Is this a normal tailpiece height?

donepearce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
5,081
Reaction score
4,482
Location
London, new hearing aid project - exciting
Probably best to leave the fractions in 64ths as we all, well most of us who do repairs seem to think in 64ths. Fender and Gibson publish their specs in 64ths. And don’t get me started on mm measurements unless we are talking about classical guitars.
I first learned Imperial measurements as a child then we switched to metric when I was about twenty. I guess I am bilingual in them still. But I have never understood failing to reduce fractions to their simplest form. I gather that in the timber trade you still use 4/4 instead of 1?
 

ChubbyFingers

Active Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
196
I've got two Chinese Flying Vs on the way. I'm fully expecting to want to / have to (take your pick) change just about everything except the wood.

I'm looking for suggestions for bridge replacements. I put a Gotoh on the V, but I'm not happy that the notches are deep enough, or with the design of the intonation adjustment screws.

Suggestions that won't break the bank, please.

I first learned Imperial measurements as a child then we switched to metric when I was about twenty. I guess I am bilingual in them still. But I have never understood failing to reduce fractions to their simplest form. I gather that in the timber trade you still use 4/4 instead of 1?
It's because their rulers are graduated (right word?) in 64ths. Us mechanicals talk about 10, 20, 50 thou (as in thousandths of an inch) in the UK or mils in the US. We don't say one one hundredth, a fiftieth, a twentieth...
 

ChubbyFingers

Active Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
196
Back on subject I'm having the same issue with both my 2022 Epi Les Paul Standard and my 2022 (?) Epi 58 Korina Flying V.

The LP bridge is set very high relative to the body, but intonation is pretty darned good.

On the V the bridge isn't quite so high but intonation at the top of the neck is maybe two LED bars sharp on the Boss tuner.

No issues on my 2015 Gibson SG though.

All three have adjustable nuts and the strings are "only just" off the first fret.
 

donepearce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
5,081
Reaction score
4,482
Location
London, new hearing aid project - exciting
It's because their rulers are graduated (right word?) in 64ths. Us mechanicals talk about 10, 20, 50 thou (as in thousandths of an inch) in the UK or mils in the US. We don't say one one hundredth, a fiftieth, a twentieth...
That's all good. Personally I don't see metric as superior to Imperial, although it's probably a good idea to switch because now it is only you, Liberia and Myanmar that are sticking to Imperial. No, my problem with American measurements was always the insistence on using fractions instead of decimals. It always leaves you with awkward jumps and impossibility of easy steps to greater accuracy. In metric, if I want to be more accurate I just chuck an extra digital after the decimal point. I recently upgraded my CNC and now it is happily cutting to 0.01mm. I can't find an inch fraction to describe that.
 

ChubbyFingers

Active Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
196
That's all good. Personally I don't see metric as superior to Imperial, although it's probably a good idea to switch because now it is only you, Liberia and Myanmar that are sticking to Imperial. No, my problem with American measurements was always the insistence on using fractions instead of decimals. It always leaves you with awkward jumps and impossibility of easy steps to greater accuracy. In metric, if I want to be more accurate I just chuck an extra digital after the decimal point. I recently upgraded my CNC and now it is happily cutting to 0.01mm. I can't find an inch fraction to describe that.
0.01 mm = 0.000394 inches. 1/2540 is a fraction and is close enough, but in reality for machining most Imperial stuff is done in decimals, metric or Imperial, anyway.
 

AxemanVR

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2020
Messages
25
Reaction score
48
Personally I wrap my strings over the top of the tail to lower the overall tension on the bridge also allowing for lower break angle action without worrying about the strings touching the back of the bridge.

I’m also a “top wrapper”.

On my Les Paul I’ve bolted the tailpiece tightly down to the body and still have an optimal break angle.


6784BC45-1BAA-405E-AC49-8AA7C960D7DE.jpeg
F77D7570-9634-4886-9296-CE66970FADEB.jpeg

Some think that having the tailpiece tightly screwed down positively improves sustain, which is debatable I suppose, but I just like knowing that the maximum transfer of energy to the body is probably going be achieved either way.

While I may never know whether that’s actually true or not, I haven’t found any downsides to doing it either - unless a person just doesn’t like how it looks.

As for me?

I think it makes me look like I know some “secret tone trick” and I hope I can brainwash as many people into following my “top wrappers cult”…

…Kool-Aid anyone?

:fingersx:
 
Last edited:

Go Nigel Go

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Messages
786
Reaction score
670
I always find the tone/sustain debates frustrating to follow because so many people go down one silo of a particular measurement or part to the exclusion of everything else. Often arguments get based on theories that have some small basis in fact, but are misapplied or extrapolated to the breaking point and no longer hold up. The whole concept of wasting string energy by pushing it into the body on an electric guitar to "improve tone" or "increase sustain" instead of converting it into electricity that can manipulated and finally be used to push the speaker cone in the amp is a combination of misapplying concepts of the design of acoustic guitars (and other instruments where the body is the source of of the sound rather than a speaker). Such theories are ignoring the fact that the sound you hear comes from the string energy being converted to electrical energy, to mechanical motion at the speaker, and finally to acoustic energy in the air. The body is at best a minimal part of that equation.
 

rabbit

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2022
Messages
43
Reaction score
42
I always find the tone/sustain debates frustrating to follow because so many people go down one silo of a particular measurement or part to the exclusion of everything else. Often arguments get based on theories that have some small basis in fact, but are misapplied or extrapolated to the breaking point and no longer hold up. The whole concept of wasting string energy by pushing it into the body on an electric guitar to "improve tone" or "increase sustain" instead of converting it into electricity that can manipulated and finally be used to push the speaker cone in the amp is a combination of misapplying concepts of the design of acoustic guitars (and other instruments where the body is the source of of the sound rather than a speaker). Such theories are ignoring the fact that the sound you hear comes from the string energy being converted to electrical energy, to mechanical motion at the speaker, and finally to acoustic energy in the air. The body is at best a minimal part of that equation.

'string energy converted to electrical energy'... it makes complete sense!

Every component on the guitar operates at a given frequency. When vibrating as a whole it provides a wave value which can later be adjusted (wave-shaping, amplification).

Does this 'resonate' with anyone else?
 

DrBGood

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
8,355
Reaction score
8,021
Location
Sutton Québec
I always find the tone/sustain debates frustrating to follow because so many people go down one silo of a particular measurement or part to the exclusion of everything else. Often arguments get based on theories that have some small basis in fact, but are misapplied or extrapolated to the breaking point and no longer hold up. The whole concept of wasting string energy by pushing it into the body on an electric guitar to "improve tone" or "increase sustain" instead of converting it into electricity that can manipulated and finally be used to push the speaker cone in the amp is a combination of misapplying concepts of the design of acoustic guitars (and other instruments where the body is the source of of the sound rather than a speaker). Such theories are ignoring the fact that the sound you hear comes from the string energy being converted to electrical energy, to mechanical motion at the speaker, and finally to acoustic energy in the air. The body is at best a minimal part of that equation.
Ahhh .. come on ! What fun is there if you can't argue on such things ? That's exactly why forums like this one were started and they are an infinite source of misinformation and ... anything you can think of actually.

Like, let's say ... if pickup screw slots are all aligned parallel to strings, will the tone be more directional, concentrated ? If so, when they are perpendicular, the sound generated should then break earlier and pick attack will be much harder to control.
 

ChubbyFingers

Active Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
196
What about a split hair ? Americans are known to use weird measure units, like that guitar is 9 13/64th bananas long. Or, you can head my unplugged LP sustain as far as 63/64th football fields

Split hair is transatlantic. Don't know which side it started on.

There's also a b#ll hair and a gnat's c#ck. Two gnat's c#ck to a b#ll hair IIRC.
 

Guithartic

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2022
Messages
33
Reaction score
27
I first learned Imperial measurements as a child then we switched to metric when I was about twenty. I guess I am bilingual in them still. But I have never understood failing to reduce fractions to their simplest form. I gather that in the timber trade you still use 4/4 instead of 1?
It’s easier for comparison to use the same denominator. It’s easy to compare 1/64 to 3/64 or 4/64 or 5/64, compared to trying to compare 1/16 to 5/64. In fact, if you did that comparison, you would probably convert the 1/16 to 4/64 in your mind, so may as well start with 4/64.
 

ChubbyFingers

Active Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
196
Aerospace industry machinists used to work in "tenths". One ten thousandth of an inch.
 

Go Nigel Go

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2020
Messages
786
Reaction score
670
Ahhh .. come on ! What fun is there if you can't argue on such things ? That's exactly why forums like this one were started and they are an infinite source of misinformation and ... anything you can think of actually.

Like, let's say ... if pickup screw slots are all aligned parallel to strings, will the tone be more directional, concentrated ? If so, when they are perpendicular, the sound generated should then break earlier and pick attack will be much harder to control.
Bah! What you really need is my harmonically aligned Tone Wax. The patented molecular formation will enhance your sustain infinitely so every note will go on forever. You do need to very careful to play only the best notes though so they don't clash and ruin your sound forever. :naughty:
 

donepearce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
5,081
Reaction score
4,482
Location
London, new hearing aid project - exciting
It’s easier for comparison to use the same denominator. It’s easy to compare 1/64 to 3/64 or 4/64 or 5/64, compared to trying to compare 1/16 to 5/64. In fact, if you did that comparison, you would probably convert the 1/16 to 4/64 in your mind, so may as well start with 4/64.
And this is why we work in decimal, not fractional. At a glance I know the difference between 3.4425 and 3.4426. You can only come up with a single denominator for a limited set of dimensions.
 

ChubbyFingers

Active Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
196
That sounds good. A tenth of a thou is a pretty reasonable tolerance
No it's not. Far too tight for most things. Tight tolerances unnecessarily put up manufacturing costs. Standard machining tolerance is more like ÷/1 10 thousandths, or 100 tenths, or 0.25mm.
 


Latest posts

Top