impression is that I might be happier with more length on the lower pitched strings, to make them easier to fret. Not sure if they'd be harder to detune by accidentally pulling on them. Easier to move them, but a given distance produces less pitch change, compared to a string with less non-vibrating length.
If you're with me so far, do you want the Fender style headstock? Reverse 6-in-a-row? What should the tailpiece look like.
Well, assuming any of this produces a meaningful difference, I can't see any reason to have the high and low E's the same and some sort of gradation in the middle. I think that's cosmetic.
If I wanted to be able to play Albert King style and bend notes a 4th or 5th, I'd probably go for a 6-in-a-row headstock with the high E short. Also, a stop tailpiece. Harder to bend, but you'd be closer to the goal before you had to start bending another string out of the way.
Perhaps the experts will chime in -- I'm not as sure about any of this as I'd like to be.
-
I thought it would be a good idea to post a picture of the original tailpiece and another with the new Finger Style (inverted V).
Might help make some sense of any of my future observations about this change??
Keep in mind that the idea was suggested by someone? on this forum using the Selmer tailpiece as an example
Anyway, as I have already stated, the 6th string is definately not as loud.........
As for tension changes etc......haven't had enough time to tell.
I will keep fiddlin' around.............Love how it looks though
-
OK....
I have been "fiddlin'" around for a few days after fitting the new Finger Style "inverted V" tailpiece and here's what I have found so far.
Definitely a bit brighter which I expected considering the original Tailpiece was Ebony.
Johnny Smith maintained that the "fingers" gave the strings more "individuality" or "separation"..............I agree
Being able to adjust the "break angle" to dial string volume in or out (up or down) is an asset for sure on this 18" X braced guitar that is played in the Allen Ruess rhythm/chord solo style in a swing band......
I have always loved the top 4 strings on this guitar but felt that the bottom two, especially the 6th, were too muddy for my liking and overwhelming............problem solved!
String length from bridge to Tailpiece effect on string tension bridge to nut???
Well....with this style of playing I can't detect any difference, however, the original Ebony Tailpiece was shaped so that the 6th string had the shortest length to the bridge and I noticed that there was annoying "note response" inconsistency on the 6th string especially past the 5th fret if I was playing 6 string chord melody solo's.
I wasn't bothered all that much because that's not what I use this guitar for......BUT........that problem has been solved as well!
Have I "fluked" the string length with the new Tailpiece!!!!........who knows??
Did the original Tailpiece have a design flaw??
Now for the big one.......the "inverted V"........
Compare the string length from the original ebony tailpiece to the new Finger Style with the four top fingers adjusted to be even in tension and the 5th finger backed off a bit and the 6th finger backed right off.
1st string 144 - 140
2nd string 148 - 152
3rd string 153 - 165
4th string 156 - 165
5th string 160 - 152
6th string 164 - 140
Top 2 strings I can't detect any difference
3rd and 4th - a questionable improvement in volume but I am assuming if I increase the tension the volume would increase.
5th string - a little less in volume which I wanted.
6th string - a definite reduction in volume and "bass" which I wanted!
Conclusion.......I have a sneaking suspicion that the "inverted V" might be just cosmetic as has been suggested!
I guess the only way to find out is to order the other three original finger sizes.........102, 115, 127 and see if they make any difference.
This would increase the Bridge to Tailpiece string length on the 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd strings, 2nd string the same and a major decrease on the 1st.
Hmmmm.............so because I can't help myself and I have decided I am mad, I am going to order these extra fingers on Monday and come to a final conclusion Hang the expense!
I am hoping it is only cosmetic because I do love the look of the "inverted V"
That's all for now.....
-
As I understand it its about the break angle of the string at the bridge. Being very particular - if you have an adjustable bridge height- then you could maintain that angle regardless of your a action adjustment. This translates to tone by the pressure on the bridge, via the break angle .too much or too little is bad Originally Posted by ptchristopher3
-
It was designed for the banjo. On an archtop guitar, the minor changes in break angle via this tailpiece have no practical effect on tone whatsoever, unless one deeply wants it to - I suppose. Originally Posted by dougcrowe99@yahoo.com
Like the Frequensator, this tailpiece is not actually about anything. It gets the job done, and as Gary long ago demonstrated, can incidentally be used for fine tuning.
The tailpiece was designed for the banjo and had some arguable actual benefits in that application. On an archtop it is nice, if you like the looks and do not mind the minor string change downside.
As a fine-tuner, I can imagine a benefit if one had a sticky nut slot and preferred using the tailpiece for some critical tuning situations.
As a break angle “adjustment” on a guitar, it would be better named the “Placebo-matic”. Or maybe the “Placebo-sator”.
-
This is really ocd.
-
As has been stated, this sort of tailpiece was originally used for banjos. They really have the most effect on tenor (rather than plectrum or five string) banjos because the tension on the strings varies wildly due to the fifths tuning (in standard jazz CGDA tuning).
The high A is under crazy high tension, and often enough breaks when restringing. You can’t really change the tension, because for a given string diameter and scale length you need what you need to tune to the note, but you CAN change the break angle over the bridge, which changes the downward pressure on the bridge/head, which changes the volume of that string. Because of the high pressure exerted by the A string, it is often considerably louder than the others. Actually, the pressure increases for each higher string, but the high A is the real problem, especially since it can be an annoying, grating sound anyway (I am a tenor player, don’t take offense. See my avatar). So if you look at properly adjusted Ottingers on a tenor, you will see they are adjusted so the finger for the lowest C string nearly touches the head, and each successive finger is set for a shallower break angle.
I doubt this has much of an effect on a guitar. It’s noticeably less critical on a plectrum or five-string than a tenor.
Here’s a link describing how to adjust:
How To Set Up An Oettinger Tailpiece
steven
-
The top of an archtop guitar is extremely strong and there is no obvious way in which changes in the down force on the bridge at an individual string could have any effect. Such changes would be immediately averaged over the width of the bridge top and then communicated to the guitar top at the usual two support points.
There is, however, a means by which the break angle directly affects the wave motion in the string and hence the tone of the individual string. The effect of break angle in a stiff string is measured and discussed here:
https://www.gitec-forum-eng.de/wp-co...eflections.pdf
Essentially, the wave in the plucked string is supposed to be transverse leading to the blurred outline shape that we see after plucking. In the simple theory, the wave travels down the string until it hits the bridge where almost all of it is reflected and returned along the string to the fret where it is again reflected. The small part that isn't reflected drives the acoustic sound of the guitar. The travel time between bridge and fret determines the pitch.
In fact, it seems that with a stiff string passing in a curve over the bridge a large part of the transverse wave energy at each reflection is converted into a longitudinal wave that moves much faster down the string to the fret, where part of it is converted back to a transverse wave. The overall effect is that an impulse hitting the bridge as reflected a a pair of impulses. This, it seems, more or less transfers high frequency energy from the transverse wave to the longitudinal wave where it is lost to the sound of the guitar.
So there does seem to be a way in which the individual string break angle could affect the sound.
That being said, the effect does seem to be pretty minimal in practice.
-
If the downward tension on the saddle is less than the force of the kinetic energy of string vibration pulling the string off the saddle, the string will buzz. That is a huge affect in tone.
-
Well yes. And the situation you describe is very far out of the actual range of downward forces in question on our archtop guitars. Originally Posted by icr
In practice, the situation you describe can potentially become a practical issue in some Bigsby installations on smaller body guitars.
But really, It requires a VERY shallow break angle to manifest any actual issue.
For laughs, note the shallow break angles on some Maccaferri (sp?) type guitars. This shallow angle is fairly important in this design. The practical issue there is not ‘bridge buzz’, but rather the bridge moving laterally as you slam away in rhythm playing. Thus the “mustache” ends on the bridge.
Really, on our archtop guitars, the exact break angle on the bridge has no practical effect. The usable range is huge. Sure, there are outliers. But nobody is actually adjusting “tension” or “tone” with a “fingers tailpiece”.
Like the Frequensator, it is not about anything.
-
Well, I think that is not strictly true. It's about driving sales by creating the image of technological improvement, even if that isn't meaningful. That said, Johnny Smith was a fan of the finger tailpiece to the point that he put one on his 1955 D'Angelico (visible in the YouTube video from 1984, along with a Gibson JS pickup) and also on his Gibson Johnny Smith. I do not think that I have ever seen anything documented anywhere about his reasons for that. Originally Posted by Bezoeker
-
Point definitely taken Cuna’. Originally Posted by Cunamara
Lots of ways to be about something with no actual effects on sound.
I said it poorly earlier.
I really like the look of both the Frequensator, and the ‘Fingers’. I have had guitars with each of them, and the downsides of each tailpiece are minor compared to the fun of the architecture. Plus the history of the use of each tailpiece.
My Grandfather was a pro tenor banjo player in the 1930’s and the fingers made a notable difference on his instrument (while pounding out the Freddie Green style backbone and hitting the back wall of the dance hall with remarkable volume).
We talked about it quite a bit in the late 1960’s. (When I was 8 or 9 and dealing with the changes going on everywhere.)
Anyway, a really fun tailpiece with no practical effect on an archtop, but some inspiring connection to other times and places.
Hard to beat that.
-
Yes, however, the epidemic pictured here can affect semi-hollow jazz guitars.... Originally Posted by Bezoeker
-
Well sure, but that is more a matter of dedicated mismanagement of the stop tailpiece. Originally Posted by icr
Yes, however, the epidemic pictured here can affect semi-hollow jazz guitars....
Which of course opens another funny string terminus can of historical worms. The stop tailpiece is really a re-proposed bridge design. But that is a different story.
But yes indeed ICR, that is a good example of being able to manage oneself into a troublesome break angle.
Back to the ‘fingers: My view is that this low-break-angle problem would be quite difficult to achieve on the guitars on which one commonly sees the fingers tailpiece. Although I am not sure about the HR Fusion break angle range available. It is possible that one could create a problem setting the fingers at the highest possible point.
I had an HR Fusion a long time ago and forget if it would allow one, with a talent for disaster, to make a problem.
Funny stuff.
-
those finger tailpieces also tend to buzz/vibrate
Reply With Quote
Tour of Gibson Custom Shop
Today, 06:04 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos