Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Les Paul Stop tail adjustmenbt


Jeffytune

Recommended Posts

Guest Farnsbarns

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by pippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Golden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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.com/How-To/Online_Resources/Hardware_Installation/Tune-o-matic_swap_going_from_Nashville_to_Kalamazoo.html

 

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'

Edited by Golden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fun to see this topic again. The last time I participated, on another forum, there was agreement that although string tension between the nut and saddle is what determines the note, extra string length between nut and tuner or saddle and tailpiece should have an impact on "slinkiness". I have never thought about proving this until I was stringing up my ES-335 and ES-Artist just a day apart. The position of the Artist tailpiece is considerably further away from the bridge than the ES-335's which is pretty much the same set-up as an LP.

 

On the 335 I plucked the top E string between saddle and tailpiece (tail piece is lifted enough so that the string does not touch the backside of the bridge and the strings are threaded through normally, not wrapped-over) and bent hard on the string; I could not hear a change in the very high pitch of the tiny length of E string. I then did the same at the other end, between nut and tuner and I could hear the pitch change as I bent the string. I repeated this on the Artist and could hear the pitch change at both ends so I surmise that extra string length after the nut or saddle does have an impact on slinkiness; the string is clearly moving on both sides of the nut and saddle when I bend. I should note that I use 008-038 strings on most of my electrics so honestly, I don't feel any difference in slinkiness, even on my EBMM Majesty that has a longer scale length that the Gibsons. Also, clearly, if a guitar has a locking nut then there's no extra slinky component from the head end.

 

If there is a top-wrapper out there, please repeat this test at the tiny, saddle to tailpiece end and report back.

 

Take a peek at Page's EDS 12/6; the tail pieces are a very long way from the bridges; like having two little harps added to the guitar. Some think that this odd variation of the EDS 12/6 was a deliberate Page specification to add slinkiness to both necks.

Edited by rickc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's fun to see this topic again. The last time I participated, on another forum, there was agreement that although string tension between the nut and saddle is what determines the note, extra string length between nut and tuner or saddle and tailpiece should have an impact on "slinkiness". I have never thought about proving this until I was stringing up my ES-335 and ES-Artist just a day apart. The position of the Artist tailpiece is considerably further away from the bridge than the ES-335's which is pretty much the same set-up as an LP.

 

On the 335 I plucked the top E string between saddle and tailpiece (tail piece is lifted enough so that the string does not touch the backside of the bridge and the strings are threaded through normally, not wrapped-over) and bent hard on the string; I could not hear a change in the very high pitch of the tiny length of E string. I then did the same at the other end, between nut and tuner and I could hear the pitch change as I bent the string. I repeated this on the Artist and could hear the pitch change at both ends so I surmise that extra string length after the nut or saddle does have an impact on slinkiness; the string is clearly moving on both sides of the nut and saddle when I bend. I should note that I use 008-038 strings on most of my electrics so honestly, I don't feel any difference in slinkiness, even on my EBMM Majesty that has a longer scale length that the Gibsons. Also, clearly, if a guitar has a locking nut then there's no extra slinky component from the head end.

 

If there is a top-wrapper out there, please repeat this test at the tiny, saddle to tailpiece end and report back.

 

Take a peek at Page's EDS 12/6; the tail pieces are a very long way from the bridges; like having two little harps added to the guitar. Some think that this odd variation of the EDS 12/6 was a deliberate Page specification to add slinkiness to both necks.

 

 

Yeah I seen it, Hamer Newport and others same thing with a slightly further set back tail. This is where I suppose I should ask ...is there any particular reason its exactly where its located?

Edited by Golden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pinch: As stated, with 008s up top, things can be almost too slinky sometimes; takes a little practice not to pull strings off the board! This really is a personal taste thing; I used to use 007 Picato or Rotosounds up top when I could find them.

Golden: I was really more concerned with my shiny gold plated bridges being worn by the wound strings rubbing on the back edge than any impact on playability.

 

You really have to take a look at Page's double neck; the tailpiece locations are extreme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was really more concerned with my shiny gold plated bridges being worn by the wound strings rubbing on the back edge than any impact on playability.

 

You really have to take a look at Page's double neck; the tailpiece locations are extreme.

 

However if your proposition is correct then its also correct that hitting the rear of the bridge affects the vibration/slinkiness/downward pressure=tension- thus tone and the more pressure on the rear of the bridge the more the effect.

 

'

Stands to reason and thats aside from the gold wear and rear pressure on the ABR pr whatever and string breakage. Just for clarity here...but thanks, the observation and agreement is progress on the point is all.

 

Further I dont see any difference with a slight rearward movement of the ST since imo Gibson focused on the break angle more than the location because of the string jump with bends-slinkiness imho was too much at the time/trap tails. So theres a trade off here also with as suggested with "slinkiness". Thanks btw the break angle can indeed be more shallow, however as noted theres a point where the shallow angle fails which many builders.designers go into great detail about for example Terry McInturff has done extensive research for Hamer on the headstock breakangle with trems and angle failure.

 

So let me ask, you agree with the statement that the frequency at which a string vibrates depends on the length between nodes/saddle/nut, the tension from the angle, and the linear density of the string which as you state the 8s make a difference? And btw then the body absorbs the vibration of the stringed instrument thus theres a secondary wood vibration which obviously also affects the tone also thus tone wood selection solid body-hollow body.

Edited by Golden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the fun begins (again).

 

"if your proposition is correct then its also correct that hitting the rear of the bridge affects the vibration/slinkiness/downward pressure=tension- thus tone and the more pressure on the rear of the bridge the more the effect."

 

I think that for a Les Paul, the length of string between saddle and tailpiece is so short that the extra slinkiness is most likely negligible, especially with thicker gauge strings that most owners seem to use. I doubt that the string touching the rear edge of the bridge has any impact on tone.

 

"Further I don't see any difference with a slight rearward movement of the ST since imo Gibson focused on the break angle more than the location because of the string jump with bends-slinkiness imho was too much at the time/trap tails. So theres a trade off here also with as suggested with "slinkiness". Thanks btw the break angle can indeed be more shallow, however as noted theres a point where the shallow angle fails which many builders.designers go into great detail about for example Terry McInturff has done extensive research for Hamer on the headstock breakangle with trems and angle failure."

 

This is why I don't top-wrap with such light strings; the LPs shorter scale length and my light 008 top E means a very loose string that already very easily pulls right off the fret board. I'd be concerned that if I top-wrapped, it may jump out of the saddle groove but I don't know this for certain.

 

"So let me ask, you agree with the statement that the frequency at which a string vibrates depends on the length between nodes/saddle/nut, the tension from the angle, and the linear density of the string which as you state the 8s make a difference? And btw then the body absorbs the vibration of the stringed instrument thus theres a secondary wood vibration which obviously also affects the tone also thus tone wood selection solid body-hollow body."

 

The string frequency or note when played is a function of the string gauge, the string tension and the distance between the nut and saddle. The angle that the string takes post saddle and post nut have no impact on the note/frequency but as indicated by my experiments, the length of string after nut and saddle do impact slinkiness a little. The tone-wood issue is a whole other discussion that has been repeated many times on many forums. From my very simple perspective, as soon as a guitar is cranked up through a bunch of effects and an amp, the tone-wood issue is pretty much a mute point. People will claim that sustain is one of the bigger components related to tone woods but I would argue that a well set-up guitar with fresh strings has a bigger impact on sustain (and tone) than the material that the guitar is made of. "Tone" is extremely subjective.

 

A good discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that for a Les Paul, the length of string between saddle and tailpiece is so short that the extra slinkiness is most likely negligible,

 

 

We are talking vibration and tension not frequency or tone which you admit theres string vibration-tension variation and its factual that obstructing the path affects the vibration and tension- we aere only talking to what degree not IF. In fact you introduced the term "slinkiness" in relation? And you also associate that with noise/tone. This being most likely negligible depends on tension and length being altered outside the nut and saddle. The vibration is more pronounced as you see with trap tails case in point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. The tone-wood issue is a whole other discussion that has been repeated many times on many forums. From my very simple perspective, as soon as a guitar is cranked up through a bunch of effects and an amp, the tone-wood issue is pretty much a mute point. People will claim that sustain is one of the bigger components related to tone woods but I would argue that a well set-up guitar with fresh strings has a bigger impact on sustain (and tone) than the material that the guitar is made of. "Tone" is extremely subjective.

 

A good discussion.

 

 

Well heres the point I'm making which btw is in relation to string vibration, for the wood to be in play as I'm suggesting this indicates the vibration is active outside the two points of the saddle and nut and then is affecting or coloring the sound. Its not the wood picks up the vibration of a alternative source, the vibration is through the wood and the electronics "secondary" to the sound. Nevertheless what your talking about 'effects" and in relation to secondary "affects" for sure this becomes permeated with the effects and eq as you mention, the relationship of the wood doesnt change or disappear -its just not as discernable, but the wood is affecting the end result coming out the speaker be it, its heard of not.

 

So the mention of wood is also in relation to the string vibration which makes the point of some strict thinking of nut to saddle only... simply "untrue" Even if you lock both points, they still vibrate though the material through the posts and through the wood, neck, headstock etc. imho :) Just saying, if something doesnt stand to reason just let me know might be me lol. I didnt say I was right I just have a varying point of view. lol anyway thus the mention of wood- not to distract but on the contrary to show an observable point in relation to the topic.

Edited by Golden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my simple take on this; an acoustic or electric acoustic guitar relies very significantly on the transmission of the strings' vibrations through the bridge and into the body of the guitar and the body amplifying the sound through the sound hole. Electric guitars are not the same; by comparison they are "logs"; Les Paul called his first electric "the Log". His goal was to make a solid-bodied instrument with strings and a pickup; I don't think tone-wood was part of his vocabulary at that time; it's my understanding that he did not want the body to influence the sound.

 

Fast forward; many of the fastest, most tone-identifiable guitar players use guitars with tremolos and locking nuts; no spare string lengths in action. I think people are looking way too hard for things to complicate guitar sound theories; as stated earlier, as soon as it's plugged in and cranked, these little subtleties are moot. I have a bunch of guitars, solid bodies, semi-solids and acoustics. The electrics are all a little different from each other for a variety of reasons; the ES-335 is a little sweeter than the Les Paul Custom when played clean. The EBMM Majesty is a completely different beast; weighs nothing, has a longer scale length, taps, a piezo electric bridge and a tremolo.

 

Pickup selection has a much bigger impact on electric guitar tone than any of the little mechanical details regarding bridge and tail pieces. String gauges also have a huge impact on playability and in many cases, tone. Amps have a huge impact on tone. Skill of course trumps all!

 

A fun discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe that then Mahogany isnt required nor a Maple cap, nor for that matter wood. Maybe we can just recycle all the plastic in the ocean instead of wasting the wood because...it makes no difference. In fact you need nothing but a nut to saddle string path attached to plastic..then you drop your favorite pick-ups in and PRESTO.....Les Paul Tone. In fact if thats the case why play a Gibson LP because of the pick-ups or for what reason other than appearence which again is consistent with my point about... appearence?

 

Thanks

Edited by Golden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to get suckered into this discussion but I just wanted to add something regarding...

 

...Les Paul called his first electric "the Log".......I don't think tone-wood was part of his vocabulary at that time; it's my understanding that he did not want the body to influence the sound......

Leaving Les' original preference for a six-foot length of railway track aside for the moment...

The man at Parson's Street generally credited with 99% of the design of the Les Paul Model was their Chief Engineer of Woodworking; Larry Allers. Guitar historian Gil Hembree writes, in his excellent book "Gibson Guitars : Ted McCarty's Golden Era 1948 - 1966",;

 

"Wood was one important consideration for the (forthcoming) solidbody. The team tested different kinds and Allers worked with patternmakers on different types of bodies using different woods. An all-maple body had great sustain but was deemed too heavy. An all-mahogany body didn't have enough sustain. So they tested various combinations......eventually they found a suitable combination."

 

Carry On!

 

Pip.

Edited by pippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all: I never stated that the material that the guitar is made of didn't matter; I simply stated that there are a range of other very dominant factors involved. Why a Maple top? Because it looks really good, especially when quilted, tiger-striped, bird's-eyed. I like guitars to look good too. Back to Les Paul; he was after something really solid; I think he started with a 4" x 4" section of Pine. As stated above, the Gibson guys took this a step further and ended-up with the Maple/Mahogany combinations and the main consideration was sustain; the more solid, the more sustain. There are electric guitars made of plastic, steel, Masonite; I even saw one made from cardboard and another using clay. I don't doubt that these guitars all have tonal peculiarities derived from their construction.

 

My main point is that if we all played clean all the time, no effects, then the tone and sustain differences between different guitars would be more relevant but we don't. Most of us play with a range of tones and what we consider "good" is very subjective. For me, play-ability is the most important factor which is why I always take the time to set-up my guitars for my preferences; almost flat neck, light gauge strings, low action. My amps and effects easily produce a broad range of tones that I'm really happy with no matter which guitar I choose to play.

 

Again, this is a good discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...