Bridge and sustain.....

[shimmilou]

http://www.epiphonetalk.com/threads/ngd.4087/

ngd

Terrific guitar! Congrats

Mod edit:

Moved to a new thread

The backwards bridge makes it difficult to get to the adjustment screws.

 

[BGood]

The backwards bridge makes it difficult to get to the adjustment screws.

On the contrary. I keep my top wraped stop bar decked and there's way more distance between it and the bridge than the other side. So a screwdriver has an easier path to the screws. Inever understood why screws were facin the pickup. It's even worst on an SG.

​

 

[Raiyn]

Inever understood why screws were facin the pickup. It's even worst on an SG.

View attachment 9294​

Say what now?

Gotta use the long screwdriver! The one I use has a 146mm shaft/blade, and it works perfectly from the front on an SG. If I came in from the back, I'd never get the angle off the (also decked, but actually designed that way*) tailpiece.

*

Spoiler: *

I strongly believe that a T.O.M. tailpiece is designed and intended to be adjustable. Mine is a Curved Brass unit from GFS that is "locking" only in the sense that it is essentially thru-bolted to the guitar. While I dislike the limitations of the design it works fine on The Lady because her bridge is rather low and it doesn't create excessive break angles.
I also "cheated" a bit by not using the supplied bushings. Rather, I used the stock Epi units for two reasons, partly because the finish on the bottom of the GFS tailpiece was wavier than the Gulf with a hurricane in it, but mainly to gain a bit of stack height for a more relaxed break angle. I had planned to use the common 2 piece "locking" posts so I could've had some adjustability, but the holes in the tailpiece were much too big as they match the outer threaded diameter of the studs and I wasn't going to Mickey Mouse it.
Don't get me wrong, I've grown to love the feel of what I have, and wouldn't change it. Having said that, it ain't a proper T.O.M. design, nor would I recommend it to everyone. It works for me and the way my guitar is setup. I'd suggest a standard Brass T.O.M with locking studs all day over this simply for the adjustability.

 

[shimmilou]

On the contrary. I keep my top wraped stop bar decked and there's way more distance between it and the bridge than the other side. So a screwdriver has an easier path to the screws. Inever understood why screws were facin the pickup. It's even worst on an SG.

View attachment 9294​

It is more about the angle of the screwdriver. With the screws facing “backwards”, the angle of the screwdriver makes it impossible to get the entire tip into the screws. Facing the “correct” way, the pickup will pivot enough to allow a better grip on the screws. Just plain ole physics.

 

[BGood]

It is more about the angle of the screwdriver. With the screws facing “backwards”, the angle of the screwdriver makes it impossible to get the entire tip into the screws. Facing the “correct” way, the pickup will pivot enough to allow a better grip on the screws. Just plain ole physics.

Either my LP is one of a kind or I'm getting real good at Photoshop.

​

 

[Shadow Explorer]

Both ways work! It's setup\guitar specific. Whichever side you have more clearance.

 

[shimmilou]

Ah, nice! Great that yours is setup that way. I might try that wrap around, much less break angle on the string with tail piece all the way down. Thanks for that pic BGood.

 

[Raiyn]

Ah, nice! Great that yours is setup that way. I might try that wrap around, much less break angle on the string with tail piece all the way down. Thanks for that pic BGood.

Or, you know, raise the tailpiece - like it was designed to be.

 

[shimmilou]

Or, you know, raise the tailpiece - like it was designed to be.

This is the way that mine are now, which is why the bridge adjustment screws would be hard to get to, if the bridge was in "backwards" as we were discussing. I have the tailpieces set high to reduce the break angle of the strings over the bridge, but I feel that the tone would be better with the tailpiece all the way down. So, the wrap around would accomplish both, tailpiece all the way down, and less break angle of the strings.

 

[Raiyn]

but I feel that the tone would be better with the tailpiece all the way down.

Why? String vibrations stop at the bridge. Even then anything that would theoretically go to the tailpiece would still be transferred to the studs as the tailpiece won't / can't touch the wood based on the bushing shoulders and the stud flange.

It's SUPPOSED to be adjustable. Otherwise it'd be like the GFS unit I mentioned (and ranted about) above. They could have also just skipped the tailpiece all together and gone string thru to save costs.

 

[BGood]

... but I feel that the tone would be better with the tailpiece all the way down. So, the wrap around would accomplish both, tailpiece all the way down, and less break angle of the strings.

Not counting how much better it looks

 

[shimmilou]

Why? String vibrations stop at the bridge....

?

I don't think so. With the tailpiece all the way down, more contact with the body, more string vibration transfer, so the body/neck can do their job and absorb or add to the vibrations. This is my view anyway.

Not sure how you can determine that the string vibration "stops" at the bridge, or even above the nut.

 

[BGood]

With the tailpiece all the way down, more contact with the body, more string vibration transfer, so the body/neck can do their job and absorb or add to the vibrations. This is my view anyway.

Not sure how you can determine that the string vibration "stops" at the bridge, or even above the nut.

Hmmm ...

I have a hard time believing that ½cm more thread into the tail piece metal bushing will be perceptible by the human ear. Remember the whole chain: finger/pick, string, pickup, pots, cap, cable, amp, speaker, room, then your/my ears. But that's me and my 65 year old ears.

String vibration might not stop at the bridge. But if that string vibration equals more sustain to you, there are few slight problems to address.

1 - The vibration of a fretted string is not transfered behind that fret. We're OK with that ? Then the nut is out of the equation, right ? So that's one out.
2 - The vibration of a fretted or non fretted string has a certain note, frequency. Right ? The "transferred" vibration on the other side of a saddle will not resonate the same note, frequency, right ? So, that's another one out the window.
3 - The vibration of an open string has a certain note, frequency. Right ? The "transferred" vibration on the other side of the nut will not resonate the same note, frequency, right ? So, that one also addresses the questionning.

 

[Raiyn]

With the tailpiece all the way down, more contact with the body,

That's just it. There ISN'T more contact with the body. You're still just going into the posts.

Not sure how you can determine that the string vibration "stops" at the bridge, or even above the nut.

Intonation.
If it didn't, you couldn't have it.

Also, think about it: does strumming behind the bridge sound anything like an open note or does it sound like a cheap cartoon effect?

The whole decked tailpiece is an old myth perpetuated by hacks on forums. I'll say it again, if it made a difference Gibson wouldn't have bothered making the T.O.M. tailpiece adjustable. They could just as easily saved the money and gone string thru.

 

[shimmilou]

Hmmm, don't know about yours, but mine has a flange on the ferrule that goes into the body (flange resting on top of the body), and the stud screw also has a flange on the bottom, so when screwed down all the way, the 2 flanges touch each other, which gives much more surface area contact than just the stud.

IDK, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that with the tail piece screwed all the way down, there is a much more solid connection with the body, which will affect vibration transfer. JMOOC

 

[Raiyn]

IDK, I could be wrong, but it seems to me that with the tail piece screwed all the way down, there is a much more solid connection with the body, which will affect vibration transfer. JMOOC

Fine. You know more than Ted McCarty - the engineer who designed the system and later went on to be the president of Gibson.

Your point might be valid if there no strings thereby giving the appearance of a being more solid by being compressed tight by the threads but that's not the force to be concerned with. Under string tension that bar is effectively solid in the wood even when raised.

 

[shimmilou]

Do you have some info from Ted about this, or are you simply making assumptions? I tend to agree with Eric Clapton, John Mayer, and others, about the decked bridge giving better vibration transfer. But those guys probably started the “myth” that you referenced earlier.

Not sure what you’re driving at, or even where you get your info, but I have my preferences, and I hope you can be happy for me and my choices. I am happy that you do your own thing.

 

[Raiyn]

Do you have some info from Ted about this, or are you simply making assumptions?

I'd ask the guy but he's been dead for years.

I'd believe an engineer long before I bought anything John Mayer believed.

 

[shimmilou]

Again, do you have some info from Ted, or are you just making assumptions? It seems like the latter.

 

[Raiyn]

Again, do you have some info from Ted, or are you just making assumptions? It seems like the latter.

I'm not making assumptions, it's obvious it's intended to be adjustable. There's no other logical explanation for it to be designed that way! If it wasn't, as I've said before, it would be through bolted with no provision for adjustment or they'd have gone with string thru bushings.