Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Stringing a stop tailpiece?
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote
> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides.
Yes....except that on the old ones, the workers actually would hand-shape
the insides of the stoptailpiece to make sure it fit tight against the
posts. so reversing those ( like if you decided to make a right handed
guitar a left handed one ) wouldn't be really good , even though it will
still work as a unit.
> If you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on
> the bridge (good thing up to a point),
Thats the exact way it was designed ( by Ted McCarty )..,it s supposed to be
like that.
> but it means that the stop piece has to be raised on its posts so that the
> break angle isn't too great,
The only thing thats really important here is that the tailpiece is supposed
to be as low as it can get while *not* having the string touch the back of
the tailpiece...only a direct line from the sting laying over the saddle to
the hole in the tailpiece.
So...depending on how high you have your action...that will determine how
high/low you can adjust the tailpiece.
And a lot of folks screw down the tailpiece all the way and disregard the
string touching the back of the tailpiece....there is a slight change in
tone and feel of the strings as you strum a chord....not as lively as with
the strings being free of the back of the taillpiece.
Try it yourself and see..,it s not that big a deal to lower and then raise it
back....you'll be able to feel the difference and maybe hear it too.
If not...then that explains why a lot don't care...and at stage volume with
a blaring Marshall...more factors affect the tone there than the angle of
the break of the strings on the back of the bridge.
You should hear a difference at lower stage volumes and thru more clean
setups...so this may affect you if it your set-up/situation is similar.
> as that will exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge
> posts.
No, no...they are fine and strong enough to take it whatever you decide to
do.
I have never heard of anyone damaging a real Gibson saddle in its bridge
based upon the height of the bridge/tailpiece.
> This exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a
> good set up to me, possible sustain killer.
No, no....that whole set-up *is* responsible in part for the sustain.
The string laying on the back of the bridge from too severe a break angle
*does* rob sustain...think about it..,it s touching the string so it *must*
have some kind of effect. Its minimal...but its there. I think the main
difference is in the feel...the strings feel better to me when playing if
the string is *not* touching the bridge in any way other that the string on
the saddle notch..then direct to the tailpiece.
Thats the way Gibson is *supposed* to set-up the guitar from the factory...I
found they do a pretty good job of this consistently.
> OTOH the wraparound mode looks good mechanically for the tailpiece because
> the posts can be screwed down hard against the body.
But that does no good if there isn't a string attached to it...the string is
the most important thing.
The wrapover mode lessens the pressure on the bridge, therefore potentially
robbing sustain and perhaps some string dynamics.
> But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the bridge, another possible
> sustain killer and rattle promoter.
Amen, amen, amen.
Exactly, bro.
> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
> didn't like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all
> on in the conventional manner.
>
> Tony D
If you play with high action, then the wrapover method is fine, because the
angle of the strings will be about the same with low action and the
conventional method.
Also...the wrapover method is more comfortable on the palm of your picking
hand...but I find that I lose the feel of where the strin stops ( at the
saddle ), and since I palm mute a lot, I prefer the feel of conventional
stringing.
Plus, I think the guitar sustains and vibrates better conventionally.
And yes...I sure as shit tried everything I just typed.
Peace,
Polfus
"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote
> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides.
Yes....except that on the old ones, the workers actually would hand-shape
the insides of the stoptailpiece to make sure it fit tight against the
posts. so reversing those ( like if you decided to make a right handed
guitar a left handed one ) wouldn't be really good , even though it will
still work as a unit.
> If you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on
> the bridge (good thing up to a point),
Thats the exact way it was designed ( by Ted McCarty )..,it s supposed to be
like that.
> but it means that the stop piece has to be raised on its posts so that the
> break angle isn't too great,
The only thing thats really important here is that the tailpiece is supposed
to be as low as it can get while *not* having the string touch the back of
the tailpiece...only a direct line from the sting laying over the saddle to
the hole in the tailpiece.
So...depending on how high you have your action...that will determine how
high/low you can adjust the tailpiece.
And a lot of folks screw down the tailpiece all the way and disregard the
string touching the back of the tailpiece....there is a slight change in
tone and feel of the strings as you strum a chord....not as lively as with
the strings being free of the back of the taillpiece.
Try it yourself and see..,it s not that big a deal to lower and then raise it
back....you'll be able to feel the difference and maybe hear it too.
If not...then that explains why a lot don't care...and at stage volume with
a blaring Marshall...more factors affect the tone there than the angle of
the break of the strings on the back of the bridge.
You should hear a difference at lower stage volumes and thru more clean
setups...so this may affect you if it your set-up/situation is similar.
> as that will exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge
> posts.
No, no...they are fine and strong enough to take it whatever you decide to
do.
I have never heard of anyone damaging a real Gibson saddle in its bridge
based upon the height of the bridge/tailpiece.
> This exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a
> good set up to me, possible sustain killer.
No, no....that whole set-up *is* responsible in part for the sustain.
The string laying on the back of the bridge from too severe a break angle
*does* rob sustain...think about it..,it s touching the string so it *must*
have some kind of effect. Its minimal...but its there. I think the main
difference is in the feel...the strings feel better to me when playing if
the string is *not* touching the bridge in any way other that the string on
the saddle notch..then direct to the tailpiece.
Thats the way Gibson is *supposed* to set-up the guitar from the factory...I
found they do a pretty good job of this consistently.
> OTOH the wraparound mode looks good mechanically for the tailpiece because
> the posts can be screwed down hard against the body.
But that does no good if there isn't a string attached to it...the string is
the most important thing.
The wrapover mode lessens the pressure on the bridge, therefore potentially
robbing sustain and perhaps some string dynamics.
> But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the bridge, another possible
> sustain killer and rattle promoter.
Amen, amen, amen.
Exactly, bro.
> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
> didn't like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all
> on in the conventional manner.
>
> Tony D
If you play with high action, then the wrapover method is fine, because the
angle of the strings will be about the same with low action and the
conventional method.
Also...the wrapover method is more comfortable on the palm of your picking
hand...but I find that I lose the feel of where the strin stops ( at the
saddle ), and since I palm mute a lot, I prefer the feel of conventional
stringing.
Plus, I think the guitar sustains and vibrates better conventionally.
And yes...I sure as shit tried everything I just typed.
Peace,
Polfus
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
news:lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
>> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tony D
>>
>
> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides.
> If you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on
> the bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece
> has to be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as
> that will exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge
> posts. This exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look
> like a good set up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound
> mode looks good mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be
> screwed down hard against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break
> angle over the bridge, another possible sustain killer and rattle
> promoter.
>
> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
> didn't like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all
> on in the conventional manner.
>
> Tony D
>
I've also seen LP's strung with the string passing through in the manner you
are describing and then the string passing through the ball end. again, why
i don't know
"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
news:lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
>> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tony D
>>
>
> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides.
> If you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on
> the bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece
> has to be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as
> that will exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge
> posts. This exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look
> like a good set up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound
> mode looks good mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be
> screwed down hard against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break
> angle over the bridge, another possible sustain killer and rattle
> promoter.
>
> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
> didn't like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all
> on in the conventional manner.
>
> Tony D
>
I've also seen LP's strung with the string passing through in the manner you
are describing and then the string passing through the ball end. again, why
i don't know
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
In article <lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond,net .au>,
tonydone@bigpond,com says...
>
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
> > How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
> > "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
> > tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Tony D
> >
>
> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides. If
> you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on the
> bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece has to
> be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as that will
> exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge posts. This
> exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a good set
> up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks good
> mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down hard
> against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the bridge,
> another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.
>
> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but didn't
> like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all on in
> the conventional manner.
>
> Tony D
>
>
I suspect the stop tailpiece began life as the wraparound bridge which
goes back to the bridge used on the first Les Paul and ES225. On those
guitars it was connected to a long trapeze and the wrap around strings
were supposed to hold it down against the body. Les Paul actually
invented it, but the production version would sometimes float away from
the body. There were a couple of strange hybrids along the way, but
Gibson soon came up with the tune-o-matic/stop tail combination. The
main difference between the wraparound bridge used on the LP specials
and other Gibsons and the stop tail is the ridges along the top of the
wraparound bridge to position the strings, otherwise they appear to be
the same casting.
The problem with cranking down the stop bar too far isn't the bridge
posts, rather the bridge itself can collapse or start to bend in the
middle, altering the saddle radius. This is mainly a problem with the
thinner ABR1 version made of aluminum or zinc, and especially where
players have reversed the location of intonation screws, as that side of
the bridge is even weaker. Cranking down the strings as far as they will
go puts most of the load along the back of the bridge. Keeping the
string tension on the saddles spreads the load.
In article <lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond,net .au>,
tonydone@bigpond,com says...
>
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
> > How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
> > "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
> > tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Tony D
> >
>
> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides. If
> you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on the
> bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece has to
> be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as that will
> exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge posts. This
> exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a good set
> up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks good
> mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down hard
> against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the bridge,
> another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.
>
> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but didn't
> like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all on in
> the conventional manner.
>
> Tony D
>
>
I suspect the stop tailpiece began life as the wraparound bridge which
goes back to the bridge used on the first Les Paul and ES225. On those
guitars it was connected to a long trapeze and the wrap around strings
were supposed to hold it down against the body. Les Paul actually
invented it, but the production version would sometimes float away from
the body. There were a couple of strange hybrids along the way, but
Gibson soon came up with the tune-o-matic/stop tail combination. The
main difference between the wraparound bridge used on the LP specials
and other Gibsons and the stop tail is the ridges along the top of the
wraparound bridge to position the strings, otherwise they appear to be
the same casting.
The problem with cranking down the stop bar too far isn't the bridge
posts, rather the bridge itself can collapse or start to bend in the
middle, altering the saddle radius. This is mainly a problem with the
thinner ABR1 version made of aluminum or zinc, and especially where
players have reversed the location of intonation screws, as that side of
the bridge is even weaker. Cranking down the strings as far as they will
go puts most of the load along the back of the bridge. Keeping the
string tension on the saddles spreads the load.
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
"AJ" <Sorry@nomail,com > wrote in message
news:MPG.22973cdfde94b9c79899ad@news.chi.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond,net .au>,
> tonydone@bigpond,com says...
>>
>> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
>> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>> > How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in
>> > the
>> > "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>> > tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Tony D
>> >
>>
>> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
>> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
>> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides.
>> If
>> you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on the
>> bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece has
>> to
>> be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as that
>> will
>> exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge posts. This
>> exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a good
>> set
>> up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks good
>> mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down hard
>> against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the
>> bridge,
>> another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.
>>
>> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
>> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
>> didn't
>> like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all on in
>> the conventional manner.
>>
>> Tony D
>>
>>
> I suspect the stop tailpiece began life as the wraparound bridge which
> goes back to the bridge used on the first Les Paul and ES225. On those
> guitars it was connected to a long trapeze and the wrap around strings
> were supposed to hold it down against the body. Les Paul actually
> invented it, but the production version would sometimes float away from
> the body. There were a couple of strange hybrids along the way, but
> Gibson soon came up with the tune-o-matic/stop tail combination. The
> main difference between the wraparound bridge used on the LP specials
> and other Gibsons and the stop tail is the ridges along the top of the
> wraparound bridge to position the strings, otherwise they appear to be
> the same casting.
>
> The problem with cranking down the stop bar too far isn't the bridge
> posts, rather the bridge itself can collapse or start to bend in the
> middle, altering the saddle radius. This is mainly a problem with the
> thinner ABR1 version made of aluminum or zinc, and especially where
> players have reversed the location of intonation screws, as that side of
> the bridge is even weaker. Cranking down the strings as far as they will
> go puts most of the load along the back of the bridge. Keeping the
> string tension on the saddles spreads the load.
Yeah, I've seen the collapsing bridge thing. I was in Chris Kinman's store
in the days when he made, sold and repaired guitars in Brisbane. Someone
came in with a fairly beat-up, very early gold top. Among its other problems
was a collapsed bridge. Chris commented that this was common, and caused my
too steep a break angle over the saddle. That memory is, in fact, what
prompted my original question.
Tony D
"AJ" <Sorry@nomail,com > wrote in message
news:MPG.22973cdfde94b9c79899ad@news.chi.sbcglobal,net ...
> In article <lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond,net .au>,
> tonydone@bigpond,com says...
>>
>> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
>> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>> > How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in
>> > the
>> > "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>> > tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Tony D
>> >
>>
>> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
>> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
>> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides.
>> If
>> you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on the
>> bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece has
>> to
>> be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as that
>> will
>> exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge posts. This
>> exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a good
>> set
>> up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks good
>> mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down hard
>> against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the
>> bridge,
>> another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.
>>
>> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
>> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
>> didn't
>> like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all on in
>> the conventional manner.
>>
>> Tony D
>>
>>
> I suspect the stop tailpiece began life as the wraparound bridge which
> goes back to the bridge used on the first Les Paul and ES225. On those
> guitars it was connected to a long trapeze and the wrap around strings
> were supposed to hold it down against the body. Les Paul actually
> invented it, but the production version would sometimes float away from
> the body. There were a couple of strange hybrids along the way, but
> Gibson soon came up with the tune-o-matic/stop tail combination. The
> main difference between the wraparound bridge used on the LP specials
> and other Gibsons and the stop tail is the ridges along the top of the
> wraparound bridge to position the strings, otherwise they appear to be
> the same casting.
>
> The problem with cranking down the stop bar too far isn't the bridge
> posts, rather the bridge itself can collapse or start to bend in the
> middle, altering the saddle radius. This is mainly a problem with the
> thinner ABR1 version made of aluminum or zinc, and especially where
> players have reversed the location of intonation screws, as that side of
> the bridge is even weaker. Cranking down the strings as far as they will
> go puts most of the load along the back of the bridge. Keeping the
> string tension on the saddles spreads the load.
Yeah, I've seen the collapsing bridge thing. I was in Chris Kinman's store
in the days when he made, sold and repaired guitars in Brisbane. Someone
came in with a fairly beat-up, very early gold top. Among its other problems
was a collapsed bridge. Chris commented that this was common, and caused my
too steep a break angle over the saddle. That memory is, in fact, what
prompted my original question.
Tony D
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:46:40 GMT, "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote:
>
>Yeah, I've seen the collapsing bridge thing. I was in Chris Kinman's store
>in the days when he made, sold and repaired guitars in Brisbane. Someone
>came in with a fairly beat-up, very early gold top. Among its other problems
>was a collapsed bridge. Chris commented that this was common, and caused my
>too steep a break angle over the saddle. That memory is, in fact, what
>prompted my original question.
The thing about the bridge break angle - whatever downward pressure is not being
applied to the bridge is still being applied lengthwise to the body through the
tailpiece. The strings will pull with the same pressure no matter how they're
anchored, downward or sideways. Besides, pulling down on the bridge means
pulling the TP up. So as long as the strings are firmly sitting on the saddles
it looks like a wash as far as tension goes.
The only way to tell for sure is trying it.
FWIW I've strung my stop tailpieces both ways and couldn't tell any diff, except
the wraparound method left grooves in the TP's rear edge from the windings.
On Fri, 16 May 2008 19:46:40 GMT, "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote:
>
>Yeah, I've seen the collapsing bridge thing. I was in Chris Kinman's store
>in the days when he made, sold and repaired guitars in Brisbane. Someone
>came in with a fairly beat-up, very early gold top. Among its other problems
>was a collapsed bridge. Chris commented that this was common, and caused my
>too steep a break angle over the saddle. That memory is, in fact, what
>prompted my original question.
The thing about the bridge break angle - whatever downward pressure is not being
applied to the bridge is still being applied lengthwise to the body through the
tailpiece. The strings will pull with the same pressure no matter how they're
anchored, downward or sideways. Besides, pulling down on the bridge means
pulling the TP up. So as long as the strings are firmly sitting on the saddles
it looks like a wash as far as tension goes.
The only way to tell for sure is trying it.
FWIW I've strung my stop tailpieces both ways and couldn't tell any diff, except
the wraparound method left grooves in the TP's rear edge from the windings.
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
news:AwlXj.1622$IK1.664@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>
> "AJ" <Sorry@nomail,com > wrote in message
> news:MPG.22973cdfde94b9c79899ad@news.chi.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond,net .au>,
>> tonydone@bigpond,com says...
>>>
>>> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
>>> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>>> > How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in
>>> > the
>>> > "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>>> > tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Tony D
>>> >
>>>
>>> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
>>> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
>>> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both
>>> sides. If
>>> you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on the
>>> bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece has
>>> to
>>> be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as that
>>> will
>>> exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge posts. This
>>> exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a good
>>> set
>>> up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks good
>>> mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down
>>> hard
>>> against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the
>>> bridge,
>>> another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56
>>> to
>>> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
>>> didn't
>>> like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all on
>>> in
>>> the conventional manner.
>>>
>>> Tony D
>>>
>>>
>> I suspect the stop tailpiece began life as the wraparound bridge which
>> goes back to the bridge used on the first Les Paul and ES225. On those
>> guitars it was connected to a long trapeze and the wrap around strings
>> were supposed to hold it down against the body. Les Paul actually
>> invented it, but the production version would sometimes float away from
>> the body. There were a couple of strange hybrids along the way, but
>> Gibson soon came up with the tune-o-matic/stop tail combination. The
>> main difference between the wraparound bridge used on the LP specials
>> and other Gibsons and the stop tail is the ridges along the top of the
>> wraparound bridge to position the strings, otherwise they appear to be
>> the same casting.
>>
>> The problem with cranking down the stop bar too far isn't the bridge
>> posts, rather the bridge itself can collapse or start to bend in the
>> middle, altering the saddle radius. This is mainly a problem with the
>> thinner ABR1 version made of aluminum or zinc, and especially where
>> players have reversed the location of intonation screws, as that side of
>> the bridge is even weaker. Cranking down the strings as far as they will
>> go puts most of the load along the back of the bridge. Keeping the
>> string tension on the saddles spreads the load.
>
> Yeah, I've seen the collapsing bridge thing. I was in Chris Kinman's store
> in the days when he made, sold and repaired guitars in Brisbane. Someone
> came in with a fairly beat-up, very early gold top. Among its other
> problems was a collapsed bridge. Chris commented that this was common, and
> caused my too steep a break angle over the saddle. That memory is, in
> fact, what prompted my original question.
>
>
> Tony D
I'm not sure that the breakover angle was the underlying problem, though
yes it can contribute to the effect.
In my view, it is a sign of a design, manufacturing or materials defect.
The body of the bridge was simply unable to withstand the pressure of the
strings over time, and would collapse. This should never, ever have been
possible regardless of setup if the design and materials choice were valid.
-pk
"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
news:AwlXj.1622$IK1.664@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>
> "AJ" <Sorry@nomail,com > wrote in message
> news:MPG.22973cdfde94b9c79899ad@news.chi.sbcglobal,net ...
>> In article <lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond,net .au>,
>> tonydone@bigpond,com says...
>>>
>>> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
>>> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>>> > How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in
>>> > the
>>> > "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>>> > tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Tony D
>>> >
>>>
>>> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
>>> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
>>> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both
>>> sides. If
>>> you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on the
>>> bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece has
>>> to
>>> be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as that
>>> will
>>> exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge posts. This
>>> exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a good
>>> set
>>> up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks good
>>> mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down
>>> hard
>>> against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the
>>> bridge,
>>> another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56
>>> to
>>> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
>>> didn't
>>> like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all on
>>> in
>>> the conventional manner.
>>>
>>> Tony D
>>>
>>>
>> I suspect the stop tailpiece began life as the wraparound bridge which
>> goes back to the bridge used on the first Les Paul and ES225. On those
>> guitars it was connected to a long trapeze and the wrap around strings
>> were supposed to hold it down against the body. Les Paul actually
>> invented it, but the production version would sometimes float away from
>> the body. There were a couple of strange hybrids along the way, but
>> Gibson soon came up with the tune-o-matic/stop tail combination. The
>> main difference between the wraparound bridge used on the LP specials
>> and other Gibsons and the stop tail is the ridges along the top of the
>> wraparound bridge to position the strings, otherwise they appear to be
>> the same casting.
>>
>> The problem with cranking down the stop bar too far isn't the bridge
>> posts, rather the bridge itself can collapse or start to bend in the
>> middle, altering the saddle radius. This is mainly a problem with the
>> thinner ABR1 version made of aluminum or zinc, and especially where
>> players have reversed the location of intonation screws, as that side of
>> the bridge is even weaker. Cranking down the strings as far as they will
>> go puts most of the load along the back of the bridge. Keeping the
>> string tension on the saddles spreads the load.
>
> Yeah, I've seen the collapsing bridge thing. I was in Chris Kinman's store
> in the days when he made, sold and repaired guitars in Brisbane. Someone
> came in with a fairly beat-up, very early gold top. Among its other
> problems was a collapsed bridge. Chris commented that this was common, and
> caused my too steep a break angle over the saddle. That memory is, in
> fact, what prompted my original question.
>
>
> Tony D
I'm not sure that the breakover angle was the underlying problem, though
yes it can contribute to the effect.
In my view, it is a sign of a design, manufacturing or materials defect.
The body of the bridge was simply unable to withstand the pressure of the
strings over time, and would collapse. This should never, ever have been
possible regardless of setup if the design and materials choice were valid.
-pk
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
"Patrick Keenan" <test@dev.null> wrote in message
news:jaOdnfGuaNB4A63VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@supernews,com ...
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
> news:AwlXj.1622$IK1.664@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>>
>> "AJ" <Sorry@nomail,com > wrote in message
>> news:MPG.22973cdfde94b9c79899ad@news.chi.sbcglobal,net ...
>>> In article <lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond,net .au>,
>>> tonydone@bigpond,com says...
>>>>
>>>> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
>>>> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>>>> > How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in
>>>> > the
>>>> > "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>>>> > tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> >
>>>> > Tony D
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing
>>>> something
>>>> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to
>>>> be
>>>> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both
>>>> sides. If
>>>> you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on
>>>> the
>>>> bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece has
>>>> to
>>>> be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as that
>>>> will
>>>> exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge posts.
>>>> This
>>>> exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a
>>>> good set
>>>> up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks good
>>>> mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down
>>>> hard
>>>> against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the
>>>> bridge,
>>>> another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56
>>>> to
>>>> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
>>>> didn't
>>>> like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all on
>>>> in
>>>> the conventional manner.
>>>>
>>>> Tony D
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I suspect the stop tailpiece began life as the wraparound bridge which
>>> goes back to the bridge used on the first Les Paul and ES225. On those
>>> guitars it was connected to a long trapeze and the wrap around strings
>>> were supposed to hold it down against the body. Les Paul actually
>>> invented it, but the production version would sometimes float away from
>>> the body. There were a couple of strange hybrids along the way, but
>>> Gibson soon came up with the tune-o-matic/stop tail combination. The
>>> main difference between the wraparound bridge used on the LP specials
>>> and other Gibsons and the stop tail is the ridges along the top of the
>>> wraparound bridge to position the strings, otherwise they appear to be
>>> the same casting.
>>>
>>> The problem with cranking down the stop bar too far isn't the bridge
>>> posts, rather the bridge itself can collapse or start to bend in the
>>> middle, altering the saddle radius. This is mainly a problem with the
>>> thinner ABR1 version made of aluminum or zinc, and especially where
>>> players have reversed the location of intonation screws, as that side of
>>> the bridge is even weaker. Cranking down the strings as far as they will
>>> go puts most of the load along the back of the bridge. Keeping the
>>> string tension on the saddles spreads the load.
>>
>> Yeah, I've seen the collapsing bridge thing. I was in Chris Kinman's
>> store in the days when he made, sold and repaired guitars in Brisbane.
>> Someone came in with a fairly beat-up, very early gold top. Among its
>> other problems was a collapsed bridge. Chris commented that this was
>> common, and caused my too steep a break angle over the saddle. That
>> memory is, in fact, what prompted my original question.
>>
>>
>> Tony D
>
> I'm not sure that the breakover angle was the underlying problem, though
> yes it can contribute to the effect.
>
> In my view, it is a sign of a design, manufacturing or materials defect.
> The body of the bridge was simply unable to withstand the pressure of the
> strings over time, and would collapse. This should never, ever have been
> possible regardless of setup if the design and materials choice were
> valid.
>
> -pk
>
>
I couldn't agree more. From the design viewpoint I'm Fender all the way, but
I wanted a US-made guitar (I'm turning into an electric snob) with two P90s
at a price I could afford.
Tony D
"Patrick Keenan" <test@dev.null> wrote in message
news:jaOdnfGuaNB4A63VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@supernews,com ...
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
> news:AwlXj.1622$IK1.664@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>>
>> "AJ" <Sorry@nomail,com > wrote in message
>> news:MPG.22973cdfde94b9c79899ad@news.chi.sbcglobal,net ...
>>> In article <lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond,net .au>,
>>> tonydone@bigpond,com says...
>>>>
>>>> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
>>>> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>>>> > How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in
>>>> > the
>>>> > "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>>>> > tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> >
>>>> > Tony D
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing
>>>> something
>>>> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to
>>>> be
>>>> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both
>>>> sides. If
>>>> you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on
>>>> the
>>>> bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece has
>>>> to
>>>> be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as that
>>>> will
>>>> exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge posts.
>>>> This
>>>> exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a
>>>> good set
>>>> up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks good
>>>> mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down
>>>> hard
>>>> against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the
>>>> bridge,
>>>> another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56
>>>> to
>>>> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
>>>> didn't
>>>> like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all on
>>>> in
>>>> the conventional manner.
>>>>
>>>> Tony D
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I suspect the stop tailpiece began life as the wraparound bridge which
>>> goes back to the bridge used on the first Les Paul and ES225. On those
>>> guitars it was connected to a long trapeze and the wrap around strings
>>> were supposed to hold it down against the body. Les Paul actually
>>> invented it, but the production version would sometimes float away from
>>> the body. There were a couple of strange hybrids along the way, but
>>> Gibson soon came up with the tune-o-matic/stop tail combination. The
>>> main difference between the wraparound bridge used on the LP specials
>>> and other Gibsons and the stop tail is the ridges along the top of the
>>> wraparound bridge to position the strings, otherwise they appear to be
>>> the same casting.
>>>
>>> The problem with cranking down the stop bar too far isn't the bridge
>>> posts, rather the bridge itself can collapse or start to bend in the
>>> middle, altering the saddle radius. This is mainly a problem with the
>>> thinner ABR1 version made of aluminum or zinc, and especially where
>>> players have reversed the location of intonation screws, as that side of
>>> the bridge is even weaker. Cranking down the strings as far as they will
>>> go puts most of the load along the back of the bridge. Keeping the
>>> string tension on the saddles spreads the load.
>>
>> Yeah, I've seen the collapsing bridge thing. I was in Chris Kinman's
>> store in the days when he made, sold and repaired guitars in Brisbane.
>> Someone came in with a fairly beat-up, very early gold top. Among its
>> other problems was a collapsed bridge. Chris commented that this was
>> common, and caused my too steep a break angle over the saddle. That
>> memory is, in fact, what prompted my original question.
>>
>>
>> Tony D
>
> I'm not sure that the breakover angle was the underlying problem, though
> yes it can contribute to the effect.
>
> In my view, it is a sign of a design, manufacturing or materials defect.
> The body of the bridge was simply unable to withstand the pressure of the
> strings over time, and would collapse. This should never, ever have been
> possible regardless of setup if the design and materials choice were
> valid.
>
> -pk
>
>
I couldn't agree more. From the design viewpoint I'm Fender all the way, but
I wanted a US-made guitar (I'm turning into an electric snob) with two P90s
at a price I could afford.
Tony D
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
In article <jaOdnfGuaNB4A63VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@supernews,com >,
test@dev.null says...
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
> news:AwlXj.1622$IK1.664@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
> >>
> >> The problem with cranking down the stop bar too far isn't the bridge
> >> posts, rather the bridge itself can collapse or start to bend in the
> >> middle, altering the saddle radius. This is mainly a problem with the
> >> thinner ABR1 version made of aluminum or zinc, and especially where
> >> players have reversed the location of intonation screws, as that side of
> >> the bridge is even weaker. Cranking down the strings as far as they will
> >> go puts most of the load along the back of the bridge. Keeping the
> >> string tension on the saddles spreads the load.
> >
> > Yeah, I've seen the collapsing bridge thing. I was in Chris Kinman's store
> > in the days when he made, sold and repaired guitars in Brisbane. Someone
> > came in with a fairly beat-up, very early gold top. Among its other
> > problems was a collapsed bridge. Chris commented that this was common, and
> > caused my too steep a break angle over the saddle. That memory is, in
> > fact, what prompted my original question.
> >
> >
> > Tony D
>
> I'm not sure that the breakover angle was the underlying problem, though
> yes it can contribute to the effect.
>
> In my view, it is a sign of a design, manufacturing or materials defect.
> The body of the bridge was simply unable to withstand the pressure of the
> strings over time, and would collapse. This should never, ever have been
> possible regardless of setup if the design and materials choice were valid.
>
> -pk
>
>
Maybe, but at the time Gibson & Les Paul weren't designing guitars for
future rock guitar heros seeking maximum sustain and distortion. The
primary market was Jazz musicians and TOM's were also used on the hollow
body electric Jazz boxes at much shallower break angles.
In article <jaOdnfGuaNB4A63VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@supernews,com >,
test@dev.null says...
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
> news:AwlXj.1622$IK1.664@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
> >>
> >> The problem with cranking down the stop bar too far isn't the bridge
> >> posts, rather the bridge itself can collapse or start to bend in the
> >> middle, altering the saddle radius. This is mainly a problem with the
> >> thinner ABR1 version made of aluminum or zinc, and especially where
> >> players have reversed the location of intonation screws, as that side of
> >> the bridge is even weaker. Cranking down the strings as far as they will
> >> go puts most of the load along the back of the bridge. Keeping the
> >> string tension on the saddles spreads the load.
> >
> > Yeah, I've seen the collapsing bridge thing. I was in Chris Kinman's store
> > in the days when he made, sold and repaired guitars in Brisbane. Someone
> > came in with a fairly beat-up, very early gold top. Among its other
> > problems was a collapsed bridge. Chris commented that this was common, and
> > caused my too steep a break angle over the saddle. That memory is, in
> > fact, what prompted my original question.
> >
> >
> > Tony D
>
> I'm not sure that the breakover angle was the underlying problem, though
> yes it can contribute to the effect.
>
> In my view, it is a sign of a design, manufacturing or materials defect.
> The body of the bridge was simply unable to withstand the pressure of the
> strings over time, and would collapse. This should never, ever have been
> possible regardless of setup if the design and materials choice were valid.
>
> -pk
>
>
Maybe, but at the time Gibson & Les Paul weren't designing guitars for
future rock guitar heros seeking maximum sustain and distortion. The
primary market was Jazz musicians and TOM's were also used on the hollow
body electric Jazz boxes at much shallower break angles.
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
news:lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
>> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tony D
>>
>
> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides.
The tailpiece was also designed to be used as a one-piece bridge. American
guitar companies have a habit of sticking with a basic design as long as
people keep buying it. Change is often not good.
> If you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on
> the bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece
> has to be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as
> that will exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge
> posts.
Yes, it certainly was possible to push the bridge forward from having
excessive downbearing.
Let's ignore the Gibson bridges that just collapsed due to inferior
materials, and those that were so poorly made that the plating blistered off
if the player ever ate anything more acidic than white bread.
> This exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a
> good set up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks
> good mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down
> hard against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the
> bridge, another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.
Depends on how steep the neck angle is. On some, it's just not going to
work - as a case in point, the original 1952 Les Paul tailpiece bridge was
apparently intended by Les Paul to have the strings wrapped over the top, so
that you might be able to do radical things like palm mute. Gibson didn't
apparently comprehend this, and gave the guitar such a shallow neck angle
that the strings had to be strung underneath. On these there was no
downbearing whatsoever.
Sometimes you don't need or even want maximum possible sustain, sometimes
you want the bit of flexibility in the string that comes from having a
shallower breakover angle at the saddle but do want the tailpiece down.
As long as the neck angle supports it, the only problem I can see is the
extreme kink in the string as it comes out of the back of the tailpiece and
goes back over the top. That looks to me like a breakage point.
But, whatever works for you and sounds good.
HTH
-pk
>
> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
> didn't like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all
> on in the conventional manner.
>
> Tony D
>
>
"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
news:lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
>> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
>> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tony D
>>
>
> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides.
The tailpiece was also designed to be used as a one-piece bridge. American
guitar companies have a habit of sticking with a basic design as long as
people keep buying it. Change is often not good.
> If you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on
> the bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece
> has to be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as
> that will exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge
> posts.
Yes, it certainly was possible to push the bridge forward from having
excessive downbearing.
Let's ignore the Gibson bridges that just collapsed due to inferior
materials, and those that were so poorly made that the plating blistered off
if the player ever ate anything more acidic than white bread.
> This exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a
> good set up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks
> good mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down
> hard against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the
> bridge, another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.
Depends on how steep the neck angle is. On some, it's just not going to
work - as a case in point, the original 1952 Les Paul tailpiece bridge was
apparently intended by Les Paul to have the strings wrapped over the top, so
that you might be able to do radical things like palm mute. Gibson didn't
apparently comprehend this, and gave the guitar such a shallow neck angle
that the strings had to be strung underneath. On these there was no
downbearing whatsoever.
Sometimes you don't need or even want maximum possible sustain, sometimes
you want the bit of flexibility in the string that comes from having a
shallower breakover angle at the saddle but do want the tailpiece down.
As long as the neck angle supports it, the only problem I can see is the
extreme kink in the string as it comes out of the back of the tailpiece and
goes back over the top. That looks to me like a breakage point.
But, whatever works for you and sounds good.
HTH
-pk
>
> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
> didn't like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all
> on in the conventional manner.
>
> Tony D
>
>
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
Tony. You cant get too much downward pressure on the bridge. Theres no such
thing because you want as much pressure as the bridge setup can muster. The
90 degree break angle of a string through bridge is what makes it the best
available for producing sustain and tone.
"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony D
>
Tony. You cant get too much downward pressure on the bridge. Theres no such
thing because you want as much pressure as the bridge setup can muster. The
90 degree break angle of a string through bridge is what makes it the best
available for producing sustain and tone.
"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony D
>
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
"Keith Adams" <keithadams@socal.rr,com > wrote in message
news:482d0e32$0$12967$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> Tony. You cant get too much downward pressure on the bridge. Theres no
> such thing because you want as much pressure as the bridge setup can
> muster. The 90 degree break angle of a string through bridge is what makes
> it the best available for producing sustain and tone.
Amen.
Peace,
Polfus
"Keith Adams" <keithadams@socal.rr,com > wrote in message
news:482d0e32$0$12967$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> Tony. You cant get too much downward pressure on the bridge. Theres no
> such thing because you want as much pressure as the bridge setup can
> muster. The 90 degree break angle of a string through bridge is what makes
> it the best available for producing sustain and tone.
Amen.
Peace,
Polfus
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony D
>
Thanks for the replies. The consensus seems to be to have the steepest break
angle possible, short of having the strings touch the back of the bridge.
This will put a fair lateral pressure on those skinny screws holding the
bridge - parallelogram of forces or whatever the technical term is. This
suggests to me that the springiness of those thin screws might contribute to
the tone. I have thought the same thing about the bridge on old Supro lap
steels, this is just a piece of thin steel bent up from the plate that holds
the string anchors, pickup and (usually) controls. The break angle on this
is very steep, and I reckon it causes the bridge to vibrate with the
strings. - Possibly the same deal with the tune-o-matic bridge when the
break angle is steep. I think this steep break angle is the best way to go
(and I incorporated it in my lap steels), I just wondered about the bridge
screws.
The string tension I am now using isn't that great, 11-50 tuned to open D,
which is about the same as 10s in standard tuning.
Tony D
"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com > wrote in message
news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond,net .au...
> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony D
>
Thanks for the replies. The consensus seems to be to have the steepest break
angle possible, short of having the strings touch the back of the bridge.
This will put a fair lateral pressure on those skinny screws holding the
bridge - parallelogram of forces or whatever the technical term is. This
suggests to me that the springiness of those thin screws might contribute to
the tone. I have thought the same thing about the bridge on old Supro lap
steels, this is just a piece of thin steel bent up from the plate that holds
the string anchors, pickup and (usually) controls. The break angle on this
is very steep, and I reckon it causes the bridge to vibrate with the
strings. - Possibly the same deal with the tune-o-matic bridge when the
break angle is steep. I think this steep break angle is the best way to go
(and I incorporated it in my lap steels), I just wondered about the bridge
screws.
The string tension I am now using isn't that great, 11-50 tuned to open D,
which is about the same as 10s in standard tuning.
Tony D
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
On May 15, 7:45 pm, "Tony Done" <tonyd...@bigpond,com > wrote:
> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony D
Not me. It's been discussed here before and I don't see any merits to
stringing a stop tail piece like a wrap-around. If anything, it
sounds like a good way to scratch the finish on the tail piece.
On May 15, 7:45 pm, "Tony Done" <tonyd...@bigpond,com > wrote:
> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony D
Not me. It's been discussed here before and I don't see any merits to
stringing a stop tail piece like a wrap-around. If anything, it
sounds like a good way to scratch the finish on the tail piece.
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
"RichCI" <richci@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:5b83ccf9-627b-4551-a042-07c19ed2908e@59g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
> On May 15, 7:45 pm, "Tony Done" <tonyd...@bigpond,com > wrote:
>> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
>> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tony D
>
>
> Not me. It's been discussed here before and I don't see any merits to
> stringing a stop tail piece like a wrap-around. If anything, it
> sounds like a good way to scratch the finish on the tail piece.
<g> After a few replies, I wondered whether I had inadvertently resurrected
a past hot topic.
Tony D
"RichCI" <richci@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:5b83ccf9-627b-4551-a042-07c19ed2908e@59g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
> On May 15, 7:45 pm, "Tony Done" <tonyd...@bigpond,com > wrote:
>> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
>> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tony D
>
>
> Not me. It's been discussed here before and I don't see any merits to
> stringing a stop tail piece like a wrap-around. If anything, it
> sounds like a good way to scratch the finish on the tail piece.
<g> After a few replies, I wondered whether I had inadvertently resurrected
a past hot topic.
Tony D
Re: Stringing a stop tailpiece?
On Fri, 16 May 2008 21:05:14 GMT, "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com >
wrote:
>
>"RichCI" <richci@gmail,com > wrote in message
>news:5b83ccf9-627b-4551-a042-07c19ed2908e@59g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>> On May 15, 7:45 pm, "Tony Done" <tonyd...@bigpond,com > wrote:
>>> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
>>> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>>> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Tony D
>>
>>
>> Not me. It's been discussed here before and I don't see any merits to
>> stringing a stop tail piece like a wrap-around. If anything, it
>> sounds like a good way to scratch the finish on the tail piece.
>
><g> After a few replies, I wondered whether I had inadvertently resurrected
>a past hot topic.
>
>Tony D
>
Everything around here is a hot topic...well some hotter than others.
But this one ain't no Gibson vs: Epiphone. In fact it's not even USA
Fender vs: a Mexican Fender. Actually....i have go re-read some of my
old posts...because my daily guitar right now is an Epiphone I
recently bought. But I put USA Dimarzios in it!
***********
Some of my music:
http :// www .soundclick,com /bands/default.cfm?bandID=789610
On Fri, 16 May 2008 21:05:14 GMT, "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond,com >
wrote:
>
>"RichCI" <richci@gmail,com > wrote in message
>news:5b83ccf9-627b-4551-a042-07c19ed2908e@59g2000hsb.googlegroups,com ...
>> On May 15, 7:45 pm, "Tony Done" <tonyd...@bigpond,com > wrote:
>>> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
>>> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>>> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Tony D
>>
>>
>> Not me. It's been discussed here before and I don't see any merits to
>> stringing a stop tail piece like a wrap-around. If anything, it
>> sounds like a good way to scratch the finish on the tail piece.
>
><g> After a few replies, I wondered whether I had inadvertently resurrected
>a past hot topic.
>
>Tony D
>
Everything around here is a hot topic...well some hotter than others.
But this one ain't no Gibson vs: Epiphone. In fact it's not even USA
Fender vs: a Mexican Fender. Actually....i have go re-read some of my
old posts...because my daily guitar right now is an Epiphone I
recently bought. But I put USA Dimarzios in it!
***********
Some of my music:
http :// www .soundclick,com /bands/default.cfm?bandID=789610
