Why Metal AND Wood Tailpieces?

[lawson-stone]

I get the love of big metal art-deco tailpieces--that's my favorite. I also get the idea of the Benedetto violin style tailpiece, all wood, light, etc.

I have seen, though, recent use of a tailpiece that is really metal, but with an ebony or rosewood front so that it looks like one of the Benedetto style tailpieces.

Is that just for the nice appearance, or is there some real acoustic function of such a tailpiece? I have no special axe to grind, I'm just curious. I also wonder if it's a sales gimmick: the wooden tailpiece is kind of "in" these days, and maybe some brands want to capitalize on it but don't want to fit an all-wood tailpiece, so they just put a facing on a metal one.

Anyone have any experience or information on that?

[blackcat]

I get the love of big metal art-deco tailpieces--that's my favorite. I also get the idea of the Benedetto violin style tailpiece, all wood, light, etc.

I have seen, though, recent use of a tailpiece that is really metal, but with an ebony or rosewood front so that it looks like one of the Benedetto style tailpieces.

Is that just for the nice appearance, or is there some real acoustic function of such a tailpiece? I have no special axe to grind, I'm just curious. I also wonder if it's a sales gimmick: the wooden tailpiece is kind of "in" these days, and maybe some brands want to capitalize on it but don't want to fit an all-wood tailpiece, so they just put a facing on a metal one.

Anyone have any experience or information on that?

I think Ibanez and Eastman are the two marques that come to mind when masking skeletal metal tailpieces with a decorative front facing/panel. In the case notably of the LGB30 of course, they use pot/monkey metal for the structural part with well-reported consequences. Can only imagine that it is 'design by accountancy'.

[jorgemg1984]

After years of using a Benedetto tailpiece on my 65 Guild X-500 (stock was a Bigsby), a few years ago I got an original Guild harp metal tailpiece, which gave better grounding, more sustain and less "noises". I didn't like the look much, so my luthier covered it in ebony. Best of both worlds...

[lawson-stone]

After years of using a Benedetto tailpiece on my 65 Guild X-500 (stock was a Bigsby), a few years ago I got an original Guild harp metal tailpiece, which gave better grounding, more sustain and less "noises". I didn't like the look much, so my luthier covered it in ebony. Best of both worlds...

I have no quarrel with wooden facing for people who want that look (as if it matters what I think!). I guess I was wondering if the unwary buyer of a first archtop might think they are getting the benefit of the Benedetto style tailpiece when they aren't.

My Peerless Monarch has the metal tailpiece with wooden facing, and it's lovely, but it also is what prompted me to wonder if perhaps a metal framework and wooden overlay might have some function other than appearance.

[blackcat]

Earthing to the metal component is probably one reason and another might be to do with the risk involved where the entire/total tension of the string set depends on 100% integrity in the grain of the (usually) ebony. This cannot be guaranteed and there is more than one reported case of an internal flaw in the wood leading to a failure with catastrophic results.

David

[jorgemg1984]

Well, the thing is - I don't think there are many advantages, if any, for a wood tailpiece. But others, who know more than me, will certainly clarify this.

I don't think brands do this to give the customer an illusion, it just looks better - and that helps sales, usually!

[TH]

Wood and metal have different sound. The original JP-20 Joe Pass Ibanez guitars had wood, largely because it was a spec for spec version of Joe's Jimmy D'Aquisto which used the acoustic qualities of wood to great advantage. (Jimmy believed anything else corrupted the pure sound of wood and he perfected the tuning of bridges, tail pieces and eliminated all metal, pearl and eventually electronics in search of the pure tuned wood sound). Jimmy's guitars were in a class by themselves; he tuned a guitar's sound to an uncanny degree by varying the mass, length, configuration and design of the tailpiece alone, even before bridge tuning.
The overall impression: Wood tailpieces=the highest state of the art of lutherie.
Metal, as mentioned, is better at grounding, maintains a solid vibration to the anchor point without the dampening factour of the wood (good or bad depending on the sound you want) and it's easier to get a quick change ball end string anchor with a metal piece.
Wood is for the most part an aesthetic consideration. Wood is lighter and a more sparse metal tailpiece with wood overlay is lighter than a massive tailpiece of metal and so some, prettier than the wire trapeze piece.

My feeling is that at the time Gibson dominated the market of high end archtops, Jimmy D'Aquisto set the high end benchmark with his all wood look. There was a time I saw Joe Pass's guitar fitted with some work Jimmy had done on his 175 and it looked really classy. The look of wood tailpieces became a prestige status symbol and it also gave a unique distinguished look to Ibanez's high end flagship archtop guitar. That cache was then carried over in the production guitars of Ibanez and then other Asian guitars, handbuilt (Eastman) and production (Ibanez and Robelli-later to become Peerless). So somebody just thinks they look classy. You decide.

David

I'll add too, that I'm a player, and a builder. I constantly experiment in both worlds and yes, I hear a big difference in metal and wood. But it's a continuation of the differences in the bridge itself too. And there's a difference in the feel. Yes some people can't discern a difference, and that's fine too, as long as they're happy with what they've got; it can be made of feathers and kryptonite for all that matters. But I feel a difference, in the decay of the note, in the amount and quality of the vibration that is carried at the anchoring end of the string, in the amount of sustain that a denser material provides. It's all there as undeniable as any aspect of physics. But whether or not any player can tell a difference when maybe they're listening to their sound in a live situation through an amp... is purely subjective.
That's as a player. As a luthier, a piece of wood can be crafted in a limitless set of parameters. Shorter tailpiece, longer string, different feel in the tension. Longer tailpiece, different string tension, different contribution of vibrating string. Ebony, rosewood, maple, gut anchor over the end block or lip anchored on the side, string set into the wood, or against a piece of bone or brass... as a luthier, I know there's a difference. Who knows what the player thinks?
Metal tailpieces are uniform. They are what they are. There is not the same amount of craft or art in a metallic anchor, but does it matter? That's your taste.

[sgosnell]

IMO it's strictly for looks. Benedetto uses the hybrid style on many of its models. My Bambino has a metal tailpiece with wood attached, very much like my Eastman. I don't think there is any sonic difference between wood and metal, at least not enough to hear. Jack Wilkins has a metal tailpiece on his Benedetto, and said that he can't hear any difference between wood and metal. He just likes the look of the gold-plated tailpiece better. Metal does work much better for grounding the strings. It's possible to make the ground with only (mostly) wood, but it's tricky and a lot of work. The Benedetto style has taken over a large portion of the market, and thus everyone wants that look. It's just a look, and I would really prefer a lighter metal tailpiece, but it's not important enough to me to spend time worrying about it.

[lawson-stone]

Well, the thing is - I don't think there are many advantages, if any, for a wood tailpiece. But others, who know more than me, will certainly clarify this.

I don't think brands do this to give the customer an illusion, it just looks better - and that helps sales, usually!

There are some very well respected builders who claim that an ebony tailpiece that hooks over a loop around the end-pin offers a decidedly different sound. Bob Benedetto in his book on building archtops describes this. It is based on how violins and cellos are built.

I'm not saying it's true, just that some very respected builders have adopted this and believe it offers a different and in some ways, more desirable sound.

[Matt Cushman]

I have always preferred a suspended wooden tailpiece on an archtop. I like the tone of a wood tailpiece on a guitar. I have tried a few metal tailpieces for comparison and my thoughts were that the metal adds a chime of its own frequency. A wood tailpiece has a deadening effect that helps kill overtones rather than producing them. Even when the tailpiece is tapped with your finger tip you can hear the difference. When tapped the metal has a ringing note and the wood has a low thud when tapped. The tailpiece plays a fairly big role in the voice of a acoustic archtop. In addition I like to lose extra weight from a guitar any way I can and wood weighs less than metal.

[lawson-stone]

I have always preferred a suspended wooden tailpiece on an archtop. I like the tone of a wood tailpiece on a guitar. I have tried a few metal tailpieces for comparison and my thoughts were that the metal adds a chime of its own frequency. A wood tailpiece has a deadening effect that helps kill overtones rather than producing them. Even when the tailpiece is tapped with your finger tip you can hear the difference. When tapped the metal has a ringing note and the wood has a low thud when tapped. The tailpiece plays a fairly big role in the voice of a acoustic archtop. In addition I like to lose extra weight from a guitar any way I can and wood weighs less than metal.

Thanks! So would you say that guitars in the more "nice budget" range, like the Peerless Monarch, or even the Ibanez Joe Pass, that use a metal tailpiece with a wooden facing, so that they look like an all-wooden tailpiece, might be trying to capitalize on the growing popularity of the wooden tailpiece, or just going for the aesthetic?

[Matt Cushman]

Thanks! So would you say that guitars in the more "nice budget" range, like the Peerless Monarch, or even the Ibanez Joe Pass, that use a metal tailpiece with a wooden facing, so that they look like an all-wooden tailpiece, might be trying to capitalize on the growing popularity of the wooden tailpiece, or just going for the aesthetic?

That is a good question. My guess is they look good and are easy to mass produce which is basically what you already said. A light strong all wood tailpiece undoubtedly costs more.

[TH]

Thanks! So would you say that guitars in the more "nice budget" range, like the Peerless Monarch, or even the Ibanez Joe Pass, that use a metal tailpiece with a wooden facing, so that they look like an all-wooden tailpiece, might be trying to capitalize on the growing popularity of the wooden tailpiece, or just going for the aesthetic?

I don't mean to intrude on your question directed at Matt, but the Peerless and the Joe Pass use pure wooden tailpieces. No metal except for the mounting plate to which they're attached along the plane of the end block.
It's one of the things that made the JP such a lovely guitar in my opinion.
Don't mean to contradict you on this, just clearing up the facts.
Back to you Matt...
David

[jorgemg1984]

There are some very well respected builders who claim that an ebony tailpiece that hooks over a loop around the end-pin offers a decidedly different sound. Bob Benedetto in his book on building archtops describes this. It is based on how violins and cellos are built.

I'm not saying it's true, just that some very respected builders have adopted this and believe it offers a different and in some ways, more desirable sound.

You might be right, as I said I did notice a sound difference, although not something very significant. In the case of my Guild, it's a laminate and I liked the extra sustain of a tailpiece. Maybe in the case of an all solid wood guitar, designed to be as more acoustic as possible, a wood tailpiece might be desirable. I still don't think it should such a dramatic difference, but who knows....

[Hammertone]

I get the love of big metal art-deco tailpieces--that's my favorite. I also get the idea of the Benedetto violin style tailpiece, all wood, light, etc.
I have seen, though, recent use of a tailpiece that is really metal, but with an ebony or rosewood front so that it looks like one of the Benedetto style tailpieces.
Is that just for the nice appearance, or is there some real acoustic function of such a tailpiece? I have no special axe to grind, I'm just curious. I also wonder if it's a sales gimmick: the wooden tailpiece is kind of "in" these days, and maybe some brands want to capitalize on it but don't want to fit an all-wood tailpiece, so they just put a facing on a metal one.
Anyone have any experience or information on that?

I think you captured most of it.
Wood tailpieces sound more … woody
Metal tailpieces sound more … metallic
And everything inbetween, including wood tailpieces with metal rimplates and metal tailpieces with wood caps.
Easy enough to test the differences.
Benedetto's advocacy of the Sacconi tailpiece is fine - just another flavour, like those from Ken Parker or Mario Beauregard.

The rest is cosmetic - a little wood on top of metal can look nice, or look meh.

The real issue to me is quality - many Furutama metal tailpieces are garbage, made with pot metal, or compressed drier lint mixed with melamine, or whatever, as opposed to bell brass.

[sgosnell]

Wood isn't necessarily lighter than metal, when you consider that much more wood is required than metal to get the same strength. Wood is much weaker than metal, and thus you have to use a lot of it to insure there will be no splitting. A trapeze tailpiece is pretty light, because there isn't a lot of metal involved, and the metal part of the hybrid tailpiece on my Benedetto is probably as light as the wooden part. I haven't taken it apart to prove it, but there isn't a lot of metal, and it's all that holds the strings. The wood is just held to the top of it by screws. I'm not convinced that a blindfold test could tell the difference between wood and metal on most guitars, if not all. But wood is the current style, so it's de rigueur on boutique guitars.

[deacon Mark]

In my years working with Hollenbeck and Barker we always preferred a tailpiece that was anchor in metal. I personally prefer that sound you get bigger overtones as Matt said and I think the guitar is louder. Many years ago I posted a full thing on this on rmmgj and found not many were in the camp that metal was better. Hollenbeck made his own metal tailpiece and making a wood one is way cheaper, unless you buy mass produced types already made. Barker and Hollenbeck both designed and machined there own metal tailpieces and sent them out to be gold plated when finished.

If you look at the prized achtops of history I think between L5's, super400, D'angelico's, and Strombergs, they all had metal and frankly lots of nice guitars out today but none actually "better." Benedetto made the whole violin comparison but I still go back to something I said in a previous post that Bill Barker mention 35 years ago. He said you cannot compare violins and guitars, violins have sound post and the way the instruments produce sound is different. Pure acoustic archtops the back acts to bounce sound outward. That is why maple tends to be the best for backs.

I personally have never like the ebony tail piece benedetto style look at all. I do like D'aquisto s and some others but the pure simple Benedetto has never appeal to me personally. When comparing sound well I will just say that I again find the guitars with metal tailpiece make my ears happier. I have found if I say much more I am bucking too many "experts."

In Barkers shop many years ago we had a Benedetto tailpiece that was on a guitar and it was swapped out for one of Barkers and I thought the guitar was not only louder but much bigger tonal response.

For something completely different consider a metal tune o matic saddle vs all wood saddle. Now on that issue I way prefer the ebony saddle. The metal one gets too tinny. All that seems to contradict what I just said and frankly the only answer is to keep trying and experimenting................because if we got to the holy grail........there would be nothing to improve.

[Hammertone]

...
For something completely different consider a metal tune o matic saddle vs all wood saddle. Now on that issue I way prefer the ebony saddle. The metal one gets too tinny. ....

Well….it depends. I have installed tune-o-matics on a couple of my acoustic archtops. In both cases the guitars sound fatter than before, with increased bass response. I've also experimented with adding a strip of bell brass to the underside of the top part of an archtop bridge, and it improved the sound of the instrument. Hofner has developed a bridge base that has a piece of brass embedded in it, which makes the guitar sound fatter. All this according to my ears.

There's plenty of science to it, no doubt related to some relationships beween mass and air volume and body resonance and more, none of which matters because it's so easy to simply swap out a few and use whichever bridge suits one's taste best.

As far as tailpieces go, I like a few but this is my fave - big, heavy, gold-plated brass. Favoured by Aaron Cowles and Sam Koontz as well. Throw money at ABM and I'm sure they'd be happy to whip up a few:

[Matt Cushman]

I have done some tests exchanging tailpieces on the same guitar. I thought the difference was quite apparent. I could easily hear the metallic sound added by the metal tailpiece. To me a ringing, chiming tone is added by a metal tailpiece. I don't know if you would hear much difference through an amp. I didn't use a pick up when I did my tests.

[iim7V7IM7]

Works for me...

[Klatu]

Works for me...

One of the more beautiful of tailpiece designs!

[TH]

There's plenty of science to it, no doubt related to some relationships beween mass and air volume and body resonance and more, none of which matters because it's so easy to simply swap out a few and use whichever bridge suits one's taste best.

The group of luthiers I was fortunate enough to study with were active participants in the Catgut Acoustical Society and those guys regularly took apart guitars, violins and all manner of stringed instruments.
We had members from Bell labs, MIT, Stanford and University of Sydney (I think that's where Graham was from) and we studied acoustics using frequency spectrum analysis, finite element analysis and good old theory and experiment. Bridges and tailpieces were a big topic, as were arching patterns, materials analysis (viability of local woods in getting frequency responses of rain forest woods). Lots of stuff. And in the end, it always came down to what does THIS client want?
That's why I give skeptical creedence to the second hand pronouncements of players who don't have the test of taste acquired over time.
Yes we looked at the guitar as an electronic circuit, input source at the bridge, top weighed for resistance and capacitance and a dozen salient parameters to make an efficient and even guitar. That's what we did and great instruments were made.
But in the end, the most efficient transmitter was not the best sound. The most efficient ideal transmitter is a string on a steel I beam. It's how you filter and dampen, or colour your string vibration. And what is best is ABSOLUTELY up to the player and what he needs.

But go on debating what is best. This is now in the realm of opinion. Science is a footnote when it comes to what you know you need.

David

[whiskey02]

I have read in just jazz guitar magazine that Jimmy D' had a tailpiece he designed and built in ebony and many of them failed. He warned the guys who had them that they needed to be changed out but at least some of the owners chose to "wait and see" as they were very happy with what they had.

[TH]

I have read in just jazz guitar magazine that Jimmy D' had a tailpiece he designed and built in ebony and many of them failed. He warned the guys who had them that they needed to be changed out but at least some of the owners chose to "wait and see" as they were very happy with what they had.

Jimmy had it all. Knowledge, feel and an incredible overall idea of how things could go together. If someone wanted a feel and a sound, he'd change parameters to achieve that. He had a number of parameters that he could fine tune, adjust and even radically change a guitar with post construction of the corpus. One of those was the tailpiece. It wasn't uncommon for him to include more than one tailpiece for a guitar, and this is something he, and many players of his guitars, believed did make a difference.
There were things we quantified through empirical analysis and study, things that were proven to effect a guitar as a causal piece of acoustic transmission. It was then an art to build them into a working guitar. Talking with Jimmy, he couldn't describe what he was doing, but his process was one without doubt in his mind and we could recognize that as "He's tapping and flexing. That's weighing the contribution from the x mode with the ring mode."
He knew things about tailpieces alright. We never found out what he knew before he died. But he built to his beliefs and he was most convincing.

David

[A440]

The ideal tailpiece for me would be one which had a built-in device for damping the unwanted vibrations of the strings between bridge and tailpiece. It should be simple enough to do. Maybe there is something available out there, but I haven't seen it. In my opinion, it should be made standard!