Replace Stopbar with a Trapez on a Gibson ES-335

[Greentone]

Science aside, how many of you can hear the difference between stop and trapeze 335 guitars of comparable vintage? Which do you prefer? Why?

Me...I think I can. The stop 335 sounds a little closer to a SG, to me...weird given all the maple. I know the stop is supposed to sustain more, but both guitars sustain like mad. I love both, but slightly prefer the trapeze...cosmetic reasons, and it sounds a tad more archtop-like to me.

[PTChristopher2]

[Super 4]>>> I agree that the tension between the bridge and nut are the same, to achieve the same pitch at the same scale ... I'm referring to the feel of the string based on the remaining length of string behind the bridge which is also at a pitch and also under tension.

Let's break this down a bit:

>>> I agree that the tension between the bridge and nut are the same, to achieve the same pitch at the same scale ...

OK, we are on the same page.

>>> I'm referring to the feel of the string

Great. We can definitely go over that.

>>> based on the remaining length of string behind the bridge which is also at a pitch and also under tension.

And indeed this feel can be affected by the length of the string past the bridge and nut.

But we will need to be careful to not spill too much lore as we proceed.

>>> Later, I'll reluctantly revisit the adjustable L-5 and Super 400 bridges

Yes Gibson once made adjustable tailpieces. This does not mean it worked in any practical way via break angle adjustment.

And Epi had the Frequensator. This does not mean it worked in any practical way via controlling the length of the string past the bridge. It did not "Frequensate".

People also made wings to strap onto their arms. The existence of such equipment does not prove it works.

BUT - there is a pretty good example of break angle adjustment that did slightly sort of somewhat work within a certain range. The Oettinger Tailpiece for a banjo works. The majority of humans who can stand the sound of a banjo will notice a sound difference.

Now the same thing on a Gibson Howard Roberts Fusion III does absolutely nothing. No.

But we can ease into this later. It will be the anthropologically tricky part I think.

I suggest that we go through the four type of string stretch first. Or if that sounds as tedious as it is, we could skip to the tailpieces, but probably suffer for the lack of common ground and terminology.

Chris

[Patrick2]

Science aside, how many of you can hear the difference between stop and trapeze 335 guitars of comparable vintage? Which do you prefer? Why?

Me...I think I can. The stop 335 sounds a little closer to a SG, to me...weird given all the maple. I know the stop is supposed to sustain more, but both guitars sustain like mad. I love both, but slightly prefer the trapeze...cosmetic reasons, and it sounds a tad more archtop-like to me.

Wow . . . just, wow!! A 335 sounds like an SG? Yeah, wierd indeed. To me, an SG has a tone and a sustain all its own. I'd never even imagine a 335 could in any way shape or form begin to sound like an SG. I'm thinking . . Terry Kath here!

[vinlander]

Pt already explained the Epi frequensator

[PTChristopher2]

I only mentioned that the Frequensator does nothing of consequence.

I may end up regretting mentioning the Oettinger Banjo tailpiece. Even though it can have a practical effect on the very sensitive Banjo top, many other effects are attributed to the Oettinger that are hard to fathom.

Chris

[Greentone]

PTC...yep, more like an SG, as in more solid-body like with the midrange prominence of a Gibson. That's what I hear.

[SuperFour00]

We're encountering two separate problems here. The first is the misconception that since a string strung between two points can be tuned to a pitch which is determined by tension (along with length between points and gauge), that stringing a guitar is analogous to that ... not accurate; and since we are married to that inaccurate notion, that the work of technicians and engineers to equip thousands of guitars with various tailpieces that either raise, lower or alter the length of the string are examples of erroneous design.

A string on a guitar (a Gibson archtop or semi-hollow for example) will pass from the tuner over the nut (at a break angle) past the fretboard, over the bridge saddle, (again at a break angle) and finally be secured at the tailpiece. That is three sections of string. There is a pitch produced between the tuner and the nut, one by the main length of string between nut and bridge, and another pitch produced by the section between the bridge and tailpiece. This renders the thought experiment (or even an actual lab measurement) of the tension of a string between two points inadequate to represent the interaction of this more complex system.

Every time the string passes over the nut or bridge, deflection occurs and friction is encountered. In order to affirm that Gibson's variable tension tailpiece, Epiphone's Frequensator, or any other similar design is flawed and does not affect the feel of the guitars on which they are mounted, you need to do repeatable experiments that take into account all the variables I listed, and prove that the intended effects are not produced. Simply affirming the similarity of a guitar with adjustable tailpiece with a simple string under tension between two points neither proves that these tailpieces are ineffective nor that any tailpiece alteration or adjustment is incapable of influencing the feel of the guitar's action. Short of such experiments, contrary opinions ... that is, opinions that caste doubt on the designs of these adjustable tailpieces, are just that ... opinions. They are not physical laws or scientific theories, and shouldn't be represented as such.

[oldane]

Super4,

You seem to imply that the laws of physics are one thing and the setup of the guitar another. But the laws of physics can't be turned off at will like that. They are also at play in the setup of guitars.

In science it is the one who claims an affect of something (a pill, a technique, a gizmo, whatever) who has the burden of proving that it does indeed work. It's not the burden of the sceptician to prove it does not work. If that was the case, the pharmaceutical industry didn't have to to spend billions of dollars to get their products through approvement by the FDA. If we could get away with saying that it works as long as the scepticians don't prove it doesn't work, we would have snake oil and not the sophisticated phamaceutical products of to day.

I have never seem any proof whatsoever - only claims - that the frequensator tailpiece or the adjustable Gibson tailpieces have any significant effect at all. I can't feel any effect. And they certainly do not affect the tension of a given string playing at a given pitch - according to the laws of physics. So to me, until further notice, such gizmos are the musical equivalent of snake oil until someone delivers a scientific proof of the effect. Bring on that proof and I'll be convinced.

But of course, if a player feels something works for her/him, by all means, use it. The late famous classical clarinettist Jack Brymer wrote about clarinet reed ligatures: "If a particular ligature seems to produce a better tone - for good reasons or none at all - that's the one to use."

[SuperFour00]

Super4,

You seem to imply that the laws of physics are one thing and the setup of the guitar another. But the laws of physics can't be turned off at will like that. They are also at play in the setup of guitars.

In science it the one who claims an affect of something (a pill, a technique, a gizmo, whatever) who has the burden of proving that it does indeed work. It's not the burden of the sceptician to prove it does not work. If that was the case, the pharmaceutical industry didn't have to to spend billions of dollars to get their products through approvement by the FDA. If we could get away with saying that it works as long as the scepticians don't prove it doesn't work, we would have snake oil and not the sophisticated phamaceutical products of to day.

I have never seem any proof whatsoever - only claims amd vague mysticism - that the frequensator tailpiece or the adjustable Gibson tailpieces have any significant effect at all. I can't feel any effect. And they certainly do not affect the tension of a given string playing at a given pitch. So to me, such gizmos are the musical equivalent of snake oil until someone delivers a scientific proof of the effect. Bring on that proof and I'll be convinced.

Not exactly. In this corner we have the inventors, engineers and technicians who collectively designed the Frequensator Tailpiece, the Gibson Varitone Tailpiece, and the Finger-style tailpiece . In the opposite corner, you. My cite is that the designs are commonly available over a period of many years, claimed to be effective by hundreds of builders, designers and players, and still currently available and in use: ABM 1501 Finger Style Tailpiece Gold | Allparts.com

I don't have to prove anything. If the guys who came up with, built and marketed T.O.M. bridges, Vibrola Vibratos, and the original wraparound Bridge/ tailpiece on vintage Gibsons claim their various adjustable tailpieces influence the feel and action on their guitars, your argument is with extant technology, and them, not me. I just agree with them. Better luck next time.

[Jabberwocky]

oldane. Tamiflu?

[oldane]

Not exactly. In this corner we have the inventors, engineers and technicians who collectively designed the Frequensator Tailpiece, the Gibson Varitone Tailpiece, and the Finger-style tailpiece . In the opposite corner, you. My cite is that the designs are commonly available over a period of many years, claimed to be effective by hundreds of builders, designers and players, and still currently available and in use: ABM 1501 Finger Style Tailpiece Gold | Allparts.com

I don't have to prove anything. If the guys who came up with, built and marketed T.O.M. bridges, Vibrola Vibratos, and the original wraparound Bridge/ tailpiece on vintage Gibsons claim their various adjustable tailpieces influence the feel and action on their guitars, your argument is with extant technology, and them, not me. I just agree with them. Better luck next time.

I think we can safely agree that we disagree. I also think we can safely agree that my threshold for believing undocumented claims are higher than yours. You don't have to prove anything. Right. But I think the manufacturers of those gizmos should back up their claims with proof. Before that happens, you won't convince me on this.

[SuperFour00]

I think we can safely agree that we disagree. I also think we can safely agree that my threshold for believing undocumented claims are higher than yours. You don't have to prove anything. Right. But I think the manufacturers of those gizmos should back up their claims with proof. Before that happens, you won't convince me on this.

But I'm not trying to convince you. I know that top-wrapping a stop tailpiece feels completely different than stinging through. I also know that I've met archtop players who vouch for the effectiveness of at least the finger-style tailpiece. Whether the Tension-lock tail piece works for banjo, I can't say, but I won't trot out simplistic physics thought experiments to argue the point. Something is going on when I top-wrap a Les Paul/ 335. I feel it, I use it. There's more going on with a guitar's action than a string under tension between two points. If you can't feel it, that's OK. You're entitled to your opinion.

[newsense]

The Oettinger Tailpiece for a banjo works. The majority of humans who can stand the sound of a banjo will notice a sound difference.

Totally off topic, but worth an aside, given the nature of the above discussion (i.e. Physics vs. The Rest of The World): In my experience almost no humans under the age of 30 can stand the sound (or even sight) or a banjo. Beyond 30 there is gradual acceptance increasing with age. By the age of 60, a banjo seems like a familiar old friend. I can only attribute this to the gradual loss of high frequency sensitivity in human ears with increasing age.

[Hjalmiz]

But I'm not trying to convince you. I know that top-wrapping a stop tailpiece feels completely different than stinging through. I also know that I've met archtop players who vouch for the effectiveness of at least the finger-style tailpiece. Whether the Tension-lock tail piece works for banjo, I can't say, but I won't trot out simplistic physics thought experiments to argue the point. Something is going on when I top-wrap a Les Paul/ 335. I feel it, I use it. There's more going on with a guitar's action than a string under tension between two points. If you can't feel it, that's OK. You're entitled to your opinion.

I dont know anything about the physics or mechanics of it all. But i agree that the feel of the string and the sound changes between how the string is wrapped and what kind of bridge and tailpiece u use. Im very supprised that is not clear to all to be honest but thats fine (-: . As super400 Said , everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Some dont understand vintage guitar, Some love their Eastmans, Some change Guitars every other day, Some find issues with every guitar they try, Some guys guitar necks need planing/New frets once a year ,Some thinks Herritage Guitars can make piece in Israel and Some just hang them on their walls.

As for me, i practice and play . I grew up with a trapez and the sound of it is a part of me. Im sure that the talepiece change the way i pick the notes and , have a effect on how chords sound and ring out. Thats good enough for me. Thanks for the info. Just ordered a trapez and it is going on the guitar later this month.

Take care guys/H

[oldane]

Im sure that the talepiece change the way i pick the notes and , have a effect on how chords sound and ring out. Thats good enough for me. Thanks for the info. Just ordered a trapez and it is going on the guitar later this month.

Take care guys/H

Different tailpieces provide different sounds which I too can hear. But that difference I hear is due to sympathetic vibrations in the tailpiece. Those vibrations vary depending on the shape, size and material of the tailpiece. I have a guitar with a heavy brass tailpiece which has a lot of ringing sympathetic vibration - so much that I sometimes dampen it with cloth between the tailpiece and the top. I have another guitar with a simple trapeze tailpiece (like the ones on a Gibson 330) which have very little sympathetic vibration. I like the latter for that reason.

But I figure that's not what you are talking about.

Yes, I will take care. :-)

[PTChristopher2]

OK, so we tried and it went off the rails.

Super4,

Many thanks for the opportunity. Gave it a try anyway.

We did make some progress from first declaring that a longer total string (incl. past the bridge) had to have higher tension, then later accepting that it did not.

Ironically, the Les Paul "wrap-over" claim is credited with lower tension via this extra string length (if one thinks the claim through).

So we still have the surprising claim that the longer total string will present the feeling of more tension sometimes, yet less other times.

In this discussion here, and humorously often over the decades, these opposite claims are made.

And indeed we run into similarly improbable (at best) observations in several areas of guitardom when basic physics and mechanics and electronics are dropped in favor of other more impressionistic ways of looking at the situation.

Try getting Monet to fix your guitar,...

It is a curious thing.

All the best with playing and enjoying our guitars.

To sort of wrap up my input: If one cares to go through the simple facts, there are clear and simple explanations for the actual situations encountered with the string length past the nut and bridge, and the effects of break angle and friction over the bearing surfaces.

But it does sort of require an enduring preference for reason in my opinion.

Chris

[SuperFour00]

OK, so we tried and it went off the rails.

Super4,

Many thanks for the opportunity. Gave it a try anyway.

We did make some progress from first declaring that a longer total string (incl. past the bridge) had to have higher tension, then some posts later accepting that it did not.

Ironically, the Les Paul wrap-over claims lower tension via this extra string length (if one thinks the absurd claim through).

So we still have the surprising claim that the longer total string will present the feeling of more tension sometimes, yet less other times. In this discussion here, and earlier, and humorously often over the decades these opposite claims are made. And indeed we run into such impossible observations in several areas of guitardom when basic physics and mechanics and electronics are dropped in favor of other ways of looking at the situation.

It is a curious thing.

All the best with playing and enjoying our guitars.

To sort of wrap up my input: If one cares to go through the simple facts, there are clear and simple explanations for the actual situations encountered with the string length past the nut and bridge, and the effects of break angle and friction over the bearing surfaces.

But it does sort of require an enduring preference for reason in my opinion.

Chris

I would like to see evidence of the exact tension each section of a guitar string is under when mounted on a guitar. Do you have those figures? You're including my comment re: the string from nut to bridge and conflating it with the string in it's entirety. Also, while a top-wrapped stop tailpiece feels slinkier likely because of lower deflection and lower friction, I don't remember saying that it produced lower tension.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever except a thought experiment that equates a string under tension between two points with a string run from a tuner over a nut, over a bridge to a trapeze tailpiece. If your guitar has no nut and no bridge, I'll grant the similarity.

Since there is voluminous record of multiple designs that address the very issue we're trying to discuss, and thousands of examples of installed hardware designed by more than one instrument manufacturer that adjust the instrument to control these illusive forces, I'll opine that your simple and limited explanation, elegant though it is, fails to encompass the totality of the subject, and so, misses the mark as far as I can determine.

[PTChristopher2]

Thanks Super 4. This summarizes your view nicely when combined with your set of earlier claims.

[Hammertone]

My next Les Paul-type guitar will look somewhat like this one, because I think it looks cool:

[Greentone]

A trapeze and neck DeArmond/bridge P 90 would be cool.

[Patrick2]

My next Les Paul-type guitar will look somewhat like this one, because I think it looks cool:

I've studied quite a bit about the many inventions and innovative playing styles of Les, But, no one ever told me that he used mary Ford as a bottle neck for slide.

[Jabberwocky]

Brass studs, mutt's nuts. You need a pair of diamond studs to fill up those holes left behind by the stoptail mounting screws. I will happily settle for zirconium studs or abalone dots.

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
when he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
when they said that Man could fly

They told Marconi
Wireless was a phony
It's the same old cry...

Poor Chris. You haven't shown me evidence that the moon isn't made of green cheese.

[Jazzalicious]

Hi
I saw on the guitar forum that you were thinking of changing stoptail to trapeze on your semi hollow..
Did you do it? And if so, notice any change in feel ?
I have a heritage 555 but find the stoptail stiffer feeling than my archtops with trapeze ....
Really appreciate if you can let me know...
Thanks
Michael