Tailpiece Height on new Faded

[Brodie]

Here's my dilemma

After a month or so since buying my studio faded I finally started to tweak the setup, mainly the action as everything else was perfect. the tailpiece and bridge were overly high. I set the bridge for a lower, faster action but the tailpiece has to be almost a half inch from the body (measuring from the body to the bottom of the tailpiece) so that the strings don't touch the back of the bridge. From what I've read it is ideal to have the tailpiece as low as possible so I top-wrapped the strings and screwed the tailpiece down just about all the way. I know there is a lot of controversy over top-wrapping but I felt it a justified in my case. I figure the neck angle is a bit exaggerated on this particular les paul, which is why the bridge and tailpiece were setup so high or maybe the nut is too high?? Just wondering what is the normal height for the bridge and tailpiece for medium action. I would rather not top-wrap because of the twisting force on the tailpiece but to be honest it sounds soooooooo much better right now, I was really surprised. Thanks for any input

[NeoConMan]

so that the strings don't touch the back of the bridge.

Why would that be a problem?

Sure isn't gonna hurt the strings - no matter what you've heard.

 

If you don't believe me - look at your tuners.

That's a pretty nasty turn or two' date=' eh?

 

 

 

And top-wrapping is a hoax in my opinion;

 

www.rattlesnakeroadhouse.com/TopWrapping.html

 

 

The height of the bridge is driven by string height above the fretboard.

High action or low, it's still a narrow window of adjustment.

Neck settings vary ever so slightly from one guitar to the next, can't do anything about it.

 

Tailpiece against the body is the way they've been done since 1956 - by Gibson.

I like it that way myself.

 

 

To depart from any of that is simply a matter of personal preference.

In 20 years, nobody's been able to clearly demonstrate to me any advantage of doing it different.

If you want to, go for it. I seriously doubt it would hurt a thing.

 

Other than eventually scratching your tailpiece and possibly crushing the wood around the tail bushings.

 

:D/

[BigKahune]

The reason for the adjustable stop is to be able to keep the max angle the strings have as they bend over the bridge saddles and go to the stop. As well as the reason for the head stock angle on Gibsons. The sharper the angle, the more downward force is exerted on the bridge saddles (and the nut), which, in Gibson's reasoning, increases sustain. So top wrapping your stop could defeat the purpose of having the the built in adjustment.

 

As Neo says, the tailpiece (stop) all the way down gives the max string angle over the bridge saddles.

[Yaff]

This a very controversial subject. Most say that the strings should not touch the back of the bridge and there are many posts on forums talking about it. Although I am not 100% clear on the logic at this time, I think it is most probably for good reason and in line with the design of the guitar.

 

Although my stop bar on my 08 Standard is all the way down, like yours, its about half an inch up on my Studio Faded.

 

Its all about the position of the bridge on the guitar and how far back you need to move the saddles to get the intonation correct. If the saddles are set to the front of the bridge (like my faded), if you have the stop bas all the way down, the string will touch the back of the bridge. If the saddles are set to the back of the bridge (as with my Standard), no issue with lowering the stop bar all the way.

 

At the end of the day, you should go with what sounds best to you. Its all about personal preference.

[NeoConMan]

the strings should not touch the back of the bridge

Why not?

 

What's the controversy about?

I've seen it in all the other forums too, and all I ever get for an explanation is circular bullsh!t.

It's simply an Urban Myth - 20 years on now....

 

I can't get anybody to tell me why the strings CANNOT touch the back of the bridge.

They will NOT break from it.

 

I've NEVER had a string break at the bridge - either in the saddle or at the tuner 95% of the time.

And a sharp saddle can be fixed.

[Yaff]

There is so much out there on this subject, but as a starter, take a look at the following:

 

 

Please note that this copied from another forum, hope that's OK.

 

It`s so controversial because so many people have different opinions on the subject. I am no expert and as I am happy with my tone on both my LP`s, I can not be bothered to spend days researching the subject. As with most things, do what feels and sounds best for you.

 

I do get so much more sustain form my Standard, but I put that down to the Maple Top and heaver construction (6.5LB v 9LB), not the difference in the stop bar hight. I personally think the half an inch on the stop bar hight will have very little effect, but as I have not spent the time testing, I am not going to make an issue out of it.

[NeoConMan]

< Heavy sigh..... >

 

:D

 

Yep.

 

Here we go again.

 

"Decreases sustain (HOW?) and puts pressure on the bridge (Like there isn't already?) which may

cause damage (WHAT kind of damage?) over time."

 

BAD!!

 

Sorry. I don't see it.

Once the string passes through the bridge saddle, it's NOT vibrating.

How could it possibly affect sustain?

 

Maybe they should talk to an engineer about it - I have, on several occasions to gather consensus.

 

Somebody spent the time to create that drawing to explain absolutely nothing.

Gotta love internet forums, eh?

 

 

:D/ :D :D :D

[rockstar232007]

< Heavy sigh..... >

 

 

Yep.

 

Here we go again.

 

"Decreases sustain (HOW?) and puts pressure on the bridge (Like there isn't already?) which may

cause damage (WHAT kind of damage?) over time."

 

BAD!!

 

Sorry. I don't see it.

Once the string passes through the bridge saddle' date=' it's NOT vibrating.

How could it possibly affect sustain?

 

Maybe they should talk to an engineer about it - I have, on several occasions to gather consensus.

 

Somebody spent the time to create that drawing to explain absolutely nothing.

Gotta love internet forums, eh?

 

 

:D/

Totally agree!

 

Top-wrapping totally defeats the purpose of having an ADJUSTIBLE BRIDGE in the first place, as it serves EXACTLY the same purpose! Not to mention, that raising the tailpiece will actually have a positive effect (if any) on sustain, because that means less string vibrations will be transferred to the body.

 

The bottom line is: Anything that touches any string above the nut, or below the bridge (break angles), will have little or no effect on the strings, so the whole "it's bad for sustain if the strings touch the back of the bridge" stuff is all a bunch of crap!

 

I've tried top wrapping (with various bridge/TP heights), and there was absolutely NO difference whatsoever from the usual way. I'm actually thinking it might be the "placebo effect"? Everyone saw Billy G doing it, and though "so that where his tone comes from!".

[NeoConMan]

Everyone saw Billy G doing it' date=' and though "so that where his tone comes from!". [/quote']

Hmmmm.....

 

 

I recall reading something many years ago about him, he was discussing a certain tone from another

player that he couldn't quite get from Pearly. Turns out, the guy was using a wound G string.

 

Maybe I'll try a wound G string on my Les Pauls next time around - and then post it in every forum.

 

[gsxrrr]

Have a look on the SG section of the forum where I have just posted photos of how my bridge/tailpeice is set up. My tailpiece is up off the body and I still have fantastic sustain, more than you are ever likely to want in fact.

[NeoConMan]

Done - with comment...

 

[rockstar232007]

Hmmmm.....

 

 

I recall reading something many years ago about him' date=' he was discussing a certain tone from another

player that he couldn't quite get from Pearly. Turns out, the guy was using a wound G string.

 

Maybe I'll try a wound G string on my Les Pauls next time around - and then post it in every forum.

 

I'll do ya one better.

 

I'm going to see what kind of awesome tone/sustain I can get...after I remove all the strings. Then I'm going to wright a book about it!

 

Done - with comment...

 

Ditto.

[gsxrrr]

One thing to add, when making adjustments like this and pickup height I have the guitar plugged in and a note ringing out while I turn the screws this gives you an audible reference to what you are doing, it will go out of tune but you will notice any problems like buzz straight away.

[Wild_Rose]

< Heavy sigh..... >

 

 

Yep.

 

Here we go again.

 

"Decreases sustain (HOW?) and puts pressure on the bridge (Like there isn't already?) which may

cause damage (WHAT kind of damage?) over time."

 

BAD!!

 

Sorry. I don't see it.

Once the string passes through the bridge saddle' date=' it's NOT vibrating.

How could it possibly affect sustain?

 

Maybe they should talk to an engineer about it - I have, on several occasions to gather consensus.

 

Somebody spent the time to create that drawing to explain absolutely nothing.

Gotta love internet forums, eh?

 

 

:D/

OMG I LOVE you for that post!

 

the diagram was giving me a headache until I scrolled down to your reply.

 

I mean, don't you think that the guys who make the guitars wouldn't know if there was only the "right" way to treat your strings on the bridge? I say it's all down to personal preference..

[Brodie]

Thanks for the feedback. looks like there will always be compromises to be made. I left the tailpiece down really low and the strings touch the top of the hole of the tailpiece and the back of the bridge but it sounds good, better than when the tailpiece was raised up. It sounded good top-wrapped but I could see the tailpiece tilting due to the strings torque on it so I think the little dent's on the back of the bridge is the lesser of the evils as you can buy new ones. I could see how top wrapping could cause much worse damage over time. thanks again for the replies.

[BigKahune]

... the strings should not touch the back of the bridge ...

 

Strings touch edge of bridge ... decreases sustain ...

 

 

If the this were true - the strings touching something between the saddles and the stop decrease sustain - surely no one would set up a guitar with string guides or string retainers on the headstock as it should have the same effect - touching the strings between the nut and the tuning pegs. BTW, Gibson's design doesn't call for wrapping the strings over the top of stop - otherwise Gibson guitars would come setup that way from the factory.

 

I'm not buyin' it.

[Yaff]

If the this were true - the strings touching something between the saddles and the stop decrease sustain - surely no one would set up a guitar with string guides or string retainers on the headstock as it should have the same effect - touching the strings between the nut and the tuning pegs. BTW' date=' Gibson's design doesn't call for wrapping the strings over the top of stop - otherwise Gibson guitars would come setup that way from the factory.

 

I'm not buyin' it.

 

[/quote']

 

I agree,

[LPguitarman]

I agree' date=' [bored']

 

+2. I would never top wrap. Don't want to scratch up my tail piece.

[SHO]

Keep in mind I'm not a mech engineer, and my interest in physics is pretty much limited to those little things that goes through wires and makes the light bulb all glowy and pretty, but...

 

They way I look at that picture makes me think someone confused the tail piece's role in the 'increased sustain' bit. Whatever increased sustain you might get with the tail piece at the bottom comes from the increased angle over the bridge causing the strings to be pressed harder against the bridge, not from the tail piece it self sitting on wood. Does it even touch wood when it is at the bottom? (I don't have a guitar nearby to look) Sure, with the screws further into the studs the surface area in contact with each other would be greater but... I dunno.

 

This brings me to the next issue. The way I see it, if the actual location of the tail piece does indeed affect sustain, and not only because of the angle it forces the strings to bend over the bridge, would that not mean that the string moves behind the bridge? What other energy would the tail piece conduct into the body for resonance if not string vibration? If so, how does a string manage to produce a clear tone? I mean, you'd first have the scale length nut to bridge producing a tone, yet somehow the string is also moving from tuner to tail piece? Wouldn't that sound pretty horrible?

 

Isn't it in fact so that we want the angle over the bride and the nut, or press down correctly on a fret for that matter, because we want to STOP vibration at those points so the string will ring with a clear solid note? Isn't it in fact so that the string even goes dead a little bit after the nut and before the bridge because of the stiffness of the string towards the ends, and that is what we, at least partially, compensate for with the intonation adjustment?

 

Questions, questions.

[Big Bill]

Done - with comment...

 

 

 

I have $10 that says otherwise.

[NeoConMan]

I have $10 that says otherwise.

$10 that says what otherwise?