Post Number: 18
|Posted on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 8:14 pm: |
I currently own 3 beautiful Persuaders from the 90's.They are all medium scale.The problem is to get the low B string that fit to the lenght between the tailpiece to the B tuning peg,because the bigger winding is always too long.
I notice that there is still a lot of space behind the tailpiece,so I am thinking of moving the tailpiece backward.so that the lenght problem isnt there any more.Does anybody ever done this before?
What special care should I notice on doing this?
And does it affect the string feel/tension or tone whatsoever?
If anybody have some information or experience,please do let me know.
Thank you very much Alembicians!
Post Number: 710
|Posted on Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 12:16 am: |
How far would you need to move the tailpiece?
And are you able to post a photo of the problem at the tuning peg end?
(Message edited by bob on September 28, 2006)
Post Number: 19
|Posted on Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 8:21 pm: |
Thanks for your attention.Ill try to upload a photo later on.
On one of my 6Persuader,if I use DR string,the low B's bigger winding is 21mm too long.The space available behind the tailpiece is app.47mm.So I am thinking of moving it 3cm backward.What do you think?
Post Number: 712
|Posted on Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 11:14 pm: |
I think I'd really like to see some photos - of both ends - so we can get some other opinions here. 3cm is a lot.
Are you absolutely convinced these are the perfect strings for you? Before modifying the instrument, I would personally spend some time trying other strings, that might fit better. But if you have already done that, and believe these are the only ones, then it may work out okay.
Moving the tailpiece further away will have no effect on the string tension. For the same string and tuning, the only thing that would affect tuning is the distance between the nut and bridge, which you are not changing.
The other potential concern is the "break angle" - the amount by which the string has to bend, as it goes from the tailpiece over the bridge. By moving the tailpiece further from the bridge, you will reduce the break angle. Again, 3cm is a lot, so it would help to see a photo of the bridge area, taken from the side, to get a better idea of how this angle would change.
Sometimes this topic is also discussed as "down force", meaning how much the strings pull down on the bridge. Personally, I believe such discussions are often misleading (particularly as to the merits of running the strings through the body...).
However, you *do* need to consider how much angle will remain, as the string bends over the bridge, once you move the tailpiece. If there is not enough angle left, then the string may bounce around in the saddle somewhat, which would not be good.
I admire your willingness to modify the bass, to suit you. But it is a big step, so I encourage you to think about your string choice a little more before proceeding.
But with some photos, we may get some other helpful opinions, so post them when you get a chance.
Post Number: 4459
|Posted on Sunday, October 01, 2006 - 1:37 pm: |
In addition to the comments Bob made, my guess is that when the tailpiece is moved, it will be visually apparent that it's been moved; I'm guessing you will be able to see the old location in the newly exposed finish.
Post Number: 1326
|Posted on Sunday, October 01, 2006 - 2:19 pm: |
Not only is the finish under the tailpiece likely to have aged differently than the previously exposed parts, but there will be a few screw holes, Dave.
The old SSB with the after-market blue LEDs had the tailpiece moved. I don't believe there was any functional issue, but it sure was ugly that way. When Poor_Nigel had it, he was talking about returning it to the original position. I think he may have sold it to another club member during his "garage sale" most of a year ago. I am pretty sure that he bought it from a clubber as well.
I also have a vague recollection that there may have been some piece of metal added in the spot the original tailpiece came from. If it was there, it was provided a crossbar that the strings ran under on the way from the tailpiece to the bridge. This would maintain the original bend angle across the bridge while letting you use a longer string. Found a pic here.
In any case, there are one or more club members who have direct experience with this bass and should be able to talk about the physical and aesthetic impact of a relocated tailpiece.
Post Number: 22
|Posted on Monday, October 02, 2006 - 9:37 am: |
Hi Bob.Dave and Bsee!
Bob you are absolutely right about that.I never pay atention to the string point angle.And it was another problem,specially on the first string,cause it is already almost flat.I had the bridge screw all the way down on the treble side.On the bass side it is still safe enough to back off about 1cm or so.
Dave, I wouldnt worry about cosmetics,cause these are my main axes.I ve tried other famous brands,even with 36" scales.but still Ive got to go back to my Persuaders.So ive got to do something regarding the string availability problem!
Bsee thanks for the link of the picture of the bass with the crossbar.That could be my next alternative.
Im even thining of dividing the tailpiece into two,each for three strings.
I had no spare Low B that could fit the lenght now.and Im quite worried if I had to do a recording with a dull string.The only brand that fit is the Warwick Red Box,but its not my favourite.
I think I ll try the Rotosounds.
Il go trying some other brands or try to order Low B's only if its possible,before doing something major to the bass.
Thanks again guys.
Post Number: 23
|Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 6:49 am: |
I think Ive got an idea.
What do you think of burrying the tailpiece a few milimeters into the body?So that the angle could be steeper.
Post Number: 835
|Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 6:55 am: |
Steeper angle may cause for strings to break easier.
Post Number: 209
|Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 9:38 pm: |
Hey, if you're not opposed to modifications on the instrument, then the real solution you want is to leave the current tailpiece where it is now, but fabricate some sort of secondary tailpiece and add that farther back on the body. It only needs to be for the B-string and probably only another 2" farther away maximum. All it needs to do is hold the ball end and the rest of the string can pass through the regular tailpiece. The other strings will be unchanged, so you won't have any downside to worry about.
The cheap guy variation is to add a brass tube of sufficient diameter to pass the string through and again 2" or so long to that hole of the tailpiece. A super-cheap guy solution would be to make a 2" spacer that you just slip over the string, but I think it will be hard to get that to fit absolutely immovably against the hole in the tailpiece, unless you had that hole milled to be a cylindrical bore.
You might also think about drilling through the body (well, sort of neck) and anchoring the ball end in a ferrule on the back like a string-through-body instrument. Since it's feeding through after the tailpiece instead of after the bridge, you will almost certainly need to modify the existing tailpiece so this fat string can "turn the corner" and pass into the body.
Post Number: 1368
|Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 9:44 pm: |
I think that, if any modification is to be made, the one done to that old SSB is the best option. Sinking the tailpiece into the body would be a significant and irreversible change.
Post Number: 24
|Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 5:52 am: |
Ive done dfung60's way,but I could only unsert a short round metal piece,around 3mm wide,and let the Bstring pass through.It helps the to lenghten about 1cm,and the only string I could use is DAddario,which is not my favourite.
DR and LaBella are still too long.
Putting a second bridge is a good idea.
Olieoliver,the idea of burrying down is to make a steeper angle,because a further distance could cause too flat an angle .
Once again ,thanks for the ideas guys.