Tailpiece

[Jazzer]

Why are *some* tailpieces longer on the bass (4-6) strings than on the
treble (1-3)?
Many wood saddles are slanted in this fashion.
There's also the Frequensator tailpiece that adopts a longer bass side.

TIA

[SB]

Good question. More Tension ? I see no reason other than decoration. None of my guitars have longer bass strings. DA certainly did do this however. And what is with wooden tailpieces: they have to have metal under the wood, otherwise no grounded strings or poorly grounded strings. In addition the wood can break unless solid metal is under it. I've seen some wooden tail pieces with copper tape under them: no thank you.

[Mitch]

You be better off asking a luthier, but I believe it's to help even out the tension between the strings.
Mitch

[rpjazzguitar]

The length of string which is not vibrating is relevant in a certain way. This refers to the amount of string past the nut and past the bridge, at least in guitars where the strings can slide over the nut and bridge.

It doesn't change the tension required for the string to be tuned to pitch. That depends on the vibrating length and the density.

But, when you deflect the string, it stretches and slides over the nut and bridge. So, the non-vibrating lengths are also stretching.

So, if you deflect the string, say to bend up to another note, the more non-vibrating length, the further you're going to have to deflect it to achieve the pitch. Also, as you start to bend, it will seem more flexible. That means that the action will feel "softer" as you fret notes if there's a lot of string behind the bridge and nut.

[Jazzer]

What if you don't do any bending/stretching of the string? Especially
the low strings (4-6)?

[SB]

Yea, the longer the scale (length) the more tension on the string. This is why Godin scales are longer for the nylon string models: low weight strings. The tension depends on the scale which is the measurement from the nut to the saddle (the part that mounts the bridge). The tail piece is decoration.

T (Tension) = (W x (2 x L x F)2) / 386.4,

where UW is string weight (spec'd), L is length, F is frequency. So tension is proportional to length. More length means more tension. The string gauge should be spec'd on the string, so I prefer to buy strings with similar gauge and not sets. But I am crazy, so ignore me.

http://www.daddario.com/DAstringtensionguide.Page?sid=a7703f58-0983-4fd9-845c-0060db814acf

[Rocky]

I recently viewed the rig rundowns of Larry Carlton and
Robben Ford. Interestingly, both talked about the specific
placement of the stop piece affecting the tone. Almost like
there was some voodoo.

If I remember right, Carlton (or his tech) said the
placement on his favorite 335 was different than other
Gibsons. He attributed this to what he perceived as a
better tone. Ford had a guitar setup done to duplicate the
same dimensions as Carlton's.

Is this a similar concept to introducing different lengths
post bridge? Finding that "sweet spot"? Can it be
attributed to a mathematical formula?

More stuff to worry about...

[SB]

I think rpjazzguitar nailed it with stretching. But other than that point is as you said voodoo IMO.
I'd want the low E to have more length, not less, just to make it easier to put the string on the tuner wrap. Go figure.

[Jazzer]

On 8/23/2014 3:19 PM, Rocky wrote:

> Is this a similar concept to introducing different lengths
> post bridge? Finding that "sweet spot"? Can it be
> attributed to a mathematical formula?
>
> More stuff to worry about...
>

I would like an expert on this stuff to weigh in. :)

I believe there are two aspects involved with the string after it
crosses the bridge.

My George Benson GB-10 original tailpiece (that I just replaced)
covered the two aspects.

The tailpiece:

1. Allows for the angle break from the bridge to be adjusted (up or down)
2. Has the bass strings (4-6) set back about .5" from the treble strings.

I believe that these two aspects influence the feel of the strings
(tension etc.) I know the first does, I'm not sure about the second.

TIA

[Tony Done]

I think it alters resonances, since the strings behind the bridge act as
sympathetics to whatever you are playing on the string proper. - Think
sitar. I suppose that different styles of tailpieces will have different
effects, or at least that is what the hype will tell us. - These things
are a bit like fishing lures, they catch more fishermen than fish.

FWIW, I have been thinking of changing the stop tailpiece on my ES335
knockoff (1982 Matsumoku Westone) to an ES330 archtop style to see how
it affects that tone, just as an experiment.

--
Tony Done

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456

http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/

[rpjazzguitar]

The breakover angle seems significant to me because it affects the downward force of the bridge on the top of the guitar. Seems to me that there would have to be a sweetspot, but, for all I know, it might be a theoretical one --- meaning as a practical matter, the more force the better.

I experimented with it on solid body years ago and I didn't hear much, if any, difference.

It will also affect bending, I would assume, since the friction force is increased by the downward pressure.

But, the exact reason why you would want more length on the bass strings is not clear to me. It might have something to do with the tendency of the player to pull the strings across the fretboard by accident. E.g. pulling the low E towards the low A string by accident. The more stretchable length behind the bridge, the less the deflection will be heard as pitch change. But, I'm guessing.

[DanielleOM]

I had looked at this years ago and actually went as far as to make
spreadsheets. However, when I put the data together I used the scale
length for "L". I do think that was correct in that I was calculating
tension on the string. Although I would agree more string length beyond
the nut or bridge makes it easier to depress, I think that is something,
not addressed by the formula.

This topic almost makes me surprised, people have not come out with
specific sets for Gibson and Fender style headstocks.

Danielle

[Tony Done]

Hmm, I don't think so, because normal archtop tailpieces are hinged, so
they will from a straight line between bridge and end block
attachment/back edge of the guitar, and hance the same break angle, no
matter what size or shape they are. However, it would become a
consideration if the tailpiece was supported in some way above the top
of the guitar. This is the case in many resos, where the break angle is
less than the straight line between bridge and the back edge of the guitar.

Many electric guitarists claim that the action feels softer if there is
a lot of string at the headstock or tailpiece, so there might be
something in that. Reso action seems softer than flattop, but I've
always assumed it is a property of the resonator cone rather than the
tailpiece, maybe I'm wrong.

[SB]

I know that Gilad Heckselman experimented with a very small tail piece in order to put more string between the bridge and the tail piece. I believe that it had to do with using that section of strings to acquire additional tonality in a chime effect. I heard from a master player (whose name I will not say) who told me that luthiers sometimes use the tail piece to change string tension. But the details are unknown to me as to how or why longer low E, A with a shorter tail piece can affect string tension. Especially since tension is technically measured by the scale, string width, and frequency, and the tail piece does not enter the equation at all for tension.

I looked around the internet and found nothing. I think a luthier may know more. Builders know quirks and tricks. It is a very good question IMO. The answer may be to ask a builder the question.

[Tony Done]

Yeah, I can't see how the tailpiece can affect the tension-at-pitch, it
just isn't physics. However, it can affect the elasticity as discussed,
and maybe the way the string shifts pitch on the attack. Again, resos
are good at that, they sound like an elastic band if you pick them hard.

[Jazzer]

On 8/23/2014 9:32 PM, SB wrote:

>
> I looked around the internet and found nothing. I think a luthier may know more.
> Builders know quirks and tricks. It is a very good question IMO.
>The answer may be to ask a builder the question.
>

OK time for more info.

The reason I asked the question is because I recently had a small ebony
tailpiece cut for me. Nothing fancy, just basically a block the same
shape and size as a traditional Gibson diamond tailpiece stop that holds
the strings on an archtop (ES-175, ES-150, ES-135, ES-125 etc.).

I kept the wire that held the original tailpiece stop and the piece that
attaches to the body. I just replaced the stop that holds the strings.

When I got home and started sanding the wood I was thinking about ways
to possibly improve on the design and also about the tailpiece it was
replacing.

It's replacing the George Benson GB-10 tailpiece. That thing is a
monster! It weighs more than .8 lb.

Bit by bit I have been reducing the weight of my archtop guitars and my
GB-10 was next up. I must have easily taken off more than 2 lbs so far.

As I mentioned the GB-10 tailpiece has a longer 6-4 string length after
the bridge and I wondered what was the reason behind it.

If it's anything significant I can ask that my next tailpiece be
shortened on the 6-4 strings in likewise fashion (or rather lengthened
on the 3-1 strings).

As far as the break angle is concerned, I learned a big lesson about it
a couple of years ago with my small-sized acoustic Martin.
I had increased the break angle from the saddle to the pin holes many
years ago thinking it would improve its tone and volume.

I really didn't hear much improvement at all. But later, by comparing
other Martins to mine I saw that most had shallower break angles. The
clincher came when I tried some small-sized Martins like mine that were
much easier to play (softer) than mine.
Sure enough, they too had shallower break angles.

Last year I got out some tools and decreased the break angle on my
Martin and immediately noticed a huge improvement in playability.

[rpjazzguitar]

I would speculate that "playability" refers to how easy it is to depress the strings. All other things being equal, the length of the string behind the bridge makes it easier to depress the string. That's because the entire string is stretching. Maybe counterintuitive, but the more string there is to stretch, the easier it is to stretch it a specific amount. Think about a rubber band a mile long to get the idea.

If the breakover angle isn't changing the overall length of the string, then I'd guess it's making it harder for the string to slide over the bridge. Like a locking bridge, sort of. That means there's less string to stretch, so stretching it is more difficult. And, of course, when you fret a note you're stretching the string.

I experimented with screwing my stud tailpieces down hard years ago. I didn't hear a difference. I don't recall feeling a difference either. I ended up preferring the feel of a longer length of non-vibrating string. The guitar feels softer and I can still bend notes adequately.

[SB]

The tension is a function of the vibrating string length, gauge, and frequency.

T (Tension) = (W x (2 x L x F)2) / 386.4 as L is is the length from nut to saddle.

To change the formula like this:
T (Tension) = (W x (2 x L x F)2) / 386.4 + magical nut to tuner X + magical saddle to tail piece Y

is apparently not the of concern to physics at this point. It may be the concern of human interaction with instrument, but X and Y need to be quantified. I cannot find X and Y factors online. Good question to ask a luthier. I have an open mind, so if anyone can find proof please post.

[mcle...@comcast.net]

Ok, I am going to give it a shot as the semi-luthier/ repairman. The
tailpiece where the strings end up do not make a huge different just get an
epiphone frequencator and experiment. It was designed to be either
long-short on bass or treble, and you could have two short pieces, or two
long pieces. Did the experiment many years ago and could not really tell
much difference sound wise, or how the guitar played. Nothing definitive in
all that I have seen and read that makes conclusive evidence that is
repeatable. It is not repeatable because all guitars are different and too
many variables. So in the end it all depends. I think the more important
question and the question that does make more of a difference is if the
tailpiece is metal or wood. It also matters that if the tailpiece is wood
that the string still need to have contact with some property of metal at
least at the point the string go through the holes in the tailpiece.

I have said it before and still preach that I personally find metal
tailpiece guitars respond better. I find the strings need to be anchored in
good old brass, and the guitar is livelier and sounds more open. Not all
have embraced what my ears hear and that is ok, buy the guitar you want and
play it. For my money they still have not made any guitars that sound better
or more open than those old Super 400's, L5, D'a, and Strombergs. Have also
done the experiment of wood vs metal tailpiece and there were differences
for sure and could be heard, however each ear is different so what I like
you may not. Jimmy D a quisto used the traditional tailpieces at first and
later changed and his guitars all sounded great. His later guitars the
difference in string length behind the bridge was even or close unlike his
earlier guitars and his wooded tailpieces still had anchors for the strings
in metal and different than some of the ebony tailpieces I have seen. On
another more his guitars sound good and I still prefer the sound he got our
of the metal tailpieces. I will say though Jimmy had me play is Avant Garde
in around 1991 and pretty hard to find a better guitar for
sound................it played unreal.



Deacon Mark Cleary
Epiphany Roman Catholic Church


"rpjazzguitar" wrote in message
news:fb00b8bf-a1cf-4eff...@googlegroups.com...

[SB]

Hi Deacon Mark,

Thank you for the great post. I am having hard time understanding something simple. Why does a shorter tail piece relieve the string tension ? In my mind it seems like the length of string would increase due to the increased distance to the tail piece. Thus requiring an increase in the string tension to play in tune. Of course the shorter tail piece will relieve string tension if the axe is untuned.

It is a fact that longer scale guitars feel tighter than shorter scales guitars because of increased string tension due to tightening longer strings. So I am curious as to why the short tail piece is said to decrease string tension.

Any thoughts ? Thanks.

[mcle...@comcast.net]

I don't think a shorter tailpiece at the end does reduce the tension as you
already know the scale length of the string is the key, not to mention the
string gauge. Another aspect the the height of the bridge as in breaks over
the guitar. A steeper angle has an effect on the sound. Bill Hollenbeck on
purpose increase the angle of the saddle breaking over the top of the
guitar, changing from how Bill Barker made his guitars. In effect the arch
of the guitar was higher and he reasoned it made the guitar more responsive
and louder. I can attest that my 18 inch Hollenbeck is my most lively guitar
with the most power and clarity. In comparison to my 1949 D'angelico, the
Hollenbeck is louder and a more crisp but not all trebly. The D'a does have
bit more round bottom sound and especially when playing chords nearer to the
nut. The Hollenbeck has bit more midrange. The D'a in quite smooth and the
Hollenbeck a bit more aggressive. My friend in town how has a couple of
Hollenbecks and a Barker likes the Hollenbeck he has better than
mine..............so go figure.

Bill Hollenbeck himself made guitars acoustically for response. He was not
building them as some modern builders in that the guitar will be amplified.
Certainly almost all Hollenbecks guitars had neck mounted pick ups but he
buit the guitar only concerned with the acoustic response. My own Barker is
another good comparison as it is a 17 inch with 24 27/32 scale length.
Please note this is not 24.75 as most will advertise that is the exact. This
Barker does have a softer feel to the strings and for that reason I actually
use at times 12- .54 string instead of the normal .12 - .52 for my other
guitars. Oh forgot to mention I do use a .13 for the top on the D'a it
response better to a .13. But again it I find other guitars I have that have
25.5 and feel equally soft as the Barker.

Just to go on I prefer strings 12,16,24,32,42,52 gauge. Sometimes a .13 on
top and even a .17 for the B. The key with this set is the .24 3rd which I
think has a much better response than a .22 and yet a .26 gets too much
tension and feels different. I never use Bronze strings either even playing
acoustically I prefer nickel and as far as I know not many in my camp. In
effect what I believe this that all of these items are much more important
that what length the tailpiece happens to be. The beauty of the archtop
guitar is all of the variables that can be change with basically no
modifications to the guitar. Change the saddle from ebony to metal
tunomatic, swap a tailpiece, go from ebony to rosewood on the saddle ( not
much diff), change the angle of the tailpiece as it sits on the guitar, and
finally you can simply raise of lower the action in a touch. Combine this
with all the various string combinations and you can spend some serious time
trying to get a different set up or sound. I urge all my customer who bring
guitars in for set up an repair to spend some serious time doing all these
types of things with your guitar.

Now compared to a flat-top you can see why a player should do this with his
jazz box. You just cannot do these things with a Martin D45. I have run my
mouth enough hope this might help.

Deacon Mark Cleary
Epiphany Roman Catholic Church

"SB" wrote in message
news:5f267632-0bc0-4f0e...@googlegroups.com...

[SB]

Excellent response. Thank you for checking back and posting Mark. Seems like you ARE a luthier.

[hodge12]

the Benedetto book talks addresses the issue of string length from bridge to tailpiece. He says it makes no difference in tension, but thats with cello style tailpiece.

[decap...@yahoo.com]

First of all. The shorter tailpiece will ABSOLUTELY lesson tension on the strings. John D'Angelico believed it, Jimmy D'Aqusito believed it and Roger Borys PROVED it to me. I use medium gauge with a 14E. With a 25.1 scale which originally sported a regular length tailpiece. The tension was rather stiff with this gauge. The problem was totally alleviated with a shorter tailpiece. Recently, Roger designed a custom tailpiece for me which has a gradient design like the "harp" looking style...looking like the NYC skyline, for example. I wanted a trifle extra tension on the low E, so and a trifle less tension on the high E. He designed the tailpiece in such a way that the low E was closer to the tailpiece and the high E was a little further a way. Roger solved the problem. The ax is a mutha to my specs. Not all luthiers know about this, but 1: I go by Jimmy D'Aqusito and 2: my own verification. There is a matter of physics involved and if anyone may be interested, you can e mail me. Thats all I have to say. What I wrote is fact. Sometimes what appears as common sense is in reality an exact opposite of reality.

[Gerry]

Throughout most of the 70's I toured in hotel bands playing a 1968
Gibson ES345td (Stereo). The "Lucille" as it came to be called later
because BB played it. I was entranced because it was stereo and for a
short while I played it split through two Ampeg amps for no significant
zazz. I'm almost glad I got them stolen in a house burglary or I'd
have gone deaf in a couple of years. Two 4-12" speaker cabinets.
Insane. Ten years later a friend produced two 2-12 cabinets and kept
one for the labor. Did a great job so I kept my half of the deal in a
garage for the next 25 years.

I played that 345 for about 8 years. After about 4 of them, I had some
guy bore a few holes in it for a stop tailpiece and remove the trapeze.
I was convinced I could get more consistent sustain. And I did. The
luthier that did the work, about 1974, kept asking me, "Are you sure
you want to do this?" It was just a guitar, not a "collector's item",
so I was sure.

Without question, it gave me better sustain. That's all I know on the topic.

[Tony Done]

I'm about to put tailpiece on my Westone 335 knockoff, and use
heavier (13-56) strings. I've been thinking about it for months, and as
a result of this thread, I'm going to try it. It will be fully
reversible. After discussions with my guitar tech mates, I expect to
lose a little sustain, and hopefully gain some "acousticness" in
exchange. I'll report back on the result.

[thomas]

Guys were crazy about sustain in those days. Remember the brass nuts?

[Gerry]

On 2014-08-25 14:25:46 +0000, thomas said:

>> Without question, it gave me better sustain. That's all I know on the topic.>
>
> Guys were crazy about sustain in those days. Remember the brass nuts?

Yeah; we all wanted to sound like sax players. Seemingly, most still
do. I went from those plastic bridge pieces in a tune-o-matic to metal.

I'm still crazy about sustain, though not of the overdrive variety as
back in ye olden times. I just want to be able to get chords to hold
in solo arrangements. Same word, different approach.
--
Sunday is my new usenet day. All the others are for fun.

[thomas]

On Monday, August 25, 2014 10:46:52 AM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
>
> I'm still crazy about sustain, though not of the overdrive variety as back in ye olden times. I just want to be able to get chords to hold in solo arrangements.>

Solution: Telecaster with standard ashtray bridge. Can't beat them for piano-like chords with clarity and sustain ala Ted Greene. Can be tweaked by adding a heavy brass bridge, maybe a mahogany neck and body too.

[Tony Done]

I've been circling around a similar idea, except mine would be a
hardtail strat with mahogany neck. I would go for strat because I would
have a universal pickup rout, and pickguard choices would be easier. But
the choice between it and tele wouldn't be a big deal for me. - Both look OK

[Gerry]

Thanks for the Bickertian solution: I'm doing great with the Brian
Moore i8. It's the most sustainy guitar I've yet encountered, quite
similar to a Telecaster, though with (what I recall as) less weight and
the 13-pin aspects.

I note that what I bought 7-8 years ago for about $875 now costs around 2k.

[thomas]

I think a lot of the sustainy-clarity that a Tele gives to complex chords is due to the extra mass in the body and the bridge, relative to other guitar designs. When you go to a hard-tail Strat design, you give up some mass in both components.

[2cts]

Probably. Designing a special center of mass, even spin behaviour etc.
possibly can make a certain difference (eg. in overall handling it)...

++
The Mental Handle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqYj4NHh7Fo

[Tony Done]

<g> You could use a trem bridge with a big brass block, and just block
it if you didn't want to use the trem. <g again) Ya want heavy, get an
LP. I have a very deep dislike of heavy in guitars, which is why I
rarely play my LP Special. If I built a bitsa, I would use a Warmoth
chambered body, sustain be damned.

[SB]

Excellent super response TD !! Since you experienced this with Borys then it is fact. Very difficult for me to grasp because I did not have this unique experience. Thank you for posting and sharing.

[Tony Done]

OK, I put a short (reso) tailpiece on, 13-56 strings and tuned to open
E. I think it feels a bit softer than I would expect from that fairly
tight tuning, but I can't hear on obvious sustain difference. I'm
skeptical about the whole thing because confirmation bias.

[Gerry]

I'm curious to know what the "whole thing" is. I went from a trapeze
to stop tailpiece. Probably played .10's with regular tuning. Is that
what you did?

[Tony Done]

OK, I completed the test by putting the stop tailpiece back on.

Initially I wasn't happy with the guitar, because I couldn't get the
string-to-string balance right (SD Jazz pickups) with the plain 3rd on
of the 10-46 (Ernie Ballnickel plated steel) set in open E, so I changed
both the tailpiece and the strings - to 13-56 EB nickel-plated steel. I
know this is sloppy, but I was doing the comparison in my previous post
with the same strings and tuning on other guitars, and that is what my
comments were based on.

Having gone back to the stop tailpiece, with 13-56, I think that the
feel is a little harder again, but I still can't convinced myself about
the sustain. FWIW, this particular guitar is very frustrating, it has
nice acoustic tone, but with the standard series-wired pickups it has a
nasty nasal honk. I know it isn't the pickups, because I have the same
set in another guitar and they sound great. My fix has been to install a
series/parallel/single switch. The guitar sounds a lot better in
parallel or single more than in series - <g> I like "acousticness", not
those smooth jazz tones.

[David J. Littleboy]

"Gerry" wrote:
>
>Thanks for the Bickertian solution: I'm doing great with the Brian Moore
>i8. It's the most sustainy guitar I've yet encountered, quite similar to a
>Telecaster, though with (what I recall as) less weight and the 13-pin
>aspects.

http://www.iguitar.com/i2000/i2000Models.asp?guitar=i8

Yow! That's a way more radical guitar than I think of you as playing<g>.

I like the emerald green the i1 is available in.

>I note that what I bought 7-8 years ago for about $875 now costs around 2k.

If you don't need the synth pickup, it's more like 1500.

Like Joey, I'm looking at G&L. The Asian mfd version is $600, but the
version with the Seth Lover is US$1600. The reviews say that it doesn't
quite do the tele twang thing, though. Not that I need said tele twang
thing, of course.

http://www.glguitars.com/instruments/usa/guitars/asat-classic-bluesboy-semihollow/index.asp

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[Gerry]

Your mileage varies.

[Gerry]

On 2014-08-26 08:45:04 +0000, David J. Littleboy said:

> "Gerry" wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the Bickertian solution: I'm doing great with the Brian
>> Moore i8. It's the most sustainy guitar I've yet encountered, quite
>> similar to a Telecaster, though with (what I recall as) less weight and
>> the 13-pin aspects.
>
> http://www.iguitar.com/i2000/i2000Models.asp?guitar=i8
>
> Yow! That's a way more radical guitar than I think of you as playing<g>.

There is certainly some cognitive dissonance between the look of the
guitar, and may chatter about Lang, Barnes and the like. But it is
Bickertian in substance. The one I play is the i8.13, part of the
i1000 series. In natural/blond:

http://iguitarworkshop.com/iGuitar81.13.USBNatural.aspx

> I like the emerald green the i1 is available in.
>
>> I note that what I bought 7-8 years ago for about $875 now costs around 2k.
>
> If you don't need the synth pickup, it's more like 1500.

With the 13-pin it's $1395. The Seymour Duncans, the case and the
sperzels add $325, $129 and $120 respectively: $1969, without shipping.
It predates their use of usb out. Mine was made in Korea and finished
in Massachusetts at that time. I'm guessing now they are doing it all
in the US now.

> Like Joey, I'm looking at G&L. The Asian mfd version is $600, but the
> version with the Seth Lover is US$1600. The reviews say that it doesn't
> quite do the tele twang thing, though. Not that I need said tele twang
> thing, of course.
>
> http://www.glguitars.com/instruments/usa/guitars/asat-classic-bluesboy-semihollow/index.asp
>

If I had no need for the 13-pin, it would be a vastly wider range of options.

[David J. Littleboy]

"Gerry" wrote:

>> Like Joey, I'm looking at G&L. The Asian mfd version is $600, but the
>> version with the Seth Lover is US$1600. The reviews say that it doesn't
>> quite do the tele twang thing, though. Not that I need said tele twang
>> thing, of course.
>>
>> http://www.glguitars.com/instruments/usa/guitars/asat-classic-bluesboy-semihollow/index.asp
>
>If I had no need for the 13-pin, it would be a vastly wider range of
>options.

Right. I'm not interested in midi: having all sorts of synth sounds just
reminds me of how few tunes I can play when I notice I'm doing the same
thing over and over again in different patches. There presumably are musical
reasons to do midi, but none that do anything here at the present. I do,
however, reserve the right to have a midi gas attack at some later time.

By the way, I have the Traveller micro-strat almost tamed. Pickup and
string height adjustments work well. At first, it made this amazingly
obnoxious hum when I wasn't touching the strings, but that seems to be less
problematic of late. Even with .011 flatwounds, it sounds kind of
twangy/nasally, though.

[Gerry]

On 2014-08-26 16:05:57 +0000, David J. Littleboy said:

> "Gerry" wrote:
>
>>> Like Joey, I'm looking at G&L. The Asian mfd version is $600, but the
>>> version with the Seth Lover is US$1600. The reviews say that it doesn't
>>> quite do the tele twang thing, though. Not that I need said tele twang
>>> thing, of course.
>>>
>>> http://www.glguitars.com/instruments/usa/guitars/asat-classic-bluesboy-semihollow/index.asp
>>>
>>
>> If I had no need for the 13-pin, it would be a vastly wider range of options.
>
> Right. I'm not interested in midi: having all sorts of synth sounds
> just reminds me of how few tunes I can play when I notice I'm doing the
> same thing over and over again in different patches. There presumably
> are musical reasons to do midi, but none that do anything here at the
> present. I do, however, reserve the right to have a midi gas attack at
> some later time.

My predominant use for the 13-pin is getting midi data into the
computer. I can score things faster using the guitar than using the
keyboard, play bass lines in that then reconfigure it to a different
sample sound for playback. Also, though unpublished, I can play guitar
arrangements directly into a sheet music format. In this way I can
remind myself how to play tunes I arranged last year and then forgot.

Additionally, with the GR55 that I'm now using, it more or less
replaces my Boss GT-3 for amp/guitar modeling, sigproc and all the
rest--none of which is "synth sounds" per se.

All that said, my love of the instrument's feel, sitting in the living
room completely away from gizmotronics (outside my little amp) is still
what I do most of these days.

> By the way, I have the Traveller micro-strat almost tamed. Pickup and
> string height adjustments work well. At first, it made this amazingly
> obnoxious hum when I wasn't touching the strings, but that seems to be
> less problematic of late. Even with .011 flatwounds, it sounds kind of
> twangy/nasally, though.

That's the EG-2, right? If so, it at least has a neck pickup. I find
the sound of the Speedster with its lone single-coil bridge pickup much
brighter than anything I've ever played, so I've certainly got the tone
rolled down. I've yet to buy a headphone amp but I'm going way cheap
and light on that: $25 or something.

I changed to .11 flats as well and find the tension slightly stronger
that I'd like, but not quite problematic. Changing the strings is a
big stinking nuisance, as I assumed. Using wire-cutters to clip the
end of the string close, produced 3 nice gouges in the finish on the
back with very little effort. Additionally, I really have to work hard
to get the string nub bent down and away or it gouges/tears at my
shirt, or pants. I also find tuning it a chore.

I got my replacement unit that included the Speedster's removable
forearm rest, and the appropriate case. It makes playing it much
easier because the rest is there, but the the other end of the rest
comes to a point which digs into my ribs. Reinventing the mousetrap is
damned difficult stuff!

All that aside: I hope it lets me avoid guitar-withdrawal over a
significant time traveling.

[Tony Done]

>> Initially I wasn't happy with the guitar, because I couldn't get the
>> string-to-string balance right (SD Jazz pickups) with the plain 3rd on
>> of the 10-46 (Ernie Ballnickel plated steel) set in open E, so I
>> changed both the tailpiece and the strings - to 13-56 EB nickel-plated
>> steel. I know this is sloppy, but I was doing the comparison in my
>> previous post with the same strings and tuning on other guitars, and
>> that is what my comments were based on.
>>
>> Having gone back to the stop tailpiece, with 13-56, I think that the
>> feel is a little harder again, but I still can't convinced myself
>> about the sustain. FWIW, this particular guitar is very frustrating,
>> it has nice acoustic tone, but with the standard series-wired pickups
>> it has a nasty nasal honk. I know it isn't the pickups, because I have
>> the same set in another guitar and they sound great. My fix has been
>> to install a series/parallel/single switch. The guitar sounds a lot
>> better in parallel or single more than in series - <g> I like
>> "acousticness", not those smooth jazz tones.
>
> Your mileage varies.

Yeah, I would expect a lot of variation among individual guitars, and
wider experience is on your side. Also, I tend to err very much on the
conservative side in my estimates of effects. - I've been caught by
confirmation bias enough times in the past.

[van]

All of Roger's B-120s have adjustable tailpieces. He tried to explain the theory behind it, but I was too stunad to understand what the heck he was talking about.; - )

[Gerry]

On 2014-08-26 17:28:26 +0000, Gerry said:

>> By the way, I have the Traveller micro-strat almost tamed. Pickup and
>> string height adjustments work well. At first, it made this amazingly
>> obnoxious hum when I wasn't touching the strings, but that seems to be
>> less problematic of late. Even with .011 flatwounds, it sounds kind of
>> twangy/nasally, though.
>

> I changed to .11 flats as well and find the tension slightly stronger
> that I'd like, but not quite problematic. Changing the strings is a
> big stinking nuisance, as I assumed. Using wire-cutters to clip the
> end of the string close, produced 3 nice gouges in the finish on the
> back with very little effort. Additionally, I really have to work hard
> to get the string nub bent down and away or it gouges/tears at my
> shirt, or pants. I also find tuning it a chore.

So today I played the Speedster for a couple of hours and the tension
is too much. I particularly note it in the first three or four
positions. For the first time, I measured my Brian Moore and this
Traveler Speedster. The former is 25.75 and the later 25. That's
mighty informative. Whenever the rest of my guitars are liberated from
the garage I'll have to measure them too.

Today I'm going to buy some .10 flatwraps and see if I can get more
parity in feel between my main guitar and this temporal interloper.

[Tony Done]

I wonder how many of these playing comfort problems are related to set
up rather than string gauge, elasticity or tension. For example,
problems at the low frets might be due to too much neck relative or
too-high nut slots. Do you check the set up on guitars that don't feel
right? Another factor for me is neck profile, but not so much as set up.

[Gerry]

On 2014-08-27 19:17:14 +0000, Tony Done said:

>> Today I'm going to buy some .10 flatwraps and see if I can get more
>> parity in feel between my main guitar and this temporal interloper.
>
> I wonder how many of these playing comfort problems are related to set
> up rather than string gauge, elasticity or tension. For example,
> problems at the low frets might be due to too much neck relative or
> too-high nut slots.

That aspect as least, doesn't seem to be the issue.

> Do you check the set up on guitars that don't feel right? Another
> factor for me is neck profile, but not so much as set up.

I don't check set ups and never had a guitar set up, per se, in the
first 40 years or so of playing the instrument. Go figure, I guess I
was always really lucky. No fret buzzing, no dead spots, no tuning
issues, no nothing. I barely understand it now, and I guess that's a
good thing.

[Jazzer]

On 8/26/2014 4:45 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> Like Joey, I'm looking at G&L. The Asian mfd version is $600, but the
> version with the Seth Lover is US$1600. The reviews say that it doesn't
> quite do the tele twang thing, though. Not that I need said tele twang
> thing, of course.
>
> http://www.glguitars.com/instruments/usa/guitars/asat-classic-bluesboy-semihollow/index.asp

It's a nice-looking guitar. Too bad it's 25.5" scale. :(

[Jazzer]

Finally we have some hard opinions on this.
However they are somewhat conflicting. :(

Hodge12:

> the Benedetto book talks addresses the issue of string length from >
> bridge to tailpiece. He says *it makes no difference in tension*, but
> thats with cello style tailpiece.


decap...@yahoo.com wrote:

> First of all. The *shorter tailpiece will ABSOLUTELY lesson tension* on the strings.

> John D'Angelico believed it, Jimmy D'Aqusito believed it and Roger Borys PROVED it to me.


> I use medium gauge with a 14E. With a 25.1 scale which originally sported a regular length tailpiece.

> The tension was rather stiff with this gauge. The problem was totally alleviated with a shorter tailpiece.

My gut feeling tells me that decaprio is right.

I'm messing with other things right now (break angle and change to wood
saddle) but down the road I hope I can experiment with tailpiece length.

I'll tell you one thing. Break angle makes a HUGE difference in string
tension/feel!

[rpjazzguitar]

It seems to me that there's no real disagreement, except in the way the terms are defined.

"Tension" can refer to the tension in the string that gets it up to pitch. As I understand it, for a given vibrating length, string density and pitch, there is only one level of tension. Any other tension will change the tuning of the string.

BUT, "tension" can also refer to the string's resistance to deflection, i.e. bending or even just fretting a note. That "tension" is dependent on the non-vibrating length of the string, IF, the string can slide smoothly over the bridge and nut.

The longer the length of non-vibrating string that can stretch when the note is fretted or bent, the softer the feel of the action. That's because you're stretching a longer length of string.

I suspect, without being certain, that breakover angle makes a difference in how smoothly the string slides over the nut -- mimicking, in effect, a change in the length of non-vibrating string.

The longer the non-vibrating length, the softer the action, but, it will take greater deflection to achieve a specific change in pitch. If you're a blues player trying to bend a note several steps, you'll have to bend it further.

It seems to me, though, that the longer vibrating length would have an impact on intonation, since the amount of stretch involved in fretting a note would change the pitch less. Actually, I'm having trouble thinking that one all the way through. My thought is, if you have to bend a note further to achieve the same pitch change, then why wouldn't deflecting the string the usual distance to fret a note have less impact on pitch? Anyone know?

[Jazzer]

On 8/27/2014 11:40 PM, rpjazzguitar wrote:
> It seems to me that there's no real disagreement, except in the way the terms are defined.

Well that's pretty big. :)

> BUT, "tension" can also refer to the string's resistance to deflection,
>i.e. bending or even just fretting a note.
> That "tension" is dependent on the non-vibrating length of the string,
>IF, the string can slide smoothly over the bridge and nut.

To me they are one and the same.

In my case, because I don't do any string bending with these
guitars, there is basically no string sliding over the bridge and nut.
And because my action is so low, there is hardly any bending even in an
up down direction.

>
> The longer the length of non-vibrating string that can stretch when the note is fretted or bent,
> the softer the feel of the action. That's because you're stretching a longer length of string.

I don't see where stretching comes into play at all.
Once my strings are tuned up, stretching for all intents and purposes,
ceases (see above).

> I suspect, without being certain, that breakover angle makes a difference
> in how smoothly the string slides over the nut -- mimicking, in effect, a change in the length of non-vibrating string.

One again, I don't see how my strings slide over the nut once they
have been tuned. It's not as if I'm using a whammy bar or something. :)
This is jazz guitar right?

[SB]

Well if TD says DAq and Borys both adjusted tail piece length then there IS something to it.

The only tension that matters is the vibrating string tension since that is what the player feels. Both the nut and the bridge string sections have break angles. So the tension is not the same for all three sections of string. Part of the string tension is put on the bridge, a strong force downward that holds the bridge in place called compression. If the string is straight over the bridge, the bridge will be loose. As the angle from a straight 90 degrees from bridge to string, gets smaller, the tension in the string section from bridge to tail piece increases as does the compression force on the bridge.

Because of the break angle there is also torque induced on the vibrating portion of the string. The tension of the bridge to tail piece string is translated directly into the tail piece. So it is my guess that the adjustments on the tail piece change the torque tension component on the vibrating string. And that would be something a pro builder such as Borys and DAq would know though years of experience.

This is an excellent question. I would love to measure the tensions involved scientifically. I think string tension gages are inexpensive. Anyone up to a summer science project ? Possibly uncover a secret of guitar building ? Sounds cool to me...

[Tony Done]

I would be (and have been) using the term "elasticity" for resistance to
deflection.

I think that strings are longer than the theoretical length (2 x the
distance from nut to 12th fret) because they don't vibrate from the
ends, the stiffness causes a non-vibrating zone at each end. The stiffer
the string the longer the non-vibrating zone will be - so a relatively
elastic string will have less intonation adjustment than an inelastic
one, and less effect of fretting. - Witness nylon strings which are very
elastic and have very little intonation adjustment and very little
fretting effect compared to steel strings.

[Arthur Quinn]

I did some calculations about the effect of shortening tailpiece length
or lengthening the dead string length from bridge to tailpiece. How
much is the possible effect on string tension?

Consider the first string (the gauge doesn't matter) on a Gibson Johnny
Smith with string length of 635mm and an action of 2mm at the 12th
fret. Calculate the fractional change in tension when the string is
pressed down to touch the 12th fret.
Assume that the strings are effectively locked at the nut and the
bridge. This can't be strictly true while the instrument is being
brought into tune, otherwise tuning stability would be very poor. This
assumption does, however, give us a shortest possible string and hence
a worst case.

First calculate the stretch in the sounding length required to bring a
plain steel string up to pitch.
This gives a convenient measure of the degree to which tension will
change with further stretching:

density rho = 7.86e3 kg/m**3
young's modulus E = 207e9 Pa
string length ls = 0.635 m
frequency f = 329.63 Hz
action a = 0.002 m

stretch = (4 * rho * ls**3 * f**2) / E = 4.226e-3 m

Now work out the change in string length when the string is depressed
at the half way position:

From Pythagoras the length change, delta_ls = 2 * sqrt ( (ls/2)**2 +
a**2 ) - ls = 12.60e-6 m

The fractional change in tension = (stretch + delta_ls) / stretch =
(4.23e-3 + 12.6e-6) / 4.23e-3 = 1.0030

In other words, the tension goes up by 0.3 %

This is the worst case. Any possible improvement by unlocking the
contact point with the bridge or providing extra string length at the
bridge or nut can only provide a maximum change in this figure of 0.3 %.


Arthur

--
Arthur Quinn
real-email arthur at bellacat dot com

[SB]

Arthur,

So you are saying that more string (shorter tail piece) from bridge to tail piece means that the tension in the vibrating string goes up, or down 0.3% max ? So what does it mean in numbers? 0.3% of pound-force per inch of string or what ? Thanks for doing some math.

[SB]

Meant to say "English numbers" and not metric numbers. Thanks.

[Arthur Quinn]

Calculate tension in Newtons or lb force with a .012 inch string at the
12th fret:

density rho = 7.86e3 kg/m**3

string length ls = 0.635 m
frequency f = 329.63 Hz
action a = 0.002 m

diameter d = 304.8e-6 m

Tension = pi * rho (d * ls * f)**2 = 100.51 N = 22.6 lb

Finger pressure at 12th fret = (Tension * a * 4) / ls = 1.266 N = 0.25 lb

This is the maximum finger pressure to just make the string sound,
assuming that the string is locked at bridge and nut. Since this is
only 0.3% greater than the static tension, it would seem that adding
dead space at the tailpiece and nut can soften the action by no more
than 0.3%.

[Tim McNamara]

Interesting discussion. For decades I have heard guitarists discuss
this sort of thing and I have always struggled with understanding the
physics of it.

Guitar strings are tuned to a pitch which requires a specific tension at
a given string diameter and scale length. Lengthen the string and the
tension to achive that pick has to be increased, shorten it and the
tension would be correspondingly decreased. Decrease the diameter of
the string and the requied tension is decreased, increase the diameter
of the string and the required tension is increased. This is
independent of the length of string between the nut and the tuning post
and the saddle and the tailpiece.

Arthur's math suggests that the greatest magnitude of "softening" the
feel of fretting the string- using his parameters for string diameter,
tension and action height- would be small, perhaps 0.25 lbs of pressure.
However, I think that would be in the range of perceptible differences
for our fingers. At some point the change would be below the threshold
of least discernible difference. We would perceive that difference in
multiple ways- the tactile perception at the fingertips and the
proprioceptive sense of muscle exertion (BTW, due to the mechanics of
the hands, the muscle force exerted is four times that of the pressure
applied at the fingertip).

[Jazzer]

On 8/29/2014 9:01 AM, Arthur Quinn wrote:

> Calculate tension in Newtons or lb force with a .012 inch string at the
> 12th fret:
>
> density rho = 7.86e3 kg/m**3
> string length ls = 0.635 m
> frequency f = 329.63 Hz
> action a = 0.002 m
> diameter d = 304.8e-6 m
>
> Tension = pi * rho (d * ls * f)**2 = 100.51 N = 22.6 lb
>
> Finger pressure at 12th fret = (Tension * a * 4) / ls = 1.266 N =
> 0.25 lb
>
> This is the maximum finger pressure to just make the string sound,
> assuming that the string is locked at bridge and nut. Since this is only
> 0.3% greater than the static tension, it would seem that adding dead
> space at the tailpiece and nut can soften the action by no more than 0.3%.
>
>
> Arthur
>

Arthur, I appreciate the effort you have made to calculate the effects
on string tension by finger pressure.

I also appreciate the previous discourse on string bending etc.

However I don't believe it is salient to
the discussion.

The effect of 'softening' of the string by decreasing the break angle at
the saddle, can be felt with the fingers picking the strings WITHOUT
depressing any strings with the other hand! (thus no bending/stretching
taking place).

I suspect the same result would happen with a shorter tailpiece.

[Gerry]

On 2014-08-29 19:02:05 +0000, Tim McNamara said:

> Interesting discussion. For decades I have heard guitarists discuss
> this sort of thing and I have always struggled with understanding the
> physics of it.

Me too, but mostly I disregarded it all as a distraction.

> Guitar strings are tuned to a pitch which requires a specific tension at
> a given string diameter and scale length. Lengthen the string and the
> tension to achive that pick has to be increased, shorten it and the
> tension would be correspondingly decreased.

I've found just the opposite. I don't profess to know anything other
than my own subjective viewpoint. The longer and shorter scale guitar
had identical strings and action on them, both solid-bodies. The
shorter scale demanded more tension to depress a string and was more
fatiguing over the length of an hour playing.

The shorter the string (mandolin, cavaquinho), the more tension and the
harder to fret.

> Decrease the diameter of
> the string and the requied tension is decreased, increase the diameter
> of the string and the required tension is increased. This is
> independent of the length of string between the nut and the tuning post
> and the saddle and the tailpiece.
>
> Arthur's math suggests that the greatest magnitude of "softening" the
> feel of fretting the string- using his parameters for string diameter,
> tension and action height- would be small, perhaps 0.25 lbs of pressure.
> However, I think that would be in the range of perceptible differences
> for our fingers. At some point the change would be below the threshold
> of least discernible difference. We would perceive that difference in
> multiple ways- the tactile perception at the fingertips and the
> proprioceptive sense of muscle exertion (BTW, due to the mechanics of
> the hands, the muscle force exerted is four times that of the pressure
> applied at the fingertip).

[Arthur Quinn]

To be precise, the calculation shows that with the given parameters,
the worst case actual fretting force at the 12th fret is 0.25 lb and
that this can only be reduced by a maximum of 0.3% or by shortening
the tailpiece or whatever. I very much doubt whether a change of 0.3%
or 0.0075 lb would be perceptible, particularly when one considers that
the actual force used will be greater than the minimum since it also
has to overcome the kick of the string as it ia plucked.

[Arthur Quinn]

This is a different problem from the tailpiece one, involving as it
does a change in the sounding string length. It must be capable of
explanation. A couple of variables I could suggest are:

1) While a shorter string will have less tension, this will increase
the amplitude of vibration for a given pick stroke requiring the string
to be pressed down harder to stop it buzzing.

2) Low frets allow the soft finger tip to rest on the fingerboard,
wasting some of the finger pressure.

[Gerry]

On 2014-08-27 18:59:06 +0000, Gerry said:

> So today I played the Speedster for a couple of hours and the tension
> is too much. I particularly note it in the first three or four
> positions. For the first time, I measured my Brian Moore and this
> Traveler Speedster. The former is 25.75 and the later 25. That's
> mighty informative. Whenever the rest of my guitars are liberated from
> the garage I'll have to measure them too.
>
> Today I'm going to buy some .10 flatwraps and see if I can get more
> parity in feel between my main guitar and this temporal interloper.

That fixed it. Vastly more comforable and playable now. The tension
feels roughly the same as the longer scale guitar.

[Tony Done]

This is an interesting and complicated discussion. Like Gerry, I have
never noticed an effect logically attributable to shorter scale length,
but my three resos feel softer than equivalent flattops with the same
strings and tuning. I have encountered one "reverse" effect. I have an
electric 30" bari tuned to open D with 13-56 strings - which would be
more or less equivalent to a 25.5"scale tuned to F# standard. That is
tight, and I feel like I should be wearing safety glasses when I tune
it; changing strings is accompanied by a short prayer. It also has a
high action by my standards (about 2.2mm at the heel fret), but it feels
softer than a standard tuned 25.5"scale. I assume this is because of the
springiness of the action. It also happens to be my best sounding
electric for slide, because it zings and sizzles like telegraph wires in
the wind.

Has anyone mentioned things like neck profile, fret height and small
differences in set up yet? Maybe 20 years ago, Thomas Humphrey, the
classical luthier, had an article in AG Mag in which he claimed that
some of his early designs were too "soft" and he had to harden them to
suit the tastes of most classical players. Unfortunately it is so long
ago I can't recall the details.

[David J. Littleboy]

"Gerry" wrote:
>On 2014-08-29 19:02:05 +0000, Tim McNamara said:
>
>> Interesting discussion. For decades I have heard guitarists discuss
>> this sort of thing and I have always struggled with understanding the
>> physics of it.
>
>Me too, but mostly I disregarded it all as a distraction.

"Physics is the study of frictionless elephants whose masses may be
ignored."

A joke, yes. But more than a grain of truth. In particular, what something
feels like may or may not correspond to the particular physical properties
that are of concern/interest to a physicist or engineer.

>> Guitar strings are tuned to a pitch which requires a specific tension at
>> a given string diameter and scale length. Lengthen the string and the
>> tension to achive that pick has to be increased, shorten it and the
>> tension would be correspondingly decreased.
>
>I've found just the opposite. I don't profess to know anything other than
>my own subjective viewpoint. The longer and shorter scale guitar had
>identical strings and action on them, both solid-bodies. The shorter scale
>demanded more tension to depress a string and was more fatiguing over the
>length of an hour playing.

Yep. That's the experience here. The 62 cm string length Heritage (L-4
lookalike) feels way _stiffer_ to the fingers and pick than the 64 cm string
length Holst. Same strings (.050 to .012 flatwounds, high E replaced with
.013 , currently new and snarly) on both. The Holst strings feel positively
floppy by comparison.

Go figure.

[David J. Littleboy]

Here the sting lengths are 62, 64, and 65 cm with the Speedster being the
longest. I've got .011 flatwraps on mine and it's OK. (I'm actually using a
low E from a .010 set, since I wasn't sure that it'd handle a .050 diameter
string.)

The main problem with the Speedster is that between being thinner and having
no space between the bridge and the end of the guitar, it's just a tad
awkward to hold, and if I play it too long, it takes a while to get back
used to the normal size guitars.

Oops mine's not a "Speedster", it's an "Escape EG-2", since I wanted a neck
pickup.

[SB]

Thanks for the excellent discussion. So the first poster asked a great question: does the length of the tail piece have much to do with the tension that the player feels. Arthur thanks for the math. TD thanks for the experiential view. Anyway, a fun post. I am still not convinced either way on it. My brain hurts from thinking about it.

[Gerry]

On 2014-08-30 00:36:39 +0000, David J. Littleboy said:

> "Gerry" wrote:
>> On 2014-08-29 19:02:05 +0000, Tim McNamara said:
>>
>>> Interesting discussion. For decades I have heard guitarists discuss
>>> this sort of thing and I have always struggled with understanding the
>>> physics of it.
>>
>> Me too, but mostly I disregarded it all as a distraction.
>
> "Physics is the study of frictionless elephants whose masses may be ignored."
>
> A joke, yes. But more than a grain of truth. In particular, what
> something feels like may or may not correspond to the particular
> physical properties that are of concern/interest to a physicist or
> engineer.

Certainly, but I didn't say my sensibilities don't correspond to
physics: I said I disregard the study or undersanding of the laws as
unimportanttmy guiar playing. They govern them, as does the movement
of the sun and earth through the cosmos, but in the end it is a
distraction from playing the guitar.

>>> Guitar strings are tuned to a pitch which requires a specific tension at
>>> a given string diameter and scale length. Lengthen the string and the
>>> tension to achive that pick has to be increased, shorten it and the
>>> tension would be correspondingly decreased.
>>
>> I've found just the opposite. I don't profess to know anything other
>> than my own subjective viewpoint. The longer and shorter scale guitar
>> had identical strings and action on them, both solid-bodies. The
>> shorter scale demanded more tension to depress a string and was more
>> fatiguing over the length of an hour playing.
>
> Yep. That's the experience here. The 62 cm string length Heritage (L-4
> lookalike) feels way _stiffer_ to the fingers and pick than the 64 cm
> string length Holst. Same strings (.050 to .012 flatwounds, high E
> replaced with .013 , currently new and snarly) on both. The Holst
> strings feel positively floppy by comparison.
>
> Go figure.

If you've got the time for figuring, go for it.

[Gerry]

Take note that the Speedster has that strange "wing" on it: That has
changed the awkwardness of it for me *dramatically*.

[rpjazzguitar]

I think that part of the reason that a shorter scale instrument would seem stiffer is that there is simply less string to stretch, both in the vibrating length and in the rest of the string combined. And, the amount of deflection required for picking a note (even on an open string) or fretting a note would be similar to a bigger instrument. All the other variables that limit the stretching of the string behind the nut and bridge would also be relevant.

[SB]

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 12:28:02 PM UTC-7, rpjazzguitar wrote:
> I think that part of the reason that a shorter scale instrument would seem stiffer is that there is simply less string to stretch, both in the vibrating length and in the rest of the string combined. And, the amount of deflection required for picking a note (even on an open string) or fretting a note would be similar to a bigger instrument. All the other variables that limit the stretching of the string behind the nut and bridge would also be relevant.

I agree.

I think that much depends on the player. A pro or someone who practices a lot will know what feels right to them and pro builders respond with subtle adjustments that we are calling tension. The feel is personal. Modern rock guitars address the intonation break angle at the bridge to allow for stretching and such so that the player can get the desired affect. The break angle and thin rock strings are the most important aspects in this case, especially for stretching. Fact is that the longer string has more tension than the shorter string. So, the shorter string feel seaming stiffer that you are talking about is quite real. IMO. However D'Addario states that the opposite is actually true. More string equals more tension with the same gauge string.

String tension 101:
http://www.daddario.com/DAstringtensionguide.Page?sid=a7703f58-0983-4fd9-845c-0060db814acf

Note the sentence that reads:
"Scale length, or the distance between the nut and the saddle. The longer the scale, the higher the tension is for the same string tuned to the same pitch - for example, a standard Fender(tm) guitar at 25 1/2 " scale has more string tension and will feel stiffer than a standard Gibson(tm) 24 3/4 " scale guitar, even if both are tuned to the same standard pitch.Some players adjust for this by using slightly heavier gauges on shorter scale guitar than on longer scale guitars."

Fascinating.

[SB]

If I switched my scale length from a short scale to a longer scale I would get a feel of more tension. To get the same feel I would use lighter gauge strings on the longer scale axe. On an archtop, the string gauge is the only controlling factor at my disposal since I do not own adjustable guitars.

[Gerry]

On 2014-08-30 21:31:22 +0000, SB said:

> If I switched my scale length from a short scale to a longer scale I
> would get a feel of more tension.

For me, the exact opposite occured.

> To get the same feel I would use lighter gauge strings on the longer scale axe.

Again, based on on my experience over the past two weeks: Complete
opposite. I'm now using .10 on the short scale, and .11's on the long
scale and they feel roughly the same.

[rpjazzguitar]

If you could somehow move the entire bridge back 3/4 of an inch, the guitar would be tuned below the usual pitch. It goes without saying that a longer string makes a lower pitch, if everything else stays the same. When you tune it back up to 440, obviously, the string will be tighter. That's one of the definitions of "tension" that we're dealing with.

That much has nothing to do with what happens when you deflect the string. That's a different use of the word "tension". How it feels to deflect the string is dependent on how the string stretches. There are several variables involved in that, including the elasticity of the metal, whether or not it can slide smoothly over the bridge and the length of vibrating string. And, that applied to fretting, picking and bending.

[SB]

I know. That is why this topic is so interesting to me. Other players tell me the same thing. However if you go by the D'Addario string tension 101 web page. The opposite of your experience, and others, is factual:

String tension 101:
http://www.daddario.com/DAstringtensionguide.Page?sid=a7703f58-0983-4fd9-845c-0060db814acf

Note the sentence that reads:
"Scale length, or the distance between the nut and the saddle. The longer the scale, the higher the tension is for the same string tuned to the same pitch - for example, a standard Fender(tm) guitar at 25 1/2 " scale has more string tension and will feel stiffer than a standard Gibson(tm) 24 3/4 " scale guitar, even if both are tuned to the same standard pitch.Some players adjust for this by using slightly heavier gauges on shorter scale guitar than on longer scale guitars."

Go figure ? I sure can't.

[SB]

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 3:10:35 PM UTC-7, rpjazzguitar wrote:
> If you could somehow move the entire bridge back 3/4 of an inch, the guitar would be tuned below the usual pitch. It goes without saying that a longer string makes a lower pitch, if everything else stays the same. When you tune it back up to 440, obviously, the string will be tighter. That's one of the definitions of "tension" that we're dealing with.
>
>
>
> That much has nothing to do with what happens when you deflect the string. That's a different use of the word "tension". How it feels to deflect the string is dependent on how the string stretches. There are several variables involved in that, including the elasticity of the metal, whether or not it can slide smoothly over the bridge and the length of vibrating string. And, that applied to fretting, picking and bending.

This seems very clear to be true to me. I agree. Well said.

[rpjazzguitar]

I think that a shorter scale naturally has less tension because the shorter string doesn't have to be tuned as tight to get to the same pitch.

But, that's far from the only thing that determines the feel of the guitar. In fact, you can have a stiff or a loose feel to the string even if the tension is exactly the same.

That's because the feel is based on the force required to deflect the string. Clearly, the amount of tension in the string when it's tuned to pitch matters. But so does the overall elasticity of the string, which depends on the factors listed in my previous post, and perhaps others that I missed.

To go back to the original post, that staggered tailpiece on the old Epi's, among other guitars, is very likely an attempt to change the feel. It does not change the actual tension of the tuned string.

It would have an impact on intonation, I think, because the extra length behind the bridge will make a specific amount of bending produce a smaller change in pitch. So, suppose you accidentally push the low E string a little too far as you fret a chord. You're stretching the string by the amount your finger pushed it to the side. With the short tailpiece, some of that stretch is taken up by a part of the string that isn't vibrating anyway. So, your chord will sound more in tune with more non-vibrating length, provided that the string can slide over the bridge.

[SB]

Yup. You nailed it IMO. Kudos. The old EPI freq. tail piece is an attempt to change the feel via changing the intonation. That makes sense to me. I totally agree on the stretching as well. Good thinking.

[rpjazzguitar]

I'm still wondering about something though. Why not simply have them all as long as possible on the old archtops. It's not like those guys were bending strings back then, were they? I can see why they'd make the low E string longer, but why make the high E string shorter?

[Tony Done]

On 8/31/2014 7:47 AM, Gerry wrote:
> On 2014-08-30 21:31:22 +0000, SB said:
>
>> If I switched my scale length from a short scale to a longer scale I
>> would get a feel of more tension.
>
> For me, the exact opposite occured.
>
>> To get the same feel I would use lighter gauge strings on the longer
>> scale axe.
>
> Again, based on on my experience over the past two weeks: Complete
> opposite. I'm now using .10 on the short scale, and .11's on the long
> scale and they feel roughly the same.

How do other factors compare? Eg neck profile, action height, neck
relief, fret height, string length at tailpiece and headstock, saddle
type? For instance, I can see how two guitars with identical actions
heights at the heel (17th?) fret could feel different if it was achieved
by different neck relief-bridge height relationships. IMO, there are too
many unspecified variables to get a simple consensus.

[Gerry]

In the abstract it's a compelling argument. Sadly, I play in the concrete.

[Gerry]

On 2014-08-30 23:37:26 +0000, Tony Done said:

> On 8/31/2014 7:47 AM, Gerry wrote:
>> On 2014-08-30 21:31:22 +0000, SB said:
>>
>>> If I switched my scale length from a short scale to a longer scale I
>>> would get a feel of more tension.
>>
>> For me, the exact opposite occured.
>>
>>> To get the same feel I would use lighter gauge strings on the longer
>>> scale axe.
>>
>> Again, based on on my experience over the past two weeks: Complete
>> opposite. I'm now using .10 on the short scale, and .11's on the long
>> scale and they feel roughly the same.
>
> How do other factors compare? Eg neck profile, action height, neck
> relief, fret height, string length at tailpiece and headstock, saddle
> type? For instance, I can see how two guitars with identical actions
> heights at the heel (17th?) fret could feel different if it was
> achieved by different neck relief-bridge height relationships. IMO,
> there are too many unspecified variables to get a simple consensus.

The action is almost identical, the nut height (which you asked about
upstream) is a little higher on the long scale, which also has a stop
tailpiece, while the short scale *wraps behind the guitar and fastens
on tuners back there. Saddles are roughly similar. Neck relief is
roughly comparable. This is all *factual*. ;-)

* For reference: http://tinyurl.com/ofr4tqd

[Gerry]

On 2014-08-26 17:28:26 +0000, Gerry said:

> I changed to .11 flats as well and find the tension slightly stronger
> that I'd like, but not quite problematic. Changing the strings is a
> big stinking nuisance, as I assumed. Using wire-cutters to clip the
> end of the string close, produced 3 nice gouges in the finish on the
> back with very little effort. Additionally, I really have to work hard
> to get the string nub bent down and away or it gouges/tears at my
> shirt, or pants. I also find tuning it a chore.

Actually the video on replacing a string would have been helpful, had I
seen it before changing strings twice:

http://tinyurl.com/ofr4tqd

I note also that the Speedster seems to have fallen off their site and
only the Speedster Hot Rod remains. The difference is the latter has a
headphone jack and some kind of distortion circuit. Same price. I
wound up buying a headphone amp anyway. Oh well.

[Tony Done]

I almost bought a cheap version of one of those a while back, but
commonsense got the better of me. There was one with a stethoscope
fitting that didn't need a preamp, a nice idea.

IOW, you can't think of anything simple and physical that might explain
the differences.

[Tim McNamara]

On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:48:01 -0700, Gerry <add...@domain.com> wrote:
>
> In the abstract it's a compelling argument. Sadly, I play in the
> concrete.

You play in the Jimmy Hoffa Orchestra?

[Gerry]

I'm not sayin'.

[Jonathan]

On Friday, August 29, 2014 3:13:28 PM UTC-4, Gerry wrote:
> On 2014-08-29 19:02:05 +0000, Tim McNamara said:
>
>
>
> > Interesting discussion. For decades I have heard guitarists discuss
>
> > this sort of thing and I have always struggled with understanding the
>
> > physics of it.
>
>
>
> Me too, but mostly I disregarded it all as a distraction.
>
>
>

> > Guitar strings are tuned to a pitch which requires a specific tension at
>
> > a given string diameter and scale length. Lengthen the string and the
>
> > tension to achive that pick has to be increased, shorten it and the
>
> > tension would be correspondingly decreased.
>
>
>
> I've found just the opposite. I don't profess to know anything other
>
> than my own subjective viewpoint. The longer and shorter scale guitar
>
> had identical strings and action on them, both solid-bodies. The
>
> shorter scale demanded more tension to depress a string and was more
>
> fatiguing over the length of an hour playing.
>
>
>

> The shorter the string (mandolin, cavaquinho), the more tension and the
>
> harder to fret.
>
>
>

> > Decrease the diameter of
>
> > the string and the requied tension is decreased, increase the diameter
>
> > of the string and the required tension is increased. This is
>
> > independent of the length of string between the nut and the tuning post
>
> > and the saddle and the tailpiece.
>
> >
>
> > Arthur's math suggests that the greatest magnitude of "softening" the
>
> > feel of fretting the string- using his parameters for string diameter,
>
> > tension and action height- would be small, perhaps 0.25 lbs of pressure.
>
> > However, I think that would be in the range of perceptible differences
>
> > for our fingers. At some point the change would be below the threshold
>
> > of least discernible difference. We would perceive that difference in
>
> > multiple ways- the tactile perception at the fingertips and the
>
> > proprioceptive sense of muscle exertion (BTW, due to the mechanics of
>
> > the hands, the muscle force exerted is four times that of the pressure
>
> > applied at the fingertip).
>
>
>
>
>

> --
>
> Sunday is my new usenet day. All the others are for fun.

The problem is that there are a zillion other variables that affect playability including neck profile, fret height, string spacing, top sensitivity, etc., and it's very difficult to procure two guitar specimens to A/B test that are identical in all attributes other than scale length. Heck, even color might have some psychological effect. :)

[Jazzer]

On 8/31/2014 7:35 AM, Jonathan wrote:

> The problem is that there are a zillion other variables that affect
> playability including neck profile, fret height, string spacing, top
> sensitivity, etc., and it's very difficult to procure two guitar specimens
> to A/B test that are identical in all attributes other than scale length.
> Heck, even color might have some psychological effect. :)

OK folks, I thought of a way to get to the bottom of this once and for all.
We will be able to eliminate all of the above plus the theoretical math
formulas etc. etc.

All that will be required is the following cheap tailpiece:

http://www.guitarfetish.com/thumbnail.asp?file=assets/images/products/bridges/K27.jpg&maxx=0&maxy=300

I don't have a spare one at the moment, but they can be bought for
around $10 or less from China. They're a traditional old Gibson style
tailpiece.
You guys might have one kickin' around.

A) Just fit the tailpiece as is to your guitar, play your guitar and
take special note of how the strings feel, both for your right and left
hand.
Give it a good workout and REMEMBER the feel.

B) Then take the tailpiece off and remove the part that holds the strings,
and do the following:

C) Bend the arms near the plate that attaches to the guitar, so
that the arms are pretty much parallel to each other.
Then insert either a metal or wood spacer on each arm (a couple of
inches or more), so that when you attach the part that holds the strings
it will now sit much further back on the guitar.

Attach the strings, tune up and repeat A).

Report back to us what your findings are!

[Jazzer]

On 8/31/2014 1:47 PM, Jazzer wrote:

>
> C) Bend the arms near the plate that attaches to the guitar, so
> that the arms are pretty much parallel to each other.
> Then insert either a metal or wood spacer on each arm (a couple of
> inches or more), so that when you attach the part that holds the strings
> it will now sit much further back on the guitar.
>
> Attach the strings, tune up and repeat A).
>
> Report back to us what your findings are!
>
>

It would probably be best to bend the arms parallel before attaching the
tailpiece in the first place.
This would shorten the time needed to attach the spacers and take the
second test.

Also, remember to leave lots of string length when attaching your
strings at the machine heads. When the spacers are put on and the
tailpiece is lengthened, you will need a few more inches of string
length to reach the tailpiece.

[Gerry]

I thought we'd clearly established the immutable fact that it's a
subjective evaluation.

[decap...@yahoo.com]

Clearly established by whom? A half handful of non-luthier guessers here? It's true that there are actual luthiers who do not know this about tailpieces. Shorter tailpieces relieve tension. Yes, "factual." Immutable fact to the contrary? Hilarious.

[Gerry]

> Clearly established by whom? A half handful of non-luthier guessers here?

Subjective viewpoints are held by the vast unwashed as well as the holy
luthier trinity. Subjective viewpoints are by definition not facts: And
that's a fact.

> It's true that there are actual luthiers who do not know this about
> tailpieces. Shorter tailpieces relieve tension. Yes, "factual."
> Immutable fact to the contrary? Hilarious.

I never said there was any immutable fact governing tailpieces and
tension. Read first, attack second.

Good to see you back, Tony!

[decap...@yahoo.com]

Shorter tailpiece lightens tension. This is not subjective, is what I refer to. Only the amount of release might be subjective. For certain others, all the equations and suppositions in the universe won't amount to a hill of beans compared to the actual physical realization.

[SB]

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 4:35:41 PM UTC-7, rpjazzguitar wrote:
> I'm still wondering about something though. Why not simply have them all as long as possible on the old archtops. It's not like those guys were bending strings back then, were they? I can see why they'd make the low E string longer, but why make the high E string shorter?

Exactly why this is fascinating. Excellent point. Very confusing for me. If a player experiences more tension from switching to a longer scale instrument, then how does making the string longer relieve the tension by using a shorter tail piece ? Has to be intonation. I am in agreement with your reasoning with regard to stretching. This new question you bring has me scratching my head again.

Each axe and builder is unique. The players are unique too. I looked around the web and found nothing with regard to the tail piece issues. It must be experienced by the player with a unique instrument IMO, which is what I think both Gerry and TD are saying. According to physics the bumble bee should not be able to fly, but it does.

In the mean time my head keeps spinning.

[Arthur Quinn]

The calculations I offered merely set a limit (admittedly narrow) to
the variation in tension that will occur between a string locked at
bridge and nut and one with an arbitrary amount of extra length between
bridge and tailpiece when fretted at the twelfth fret.

The result makes me doubt any glib explanation of softening of action
that depends simply on the springiness of a bit added to the
non-sounding string length.


Arthur

--
Arthur Quinn
real-email arthur at bellacat dot com

[DanielleOM]

I have to agree the difference has to be small. The amount of string
added with smaller tailpiece relative to the entire string length is
small. However, I am amazed at how guitar players detect and discern
very small differences. For example I tell myself that there really is
not that much difference between a 1 3/4 nut width and 1 11/16 nut
width, especially if you consider the distance between individual
adjacent strings, but I believe most guitar players, would immediately
notice the difference. Same with scale lengths.

Danielle

[decap...@yahoo.com]

The difference is indeed small, Danielle. That's the idea for us players. If it was large it would not be playable and of course, defeat the purpose. Anyone who has a doubt or sits on the "I don't think so" wagon has a cure readily available. Live it, don't merely hypothesize and vituperate. Same story as you mention with scale lengths. When I switched from 24 3/4 to 25.1 an entire world opened up to me ( Yet, I can see how many other players will prefer the 24 3/4) and I have been playing professionally a long time. To some, the difference in scale length will seem minuscule. And indeed with many things of the outside world it is. Not so in the guitar world. The seemingly minuteness can be compared in ratio perhaps to an entire city block concerning effectiveness.

[Arthur Quinn]

Yes, it is remarkable how noticeable the 3.7% change from 1 11/16 to 1
3/4 appears. i would put this down to two reasons:

1) The fixed spaces between the strings and the fingerboard sides make
the % change in string spacing much larger than the ratio of the
overall widths.

2) The spacing is being continually compared with the width of our
fingers as we play - there is nothing to remember except whether we
feel cramped or not at the moment.