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
)
