| Author | Message | ||
| funkyjazzjunky
Senior Member Username: funkyjazzjunky Post Number: 419 Registered: 5-2007 |
Any Alembics with a strings-through-the-body style tail-piece? I think it helps a 34" low B sound much better. | ||
| fc_spoiler
Senior Member Username: fc_spoiler Post Number: 884 Registered: 5-2006 |
This is an Employee project:   From this topic: Rare Alembic | ||
| bsee
Senior Member Username: bsee Post Number: 2342 Registered: 3-2004 |
On some bass designs, I'm sure the string-through-body is helpful. If you get an Alembic neck-thru bass with some dense woods in the neck (at least purpleheart, maybe add an ebony stringer as well) then there's plenty of meat to the low B. Add a bridge block so that the bridge is embedded in a hunk of brass and it gets stronger. The heftier the bridge, the less added value you'll get out of stringing through the body. That solid Alembic tailpiece is going to do a pretty good job of coupling the string to the body. At least, that's what I believe... -bob | ||
| funkyjazzjunky
Senior Member Username: funkyjazzjunky Post Number: 420 Registered: 5-2007 |
What about the increased length and tension with thru the body strings? | ||
| adriaan
Senior Member Username: adriaan Post Number: 2202 Registered: 6-2002 |
Increase in length is probably about 1". So it would be the same as going from 34" to 35" in scale. Nothing major tensionwise. | ||
| olieoliver
Senior Member Username: olieoliver Post Number: 2370 Registered: 2-2006 |
Good questions FJJ. I have a couple of neck-thru basses (Daion)that have thru body strings and I really like how they sound and play. They're 34" scale so I have to buy extra long scale strings for them. This bass though looks like a set neck to me. There is no back laminate on this bass, that's the body we're looking at. OO | ||
| davehouck
Moderator Username: davehouck Post Number: 8052 Registered: 5-2002 |
There was a very interesting discussion here a few years ago on this subject, with interesting points on both sides, most of which I don't remember. In my view, and I am not a physicist, for a given string, no matter how far from the nut and bridge the ends of the string are secured, in order for that string to vibrate at a given pitch, the tension of the string between the nut and bridge will be the same. As an illustration, say that on your headstock, the tuning machine sits on a groove that runs the length of the headstock and that the tuner is currently near the nut. The string is tuned to E. Now push the tuner (you'll need some kind of pneumatic device to actually move it) down the groove away from the nut and toward the end of the headstock. You are increasing the tension and the pitch is increasing; it's no longer tuned to E. (It's the same effect you get with a whammy bar on your bridge; by pulling on the bar you increase the distance from the nut, increase the tension, and increase the pitch.) You will have to reduce that newly increased tension by turning the tuning knob to get the tension between the nut and bridge back to where it was so that the pitch is returned to E. Changing the length of the string beyond the nut or bridge can have effects. For instance, notice how the string on most instruments is just laying on the nut. When you strike the string, some of the energy passes beyond the nut into the portion of the string that's off the finger board. The longer that portion of the string is, the more energy is absorbed beyond the nut. This can be compensated for by increasing the angle of the headstock. This is why you see string trees on the strings that have the longest distance to the tuner on some in-line headstocks. As Olie and Adriaan alluded to, having the strings pass through the body will allow you to use 35" scale strings on a 34" scale bass. This would have a similar effect as tuning down to D or D# with the same strings on a 35" scale bass. And having the strings pass through the body may help transfer energy to the body woods to some degree. In Olie's case, in order to get the string to vibrate at a given pitch, he's had to actually reduce the tension. I'm guessing he can probably do string bends and finger vibrato easier on that bass than if he took the same string and put it on a 35" scale bass. This is why Stevie Ray Vaughn tuned down; he could use big fat strings and manipulate them much easier than if he was tuned up to E. Take a 35" scale bass, tune the string to E. Now put a capo on the 1st fret; you've shortened the scale length. The new shorter scale length is tuned to F; to get the string tuned to E in the new shorter scale length, you will have to reduce the tension by turning the tuning key down. Again, I'm not a physicist; this is just what seems to make sense to me. And some other members made some interesting points in the previous thread that I can no longer remember. So take it with a few grains of salt; my ideas here may be inaccurate. | ||
| bsee
Senior Member Username: bsee Post Number: 2343 Registered: 3-2004 |
To go along with what Dave is saying, I believe that we all agreed that the non-speaking length of the string doesn't matter to tension. The impact of the extra non-speaking length, if any might depend upon the stretch inherent in the string. That sounds like it could only be a bad thing. The best results will occur when the string is solidly anchored at either end. That means a heavy bridge/tailpiece solidly attached to the body. Tone is impacted when the connection is into something that might flex and absorb energy. Through-body accomplishes this, but so does the standard Alembic setup, these as opposed to those old pressed steel bridges that were a standard 30 years ago. Additionally, if you go string-through-body with a bass, the strings will have to bend at a much sharper angle than simply going over a bridge saddle to the tailpiece. It is a full 90 degrees of additional bend. Guitar strings are thinner and more flexible to do this, but some bass strings are a lot stiffer with enough thickness that you risk the separation of the outer wrap at that spot. Many strings will work just fine, but the fatter sizes of flatwounds could easily fail. -bob | ||
| 811952
Senior Member Username: 811952 Post Number: 1655 Registered: 10-2003 |
My experience with through-body strings is that primarily you will find it much easier to run the exposed core of a broken string through your finger when changing it at a gig. Through-body would seem to equate with under-the-fingernail in my experience... ;) The benefit of through-body is that you don't have to worry so much about how the tailpiece is anchored or designed. The stiffness of the bridge anchoring (how it physically couples with the body) is what matters most... John | ||
| white_cloud
Senior Member Username: white_cloud Post Number: 662 Registered: 11-2007 |
That is definitely a set neck construction on the project bass - no shadow of a doubt! Thru body stringing? Im not sure that it really beats a good solid well made bridge (badass etc) John. | ||
| 811952
Senior Member Username: 811952 Post Number: 1656 Registered: 10-2003 |
Does a project bass get to wear an Alembic logo on the headstock? | ||
| davehouck
Moderator Username: davehouck Post Number: 8075 Registered: 5-2002 |
If I recall correctly, most employee shop night basses do not have the logo. | ||
| lbpesq
Senior Member Username: lbpesq Post Number: 3804 Registered: 7-2004 |
I have an employee shopnight "strat". As you can see here, it has no logo. Bill, tgo | ||
| funkyjazzjunky
Senior Member Username: funkyjazzjunky Post Number: 422 Registered: 5-2007 |
Beautiful instruments. What about the increased tension with a through-body set-up for the strings? I think that would enhance the tone as well. | ||
| davehouck
Moderator Username: davehouck Post Number: 8080 Registered: 5-2002 |
I think what I was trying to say in my longer post above is that there is no increased tension. | ||
| olieoliver
Senior Member Username: olieoliver Post Number: 2383 Registered: 2-2006 |
Bill, did you ever change the bridge on that guitar? OO | ||
| bsee
Senior Member Username: bsee Post Number: 2347 Registered: 3-2004 |
You won't get increased tension, or even increased downward pressure over the bridge saddles. The angle over the bridge can't really be any steeper unless you're going almost right angle and immediately through the body. If you do that, you get a severe bend in the string, but you may also get the string to push down harder onto the saddle. That could impact tone in some subtle way, though I'm not sure. If you maintain the same angle as with a tailpiece and then turn down through the body, then there will be a bunch of pressure at that turning point as well. Anyone got a cover for the can of worms I just opened?  I thought the whole concept was pretty much covered, but I don't remember us discussing pressure on the bridge saddles previously. -bob | ||
| davehouck
Moderator Username: davehouck Post Number: 8081 Registered: 5-2002 |
There's actually not much clearance above the back rail of the bridge given the usual angle the strings take from the saddle to the tailpiece. Of course this varies depending on the distance from the bridge to the tailpiece and how high the bridge is sitting. And you don't want the strings touching the back rail unless you want your bass sounding like a sitar. | ||
| funkyjazzjunky
Senior Member Username: funkyjazzjunky Post Number: 425 Registered: 5-2007 |
I see now thanks to Bob & Dave In reality, some luthiers may use strings-thru-body construction to make up for the cheap bridge. | ||
| elwoodblue
Senior Member Username: elwoodblue Post Number: 683 Registered: 6-2002 |
It seems as if the tailpiece were set in to the body a bit so there is good solid contact with endgrain of the wood that would bring the neck wood recipe into the equation more. I know there is a difference in instruments that have a brass insert on the back that makes good contact with the endgrain as opposed to just having the strings anchored into plastic insets on the back. |
