Official Luthiers Forum!

Folks,

An interesting discussion topic has come up at the Yahoo 10string group, which I frequent. It concerns whether any benefits are to be had in anchoring the strings to a tailpiece instead of tieing them off at the bridge, in the traditional classical method.

What I know of the differences between sound production between an instrument that uses a tailpiece and a floating bridge (archtops, mandos, violins, etc.) and those that anchor their strings to the bridge itself, all pretty much comes from Siminoff's book,
The Luthier's Handbook.

IIRC, Siminoff states that the majority of sound production from a tailpiece/floating bridge instrument is due to downward force caused by the break angle over the bridge, and that for instruments where the strings are anchored at the bridge, the majority of sound production is due to the bridge rocking along its long axis, in a fore-and-aft motion.

Yet there are players out there, Paul Galbraith (a well-known 8-string artist) being one, who use both the traditional bridge and a tailpiece. Here's a photo of Galbraith playing his guitar. Yeah, he plays it like a cello, but he does well at it.

It seems to me, based on my limited knowledge of this subject, that if the strings are not physically tied down to the bridge on a traditionally built "flattop" guitar that volume would suffer. But apparently there's more to this than Siminoff claims.

Anyway, I'm interested in feedback regarding this. Any thoughts?

Best,

Michael

_________________
Live to Play, Play to Live

Funny, I was just thinking about this same subject when I read this. My wife just called me and said she just bought a purple painted ukulele at a thrift store for 50 cents. She went on to say that it looked funny because it was only using 4 of 6 tuners and that it had a tailpiece instead of a regular bridge arrangement. I suspect that this is a cheapo Mexican mini guitar they make for tourists. None the less, I would like to hear what those in the know say about the bridge vs. tailpiece question.

_________________
aka konacat

If you think my playing is bad you should hear me sing!
Practice breeds confidence and confidence breeds competence. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in practice.

Hi Michael,

Notice how close the tailpiece is to the bridge on Galbraith's guitar. He may be achieving quite a bit more break angle across the saddle than if the tailpiece was back a few inches. He may also be employing (I can't remember who holds the patent, but it's patented) a tailpiece bracket that is actually an L-shaped piece of metal. In that design, the tailpiece bracket is screwed into the butt of the guitar, and the connected tailpiece is cantilevered over the guitar, rather than floating up to an equilibrium position. That design produces downward force on the strings, to create some of the break angle normally missing on tailpiece-equipped guitars.

Then again, if the classical bridge is constructed relatively "normally", and has string holes drilled into the rear edge, then the break angle is already achieved, and any added tailpiece would simply remove the shear force on the bridge. (I'm just guessing, of course. )

Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

Actually the tailpiece on Paul's guitar as well as the "resonating box" that he places the guitar on were made by a friend of mine in Brazil named Antonio Tessarin. The reason Paul decided to go with a tailpiece is becasue the tops of his guitars were caving in due to the tension of the strings. This is what Antonio came up with to salvage the guitars. He makes the tailpieces out of brass. The strings cross over the saddle and through the tie block and then attach to the tailpiece. The break angle remains unchanged and like Dennis said, the tailpiece is just removing the shear force of the bridge. I remember speaking to Paul in Brazil just after making the change to the tailpiece. The sound of the instrument was about the same if I remember correctly. The difference came in that he had to change the type of "rod" that extended from the guitar to the resonating box becaue of the tailpiece. Apparently this improved the sound of the guitar.

[QUOTE=Michael McBroom] IIRC, Siminoff states that the majority of sound production from a tailpiece/floating bridge instrument is due to downward force caused by the break angle over the bridge, and that for instruments where the strings are anchored at the bridge, the majority of sound production is due to the bridge rocking along its long axis, in a fore-and-aft motion.
[/QUOTE]
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. You may want to re-read what Siminoff wrote (I haven't read it, but he knows a lot more about this than I, so I bet he had more to say).

First of all, I think you'll have to discount Galbraith's instrument in this discussion, unless you want to build one exactly like it. There are just too many differences from a standard (or standard extra-string) guitar. I've heard recordings of it, though, and it sounds magnificent!

First of all, if you use a tailpiece like an archtop, it's just going to sound much different from what you're used to. Who knows, you may like it. I don't think it would have the volume you need though.

My understanding of bridge movement is this: The movement of a standard, glued bridge is very complex. It rocks forward and back, side to side, and up and down. With the strings attached to a tailpiece, most of the bridge movement is up and down.

Now, if you glue the bridge, run the strings through holes in the bridge, as if they would be tied normally, and then attach them to a tailpiece, you'll probably get a more complex bridge motion, but that's only a guess on my part.

Probably at least once a year on any forum someone asks about using a tailpiece on a flattop. I bet every teaching luthier hears this question frequently, too. I've asked it myself. The sad truth is that it has been tried by several builders in the past, and it apparently just doesn't work well. On the other hand, they may not have been the best builders, and the last word on the subject may not have been spoken.

BTW, the reverse question is often asked about archtops. Why not anchor the strings on a glued bridge? I've only read (in the GAL's American Lutherie mag.) about one luthier who has done this (sorry, his name has left my brain). He said the guitars (which looked great in the photos) sounded like neither flattops or archtops, but something in between. He couldn't sell them and had to return to building standard configurations. Too bad, 'cause I think there's more ore to mine there.

[QUOTE=Michael McBroom]
IIRC, Siminoff states that the majority of sound production from a tailpiece/floating bridge instrument is due to downward force caused by the break angle over the bridge, and that for instruments where the strings are anchored at the bridge, the majority of sound production is due to the bridge rocking along its long axis, in a fore-and-aft motion.

[/QUOTE]
Michael,
I think the key is in the word majority. In a tailpiece/floating bridge instrument there is no doubt some rocking. What percent? Who can say. I suspect it has a lot to do with the break angle and bridge design/footprint.
I owned a 12 string in the 70's that was a dread with the tail piece. That guitar sounded terrible.

[QUOTE=CarltonM] ..........Too bad, 'cause I think there's more ore to mine there.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Might this be a future build of yours?

_________________
"An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered." G. K. Chesterton.

[QUOTE=SteveS] Might this be a future build of yours?[/QUOTE]
I'd like to someday. I like the feel of archtops, and I think getting that "in between" sound would be great!

I have ordered the Campunino (sp?) book so hopefully I will be asking more educated questions soon.

I have benn thinking about this as well regarding my hybrid ABG project as I plan to use either floating bridge lie a jazz guitar or a glue on one.

Since I am running the strings into an internally mounted tail piece wich in turn will be mounted on the neck through extensions I have a really open play book on the break angle.

Originally I was going with a shallow angle until the owner/designer of RMC saddle transducers (which I am using) said I probably would not get much volume acoustically or through the transducers with that shallow of an angle.

I can go any where from 90 degrees straight down to more shallow or even a less than 90 degree angle anchoring the ball ends in front of the bridge toward the neck a bit.

Besides the Smirnov reference are there any on line links, articles etc you know of I can research until my books arrive?

Scooter,

You might try the leftbrainluthiers group at Yahoo:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/leftbrainluthiers

This sort of topic might be right up their alley. Huh. Now that I think about it, I probably should have posted a note over there regarding the original topic of this thread. Maybe I'll still do that.

Richard McClish, the owner of RMC, is a very knowledgeable guy, and seems to be quite willing to help out folks with building questions and issues. I would be inclined to pay attention to his comments regarding break angle.

Regarding specific break angle numbers, I just measured the break angle on one of my favorite classicals. It runs from about 15 degrees (measured on the horizontal) for the 1st string to about 25 degrees for the 6th, due to increased saddle height. So, for classicals, at least, these numbers are sufficient. I don't know enough about archtops and other instruments that use tailpieces to comment on preferred break angles for them.

Best,

Michael

_________________
Live to Play, Play to Live

Thanks Micheal,

I will check that out. When I was ordering some guitar construction books I thought I saw one entitled Left Brain Luthier but thougth I would start with two more "basic" books before straining my brain .

Actually I find reading about the general concepts, philosophy and applied art (science with too many variables) fascinating reading. Its just when I start trying to apply it that my brain starts stalling out.

Micheal,

I tried that link and a Google search but only found references to the book I saw.

Can you double check your link?

Hey Scooter,

I just tried the link I posted and it works for me. But that might be because I'm already a member there. Try going here:

http://launch.dir.groups.yahoo.com/dir/Music

And type in "leftbrainluthiers" into the search window. You should get a hit on the group. BTW, the book you're referring to was written by one of the group members.

Best,

Michael

_________________
Live to Play, Play to Live

Great topic. I was recently wondering the same thing. Sorry that I don't
have anything else to contribute though!!!

Mike

_________________
Mike

"The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there. The Dude. Takin' 'er easy for all us sinners. Shoosh." The Stranger

I am currently working on a 12 string with a tail piece, this is a restoration project. the guitar isn't really worth restoring, but it is a funky design and i like its attitude. and it is a good first project. i am looking forward to the tailpiece part, cause i am a bit of a metal worker and i think i will get a kick out of making one. also making my own tuners for a bit of a different look. i suppose, my point if i have one is that, for me in this instance the sound isnt neccesarily everything. If you like the idea of a tailpiece, go for it   

Thanks Micheal the second link worked but you can not view anything without being a member.

I submitted my application.

Keeping spam out of Yahoo groups is a real problem. I own a few, and I know from first-hand experience. About the only way I know of to rid a group of spammers is to require a person to request membership access.

It's not a very active group, but it's worth being a member if for no other reason than to be able to search through the message archive.

Best,

Michael

_________________
Live to Play, Play to Live