Putting a fingers tailpiece on my Epi Broadway Elitist

[roegtr]

I think it'll help lower frequencies of the Broadway. But I'm concerned with adding much weight. Anyone know how much that tailpiece weighs? And what's your opinion on the switch?

[Ghostofachance]

To me, a Frequensator is an 12-letter word for a really bad idea. Good luck.

[Frank67]

The weight in non negligible, but I cannot give you a number. I don't think it is bad. The finger tailpiece makes a lot of sense since you can adjust each string individually. It also looks good. I always liked them and never had a problem on any of my guitars. One needs to be a bit careful with string changes that the fingers don't fall on the top and scratch it (I always put a soft cloth under it when changing strings). Apart from that it is all nice and easy.

[Klatu]

Changing a tailpiece in search of tonal improvement may lead to disappointment or merely psychosomatic improvement.

[neatomic]

there's this option




different tailpieces being different lengths will alter the angle that the strings hit the bridge...that does affect things...

ex. part of a jazzmasters charm is that no mans land between the whammy tailpiece and the bridge...by moving the tailpiece closer as they did with the mascis jazzmaster, changes the tone and feel...

everything counts




cheers

ps- you could try reversing the frequensator tailpiece..the shorter distance between tailpiece and bridge will tighten up the low end...the longer the distance the more energy transfer is lost...

[Greentone]

I haven't measured tailpiece weights. However, I have a Matsumoku guitar with the "L-5-ish" tailpiece above. I also have a Heritage Super Eagle with the fingers tailpiece. I used to own an old Gretsch with a Synchromatic tailpiece.

Of the three designs, I believe the fingers tailpiece is the lightest. The Synchromatic is probably the heaviest and the L-5 in between.

I don't think you would be at all disappointed with the fingers tailpiece. Johnny Smith put one on his D'Angelico.

[GNAPPI]

The only advantage I see is the ability to REALLY tune a string EXACTLY where it belongs. Rather than change tuners, I'd opt for a finger TP. They're very light, but I don't see that as being an issue even if they were a bit heavier.

They have a bit of an odd application spectrum. I would "think" that if sound influence were the primary objective they would only be applied to fully hollow gits with a wood bridge base and a wood bridge? Nope!

My Howard Roberts Fusion has one, and it's a semi-hollow. It also has a metal TOM set with a post into the center block. I like the HRF, and really like being able to bypass the tuners, whether or not the HRF sounds better because of the TP? No, I don't think so.

On the slightly down side of the finger TP... for those that can't stand the sound of anything hitting their git, whilst changing strings the fingers can and will crash onto the top if you don't keep a rag under the fingers, and when initially tuning the string, the finger should be in the middle of its height range so you can adjust up and down. Also they are not inexpensive.

The bottom line is I really like the one I have and wouldn't mind them being on all my gits with a TP.

[roegtr]

Thanks for the replies guys! I found a used one that I most likely will get for the Broadway. The only thing making me stall a bit is that I'm considering finding a smaller jazz guitar. Either a used es175 or the newly announced es275 once it is out.

[vinlander]

I would not mod a guitar you don't plan to keep or accept to loose money on.
People looking to buy an Elitist will want it "stock"

[va3ux]

The only advantage I see is the ability to REALLY tune a string EXACTLY where it belongs. Rather than change tuners, I'd opt for a finger TP...

I don't see how a finger tail piece has any affect on the ability to tune a string.

[GNAPPI]

I don't see how a finger tail piece has any affect on the ability to tune a string.

I guess either you don't own one, or you never looked at the design?

Take a good look at the design, there is a screw that adjusts the fulcrum point up or down to tune the string, otherwise there would be no point to adjusting the "fingers" they would be fixed and not flop about when the string is removed.

Maybe re-read my post and go have a peek at one or two on Ebay.

[339 in june]

My theory is that finger length has to match string gauge.
The thicker the gauge, the shorter the finger.
In that, the Frequensator is just an approximation.

But maybe am I just kidding

Seriously, I can't understand what effect can the length left behind the bridge have. Did you ever think about a long headstock, and the consequence on tuning D and G strings, particularly ? Neck heavy, OK, but that's all.

[GNAPPI]

My theory is that finger length has to match string gauge.
The thicker the gauge, the shorter the finger.
In that, the Frequensator is just an approximation.

But maybe am I just kidding

Seriously, I can't understand what effect can the length left behind the bridge have. Did you ever think about a long headstock, and the consequence on tuning D and G strings, particularly ? Neck heavy, OK, but that's all.

It's NOT length, it's tension, and what does a machine do?

[pkirk]

I guess either you don't own one, or you never looked at the design?

Take a good look at the design, there is a screw that adjusts the fulcrum point up or down to tune the string, otherwise there would be no point to adjusting the "fingers" they would be fixed and not flop about when the string is removed.

Maybe re-read my post and go have a peek at one or two on Ebay.

I own one, on my Heritage. The finger tailpiece has nothing to do with tuning, but rather with adjusting the angle the string makes over the bridge. This has some effect on the pressure each string puts on the bridge. The ostensible reason is to adjust the tension in each string individually, and to balance the volume to each string, but it is not a "fine tuner" in the way the similar looking (but completely different mechanism) fine tuners on a violin work. Even if you wanted to use them that way, the fingers tailpiece are not be a useful way to fine tune, because when the strings are up to tension the screws on the tailpiece are hard to turn, making them impractical to use as fine tuners.

[GNAPPI]

I own one, on my Heritage. The finger tailpiece has nothing to do with tuning,

Dude, if you don't use it that way, so be it, I DO! You don't? OK, It works and... I use it that way.

If you look on the Gibson site, it says THE FINGERS ADJUST TENSION just like tuners do.

[mr quick]

Thanks for the replies guys! I found a used one that I most likely will get for the Broadway. The only thing making me stall a bit is that I'm considering finding a smaller jazz guitar. Either a used es175 or the newly announced es275 once it is out.

Oh man, we're probably looking at the same one... I was gonna use it on an ES-195 to get rid of the stupid Bigsby.
I'm quite familiar with the seller, been to his house and tried some guitars. He's done a lot of works on my friends' guitars and I usually tag along or offer to drive because I like going there. Good guy.

[setemupjoe]

Dude, if you don't use it that way, so be it, I DO! You don't? OK, It works and... I use it that way.

If you look on the Gibson site, it says THE FINGERS ADJUST TENSION just like tuners do.

Gnappi, pkirk is correct in saying the finger tailpiece was not designed as a fine tuner. It adjusts the tension the string has on the neck. You may like using it for that function and that's fine, but it's not what it was designed to do.

[barrymclark]

there's this option

...

That's a TP type I've not been able to locate.

[GNAPPI]

Gnappi, pkirk is correct in saying the finger tailpiece was not designed as a fine tuner. It adjusts the tension the string has on the neck. You may like using it for that function and that's fine, but it's not what it was designed to do.

Ok i can shift my car without a clutch too and tune with the finger tp as long as it works the way i use it ill continue to do so. To me its the only practical reason for having one

[2bornot2bop]

That's a TP type I've not been able to locate.

I was thinking the same thing...good luck locating one!

[Greentone]

"Did you ever think about a long headstock, and the consequence on tuning D and G strings, particularly ? Neck heavy, OK, but that's all."


Actually, every guitar with the long headstock that I've played--e.g., Johnny Smith, Super-V, Super-400--have sounded great. When you compare the Gibson Super-V to a Gibson L-5CES of comparable vintage, about the only difference, other than cosmetics, is the long headstock. Every Super-V I have played (okay, all three of them), has been a terrific tone machine. As with the 400 and JS, I attribute this, at least in part, to the headstock design. I don't know why, but I believe that there is a lot of tone production locked away in that ungainly headstock.

Even my Matsumoku copy of the Super-V, which features the same headstock, is quite full of great jazz tone, although the guitar is a laminated-body design, rather than carved woods--as far as I know.

[neatomic]

length depends on angle


take a tele guitar..low e tuning peg is very close to nut..

wind the E string with one wrap so that string sits high off nut to tuner..no angle


now get a string and wrap it few times low on E string post..increases angle from nut to tuner

huge difference!!

same applies on bridge end

why genius leo fender pulled down strings after bridge thru body..extra tight resonance

everything counts

cheers

[KirkP]

For geeks like me, here's the patent.

https://www.google.com/patents/US2969703

Thinking of this from a mechanics viewpoint, this design doesn't really affect string tension, since that's determined by string mass and scale length. What the tailpiece appears to control is the break angle of each string over the bridge. Changing the break angle changes the force of the bridge against the top of the guitar. That force can effect tone and probably volume of the instrument. I don't know if it's enough of a difference to be worth changing tailpieces.

[GNAPPI]

For geeks like me, here's the patent.

https://www.google.com/patents/US2969703

Thinking of this from a mechanics viewpoint, this design doesn't really affect string tension, since that's determined by string mass and scale length. What the tailpiece appears to control is the break angle of each string over the bridge. Changing the break angle changes the force of the bridge against the top of the guitar. That force can effect tone and probably volume of the instrument. I don't know if it's enough of a difference to be worth changing tailpieces.

Thanks VERY much for the post, from the patent claims which I pretty much BELIEVE states the frigging intent of the invention...

"These adjustment screws can also be used as a fine tuning mechanism for adjusting the pitch of each string."

Another bit from the Gibson LeGrand spec page:

http://www.gibson.com/Products/Elect.../Features.aspx


"The instrument initially carried the L-5 tailpiece, but after 1979 was given its own six-finger unit with individual fine-tuning adjustment screws for each string"


So, I use it this way and whatever was said about the intent is pretty much moot?

[339 in june]

"Did you ever think about a long headstock, and the consequence on tuning D and G strings, particularly ? Neck heavy, OK, but that's all."
Actually, every guitar with the long headstock that I've played--e.g., Johnny Smith, Super-V, Super-400--have sounded great. When you compare the Gibson Super-V to a Gibson L-5CES of comparable vintage, about the only difference, other than cosmetics, is the long headstock. Every Super-V I have played (okay, all three of them), has been a terrific tone machine. As with the 400 and JS, I attribute this, at least in part, to the headstock design. I don't know why, but I believe that there is a lot of tone production locked away in that ungainly headstock.

Even my Matsumoku copy of the Super-V, which features the same headstock, is quite full of great jazz tone, although the guitar is a laminated-body design, rather than carved woods--as far as I know.

I guess the effect you describe comes more from the higher mass involved in the long headstock rather than string length behind the nut.