How important is the afterlength actually?
I read in earlier posts that one should tune the afterlength 2 octaves and a fourth from the original string tone.

E string: Afterlength tuned A
A string: Afterlength tuned D
D string: Afterlength tuned G
G string: Afterlength tuned C

Is this just bull, or does it actually make a difference?

I have earlier set up my afterlength by measuring it to be 1/6 of the string length, from nut to bridge. This is another tip that I got from reading Talkbass. When I checked my afterlenght tune yesterday I found out that it was tuned very close to 2 octaves and a fifth. So I should really shorten my tailpiece cord a bit, to get the tune to be 2 octaves and a fourth.....

But how much does this affect the sound of the bass annyway?

game on ;)

Yeah. This is one of those ideas somebody came up with many years ago. Gary Karr was one of the first guys who came out with some sensible ideas about it, then Barrie Kolstein came out with his tunable tailpieces.
I feel the more you start getting involved with little things like this, the quicker you'll be heading to the Farm. Extended saddle boots, IMO, are much the same way.
OCD lives. ;)
To most of us here, I believe, the important stuff on a healthy bass with good sound post adjustment, happens in the playing length. Nut to the bridge, including the board of course.

+1 Paulie.

Shoot, I'm just happy if I can not suck north of the bridge.

Agree with Paul. I moved my tailpiece up quite a bit at one point and did notice a somewhat softer feel in terms of string tension pizz. The sound didn't change. I doubt that the difference between a 4th and 5th will make a difference, but give it a try and report back... ;)

I was working with Bobby Hutcherson years ago, and he turned around to me and said....."Set up a latin figure down below your bridge for an intro". I did, and it was very cool sounding. I went home that night and got out some rubber washers and stuck them in between the strings where the silks meet the saddle on the tailpiece. I tuned the intervals down there to match the key of that tune. Bobby loved that, but it DIDN'T change anything in the playing length.

I'm not a luthier and don't fool around with the setup of my bass personally at all, but Jake tuned my afterlengths and mode matched my tailpiece to my fingerboard last year and all I can comment on is the before and after. Amazing. We had a little TBDB convention in my living room last weekend and everyone who had played my bass before and after is a convert.

We also did things like changing end pins and I was amazed at how much difference swapping endpins could make to the tone and volume, as well as playability, indirectly.

I'm not advocating that it must be done or your bass doesn't work right, but it's not bunk. To Paul's point, I think a lot of basses are a soundpost adjustment away from sounding much better and a lot of people don't bother, which is a shame. I also see a lot of bridges either tilting or out of place which is a much simpler and more impactful setup necessisity.

But, if you're uphappy with something about how your bass is sounding and you've got someone who can do that work for you at a reasonable price, it's not fruitless.

Jake tuned my afterlengths and mode matched my tailpiece to my fingerboard last year and all I can comment on is the before and after. Amazing.

I think the mode matching would have more to do with any change than tuning the afterlengths.

Could be. Like I said, I don't intellectually take myself into these things, I trust my luthier(s) and my ears. I will say that a good set up is key and I'm sure there are several things that contribute to that and several more that are icing on the cake.

Agree with Paul. I moved my tailpiece up quite a bit at one point and did notice a somewhat softer feel in terms of string tension pizz. The sound didn't change. I doubt that the difference between a 4th and 5th will make a difference, but give it a try and report back... ;)

I guess its a matter of harmonics.......fifths make different harmonics than fourths. So if the fourths make a nicer harmonics palette......:hmm:

Changes south of the bridge do make a difference. Afterlength, tailpiece length/weight, and saddle height are all things that contribute to a bass' overall sound and response. These factors are subtle, but nonetheless real.

Again, being the muse here, rather than the expert. I was amazed at how different swapping endpins made the same bass sound. Not subtle, we sort of argued about what we heard, but no one argued that it wasn't making a difference.

In my experience, tuning the afterlengths can have a big impact on the sound. The strings even out and dead spots on the fingerboard go away.

Don't take my word for it, try it yourself. Play every note on the fingerboard slowly at pp and listen hard. Adjust your tailpiece wire or tuck little wedges under the strings, whatever it takes - then listen again.

I have now made some adjustments to the afterlength. I also put some shims under the bridge, to raise it a bit.

Since it is late at night in Norway, I haven´t had the time for a good testride. The bass sound i bit different, the strings got a little stiffer also, which perhaps was a good thing. The afterlength adjustment seemed to sort og release the core tone of my Bel Cantos. Think something happened with the tension.

One downside is that the internal frequency of the tailpiece harness (think of the tailgut, tailpiece and the afterlength as one big string) got more sensitive. When playing notes at Bb & B (which seem to be the internal frequency of the tailpiece harness) the harness sing along, and produses a kind og low frequency reverb. So I put some damping material under the southest part of the tailpiece to dampen the boom, without putting any pressure on the top of the bass.

I am going to do a thorough test tomorrow when playing on a rehearsal with the symphonic orchestra :hyper:

Quite a surprise to find this thread on the day I decided to do this procedure. Went from 2 octaves plus a M6 to 2 octaves plus a P5th. The tone was noticeably brighter under the ear, slightly less so to the microphone, using Helicores that have been on for 5-6 years. Generally the tone is less sluggish, but I'll probably still get new strings.

I'm not a luthier and don't fool around with the setup of my bass personally at all, but Jake tuned my afterlengths and mode matched my tailpiece to my fingerboard last year and all I can comment on is the before and after. Amazing. We had a little TBDB convention in my living room last weekend and everyone who had played my bass before and after is a convert.

We also did things like changing end pins and I was amazed at how much difference swapping endpins could make to the tone and volume, as well as playability, indirectly ...
I'm no luthier neither ;) . I was there in-person at Troy's "little convention" last Sunday. I hadn't heard Troy's carved Czech before Jake worked it over but I sure can attest to the Amazing sound of his bass now.

I also had Jake DeeVee do the whole bevy of his bass-tricks on my 1960-ish plywoody Epiphone B-5 and I just got it back at the TBDB shin-dig. I know what the Epi sounded like last October when I shipped it off to him on the Greyhound .... stifled and constipated, unbalanced strings, somewhat low volume.

I know what it sounds like now :D ... Even though it still has some settling in to do in my dry climate, last night I played two 1-hour back-to-back free-shows for Old Folks and then jammed for another 1.5 hours after that. The bass is now big'n'beefy, balanced, breathing well, and mighty-sonorous (for a plywoody ;) ). Band members made very positive comments on the acoustic sound of the bass and another basser tried it out and she sure was smiling.

I really don't know which of the voo-doo ;) tricks made the most difference ..... afterlength tuning, lightning-up the orig Epi maple tailpiece and then mode-matching it to the fingerboard, lightweight drumstick endpin, new nut, new bridge, soundpost adj .... But I sure can say that the total effect is The Real Deal :D !

Quite a surprise to find this thread on the day I decided to do this procedure. Went from 2 octaves plus a M6 to 2 octaves plus a P5th. The tone was noticeably brighter under the ear, slightly less so to the microphone, using Helicores that have been on for 5-6 years. Generally the tone is less sluggish, but I'll probably still get new strings.

Tuning my afterlength from fifths to fourths made the bass a little brighter, and the strings a littlebit stiffer and less flimsy. I removed the shims from under the bridge. They didn´t work for their purpous. I really should have get hold of a lighter tailpiece (maple). The ebony tailpiece´s low freq absorbment issues are got worse with fourth tuning. I therefore consider trying a nylon tailgut instead of the braided steel cable. I guess it can be a good solution, to make the tailpiece a little less responsive to the "north of the bridge" action.

This evening I did put on a nylon tailgut that came with the ebony tailpiece i bought for Bob Gollihur some years ago. It was lying in the drawer because it didn´t work out with the first bass I owned. Now I got the Grunert, and the nylon tailgut seem to work out better. The low frequencie feeddback is gone, and harmonics are actually more clearer.
I´m eager to hear how it works with the orchestra tomorrow night :hyper:

Could mode matching potentially make one big bad wolf tone, especially when amplified?

I don't think so - it evens out a bass rather than making it peaky - it tends to fix the 'dead' notes on the neck, makes the DB smoother tonally.

The top has a note, the back has a note, the bass bar has a note etc. I suppose if you managed to tune ALL the parts to one note you'd have one bad wolf but that's not what we're talking about here.

Having the two anchor points working at the same speed seems to allow the string vibrations to get through the bridge and into the top more cleanly, bringing more depth, substance and nuance. It removes phase cancellations, just like tuning the afterlengths does, that's for sure.

Shoot, I'm just happy if I can not suck north of the bridge.

What, Michigan Ave? :hiding:

Sorry, man... the imagery of that has been buggin' me since you posted it.... :D

LOL!! :D

Nice shootin' BIGGUS.

What, Michigan Ave? :hiding:

Sorry, man... the imagery of that has been buggin' me since you posted it.... :D
Nice Marcus :D .... Even though I am from Podunk-Ville originally and now I'm back where I belong ;) .... I lived in Greater Chi-Town for about 1.5 years. I know what you mean .... DAMN ..... I saw some great blues/jazz shows with double-bass pro-players back then in about 1974-75 :D .

...Is this just bull, or does it actually make a difference?

i didn't used to think so. even though it does make sense that the afterlengths contribute to the sound, i didn't think it would be that dramatic. so 2 years ago when i put on a new tailpiece, i picked the lengths of the TP cord and string afterlengths randomly. the holes in the TP were a randomly chosen 2.5 inches from the saddle and the afterlengths below the bridge were a randomly chosen 5.5 inches long. (in the picture, the length between the red Spiro stockings and the bridge tip was about half of what you can see, which may seem odd, but i didn't think it mattered much. so i didn't care.)

well, i just today changed the afterlengths below the bridge and shortened the tailpiece cord. i changed the afterlengths to exactly one 6th of the string length above the bridge. having a string length of 41.7 inches (106 cm), i set the TP so the afterlength is now 6.9 inches (17.6 cm).

my reason for trying this: it was the only thing i had not tried to get rid of some irritating sound. after the new set of Spiro Mittels /Stark E settled in this Fall:
(1) i was still hearing a high-mid metallic sound on the A string,
(2) i was still hearing a big difference in volume between the D and A strings,
(3) i could see how the A string while vibrating was wavering inconsistently during decay, kind of wobbly looking.
finally, (4) there was a persistent but faint buzz on the A string that i just couldn't locate and had done everything i could think of to get rid of -- except change the afterlengths below the bridge.

nota bene: the afterlength shortening is the ONLY change i made today; everything else is EXACTLY the same as before.

well, with the afterlengths now at a 5th (or maybe it is 2 octaves and a 5th) above the open strings, all of those problems seem to have been solved.

there is more volume and improved tone and sustain. the irritating metallic mids are gone, and the A and D are better balanced in terms of volume. the A string actually has noticeably better sustain and does not "wobble" during decay. and the buzz, yes, the buzz: i can't believe it's gone, cuzz the buzz maybe it will come back, but right now it is gone. can an increase in afterlength cure a buzz? why not? if it was emanating from a bridge groove, maybe.

PLUS i can also play "louey louey" by plucking two open strings and one afterlength, how cool is that? :D

so i have to join those here who say the string afterlengths can make a big difference. cheers, bill

PS it was Jake's good advice that got me thinking about this. (Jake is making me a new tailpiece for my gut bass, and in that connection we got to talking at length about afterlength length, not to make a lengthier story out of it... so, i'll shut up now)

when i put on a wolftone modifier it changes things quite a bit, but that's the only thing south of the bridge i've found makes a dramatic difference. i've fiddled around with tuning the afterlengths a bit. my impression was that it may have made a difference, but if so, it wasn't something i really noticed or could identify. my time would've been better spent practicing i think.

I'm not a luthier and don't fool around with the setup of my bass personally at all, but Jake tuned my afterlengths and mode matched my tailpiece to my fingerboard last year and all I can comment on is the before and after. Amazing. We had a little TBDB convention in my living room last weekend and everyone who had played my bass before and after is a convert.

We also did things like changing end pins and I was amazed at how much difference swapping endpins could make to the tone and volume, as well as playability, indirectly.

I'm not advocating that it must be done or your bass doesn't work right, but it's not bunk. To Paul's point, I think a lot of basses are a soundpost adjustment away from sounding much better and a lot of people don't bother, which is a shame. I also see a lot of bridges either tilting or out of place which is a much simpler and more impactful setup necessisity.

But, if you're uphappy with something about how your bass is sounding and you've got someone who can do that work for you at a reasonable price, it's not fruitless.

not to discourage you here, but it sounds like you had a number of things done at once including tuning the afterlengths. it seems it would be hard to determine what difference it made, as what you are noticing is probably primarily from the mode matching i would think. it probably does make a difference, albeit subtle. who knows though, maybe enough little things add up to a big thing eventually.

i didn't used to think so. even though it does make sense that the afterlengths contribute to the sound, i didn't think it would be that dramatic. so 2 years ago when i put on a new tailpiece, i picked the lengths of the TP cord and string afterlengths randomly. the holes in the TP were a randomly chosen 2.5 inches from the saddle and the afterlengths below the bridge were a randomly chosen 5.5 inches long. (in the picture, the length between the red Spiro stockings and the bridge tip was about half of what you can see, which may seem odd, but i didn't think it mattered much. so i didn't care.)

well, i just today changed the afterlengths below the bridge and shortened the tailpiece cord. i changed the afterlengths to exactly one 6th of the string length above the bridge. having a string length of 41.7 inches (106 cm), i set the TP so the afterlength is now 6.9 inches (17.6 cm).

my reason for trying this: it was the only thing i had not tried to get rid of some irritating sound. after the new set of Spiro Mittels /Stark E settled in this Fall:
(1) i was still hearing a high-mid metallic sound on the A string,
(2) i was still hearing a big difference in volume between the D and A strings,
(3) i could see how the A string while vibrating was wavering inconsistently during decay, kind of wobbly looking.
finally, (4) there was a persistent but faint buzz on the A string that i just couldn't locate and had done everything i could think of to get rid of -- except change the afterlengths below the bridge.

nota bene: the afterlength shortening is the ONLY change i made today; everything else is EXACTLY the same as before.

well, with the afterlengths now at a 5th (or maybe it is 2 octaves and a 5th) above the open strings, all of those problems seem to have been solved.

there is more volume and improved tone and sustain. the irritating metallic mids are gone, and the A and D are better balanced in terms of volume. the A string actually has noticeably better sustain and does not "wobble" during decay. and the buzz, yes, the buzz: i can't believe it's gone, cuzz the buzz maybe it will come back, but right now it is gone. can an increase in afterlength cure a buzz? why not? if it was emanating from a bridge groove, maybe.

PLUS i can also play "louey louey" by plucking two open strings and one afterlength, how cool is that? :D

so i have to join those here who say the string afterlengths can make a big difference. cheers, bill

PS it was Jake's good advice that got me thinking about this. (Jake is making me a new tailpiece for my gut bass, and in that connection we got to talking at length about afterlength length, not to make a lengthier story out of it... so, i'll shut up now)


nice.

I take it you tuned the after lengths with that little bridge added on top of the tailpiece? I have an older tailpiece like yours, the kind that's not easily adjustable with the cord.

Two things I'm curious about..

-) when amplifying, I've read here that it's desirable to mute the after lengths, does that leave all these adjustments to be useless?
-) I have a Full Circle p/u and the jack mounts on the after lengths; should I just set it at 2 octaves, or mount it on the TP, or forget about all this voodoo and just play?

i didn't used to think so. even though it does make sense that the afterlengths contribute to the sound, i didn't think it would be that dramatic. so 2 years ago when i put on a new tailpiece, i picked the lengths of the TP cord and string afterlengths randomly. the holes in the TP were a randomly chosen 2.5 inches from the saddle and the afterlengths below the bridge were a randomly chosen 5.5 inches long. (in the picture, the length between the red Spiro stockings and the bridge tip was about half of what you can see, which may seem odd, but i didn't think it mattered much. so i didn't care.)

well, i just today changed the afterlengths below the bridge and shortened the tailpiece cord. i changed the afterlengths to exactly one 6th of the string length above the bridge. having a string length of 41.7 inches (106 cm), i set the TP so the afterlength is now 6.9 inches (17.6 cm).

my reason for trying this: it was the only thing i had not tried to get rid of some irritating sound. after the new set of Spiro Mittels /Stark E settled in this Fall:
(1) i was still hearing a high-mid metallic sound on the A string,
(2) i was still hearing a big difference in volume between the D and A strings,
(3) i could see how the A string while vibrating was wavering inconsistently during decay, kind of wobbly looking.
finally, (4) there was a persistent but faint buzz on the A string that i just couldn't locate and had done everything i could think of to get rid of -- except change the afterlengths below the bridge.

nota bene: the afterlength shortening is the ONLY change i made today; everything else is EXACTLY the same as before.

well, with the afterlengths now at a 5th (or maybe it is 2 octaves and a 5th) above the open strings, all of those problems seem to have been solved.

there is more volume and improved tone and sustain. the irritating metallic mids are gone, and the A and D are better balanced in terms of volume. the A string actually has noticeably better sustain and does not "wobble" during decay. and the buzz, yes, the buzz: i can't believe it's gone, cuzz the buzz maybe it will come back, but right now it is gone. can an increase in afterlength cure a buzz? why not? if it was emanating from a bridge groove, maybe.

PLUS i can also play "louey louey" by plucking two open strings and one afterlength, how cool is that? :D

so i have to join those here who say the string afterlengths can make a big difference. cheers, bill

PS it was Jake's good advice that got me thinking about this. (Jake is making me a new tailpiece for my gut bass, and in that connection we got to talking at length about afterlength length, not to make a lengthier story out of it... so, i'll shut up now)

Hey Bill, I'm glad you tried that with your afterlengths! The hollowness and the 'wobble' are classic signs of the phase cancellations caused by non-scale notes being present in the afterlengths. The buzz might have been caused by standing waves set up through the out of tune afterlengths.

nice.

I take it you tuned the after lengths with that little bridge added on top of the tailpiece? I have an older tailpiece like yours, the kind that's not easily adjustable with the cord.

Two things I'm curious about..

-) when amplifying, I've read here that it's desirable to mute the after lengths, does that leave all these adjustments to be useless?...

yes, i measured from the fret at the top of the tailpiece to the tip of the bridge.

when amping, you can mute afterlengths if they reverberate and cause feedback. if they don't, then they don't need muting. mine don't. on my other bass, they did because the afterlengths were quite long and one was in tune with a wolftone. i used some velcro to keep that down for a while, then moved to a long TP.

Hey Bill, I'm glad you tried that with your afterlengths! The hollowness and the 'wobble' are classic signs of the phase cancellations caused by non-scale notes being present in the afterlengths. The buzz might have been caused by standing waves set up through the out of tune afterlengths.

yeah, yeah, now all that makes sense to me Jake. there's a whole new dimension of wisdom opening up to me... hehehe :smug:

Of course, if you replace that 14oz chunk of sound deadening and endangered wood with a wire tailpiece (http://picasaweb.google.ca/bjoycefamily/WireTailpiecePhotos#) all those problems disappear and your bass will sound $10 000 better!

Of course, if you replace that 14oz chunk of sound deadening and endangered wood with a wire tailpiece (http://picasaweb.google.ca/bjoycefamily/WireTailpiecePhotos#) all those problems disappear and your bass will sound $10 000 better!

Yeah, I've been thinking about that Bryan but the tailpieces I carve are usually around 150 grams, with a low of 111 grams! :)

I'll probably try one eventually but...

I may be accused again of "too much Traegerism" but i tried the mode matching as described in his books. Thinning the tailpiece of my Guardelli i managed to match the FB tone and things improved dramatically, in terms of volume and fundamentals. I used a programme named "Overtone analyser" which records the tap tone of the tailpiece and the FB and corresponds it with the proper note in a keyboard. This software is free (for everyone interested i can give details in a PM).
Then i tried the afterlength tuning. The improvement was also noticeable, not so much as in mode matching but nonetheless noticeable.
In my Chinese TIANGE i tried a Marvin wire tailpiece and i have the impression that this little device eliminated the need for mode matching and afterlength tuning. The improvement in volume, sustain and playability is significant. I'd like to try a mode matching using the classic ebony tailpiece but my heavy academic schedule (semester's exams) makes it prohibitive for the moment. I'll do it next month and i'll share the results with you, since the forum is my only reference point (apart Traeger's books).
Mike

111 grams! Wow, you must carve them out of balsa!

Ha! How about a bamboo tailpiece? That would be pretty nice, and ridicilously light. But I guess it would be too fragile. Maybe some really big bamboo, thick enough and to get the right curvature av the tailpiece and all.

Just a funny suggestion :)

What, Michigan Ave? :hiding:



Nice. I didn't see this one before. For the record I get better the further EAST you go.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that Bryan but the tailpieces I carve are usually around 150 grams, with a low of 111 grams! :)

I'll probably try one eventually but...

The interesting part is that each string afterlength can vibrate freely.

My open E string, plus the F and F# vibrate the afterlengths and are now much louder. The G on the E string is still a bit weak though.

You could probably figure out a system of little clamps to tune each string length to a certain pitch.

Overall going from a 300g tailpiece to a 25g piece of wire has worked out all positive.

111 grams! Wow, you must carve them out of balsa!

Curly Maple or Cherry, but it looks a dugout canoe from the back! :)
Pix on the website...

my afterlength is tuned perfectly to.."call to the post".
good sign?

Of course, if you replace that 14oz chunk of sound deadening and endangered wood with a wire tailpiece (http://picasaweb.google.ca/bjoycefamily/WireTailpiecePhotos#) all those problems disappear and your bass will sound $10 000 better!

"sound deadening"? it's the art of dampening. that's why it makes a difference whether you use a lighter or heavier TP, its shape, length, type of wood, etc. course, you don't have any of those issues.

but with that wire tailpiece, how does that work? i'm just guessing, but i would guess tuning those afterlengths would be very important with a pure wire TP. is that right? do you tune the whole length of string-afterlength + wire? what note would you tune it to? doesn't the sound differ at all from a traditional wooden or one-piece TP? sustain must be huge. i imagine you might want to hang your laundry on it to dampen it a bit? :)

tell us some more about how your bass sounded when you changed to the wire :hyper:

it sounds great, provided you tune the wire to an octave + major 6th. ;)

Kevin Marvin developed this wire tailpiece (http://www.marvinusa.com/). I just designed my own. All the testimonials, etc. at the Marvin site apply to mine as well.

I guess you could think of the wires as being all afterlength or no afterlength. If I didn't have some shoelace wrapped around the bottom parts they would ring on and on.

I originally had a standard ebony TP on my bass. The bottom end of my instrument is rather large so when it was installed the afterlength was too long. This caused all kinds of weird phasing in the strings and other wolf notes (ex. Bb on the G-string would go WWwwaawwWWwwaawwWWwwaawwWW; I'd need to close the A on the G-string while playing an open A or it would sound dead)

I did some reading and tried a Wittner TP (hard plastic, about 6 oz) with the correct afterlength. The sound was significantly better, but there was still a few odd notes and there was about 3.5" of wire between the bottom of the TP and the saddle so the TP looked odd floating in the middle of the lower bout.

I thought if reducing the TP weight by 7 oz made a difference then reducing it to about 2 would be even better.

Then I read about the Marvin. I had some time on my hands during the summer and access to a big vice so I built my own design.

My bass sounds and plays $15 000 better and other people even notice it! I know the principal bass and cello in Symphony Nova Scotia use one and they say they'll never go back.

It's worth a try.

Oh yeah, if you take your bow and bow an regular TP, you'll hear a deep rumbly note and that interferes with what is going on north of the bridge.

I originally had a standard ebony TP on my bass. The bottom end of my instrument is rather large so when it was installed the afterlength was too long. This caused all kinds of weird phasing in the strings and other wolf notes (ex. Bb on the G-string would go WWwwaawwWWwwaawwWWwwaawwWW; I'd need to close the A on the G-string while playing an open A or it would sound dead)

I did some reading and tried a Wittner TP (hard plastic, about 6 oz) with the correct afterlength. The sound was significantly better, but there was still a few odd notes and there was about 3.5" of wire between the bottom of the TP and the saddle so the TP looked odd floating in the middle of the lower bout.

I thought if reducing the TP weight by 7 oz made a difference then reducing it to about 2 would be even better.

I have exactly your issues on my bass: large lower bout, the original ebony TP in the traditional position resulted in long afterlengths that did their "own thing", resounding with a wolftone, feedback when amping. So I got a longer but much lighter TP and that solved those really obvious issues and also improved the sound and volume.

I can see your point about weight. The wire TP allows the bass to vibrate more because they don't dampen it. I still have the questions about tuning those wires, and what about the vibrations the wires themselves produce?

I still have the questions about tuning those wires, and what about the vibrations the wires themselves produce?

Well, there's no tuning the wires. It's just whatever the length is between the bridge and the saddle. Although on mine it's approximately half the string length. If I remember right, without the shoelace weaving they all ring at about an octave above open G. With the weaving they don't vibrate or interfere with the bowed notes though.

On the Marvin, it comes with a piece of felt that is glued on for the same purpose and to make it look a bit more traditional.

With mine, you can see the bottom half of the bass. I think it looks pretty sharp. Some people really notice it but most don't.

With the Spiros I now use, I coated the lower half of the strings' threads with Gorilla Glue and shaved off the remaining threads so that the threads wouldn't go over the bridge. With Evahs, I could shave all the threads off so it was just wire from the saddle to the nut with a bump where the balls were attached to the wire tailpiece.

This thread reminds me of an old discussion regarding placing pickups on a bass guitar. A friend believed that having the pickup placed a certain interval from the bridge would give the best sound. My point was that as you fret notes higher and higher, the position of the pickup changes in relation to the vibrating length of the string. Doesn't the same thing apply to after-lengths on the db? If one of the after-lengths is a specific interval to the open string(i.e. 5th), doesn't that become a different interval relationship as you finger notes higher and higher? It seems to me that only on open strings would the interval be constant. I believe that the tailpiece material and wire material have a bigger influence on tone than the after-lengths. My Pollmann was noticeably improved when I installed a walnut compensated tailpiece. It is less dense than ebony. I also replaced the stainless steel airplane cable with the Pecanic braided cord. These two changes have given my bass a sound which is louder and warmer. I may go back and try the ss cable again, just for comparison, but I really like the walnut tp. Looking forward to reading your comments.

George

If one of the after-lengths is a specific interval to the open string(i.e. 5th), doesn't that become a different interval relationship as you finger notes higher and higher? It seems to me that only on open strings would the interval be constant. I believe that the tailpiece material and wire material have a bigger influence on tone than the after-lengths.

Tuning the afterlengths keeps their vibrations on the same sonic scale as the notes you are playing.
If they are A, D, G, C then they will have a good relationship with the notes you are playing wherever they are on the neck.
If they are B-35 cents, E-45 cents, G#+25 cents and Bb-50 cents, they will have a bad relationship with every note you play on the bass.

Those phase cancellations will occur whether or not you damp the afterlengths so they are not as audible to you - they will be affecting the instrument whether you can hear them or not.

You can close your eyes to shut out a particulaly garish colour combination but its still out there! :)

You can close your eyes to shut out a particulaly garish colour combination but its still out there! :)

It may be there, but if you can't see it, is there an appreciable difference? And if you can't hear it??? Are you concerned for your dog?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be adversarial, I'm trying to understand. In my 60+ years I've been around this block a few times now and just when I think I finally understand I come to question it again.

When I play a string, it's not just that string's afterlength that's vibrating - all of them do. This is unlike the scale length of the string which I can damp with either hand. The afterlengths I can't dampen. And if the afterlength on the 2nd string is causing some cancellation on the note I am playing on the 3rd string, there is little I can do about it unless I dampen all afterlengths mechanically.

At the same time I can sense that the sonic character of the bass changes when I do dampen the afterlengths. And perhaps the very core of the problem lies here in modern performance (at least mine). Today I amplify my bass. I was getting some pretty nasty sounds live. I tried several things, but what solved the problem is when I damped the afterlenghts. They were being overexcited by the amplifier and overcontributing to the acoustic response that was, in turn, picked up and amplified. This is, of course, feedback. Not the nasty howl most of us know well, but feedback just the same.

I am not a recording engineer, but I have had significant experience in the recording processes, and I am quite familiar with the extraordinary measures recording technicians have to employ to eliminate annoying sound attributes. So the discovery that I needed to damp the afterlengths when amplified was not a particular surprise to me. But it sure got me to questioning (again) why one would not routinely do this - amplified or not.

I'm just going to have to stop thinking or stop caring...

amplified is a different story. i think what jake (and others) are trying to say is that if the afterlengths are not in the realm of western pitch, they are always fighting the frequencies you are playing. since they have to be tuned to something, it may as well be something beneficial. if they are not helping your acoustic sound they are hurting it. that's the gist of it as i understand.

amplified is a different story. i think what jake (and others) are trying to say is that if the afterlengths are not in the realm of western pitch, they are always fighting the frequencies you are playing. since they have to be tuned to something, it may as well be something beneficial. if they are not helping your acoustic sound they are hurting it. that's the gist of it as i understand.

Bingo! :)

amplified is a different story. i think what jake (and others) are trying to say is that if the afterlengths are not in the realm of western pitch, they are always fighting the frequencies you are playing. since they have to be tuned to something, it may as well be something beneficial. if they are not helping your acoustic sound they are hurting it. that's the gist of it as i understand.


Sorry, I can't quite buy this. Sounds plausible on the surface, but a sympathetic frequency that is a half-tone from what I am playing will have significantly more amplitude than one that is a quarter-tone away. Thus the impact of the non-western pitch will not be particularly significant. It's far more likely that the quartertone afterlengh will be induced to vibrate at a multiple of the fundamental note played anyway.

It's akin to sounding an octave harmonic on a string. If your finger position is not dead on the octave, the octave harmonic will still sound. You may be "off" by a quarter-tone in position, but the string is induced to the correct harmonic. So can sub-semitone (or larger) conflicts with respect to afterlengths really contribute to a difference in sound? I wonder....?? And if they do, and do so negatively, why not just damp them and be done?

After all this, can the audience hear the difference?

The magic fairies like the afterlength tuned to play "It's a small world".

Sorry, I can't quite buy this. Sounds plausible on the surface, but a sympathetic frequency that is a half-tone from what I am playing will have significantly more amplitude than one that is a quarter-tone away. Thus the impact of the non-western pitch will not be particularly significant. It's far more likely that the quartertone afterlengh will be induced to vibrate at a multiple of the fundamental note played anyway.

It's akin to sounding an octave harmonic on a string. If your finger position is not dead on the octave, the octave harmonic will still sound. You may be "off" by a quarter-tone in position, but the string is induced to the correct harmonic. So can sub-semitone (or larger) conflicts with respect to afterlengths really contribute to a difference in sound? I wonder....?? And if they do, and do so negatively, why not just damp them and be done?

After all this, can the audience hear the difference?

Turnaround, you're right about the quarter tone "off" inducing the nearest harmonic. Pluck your G string at a sharp F# and you hear the G harmonic. But what the others are getting at here isn't the "quarter tone off" in the afterlengths so much as where the afterlengths are several whole tones (plus or minus a few fractions of tones) "off". It's that random non-selection of odd notes that can't contribute to the notes you are playing. And if they can't contribute beneficially, what are they doing? Nothing? I don't think so. Even if inaudible to everyone except my dog and maybe me, there will be dissonant vibrations within the bass. These cancel each other out. The bass is not in tune with itself.

Without sounding adversarial, Mr. T, I'd like to turn your point around (heh heh :D). I think the point about the "quarter tone off" actually resounds sympathetically (:)) with the point others are making here. Your observation actually supports harmonizing the afterlengths, at least harmonizing them "more or less" (e.g., within a quarter tone), with the open string. Because if the afterlength tones can't contribute beneficially, then they must be subtracting from what your bass could be sounding like or, in the worst case, they will actually create dissonance.

The audience normally won't hear the difference. But A/B a bass that is "in tune" with itself with one that isn't. The bassist hears and feels the depth of the harmonized vibrations. The audience might say "wow, that bass sounded great", but we don't expect them to know why. I certainly did hear and feel a remarkable difference when I adjusted the afterlengths the other day, maybe because my afterlengths before the change were so far off they were actually creating dissonance and odd overtones above the bridge.

Fact is, it's all one string. The length below the bridge has to have a physcial impact on the sound, one way or the other. Helping or in the worst case hurting. Similarly, the ends of the string above the nut in the peg box will also vibrate (adding to sustain) if they are not dampened by nut grooves that are too deep or by the string crossing over another string or a peg. My luthier told me to try and wind the D and A strings so they pass over the pegs without touching them. I've never heard of anyone trying to harmonize those, but heck, what do I know... cheers, Bill

Thanks, Bill. I appreciate your reply. I guess I am just a bit lazy and take the appropach of damping the afterlengths instead of tuning them.

I do understand that the entire instrument is a system, and it will behave as a whole. So unwanted vibrations, from a string or anything else, will affect the system negatively. I accept that the frequencies of the afterlengths are affecting the sonic character of my bass, but I wonder how much impact there will be. Even if the only answer is "some impact" I should probably pay "some" attention to it.

Thanks all for your input.