guitar_randy Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 I emailed Gibson customer service to try and find out what the company who builds the guitar has to say about tailpice heights: my question:I've been doing searches and getting many different answers and could find no real solid answer on this: On current Gibson USA electric guitars,is the taipice supposed to be mounted tight down to the guitar body,or is it ok to adjust it higher or not down tight to the guitar body? Some say it should be high enough just so the stringsmdo not touch the bridge,others say it must be down to the guitar body or sustain is lost and damage could occur.Some Gibsons seem to come from the factory raised a little bit and others all the way down. Is there a correct way or height this should be or is it personal preference? Thanks GIBSON RESPONSE: Hello, Thanks for writing!! The height of the stopbar tailpiece is personal preference. The lower the tailpiece, the more sustain—the higher, the less sustain. But if the angle is severe between the bridge and tailpiece, such that the strings actually touch the back of the bridge, then you are at risk for string breakage. Most techs recommend that the tailpiece sit up off the body a bit, but not too much. I hope this helps. Best regards, Gibson customer service service@gibson.com Randy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modoc_333 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 and raising it changes the tone versus lowering it. one is not better than the other. it's personal preference. also, the height of the tailpiece changes out slinky or tight the strings feel. Gibson has been advertising these points ever since they started using it in 1954. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitar_randy Posted November 16, 2008 Author Share Posted November 16, 2008 and raising it changes the tone versus lowering it. one is not better than the other. it's personal preference. also' date=' the height of the tailpiece changes out slinky or tight the strings feel. Gibson has been advertising these points ever since they started using it in 1954. [/quote'] makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owl Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Thanks for the information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T50 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Why can't we have both: low tail piece and low saddle? The dilemma is caused by the neck angle that force the saddle to rise up. If they set the neck on a flatter angle, this can be fixed, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modoc_333 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Why can't we have both: low tail piece and low saddle?The dilemma is caused is caused by the neck angle that force the saddle to rise up. If they set the neck on a flatter angle' date=' this can be fixed, no? [/quote'] that;'s what they do on historics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRaven Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 What we need is a bridge with notches in the back of it below each saddle... that way, we can lower our tailpieces even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modoc_333 Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 What we need is a bridge with notches in the back of it below each saddle... that way' date=' we can lower our tailpieces even further.[/quote'] but then you wouldn't have as much room to adjust intonation. this is one of the trade offs in the ABR1 vs nashville debate. the ABR1 is skinnier so you you can lower the tailpiece further, but you don't have as much room to adjust the saddle. the nashville gives the extra room, but you have to raise the tailpiece to clear the bridge. if you notched the bridge, it would be right where the saddle is, so you would just go back to the ABR1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.