stringing stop tails/tunematics (Tune-o-matic)

[rps-10]

Why do some players go back through then over the tail piece:




whereas others go straight through and over the bridge pieces ( the norm)




Plus I've seen one (can't remember who) pro player who had the bottom 3 strings go back through then over the tail piece and then the lighter strings straight through. So a half and Half mix.


WHY? personal preference or is it some thing to do with break angles and TOANZ?

[Gabriel]

Break angle and tone are the reasons most people use. But there was a really interesting long post that a tech wrote on jazzguitar.be about it that explained why most of it is just mojo.

I can't find the thread at the moment though.

[rps-10]

Would love to read it, if you can find it. It's been bugging me since I got a les paul.
Mine is strung, back through then over by previous owner (progrockabuse) Not got around to replacing strings on it yet as it's too fun to play. Not even thought of any mods for it yet! Which is unlike me.

[benecol]

It does give a slightly different feel - top wrapping felt like the strings were easier to bend to me, which with my already overdone-wiggly style was far too much. I also mistrusted the physics of moving that much leverage on two screws up so high.

[Bacchus]

It does give a slightly different feel - top wrapping felt like the strings were easier to bend to me,

Sorry, and I know you've included the caveat "to me," but it can't surely? The stopped distances and pitches are constant therefore so too the tension must be constant?

[benecol]

<shrug emoticon that I can't find at present> Shallower break angle behind the nut, innit.

See also: top loading tele bridges; people (including me) swear by them.

[Fran]

Now then. Various beliefs on this, through and over is to achieve three things:

1. the sustain of a LP Junior Wrapover bridge
2. it decreases the break angle and string tension making string bending easier
3. it reduces the possibility of ball ends marginally unwinding improving tuning stability.

In my experience i can confirm no. 2 is correct. The rest is debatable.

The norm is easier, looks tidier etc and you can raise the tail piece (via the two screws) to reduce the break angle anyway if you want to reduce string tension.

[othomas2]

Aside from the string angle / tension thing which is very true...

... I was told that it creates more force into the body which helps get things resonating / vibrating a bit more... hmmm Skeptical...

The Bonamaasa signature which incorporates this method is very nice, but there are lots of over factors that could persuade me that way.

[paul_]

It's pointless. It was originally popularized by Duane Allman, who's first guitar was a Junior before he fell for '57 Goldtop, '59 Burst and SG LP guitars.
It doesn't create the sustain of a wraparound because it's not the guitar's bridge.
It doesn't do anything for tension which you couldn't match by raising the height of a regularly-strung tailpiece. This puts that particular "benefit" in the same field as "heavier strings = thicker sound". You have to compare it to the other method on the same, unaltered guitar to really hear the difference, otherwise you could compensate for the change with minor set-up tweaks.
It's mojo and it looks cool to certain LP players, but top-wrapping the tailpiece of a two-piece Gibson bridge setup has no benefits, tonal or otherwise. It also marks up the tailpiece if you do it long-term, and can cause metal burrs which could dig into the hand or scratch the arm in the future depending on how you play.

Plus I've seen one (can't remember who) pro player who had the bottom 3 strings go back through then over the tail piece and then the lighter strings straight through. So a half and Half mix.

Zakk Wylde does that according to pics of his kit I've seen.

[Sloan]

I dunno what the fuck is up with this shit as well as cranking the living fuck of the stop tail down flush with the body. I strongly prefer the feel with the stop tail actually way up off the body with a very slight break angle (almost straight) on the strings. If you don't have enough 'sustain' keep your fingers on the strings longer, change your damn pickups, turn your amp up.

[Gabriel]

Found it:

Tailpiece height has no actual bearing on string tension. The height "adjustment" on a stop tailpiece has a history of lore and effects attributed to it. But the actual height adjustment has no practical bearing on sound or tension unless you are talking about almost no break angle over the bridge - I mean like less than 3 or 4 degrees of break.

Many feel that having the strings only hit the saddles and not dig into the back of the bridge body is at least a tidy way to set the tailpiece height. This results in more than adequate downward force on the bridge.

In my view, any reasonably inquisitive looks at tailpiece height and bridge break angle on solid body and hollow body guitars end up concluding that you need "enough", and after that it has no bearing on sound or tuning at all.

"Enough" turns out to be not very much. There are simple calculations you can do to take the tension of the strings and turn that into a downward force calculation on the bridge. On an archtop this can be fairly significant, and too much downward force can cause top collapse and all the kids in school will laugh.

Very roughly speaking, a break angle that is over about 7 degrees will be fine. With no change based on a greater break angle. No more "sustain" on the Les Paul.

There are Bigsby equipped guitars with less break angle, and the players seem quite happy even though you can sometimes observe some saddle instability if the saddle is not a very nice fit against the bridge body (on a T-O-M).

None of this affects string tension.

If there is a VERY long length of string between the bridge and tailpiece (6,7,8 inches) and a VERY shallow break angle you can detect a slight difference in perceived tension in lateral deflection if you use a gauge to measure it. But this requires a pretty extreme case.

All in my opinion. Well except for the assorted lore of Les Paul tailpiece height,...; it's lore.

Chris

[NickS]

Can't fight the lore.

[Doog]

"GUITARISTS IN 'MOJO BULLSHIT' SHOCKER!"