Tailpiece

[peacemaker]

I've heard an opinion that poo-poos wood tailpieces because they transfer less energy from the strings into the body of the guitar. If that's true, a beefier metal tailpiece would provide better tone than say, the current style tailpiece on the 575 which is almost wire looking. Thoughts??

 

Seems to me that the majority of the energy transfer into the body of the guitar comes via the bridge. Not sure the tailpiece transfers much at all . . . but I'm just a guy . . .

[yoslate]

Not sure the tailpiece transfers much at all . . . but I'm just a guy . . .

 

LMAO! Nice lick, peacemaker....

[tbonesullivan]

full hollow body guitars are a different breed than semi-hollow guitars. For one thing: there's no center block to mount a tailpiece to in the first place. The majority of the sound conduction goes through the bridge into the body of the guitar, and also from the neck to the body.

[kath]

No problems with my wooden tailpiece!!

 

Allan

[barrymclark]

I've heard an opinion that poo-poos wood tailpieces because they transfer less energy from the strings into the body of the guitar. If that's true, a beefier metal tailpiece would provide better tone than say, the current style tailpiece on the 575 which is almost wire looking. Thoughts??

 

Seems to me that the majority of the energy transfer into the body of the guitar comes via the bridge. Not sure the tailpiece transfers much at all . . . but I'm just a guy . . .

I don't know about 'better' tone. Different tone and maybe a small amount more sustain. But, yeah, since there is only a small portion of the tailpiece actually in contact with the body and that the strings don't vibrate the like on the other side of he bridge, I woud be inclined to believe that there is much less energy being transferred through the tailpeice as opposed to the bridge and neck.

[Gitfiddler]

Another bit of useless information (my non-expert opinion) about tail pieces on archtops...

 

The tension or downward force of a tail piece has more impact on archtop sustain (not tone) then its material. The best example of that concept is seen in the 'Six Finger' tail piece. Each 'finger' is adjustable for its downward tension, increasing string pressure on the bridge. Left in the most upward or loose position, notes seem to die or decay at a faster rate. This is the same effect most tail pieces have, no matter what they are made of (i.e. wood or metal).

 

However, as one tightens the individual 'finger' thereby increasing the downward pressure, the notes seem to sustain a little better. This is much more pronounced on semi-hollow guitars with sustain blocks and metal tune-o-matic bridges, and less so with standard full-hollow archtops with wooden bridges.

 

Back to the original poster's question...The only noticeable tone change I can tell from a metal t.o.m. bridge set onto an archtop's wooden base is a slight increase in brightness, and less jazz thump. That can easily be adjusted 'to taste' with a little knob tweaking on the amp or guitar.

 

Hope this rambling answer helps.

 

Tim

[111518]

I think the archtop is designed like a violin. Transfer of energy to the soundboard happens at the bridge, and ideally, nothing else touches the soundboard to inhibit vibration. Top is arched so it can support the pressure of the bridge without heavy bracing (ala a flat top guitar). The archtop tailpiece, attacked to the rim, is there to secure the strings, period. Haven't noticed, in all the years people have been playing string instruments designed with this basic logic, that anyone has replaced the tailpiece of a violin or cello with a big honkin' piece of brass ...if anything, for archtops the cutting edge designers like D'Aquisto replaced the big brass tailpieces used by D'Angellico etc. with wood. My 2 cents, of course.