-
Maybe I am wrong, but for me it sounds reasonably to mute all the frequencies and harmonics what can cause out of tune feeling. Those are:
- the string parts over bridge
- the string parts over the nut
- the part of the fretted string between your finger and the nut (more exactly between the fret one below and the nut)
- (maybe the open, not played strings can resonate on not wanted harmonics, but stick to the three above).
Those string parts are resonating by the energy what the really picked strings transmit to them, but obviously not in the tune.
It of course depends on the musician (and instrument) how it bothers her/him, and take any action to lower the effect or not.
But intentionally strengthen this effect, then marketing (an buy) this as a "good thing"? I really do not get it...
***
But putting aside the Frequensator (which is not a problem, because if you do not like it, then do not use it, end of story), I really interested, what other musicians opinion about these not wanted harmonics?
-
05-15-2018 04:47 AM
-
Epiphone never marketed that attribute of the frequensator as a product feature. Yes the extra length on the bass strings produces an inordinate amount of harmonics. I weave a strip of leather through the strings behind the bridge to mute them.
In a Down Beat magazine ad from September 1937, a radical new tailpiece called the Frequensator, was introduced. see patent .The idea behind the design was to provide compensation between the tremble and bass strings, and the word “frequensator” was a contraction of the words “frequency” and “compensator”. The Down Beat ad promises “Greater Clarity, “Truer Tone” and “Eliminates Deadspots”.from Epiphone tailpieces |The Frequensator consisted of two separate extensions of unequal lengths; a shorter one of 2,5 inch for the bass strings and a longer one of 5,75 inch for the tremble strings. The bass extension allowed longer strings lengths for the bass strings resulting in deeper response for these strings, and the longer tremble extension provided a more brilliant tone in these strings. A bent metal plate anchored the unit to the guitar. This tailpiece was used on the Emperor, De Luxe, Broadway and Triumph and also appeared on the Devon introduced in 1951.Last edited by omphalopsychos; 05-15-2018 at 11:17 AM.
-
Do you have a link or reference?But intentionally strengthen this effect, then marketing (an buy) this as a "good thing?"
-
I never encountered the socalled benefit of the frequensator tailppiece, the downside was more obvious (string mounting difficulties, too short strings). Here is the patent picture and the link to the patent with the claims
US2124439A - Tailpiece for stringed musical instruments
- Google Patents
-
What I found interesting was that one of the intentions of the frequensator design was actually to minimize the phenomenon described by the OP, by decoupling the strings.
-
I think they're a cool looking pain in the ass.
-
never used one but they do look awesome.
as far as the ringing goes, i went ahead and gave the horribly named, horribly typefaced jimmy clip a shot. works ok. easy and convenient so you could use one on several guitars. but it doesn't completely kill the ring. maybe it is sufficient for electric guitars (they seem to be for djent dudes and shredders, mostly) but if the ring is a 10 without it, its only about a 4 or 5 with it, when you are hitting it super hard trying to make it ring. maybe that's enough?
never tried the rubber grommets or foam bits or what not. never found a good source online and they do look a little silly to me. not bad though, just a little funny.
-
Thanks for all, especially omphalopsychos's and hotpepper01's research.
My misunderstanding, sorry, the result is very calming.
For my excuse I did know the following, marketing what is also omphalopsychos quoting:
"The bass extension allowed longer strings lengths for the bass strings resulting in deeper response for these strings, and the longer tremble extension provided a more brilliant tone in these strings."
I think this is a bit misleading as it is definitely not about lowering the active role of the strings parts between the bridge and tailpiece. Instead saying the opposite, that the shorter will brighter and longer will be more bass. The only way it can be by adding resonance...
Anyway the intention of the inventor, and the patent is more authentic than the marketing or magazine article.
***
No I go out and buy one :-)
(for my Epi Joe Pass, because they look really cool, and I never really liked the original.)
-
The highlighted paragraph in the patent filing might work, but I'm not sure. The separate extensions are still connected at the far end. Ringing through the tailpiece is sometimes a problem. I have more than one archtop on which playing an Ab on the D string causes the B to ring, some more loudly than others. Interesting to me is that it's an Ab, not a B, that causes the ringing. Harmonics are involved, but I'm not interested enough in doing the math to be more exact. On one archtop, I have a small piece of foam earplug, cut just large enough, under the B string at the nut. That deadens it enough to prevent the ringing. I can't play an open B, but that's a small price to pay. I've tried preventing this by deadening the strings both between the bridge and tailpiece and between the nut and tuners, with no effect. I'm not entirely sure exactly what induces the ringing - tailpiece, neck, whatever. Some type of string damper is the only solution I've found, and it seems I'm not alone in discovering this, witness the many different dampers on the market.
-
I imagine it was conceived to address existing resonances ... resulting in different resonances being emphasized. Perhaps players just liked the change itself, not fighting the same old traffic?
Originally Posted by sgosnell
-
Maybe. I wasn't around in 1938. Top-end Epiphones are still popular, with or without the Frequensator tailpiece. I have a low-end Epi from 1953, with a standard trapeze tailpiece, and it doesn't ring much. FWIW. It is fairly loud acoustically, though, especially for a plywood top. I'm not about to buy a Frequensator tailpiece for it, though.
-
One of the main things about a frequensator that often goes unspoken is that part of the idea was that the long and short pieces were interchangeable, and there was a goal that you could mix and match to suit your needs. It's just that almost no one ever bothered to alter the stock arrangement. I haven't owned a frequensator-equipped guitar, so I can't comment otherwise.
As for the over-ring, unless it's particularly distracting or strong in one specific frequency, I tend to want the natural sound of the guitar unimpeded. The sound of the strings behind the bridge and nut are part of what people call "natural reverb".
That said, depending on the string gauges/brand, my 1939 L-5 has a pretty specific "A" harmonic that drones on from the A string, so I've been experimenting with muting options, such as a strip of felt or foam. I haven't found the perfect solution that mutes that frequency while allowing the rest of the harmonics to ring normally, but I'm sure I'll figure something out.
-
Originally Posted by mr. Beaumont
Perfect!!
-
I have two guitars with the frequensator. I haven't noticed any of these problems. They haven't been a PITA or an issue of any kind. The guitars they are on play and sound wonderful, but I can't attribute it to the frequensator as far as I know. Maybe I"m doing something wrong here, but my frequensator equipped Epiphones are fine.
-
similar intent
i believe johnny smith reversed his frequensator tailpiece..tho he did use a drop d heavy string...
another point to consider is, until late 1930's the b strings were wound!!..thats why original cc pups had straight bar...2nd generation cc pups had the notched B string bar..to match the (then) new unwound solid steel b strings!
cheers
-
My Bigsby'ed Grestch also has the overtones "behind the bridge" when playing. Maybe some guitars are better/worse than others; it drives me nuts, so I too have a piece of leather shoelace laced thru the strings near the Bigsby bar to stop it.
-
bigsbys are late 1940's technology...made to be used with very heavy strings!!...13's, 14's...
same as all the new players that have trouble with jazzmaster trems...they were introduced with heavy flatwounds!!!...10 roundwounds ain't gonna work the same...(without lots of learned tweaking!!!)
cheers
-
Originally Posted by neatomic
???
Brian Setzer uses them all the time with 10s, no problems.
Johnny A, 10s on his Gibson Signature guitars I think, no problems.
I use 11s, no problems.
Not sure why you think Bigsbys have to be used with heavy strings, they don't.
-
There’s another easy fix to the frequensator harmonics.
-
i don't get it?..which is it?...is it your post that the bigsby overtones drive you nuts or your post that bigsby with 11's is no problem??..
as i said..they work with tweaks...brian setzer eventually had tv jones as his tech!!!
but the original design by the great paul bigsby was based on heavy strings..they were invented when heavy strings were the only choice!!
no denying fact!
never said it couldnt be made to work..in fact i said it could!!!...just pointing out historical fact!!
cheers
-
Johnny Lee Hooker dug them. Boom boom boom boom.
-
I think the main reason for the Frequensator TP is that they were competing with Gibson and wanted something different. All the technical explanations are just marketing talk to avoid saying "Just to be different from Gibson."
I've owned just two Epiphones, a '46 Emperor and a Thinline Enperor from I don't remember the year--'60-ish.
Danny W.
-
Originally Posted by Danny W.
I think the main reason for the Frequensator TP is that they were competing with Gibson and wanted something different. All the technical explanations are just marketing talk to avoid saying "Just to be different from Gibson."
Danny W.
You're right that they were competing, but Epiphone wasn't trying "just to be different from Gibson". They were trying to keep Gibson from looking too much like Epiphone. Just a year later, Gibsons were coming in the same size, scale length, and bracing pattern as Epiphone had been for half a decade.
-
since a thinline emperor is one of my irrational dream guitars, i now need to know everything about it, including how you dealt with a giant guitar as a non-giant person. Originally Posted by Danny W.
I've owned just two Epiphones, a '46 Emperor and a Thinline Enperor from I don't remember the year--'60-ish.
Danny W.
-
Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
Yes, well said Sir..
Reply With Quote
Trenier Model E, 2011 (Natural Burst) 16"
Yesterday, 07:37 PM in For Sale