Tail piece question
Bart V
them upwards or downwards never seemed to make much of a difference on
my banjo(s), or perhaps, my ears. Began wondering about them lately
though - other than holding up the strings and setting them [the
strings] up for a tightness you like, is there any other function to
them?
For example, might they supposed to be killing off the vibration of
the strings at the contact point so the proper amount of vibration can
be transmitted through the bridge to the head? Would thin tail pieces
absorb vibrations (robbing them from the bridge) and lessen them? I
really don't know and wonder, what say you, the experts?
Bart.
Check my most up to date email address at:
www.haruteq.com/contact.htm
custom compensated banjo bridges,
tabs, stained glass: www.haruteq.com
**may your moments of need be met by moments of compassion**
KID BJO
All I know is , that I QUIT crankin mine down putting alot of pressure on the
bridge.
Now , I just put enough pressure on the bridge to hold the strings in place and
what a difference....I was choking the vibration of the bridge feet to the
head..JD Crowe sets his up the same way.Ive heard the pro luthiers say that
the heavier tailpieces transfer the NRG to the bridge better.
John in WV.
RMac
http://www.banjosetupspecialist.com/files/index.htm , says... "The angle of
the strings breaking over the bridge toward the tailpiece also has a
dramatic affect on the voice of a banjo. Having a tailpiece all the way down
will produce a bright banjo but one with not a great resonance on the 4th
string. Raising it up high can give a more open sound, greater 4th string
response and less crack on the 1st & 2nd strings."
Makes sense to me.
RMac in Indiana
"KID BJO" <kid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040312203228...@mb-m06.aol.com...
rck
should be 15 degrees. However, everyone seems to have their own preference.
Bob
"Bart V" <FixThi...@FixThisHaruteq.com> wrote in message
news:40525d5...@news.cogeco.ca...
Michael R. Stanger
II think the tailpiece makes a lot of difference in tone. I read through
the thread, and agree with the opinion that cranking an adjustable
tailpiece down just enough to put some pressure on the strings works the
best, but how much pressure is needed is between your banjo and you.
I also believe that the heavier, solid brass tailpieces work better,
especially if they are solidly mounted on the rim. I've used light
tailpieces, and I think they flex some with pressure and string
vibration. These cause a damping effect on the strings, sort of like a
diving board effect. I don't think that a longer vs. longer tailpiece
necessarily makes as much difference; I've used Kerschner long and
short, and the both sound pretty much the same. (Never used both on the
same banjo).
I also like adjustable tailpieces. The non-adjustable Prestos put too
much downpressure on the bridge to suit me, and the only way to adjust
them is to raise them from the bracket nut, which makes for a less solid
connection of the back of the tailpiece to the rim. Having a fairly
rigid tailpiece rocking a little bit on the tailpiece bracket seems to
me to be about the same as if it was flexing.
With the old timers, like the No-Knot, you have to rely on the string
tension only to put downward pressure on the bridge. Depending on the
guage of strings being used, that pressure may not be very much, and may
not be really making the bridge drive the head as effectively as one may
want. I think this is especially the case with old heaviier skin heads.
A little added pressure can make a big difference in volume and tone.
A friend just bought a new OME openback (a beautiful banjo, too... but
that's another story), and I love the Harp tailpiece that came on it.
It's a lot like my old fave the Kerschner, but seems to have some added
advantages. The harp shape of the top puts a little less tension on the
larger diameter strings and less on the smaller ones. I don't know if
this would make any significant sonic difference, but it seems to me
that it couldn't hurt. And it is an elegant shape, too.
regards,
Stanger
In article <40525d5...@news.cogeco.ca>,
Brittles
wrote:
<< Hi, Bart... think the tailpiece makes a lot of difference in tone...>>
<<I also believe that the heavier, solid brass tailpieces work better,
especially if they are solidly mounted on the rim...>>
Hi Mike-
In my experience, the heavier brass tailpieces will add some sustain - and the
amount varies with the down pressure. Some players like extra sustain (I
do...), but others prefer a "drier" sound, with less sustain.
<<...I've used light tailpieces, and I think they flex some with pressure and
string
vibration. These cause a damping effect on the strings...>>
The light tailpieces do seem to damp - and this damping eliminates some
sustain. Personally, I think the Presto is a piece of junk - but it does seem
to provide some players with the "drier" sound they prefer.
<<I also like adjustable tailpieces. The non-adjustable Prestos put too
much downpressure on the bridge to suit me, and the only way to adjust
them is to raise them from the bracket nut, which makes for a less solid
connection of the back of the tailpiece to the rim...>>
That's basically correct. But again, by raising the non-adjustable Presto, to
reduce the pressure - the extra flex seems to damp better, and provide a drier
sound with less sustain.
<<...With the old timers, like the No-Knot, you have to rely on the string
tension only to put downward pressure on the bridge. Depending on the
guage of strings being used, that pressure may not be very much, and may
not be really making the bridge drive the head as effectively as one may
want. I think this is especially the case with old heaviier skin heads.
A little added pressure can make a big difference in volume and tone...>>
I also like No-Knots on my vintage open backs. For years I've just used a
little spray adhesive to keep the bridge from moving around. (Found out that
Reed Martin does the same...)
<<...A friend just bought a new OME openback (a beautiful banjo, too... but
that's another story), and I love the Harp tailpiece that came on it.
It's a lot like my old fave the Kerschner, but seems to have some added
advantages. The harp shape of the top puts a little less tension on the
larger diameter strings and less on the smaller ones. I don't know if
this would make any significant sonic difference, but it seems to me
that it couldn't hurt. And it is an elegant shape, too...>>
I had a chance to mess with an OME Harp tailpiece, at Banjo Camp North, last
year. I haven't completely thought through exactly how the zigzag front
effects the individual string pressure.
What I found amazing was the range of possible sounds the Harp can produce.
And the great part is - it is so easy to change, that you can increase sustain,
or brightness, very easily. You can go from a mellow melodic/jazz "voice", to
a Scruggs "voice" - or from clawhammer tone, to bluegrass tone quickly.
The Harp does NOT have the usual tailpiece bolt. It has two little pointed
set-screws. The set-screws rest in two little recesses, which are drilled
directly into the tension hoop. The set-screws act as bearings - and allow the
tailpiece to pivot easily .
So it is ONLY the tension of the strings which holds the tailpiece in place.
Pivoting it is almost effortless, by using just the thumbscrew. (No tools
needed!) Once you figure-out how much down-pressure produces the particular
sound you want - you can just measure the height off the head, to re-set it
again when needed.
On the OME Megatone I was testing, I found it gave best "Scruggs"-type tone
when the blade was about .250" to .350" above the head. (Measured right next
to the 3rd string - from the TOP surface of the blade, to the head.) And right
around .325 seemed to give the best Scruggs-type tone. (Note that LESS
down-pressure produced the preferred tone...)
Of course... those specific numbers are completely dependent upon all the OTHER
factors of your specific banjo - head tension, string gauge, bridge type and
height, etc., etc.
However, I found I could quickly adjust between two different heights - and
back again. (You do have to do some serious retuning when you change the
tension, though...)
The very different tonalities which resulted, would be pretty repeatable and
consistent in each position. (I only had the banjo for about 4 days... so I
don't know how repeatable it remains over the long term...)
But I really think it would be possible for a performer to play hardcore
bluegrass during the first set - reset it quickly during the break - and come
out with a appropriately different jazz, or oldtime tone for the second set.
Best-
Ed Britt
Please Remove *UNSPAM* from my address, to e-mail me.
JohnB58972
Osborne, J D Crowe, Bill Keith, etc. Essentially all prewar Gibson flatheads
had the "piece of junk" Presto.
Brittles
wrote:
<< The "some players" who like the "drier sound" include Earl Scruggs, Sonny
Osborne, J D Crowe, Bill Keith, etc. Essentially all prewar Gibson flatheads
had the "piece of junk" Presto. >>
Hi John-
Yes, that's correct. And it's why I said it *does* give some players the sound
they prefer. And I do recommend them to players looking for that particular
sound.
But that doesn't forgive the fact that the Presto is STILL a poorly made piece
of junk. They are poorly stamped and finished - and they bend and break
easily.
I have them as original equipment on some of my Bacons from the 20's. (And the
earliest "square hole" versions were even worse than the "2-tab" versions used
later ...)
Originally, they were used because they were cheaper than the expensive
Kerschners, etc.
I would simply prefer a better-made tailpiece - which performs the SAME
function. That is what *good* design does.
As a product designer, with 30 years of experience, you should be aware that I
have been given Devine Authority to make such pronouncements concerning product
quality... ;-)
John Albert
<< But that doesn't forgive the fact that the Presto is STILL a poorly made
piece of junk. They are poorly stamped and finished - and they bend and break
easily.
Kerschners, etc.
I would simply prefer a better-made tailpiece - which performs the SAME
function. That is what *good* design does. >>
days is because players like Scruggs, Reno, Crowe, etc., used them.
But I believe the underlying reason as to _why_ the early players used them
was that the Presto was tailpiece that came on the banjo, and they didn't
bother to change it. They just used it as it came.
As to _why_ the Presto was used by Gibson, well, like Brittles said, it was
one of the _cheaper_ production tailpieces available at the time, and they
only used the "higher-end" tailpieces on the flashier models. Just one more
way to cut manufacturing costs.
Having said that, I swapped out the Presto (Prucha reproduction?) tailpiece on
my RB-75 for a 1970's-vintage Gibson clamshell. It offers more adjustability
(although I really just leave it alone), and seems somewhat more robust than
the Presto.
My biggest gripe with the Gibson clamshell is the "solid bar" across the 2nd,
3rd, and 4th strings. Makes changing strings something akin to trying to
thread a needle.
I'm very interested in the new First Quality Sullivan (Prucha) reproduction of
the older-style clamshell tailpiece, which can be viewed here:
<http://www.fqms.com/fqm/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Product_ID=4528&CATID=47>
One thing the website pic of the Sullivan clamshell doesn't show --- how is
the 5th string slot designed? Is it simply a "straight down" drilled hole, or
is it more like an "angled slot"? How difficult to get the 3rd string through
it? Does anyone know?
- John
Michael R. Stanger
I'm glad you mentioned how the Harp tailpiece works. I was going to, but
forgot. The Harp is like the Stelling and Prucha tailpieces; none of
them are anchored to the banjo, like you said, and all are easily
adjustable. I call these tailpieces "floaters".
My Prucha has one, and I like it a lot, but not as much as the Harp,
which has a more elegant design and a straight-through string pull like
the Price... the strings aren't pulled closer together at the tailpiece
and stay in a straight line from the nut to the tailpiece. I also like
the Harp's and Price's easy string change capabilities, since I tend to
break a string unexpectedly a lot.
it seems we share similar thoughts- I can't disagree with anything you
wrote!
regards,
Stanger
In article <20040318233125...@mb-m23.aol.com>,
Brittles
wrote:
<<... it seems we share similar thoughts- I can't disagree with anything you
wrote! >>
Hi Mike-
Hmm... I must be slacking-off. I'll try to post something more disagreeable,
next time... ;-)
Best
Michael R. Stanger
johnb...@aol.com (JohnB58972) wrote:
Hi, John...
Most of the guys you mentioned tended to play their banjos like they
bought 'em, and most of them bought their banjos before there were a lot
of choices available in the parts department. The notable exception in
your list is Bill Keith, who usually uses a Kerschner style on his
banjos.
The initial reason Gibson used the Presto on their banjos made in the
30's was strictly due to economics. There was a big depression going on
then, and the company was looking to cut every corner it could to keep
instrument costs down. Another big change in their production materials
then included the introduction of the pot metal one-piece flange, which
was also used strictly for cost cutting.
The Granada models made in the late 20's, before the depression hit, had
engraved Kerschner tailpieces and solid brass tube and plate flanges.
Gibson itself considered the Presto and the one-piece flange to be
inferior to the earlier parts, and continued to offer the costlier parts
only on their high end models, from the #6 up. The Granada was the
bottom of their "high end" models, so it got cheaper parts.
By the late 30's, the banjo market was so small that Gibson didn't want
to invest in the costlier parts for such a small part of its business. I
personally believe that the only reason there are as many pre-war
flatheads as there are, and that's not very many, iis due to the failure
of the Gibson top-tension models. The top tensions just flat didn't
sell, and they were stuck with a bunch of flathead tone rings, which
they just used up, installing them on other models.
The top tensions were, I think, a brilliant design that suffered from
failed execution. The radiused fingerboard, the art deco peghead and
inlay patterns, and the rest of the design were all right on the money
for the time, but by then, the banjo was considered yesterday's news to
the musicians who formerly played banjo. By then, bandleaders and the
public wanted to hear the guitar in a band, not the banjo.
Those few who bought top tensions had problems with the pot metal top
tension hoop... remember that back then, the heads were all skin, and
the pros had to commonly adjust head tension frequently. The pot metal
just couldn't take it well, and tended to crack and fail often. And,
because pot metal can't be milled very well, the hoop had to be cast,
which was a nightmare for the factory workers who had to clean them up.
I'm sure the failure rate of this part at the factory was very high.
Nowadays, it seems that most banjo buyers have the same attitude as
yours- they want a banjo that sounds just like ol' Earl's, ol' Sonny's,
ol' J.D.;s, or whoever, and think that if they get a banjo set up like
their favorite player's, they are going to get that player's sound. The
truth is, though, that any good player's sound tends to become
distinctive, and the distinction comes from the player, not the banjo.
I once had the opportunity to have Earl Scruggs play one of my banjos.
He made my Ode sound just like his Gibson, and I sure couldn't ever get
the same sound out of it. Years later, I had the priviledge to swap
licks with J.D. Crowe on a new Gibson. The same thing happened- he
sounded like he always sounds, and me, too. It's in the hand, not the
axe. I figure I might as well get the best parts that are available,
because I want to keep my investments sound and playable for as long as
I can.
regards,
Stanger
JohnB58972
Presto is not the best made or most adjustable, but the length and mass are
about perfect unless you want to crank the tailpiece down for a really bright
sound.
JohnB58972
cheaper parts sound better than the more expensive ones.
Brittles
Wrote:
<<<I agree that the Gibson flatheads used cheaper parts, but most people think
the cheaper parts sound better than the more expensive ones.>>>
<<...the Presto is not the best made or most adjustable, but the length and
mass are about perfect unless you want to crank the tailpiece down for a really
bright sound.>>
Hi John-
I don't recognize your screen name, but I've obviously tripped over a sensitive
spot for you - and I don't mean any personal offense in my critique of the
Presto.
I absolutely agree with what you say above about the Presto. But as a product
designer, I approach such things from a more analytical standpoint.
The price of a product is never a complete indicator of either its
functionality, or quality.
I would say that the Presto provides a specific "ingredient" (or "ingredients")
for the "Scruggs sound". But there is interaction between the Presto and the
other important "ingredients" of a particular banjo's system.
(And as Mr. Stanger pointed out - one important ingredient of the "Scruggs
sound" is Earl's sensitivity to tone, while playing. Now THAT component, in
particular, is gonna be somewhat difficult to mass-produce... ;-)
Going back to your statement:
<<<... most people think the cheaper parts sound better than the more expensive
ones.>>>
While I agree with the sentiment (based also on observation), the use of the
term "cheaper" is somewhat misleading.
If we are talking about maintaining complete *originality* of a pre-war
Mastertone flathead - then we are limited to using ONLY those tailpieces
available during the original period.
So, in that case, yes - the best tailpiece to use (to get the "S-s") *IS* an
original Presto from the period. But... the same would go for the rim, flange,
tensionhoop, resonator, fingerboard, etc., etc.
(And while they may have been "cheap" once, those original "vintage" components
become more outrageously expensive every year - usually due to breakage of the
"cheap" parts...)
However, as soon as we are discussing NEW production - we are in a completely
different environment. We have more choices and control in the selection of
components to use (or make).
Hopefully, we also have created a set of criteria to design to. (Just as Gibson
probably did during the Depression). Such criteria would include specifications
based on variables such as tonal quality, playability, ease of production,
production cost (to meet sales, and wholsale price-points), availablity of
production resources, marketability, competive products, adaptability to
current musical trends, etc., etc.
Now, if that set of criteria consists *only* of:
"Make a Mastertone-style banjo, *exactly* the same
way that Gibson did during the Depression - using
the same design, construction, materials, and
processes."
we've put ourselves back into the environment of *limited* choices. A path
taken by quite a few makers today. (The thought is: "It's a proven design -
so if we copy it *exactly*, we too shall be able to make a great banjo!")
However, the construction, materials, and processes, which may have been
rational, and economical for Gibson during the Depression - may no longer be as
rational, and economical, today.
During the late 1920's banjo boom - when Gibson and their parts suppliers
(Grover, Waverly, etc.) were actively developing most of their components -
they had a huge expanding market.
The economic drivers of low-volume production - which required a lot of
hand-work - were no longer as valid when producing banjos in mass-production
quantities.
In particular, traditional cast brass parts required significant amounts of
*skilled* hand-work, and finishing, to produce parts of high quality.
Also, during the mid-1920's, parts such as tone-rings and flanges were
typically "fabricated" - out of sheet stock, bar-stock, and tubing. The designs
often involved assembling multiple pieces into one component, and many required
labor-intensive soldering or brazing of parts.
Two good examples of these "fabricated" parts are the Gibson ball-bearing tone
ring, and the tube-and-plate flange.
The manufacturers needed higher-volume processes to meet the growing demand.
Grover chose the process of metal stamping to make the Presto. Sheet metal is
placed between two matching steel dies (molds), and then is formed - by the
closing the dies under a ton or so of pressure.
Depending on the process requirements - the perimeter shape of the part can be
punched-out before, during, or after forming.
Bending and forming the sheet metal creates integral structural features in the
part - which make it more rigid, and help to resist flex and bending. The bent
side edges, and the four "gussets" stamped into the bend at the rear, add
rigidity to the Presto.
Metal-stamping allows you to create a thin metal part, which uses much less
material. But it still can *approximate* the rigidity of a cast part, or one
machined from thicker metal plate. (How *well* it approximates it, is actually
what is being discussed here.)
VERY simplistically - in a system like the Mastertone banjo, components having
higher weight, mass, and/or stiffness, translate into creating more sustain.
On the other hand, components having lower weight, mass, and/or stiffness,
translate into creating less sustain (or have a "damping" effect).
So... a heavy, stiff, cast tailpiece wiil have a tendency to increase the
banjo's sustain (unless it and other components are adjusted to compensate...).
A lighter, more flexible tailpiece - like the Presto - will have a tendency to
reduce sustain (unless it and other components are adjusted to compensate...).
The proper set-up of a banjo for the "Scruggs sound" requires the right balance
of sustain and damping. Damping is particularly important - since it's a
somewhat "drier" tone, with a bit more rapid decay of the notes (less sustain).
However - when playing the up-the-neck, the tone must have enough sustain to
provide adequate "ping" to compensate for the shorter duration of the higher
notes (which have a shorter wavelength/higher frequency). Otherwise, the notes
up there will just go, "plick, plick, plick"...
The Prestos do seem to provide the some of the "damping" needed for optimal
sound.
Unfortunately, the Prestos also tend to fatique, bend, and crack with age.
Especially by trying to exert too much down-pressure on the strings. (Often to
compensate for other tonal characteristics of a particular banjo...) Rattles
and buzzes are also common.
Going on to the other "cheaper" parts...
In the Late 1920's (BEFORE the Crash...) Gibson decided to simplify the
construction of their flange, by combining the tube with the plate - and making
the new one-piece flange by a process called "die casting". Basically, it's
pouring molten metal into a steel mold - and then removing the part when its
cool.
The advantage of die-casting is that the part comes out of the mold with much
finer detail, and nearly perfect surfaces - requiring far less hand-work to
make them ready for plating, painting, etc. Also the parts can be made faster.
Both metal-stamping and die casting significantly reduce the per-part
production cost. But there is a catch. The steel tooling required for either
processs requires a huge financial investment - up front. Currently, such
tooling could easily run between $50,000 and $100,000, or even much higher.
Until just recently, there just wasn't a big enough banjo market to make that
kind of investment worthwhile. Especially for smaller makers.
(Until 10 or 15 years ago, I believe Gibson was STILL using the original dies
for their die-cast flanges - although they had been
refurbished/repaired/modified several times over the years.)
There are some newer processes which can produce cheaper dies - but usually the
number of parts the dies can produce (before wearing out) is far less. Also,
some dies are now being machined in eastern Europe (Czech) China, etc. to
reduce cost.
There is one other significant factor in the die-casting. The preferred metal
to use in die-casting, is one of several soft zinc alloys - often called
"Zamac" or "Zamak". (Supposedly stands for Z-inc, A-luminum, MA-gnesium, and
C-opper.)
Zamac melts at a relatively low temperature, and flows more easily into the
dies. It is lighter in weight than brass or bronze, and not nearly as stiff.
(So instead of ringing when hit - it goes, "clank")
Again, what this does for a 1930's Mastertone-style banjo (versus an earlier
1920's version) is to provide a certain amount of "damping" (sustain reduction)
- as a result of the lighter, less stiff, die-cast flange and tension hoop.
(Of course, there were some other design/construction changes - such as the
HEAVY cast tone ring on a thinner, lighter, less stiff rim - which ALSO have a
tremendous effect on tone...)
Unfortunately, Zamac becomes brittle with age, develops stress cracks easily,
deforms easily, and oxidizes (corodes) easily. (Gee... sounds like me!)
That's fine if you plan on getting a new banjo in 10-15 years. But NOT so good
if you've spent $60,000 on a 70 year-old banjo - with increasingly fragile
die-cast parts.
My point in all this is - that with judicious design, construction, and
adjustment, it's possible to produce excellent banjos, of high quality, without
having to copy old designs, and re-create the same old problems...
Yes, the "cheap" parts work. But there are many other solutions and ways to
meet the tonal requirements (balancing sustain and damping) without sacrificing
quality requirements.
By the way, for anyone interested in more detailed info on Gibson construction,
try Roger Siminoff's (another industrial designer...) site:
www.siminoff.net/pages/gibson_evolution.html
Best-
Michael R. Stanger
Good comments, Ed, and the remarks re/ the drier, less sustainy tone are
on the money. A couple of other thoughts on the subject:
These days, with all the outsourcing of the materials used in banjo
production, the cachet of being made in America, which seems to be
important to many players, really depends on the labor factor more than
any other element. Labor has always played a much bigger part of the
cost and quality of a good banjo than most folks realize, too. Even if
the very best materials are consistantly used, unless everything is
carefully shaped, fitted, assembled, and finished, the final product
won't be worth a damn. (A little-known fact- 60% of the cost of
manufacture goes into the finishing process, which, at Gibson, is
entirely hand work).
Especially during the depression, Gibson realized they could not stand
to lose their work force, which was very effecient and experienced at
that time. The only way they could cut back on production costs was to
substitute lesser quality parts wherever they could.
The other thing- these days, all the good makers are more or less forced
to use these parts to meet the market demands of " just like the old
days". It's a shame, too, because many of these manufacturers would, I'm
sure, just as soon use their own designs (especially with tailpieces)
and use other parts of better quality. In another 20 years, I think the
pendulum will swing back the other way, as it did in the 70's, when all
the good makers did just that. But inbetween, we are making a generation
of banjo players who have a slim chance of learning that there are other
choices available which may suit their playing much better. And there
are lots of expensive banjos being made that won't have the integrity or
durability they easily could have.
regards,
Stanger
In article <20040322151152...@mb-m03.aol.com>,
JohnB58972
I am John Bass. I was not irritated by anybody's comments. I was just trying to
point out that Gibson may have "lucked out" by their jhoice of parts which were
dictated somewhat by costs in the depression. I agree completely with your
statements on the frailty of these parts.I have two original pre war Gibson
five string banjos with Presto tailpieces, zinc one piece flanges, and zinc
stretcher bands. I like a lot of "bonk" in my sound so I don't put a lot of
pressure on any of these parts. My head tap tunes to G ( a lot of present
banjos are too dull with this loose a head ). I hope the parts can stand it.
The choice of parts by modern makers may be partly due to tradition, but it may
have something to do with sound. In the 1970's Gibson "upgraded" the RB-250
with the superior tube and plate flange, a better stretcher band, and a
clamshell tailpiece. Professional banjo players bought very few of these banjos
- preferring copies of more traditional designs. Current Gibsons are as close
to the original designs as Gibson can get and are more successful in the market
place. Other makers such as Deering, Tennessee Crafters, Steve Huber (
especially Steve Huber ) and others have also copied the original Gibson banjos
as closely as possible.
My comments are not meant to be critical and are irrelevant if you are not
playing traditional bluegrass. But if you are, it might be worth looking at
tradition. There seems to be some magic involved.
John Bass in Mobile AL
Trying to play since 1958
Thor
>> banjos.
I believe Bill has preferred (and uses) the Price straight pull since
they came out.
He had one on his Gibson top tension, as well as on his Rich & Taylor.
(This may have changed)
I'm surprised the Price hasn't been mentioned in this thread.
To me, it only makes sense to have the strings going straight to the
tailpiece. (The only reason the pre-wars didn't, was because they used a
modified presto four string tailpiece) Obviously, the biggest impact is
on string tension.
Dirk
tailpiece. I asked him about it and he recommended it highly - which
is why I got one for my 1990 Granada.
Here's my experience and advice - my Granada did not sound that good
with its original Presto tailpiece (1990 vintage), so I got a
gold-plated Price tailpiece. It sounded marginally better, but I
wasn't sure if the improvement wasn't due to a placebo effect. Then,
one time I was messing around with the head and tailpiece and the
banjo sounded terrific - just like the opening notes to Beverly
Hillbillies on a good TV - bassy, and poppy, twangy, and old at the
same time. When I looked at the tailpiece, I saw that I had mounted
it "wrong" - the corner of the tailpiece was about 1/5" above the
tension hoop. When I "fixed" it by bringing the corner down close to
the tension hoop, the great sound disappereared. I adjusted the
corner so that it was again 1/5" above the tension hoop (about the
thickness of an ordinary ballpoint pen refill and I've done so ever
since).
I also noticed that raising the corner of the Price tailpiece reduced
the sustain to more Presto-like levels, except that the sound was
better than when I had the Presto mounted. When the corner of Price
is all the way down to the tension hoop, the sustain can be too much
making the banjo sound somewhat like an electric guitar. I've heard
other people complain about the Prices causing too much sustain -
raising the corner reduces it. With the Price adjusted this way, the
Granada sounds older and more Earl-like than it does with the Presto
it came with. I've had people compliment my banjo's tone at
festivals, and several even wrote in to banjo-l about "Bessie".
For those who want to try to get that sound with a Price, here's the
rest of my setup:
I keep very little downward pressure from the tailpiece, applying
about 1/8 to 1/2 a turn of the tailpiece adjustment screw from zero
pressure depending on how live the room is.
I use a Remo-Huber head tuned to g# and GHS JD Crowe strings. I also
shim the resonator a bit (1/4" at the two lugs away from the neck, no
shims at the two lugs close to the neck.
KID BJO
Yeah , I have a 91 Granada and had the same experience...I prolly have my price
alittle higher off the tension hoop than you.
I used to really crank it down thinkin I was gettin max volume, but I was
really chokin the sound with too much pressure on the bridge feet.I just keep
the angle level with the head and have it up about 3/16 off the hoop.Really
opened her up. The price offers a more even tension on the bridge .
Id like to try that shimmin the resonator for tuning the air chamber.Did it
take ya long to reach a desired tone a volume?
John in WV.