Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
- Thread starter Evan Skopp
- Start date
bloodswords
New member
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
'Low action actually makes it so you never need to top wrap' explanation just doesn't work for me as well. This is only applicable if the action is lowered with the hard tail staying put- this isn't the case with my situation. My hard tail needs to be lowered to make sure the pressure at the TOM is right to prevent the strings from popping out of the slots upon bending (as mentioned before), hence that contact happens & this causes buzzing. I guess this is avoidable for players with .010s (or thicker) in there- I use light gauge strings, .010s are a NO for me.
Thanks for the drawing complements :friday:
'Low action actually makes it so you never need to top wrap' explanation just doesn't work for me as well. This is only applicable if the action is lowered with the hard tail staying put- this isn't the case with my situation. My hard tail needs to be lowered to make sure the pressure at the TOM is right to prevent the strings from popping out of the slots upon bending (as mentioned before), hence that contact happens & this causes buzzing. I guess this is avoidable for players with .010s (or thicker) in there- I use light gauge strings, .010s are a NO for me.
Thanks for the drawing complements :friday:
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
I still don't get what you're saying. If your strings stay in the saddles at a certain height, then you lower the bridge, and then you lower the tailpiece the same amount, the strings will be just as secure as when the action was higher.
I still don't get what you're saying. If your strings stay in the saddles at a certain height, then you lower the bridge, and then you lower the tailpiece the same amount, the strings will be just as secure as when the action was higher.
bloodswords
New member
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
This didn't happen because I'm using light gauge strings; the hard tail piece went down more than the TOM in order for more pressure to be there. :headbang:
This didn't happen because I'm using light gauge strings; the hard tail piece went down more than the TOM in order for more pressure to be there. :headbang:
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
I still don't understand what you are saying.
You made a string gauge change simultaneously with a string height change?
At any rate, it doesn't matter; I'm just trying to understand what you are saying. Break angle is the only thing that does matter. Your strings will pop out of the saddles when bending, or not, based solely on the break angle, not based on how high or low the tailpiece is. There is no reason why, at the same break angle, top wrapped strings will stay in the saddles better when bending.
If your strings are popping out of your saddles, then you should notch your saddles deeper.
I still don't understand what you are saying.
You made a string gauge change simultaneously with a string height change?
At any rate, it doesn't matter; I'm just trying to understand what you are saying. Break angle is the only thing that does matter. Your strings will pop out of the saddles when bending, or not, based solely on the break angle, not based on how high or low the tailpiece is. There is no reason why, at the same break angle, top wrapped strings will stay in the saddles better when bending.
If your strings are popping out of your saddles, then you should notch your saddles deeper.
bloodswords
New member
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
Break angle- that was my point all along as well. Because I lowered the tail piece further than necessary (to ensure more pressure on the TOM bit), the break angle was messed up, it came into contact with the TOM, it buzzed.
Break angle- that was my point all along as well. Because I lowered the tail piece further than necessary (to ensure more pressure on the TOM bit), the break angle was messed up, it came into contact with the TOM, it buzzed.
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
I understand that your strings contacted the back of the bridge. But break angle is break angle; a top-strung tailpiece and a through-strung tailpiece resulting the the same break angle will give you the same pressure on the saddles; end of story. At a given break angle, your strings will stay in your saddles (or not stay in them) just as well whether you are top wrapped or strung through the tailpiece. The only differences between the two methods are how high the tailpiece sits and how much string length you have behind the bridge before the tailpiece...which don't affect anything but looks. You don't need to top wrap to solve your problem; it won't solve it. You need to notch your saddles.
I understand that your strings contacted the back of the bridge. But break angle is break angle; a top-strung tailpiece and a through-strung tailpiece resulting the the same break angle will give you the same pressure on the saddles; end of story. At a given break angle, your strings will stay in your saddles (or not stay in them) just as well whether you are top wrapped or strung through the tailpiece. The only differences between the two methods are how high the tailpiece sits and how much string length you have behind the bridge before the tailpiece...which don't affect anything but looks. You don't need to top wrap to solve your problem; it won't solve it. You need to notch your saddles.
Last edited:
Dr. Vegetable
New member
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
I don't want to stir the pot, but other than lex666, how many of the folks writing against top-wrapping have actually tried it? It seems that some are making the *theoretical* case that it is unnecessary, while others are making the *empirical* case that it works for them.
It may not be for everybody, but don't knock it until you've tried it.
EDIT: To put it another way, what exactly is the disadvantage of top-wrap?
I don't want to stir the pot, but other than lex666, how many of the folks writing against top-wrapping have actually tried it? It seems that some are making the *theoretical* case that it is unnecessary, while others are making the *empirical* case that it works for them.
It may not be for everybody, but don't knock it until you've tried it.
EDIT: To put it another way, what exactly is the disadvantage of top-wrap?
Last edited:
bloodswords
New member
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
Break angle is indeed break angle, when it's messed up, it needs some looking into. My point was that the default settings wasn't maintained after the action adjustments & because I am not a tool person, deeper saddles notching didn't take place. A friend asked why I had to push the tail piece down that much because Gibson didn't do that to begin with. Told him it wasn't done out of fashion, I needed it to be way down to maintain the pressures.
Break angle is indeed break angle, when it's messed up, it needs some looking into. My point was that the default settings wasn't maintained after the action adjustments & because I am not a tool person, deeper saddles notching didn't take place. A friend asked why I had to push the tail piece down that much because Gibson didn't do that to begin with. Told him it wasn't done out of fashion, I needed it to be way down to maintain the pressures.
ItsaBass
New member
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
I've tried it. I'm not knocking it. I'm knocking a lot of the rationale behind it. I'm just saying, I wish folks would give up the pseudo science justifications for it. "Better transfer of vibration by having the tailpiece studs deeper in the inserts" is my personal least favorite explanation. At the bridge, I can see it, but not at the tailpiece. I highly doubt that this is true to any measurable degree, that having the studs lower actually results in more vibrational transfer to the body. Secondly, even if it is, it wouldn't do you any good anyhow. How does it help you to have a practically immeasurable amount of increase in vibrational transfer over an already practically immeasurable amount of vibrational transfer, from an area of the string that has no musical value anyhow?
Regardless, every article ever written on the subject is entirely subjective. There is no scientific proof one way or the other; that's what I'd be interested to read on the issue. That's what would make me change my mind. My point is, folks should just admit that it's for looks and be good with that. Doing something solely for looks makes total sense to me. Falsely believing that there is a tonal reason for it does not.
I've tried it. I'm not knocking it. I'm knocking a lot of the rationale behind it. I'm just saying, I wish folks would give up the pseudo science justifications for it. "Better transfer of vibration by having the tailpiece studs deeper in the inserts" is my personal least favorite explanation. At the bridge, I can see it, but not at the tailpiece. I highly doubt that this is true to any measurable degree, that having the studs lower actually results in more vibrational transfer to the body. Secondly, even if it is, it wouldn't do you any good anyhow. How does it help you to have a practically immeasurable amount of increase in vibrational transfer over an already practically immeasurable amount of vibrational transfer, from an area of the string that has no musical value anyhow?
Regardless, every article ever written on the subject is entirely subjective. There is no scientific proof one way or the other; that's what I'd be interested to read on the issue. That's what would make me change my mind. My point is, folks should just admit that it's for looks and be good with that. Doing something solely for looks makes total sense to me. Falsely believing that there is a tonal reason for it does not.
Last edited:
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
I tried it. Didn't like the feel of the strings on top of the tailpiece. Plus, some strings had ends that stuck out beyond the wrapping (at the ball end) that would poke my hand. Not good.
I have one tailpiece that is top wrapped that I put string ferrules in the string holes in the front of the tailpice to wrap more of the string around it. This kept the pointy string ends inside the tailpiece where they couldn't poke me.
I tried it. Didn't like the feel of the strings on top of the tailpiece. Plus, some strings had ends that stuck out beyond the wrapping (at the ball end) that would poke my hand. Not good.
I have one tailpiece that is top wrapped that I put string ferrules in the string holes in the front of the tailpice to wrap more of the string around it. This kept the pointy string ends inside the tailpiece where they couldn't poke me.
L
Little Pigbacon
Guest
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
Why can I never find a clip of that one Roseanne episode where Dan Connor and his neighbor are arguing over how to arrange the charcoal briquettes for grilling?
Why can I never find a clip of that one Roseanne episode where Dan Connor and his neighbor are arguing over how to arrange the charcoal briquettes for grilling?
uOpt
Something Cool
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
This is a mis-analysis. The reason why they feel softer is that they *are* softer because the total string length tuner to ballpoint is longer. That is what determines how much resistance they give when bending, or even when just fretting them.
They would still feel softer is you compared two identical break angles with top and bottom mount (with different tailpiece heights to compensate).
This is a mis-analysis. The reason why they feel softer is that they *are* softer because the total string length tuner to ballpoint is longer. That is what determines how much resistance they give when bending, or even when just fretting them.
They would still feel softer is you compared two identical break angles with top and bottom mount (with different tailpiece heights to compensate).
sosomething
Seymour Duncan Customer Support
You think that really matters?
I'm not 100% sure.
How much influence does the length of string outside the points of vibration really have on feel or tone?
Especially in the case of a top-wrapped tailpiece.. most of that extra string length is wrapped tight around the bridge. That's like saying the amount of string wrapped around the post of a tuner affects feel.
I'm not calling you out or anything. It just doesn't seem logical to me.
uOpt
Something Cool
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
A lot. The amount of force (in Newton) needed to move a string by a certain distance (say the action distance fr fretting) depends on the total stretchable length - including what is outside the scale. That means the distance between nut and tuner is added, as is the distance from saddle to anchor point (very high friction somewhere will make it count less of course).
This is most obvious when comparing the high E string on Explorers and Les Pauls. Same scale length but where the Explorer has the long headstock (high strings) the moving becomes easier. And I mean easily measurable. I posted a thread with the results years ago, apart from this being basic physics.
ETA:
https://forum.seymourduncan.com/showthread.php?t=131040
A lot. The amount of force (in Newton) needed to move a string by a certain distance (say the action distance fr fretting) depends on the total stretchable length - including what is outside the scale. That means the distance between nut and tuner is added, as is the distance from saddle to anchor point (very high friction somewhere will make it count less of course).
This is most obvious when comparing the high E string on Explorers and Les Pauls. Same scale length but where the Explorer has the long headstock (high strings) the moving becomes easier. And I mean easily measurable. I posted a thread with the results years ago, apart from this being basic physics.
ETA:
https://forum.seymourduncan.com/showthread.php?t=131040
sosomething
Seymour Duncan Customer Support
Okay, I can get with that.
But I still don't think a top wrap vs. Not top-wrapped is really adding a lot of stretchable length. Maybe half an inch?
uOpt
Something Cool
Re: Blog: Top Wrapping a TOM Tailpiece
Guitar players are very sensitive to these things. The scale length difference between Fender and Gibson doesn't look very impressive to non-guitarists either, but guitarists feel a major difference.
But as I said two posts ago, it would be easy to isolate both factors in a three-step test to find out. Only problem is you can't record this.
Guitar players are very sensitive to these things. The scale length difference between Fender and Gibson doesn't look very impressive to non-guitarists either, but guitarists feel a major difference.
But as I said two posts ago, it would be easy to isolate both factors in a three-step test to find out. Only problem is you can't record this.
