Gibson Brands Forums: Les Paul Stop tail adjustmenbt - Gibson Brands Forums

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Les Paul Stop tail adjustmenbt How or why

#21 User is offline   Pinch 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 1124
  • Joined: 15-January 15

Posted 19 January 2018 - 04:55 PM

View PostPinch, on 19 January 2018 - 12:38 PM, said:

I noticed the low E touches down on the bridge on my Tribute, even with the TP up. I'm guessing it's because the Nashville bridge is wider than an ABR-1. I'm assuming I'll live.


Although I'm not sure.
0

#22 User is online   rct 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 8403
  • Joined: 31-March 11
  • LocationSouthern New Jersey

Posted 19 January 2018 - 09:53 PM

View PostPinch, on 19 January 2018 - 04:55 PM, said:

Although I'm not sure.


I've lived a long time now not giving a frig about whether it touches or not, I am certain you will too.

rct
0

#23 User is offline   Rabs 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 12161
  • Joined: 15-January 12
  • LocationLondon, U.K.

Posted 19 January 2018 - 10:11 PM

View Postrct, on 19 January 2018 - 09:53 PM, said:

I've lived a long time now not giving a frig about whether it touches or not, I am certain you will too.

rct

You know this is the funny thing.. I set guitars up and will do what I think is best if they don't know exactly what they want.. When it comes to my personal guitars I couldn't even tell you if they do or not apart from one I re-strung last week and checked only cos it had been talked about and it was touching (shame on me [blush] ) . So I did follow my own advice and turned each screw just once so it was a tad higher... that's all it took.

Ohh the tone, the sustain... Was exactly the same :P (not that I actually checked)

This post has been edited by Rabs: 19 January 2018 - 10:14 PM

"Im the one thats going to have to die when its time for me to die. So let me live my life, the way I WANT TOO" Jimi Hendrix
0

#24 User is online   rct 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 8403
  • Joined: 31-March 11
  • LocationSouthern New Jersey

Posted 19 January 2018 - 10:37 PM

I adjust them with my Tone Wrench and my Sustain Gauge.

rct
0

#25 User is offline   Golden 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 822
  • Joined: 18-October 13

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:45 AM

"I've lived a long time now not giving a frig about whether it touches or not"


rotfl....I can tell!
0

#26 User is offline   Golden 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 822
  • Joined: 18-October 13

Posted 20 January 2018 - 04:58 AM

View PostRabs, on 19 January 2018 - 10:11 PM, said:

You know this is the funny thing.. I set guitars up and will do what I think is best if they don't know exactly what they want.. When it comes to my personal guitars I couldn't even tell you if they do or not apart from one I re-strung last week and checked only cos it had been talked about and it was touching (shame on me [blush] ) . So I did follow my own advice and turned each screw just once so it was a tad higher... that's all it took.

Ohh the tone, the sustain... Was exactly the same :P (not that I actually checked)


Fair enough but your suggesting how it should be as opposed to how it is which your actions indicated by address, thats exactly what is discussed 'how it should be'....more to the point....why not just fix the visual issue or plausible sustain issue, string breakage etc. What you or I do isnt mutually exclusive to the issue since many address this in various ways which is why its a perpetual subjective thread....still comes back to Gibson imho, a point of whats wrong with the LP- theres simply a minor tolerance issue at the set neck. There’s nothing wrong with the guitar strickly speaking just that the neck angle for a Les Paul has an optimal degree setting, they vary between individual guitars a degree etc, more so from production line to custom shop on stricter tolerance. This variation in angle is why the bridge and tailpiece need to be height-adjustable. The steeper the angle, the higher the bridge. That said they merely need to address the Nashville bridge.

This post has been edited by Golden: 20 January 2018 - 05:18 AM

0

#27 User is online   pippy 

  • Newbie
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 12936
  • Joined: 21-July 08
  • LocationLondon, U.K.

Posted 20 January 2018 - 09:51 AM

View PostRabs, on 19 January 2018 - 04:35 PM, said:

...The thing about keeping the strings off the back of bridge for me is I just think it puts less pressure on it.. As has been said bridges can collapse so its just an extra way to help stop it.. And even that is not actual fact, its just what I think...

If a string is putting X-lbf / Newtons of force on one spot - a bridge saddle, say - does the bridge have any less force on it than if the string touches at two points - a bridge saddle and the rear of the bridge, say?

I'm no engineer but I'd say Nope. The total amount of force is exactly the same; just spread between two separate points.
It might be argued that splitting the amount of force from one point to two lessens the likelihood of a collapsed bridge; standing on one leg on a set of scales and the one set has all body mass on it. Stand evenly on two sets and each will have a reading of half-body mass...

Pip.

This post has been edited by pippy: 20 January 2018 - 09:57 AM

0

#28 User is offline   Farnsbarns 

  • Antelope
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 7827
  • Joined: 01-December 10
  • LocationGodstone, Surrey, England

Posted 20 January 2018 - 10:11 AM

View Postpippy, on 20 January 2018 - 09:51 AM, said:

If a string is putting X-lbf / Newtons of force on one spot - a bridge saddle, say - does the bridge have any less force on it than if the string touches at two points - a bridge saddle and the rear of the bridge, say?

I'm no engineer but I'd say Nope. The total amount of force is exactly the same; just spread between two separate points.
It might be argued that splitting the amount of force from one point to two lessens the likelihood of a collapsed bridge; standing on one leg on a set of scales and the one set has all body mass on it. Stand evenly on two sets and each will have a reading of half-body mass...

Pip.


It's about the resultant force. It's almost straight down if no strings touch the back of the bridge but diagonally forward and down if they do. The degree to which the rear point of contact affects the direction of the resultant force is dependant on the force at the point of contact (how hard it touches).

As I've said before, I do not think a Nashville bridge will ever collapse forward on those dirty-great coach bolts, and there's a lot of material so I don't think they'll ever sag either, not that that's relevent to the touching, not touching debate.

An ABR1, on the other hand, is on really quite thin studs and I think it could become an issue.
I'm not drunk, you're blurry.

Farns
0

#29 User is offline   Rabs 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 12161
  • Joined: 15-January 12
  • LocationLondon, U.K.

Posted 20 January 2018 - 01:59 PM

Well as I said before.. Im not that convinced that theres that much difference either way... Certainly not enough to worry about and I don't know that much about physics where I could prove it either way with numbers.. So for me its a choice of having the straight down pressure of the strings just touching the saddles or have pressure from that and the back of the bridge too. In which case as I said if anyone asked me id say to not have the strings touching the back.

Maybe its that forward diagonal pressure that can cause a bridge too collapse.. Im not sure. But what I do think is raising it so the strings don't touch the back cant hurt.. Which is why id go for that option.... I don't think theres any real reason to have to put the tailpiece all the way down unless someone just wants it that way for what ever reason, in which case I say go for it.. You can always replace the bridge should anything actually happen as a result of it (which it probably wont).. really not a big deal either way..

Unless someone can actually prove it improves sustain/tone :unsure: :P (which is the only real reason I can think of why anyone would even care).
"Im the one thats going to have to die when its time for me to die. So let me live my life, the way I WANT TOO" Jimi Hendrix
0

#30 User is offline   Eracer_Team 

  • More Gear than Tallent
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 1404
  • Joined: 31-December 07

Posted 20 January 2018 - 05:15 PM

If you asked Robert Johnson or Django or BB or....

They'd say they were happy to have all 6 strings on their guitar
And made great music with what they had
Didn't worry about height of stop tails

This post has been edited by Eracer_Team: 21 January 2018 - 03:07 PM

0

#31 User is online   pippy 

  • Newbie
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 12936
  • Joined: 21-July 08
  • LocationLondon, U.K.

Posted 20 January 2018 - 05:29 PM

View PostFarnsbarns, on 20 January 2018 - 10:11 AM, said:

It's about the resultant force. It's almost straight down if no strings touch the back of the bridge but diagonally forward and down if they do....

Out of curiosity I've had a look at the difference in break-angle on some e-strings which I have which (Tut-Tut) touch the rear of the ABR-1's and the difference in deflection is c. 3 degrees absolute. I'm no engineer but some force going one way and some force going in a similar but not quite the same direction with a much shorter length of wire (perhaps) affecting the 'lateral' motion as opposed to the 'vertical' motion would make for an interesting calculation in terms of effective stress in a 3d model...

Pip.

This post has been edited by pippy: 21 January 2018 - 03:31 AM

0

#32 User is offline   Pinch 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 1124
  • Joined: 15-January 15

Posted 20 January 2018 - 05:56 PM

Good point, Pippy. Because the pressure would only be exerted straight down if there was an exactly equal length and break angle on the other side of the saddle. I think. Or at least I think I think so.
0

#33 User is offline   Golden 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 822
  • Joined: 18-October 13

Posted 21 January 2018 - 05:27 AM

Sale increase/demand created the production line, this required the neck tolerance relax and the neck joint changed/tenon, for less hand work and time consumption. The result is a possible slightly higher bridge thus s-tail on either the ABR or the Nashville. Its nothing but the evolution of mass production Gibson electrics. Tonally you hear the variation of testimony by various players in relation just to the neck tenon let alone angle, bridge-tail, pick-ups and so forth to original specs. In short they strive to give you exactly what you desire indicated by historic specs vs a long production line hitting every price range from entry level to historic. So what anyone settles for within the frame work is personal choice as it is if you buy a higher angled set neck which clearly some must have desired they own them and as you see and hear -no tonal difference How the tone changed from historic specs to say the 2018 build with new neck joint designs and so forth again - its subjective but thats also perspective in equivicating the 59 for example to todays Standard for example let alone a tonal difference in break angle. The other unknown is failure in relation to design more or less breakage and so forth from steeper angle degree and at what degree does falure start? . Further it becomes obvious that the specs simply from original changed to the perceived holy grails of 59 LP tone, thus the specs sought in relation and then further again in contrast to production.

My point is very simple....they already altered the specs to the extent mentioned, its ridiculous simply not to address the visual flaw which they are quite capable of doing obviously and have ...and not just with the original design but with epiphone also.

However the point that one is the same as another needs an analogy, which are the facts of the history and preference, and why people prefer a original late 50s standard or a historic and so forth in sequence etc. Different recipes have different results and how much each spec and part changes the whole in relation to original is relevant, but when as you see -debatable That said - surely they all get a participation trophy since I also know no one who doesnt admit Gibsons entry level electrics are exceptional and not just usa? Frankly I fail to see the argument- you got what you paid for and wanted and are happy-if not return it sell it and try again-buy an epiphone or a historic...the expectations are still met. Seems to me at this point in LP evolution when Gibson is even replicating tool marks from 59 plastic, designing new neck joints etc -they can fix the issue and I believe they will.... at some point. It might even BE fixed on the newer neck joints perhaps someone looked. I haven't seen them.

This post has been edited by Golden: 21 January 2018 - 05:28 AM

0

#34 User is offline   Black Dog 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 15-December 15

Posted 21 January 2018 - 10:38 AM

I'm not an engineer, and no doubt my physics and trigonometry are a bit rusty.

I think that whether or not the strings touch the back of the bridge won't effect the total downward or forward (toward the neck) forces at all. Those forces are determined by the break angle and could be calculated using sin and cos equations.

Strings having additional points of contact with the bridge will increase friction forces which could effect the strings ability to move back and forth across the saddle and other points of contact.

Whether or not that is perceptible and has any effect on playability, tone or sustain, I have no idea. At some point, if the break angle is too shallow (approaching zero), then the strings would become unstable at the saddles. Other than that, who knows.

There may be some ideal angle but again, this may just be academic and have no practical effect at all beyond a certain point.
0

#35 User is offline   Golden 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: All Access
  • Posts: 822
  • Joined: 18-October 13

Posted 21 January 2018 - 11:06 AM

The ability to compare sustain has been more recent in testing. There was a link on it here, but theres nothing conclusive on this, nor with the claims on the ABR compared to the Nashville that I know of.


Quote

Riboloff specified the ABR-1 bridge for the Classic rather than using the Nashville. Many players feel there’s some sustain lost when string vibration travels through the Nashville’s metal bushings. I subscribe to this point of view myself



http://www.stewmac.c..._Kalamazoo.html

Quote

The ABR-1 Tune-o-matic bridge was the brainchild of legendary Gibson president Ted McCarty in 1954, setting a standard for simplicity and functionality that has never been bettered. The ABR-1 is slotted directly into the body of the guitar using a separate stud and thumbwheel, providing a firm seating for the strings and allowing players the ability to adjust and fine tune intonation and string height in a matter of minutes. It also yields a great union between the strings and body, which results in excellent vintage tone and sustain. 'Gibson'

This post has been edited by Golden: 21 January 2018 - 11:10 AM

0

Share this topic:


  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users