Tailpiece composition. Need input.

Jim Henderson · #1 07-22-2006, 01:55 PM

Just returned from two weeks in the central and south of Spain. Had the opportunity to see four Strad violins and two Strad celli in the Royal Palace in Madrid. Besides having beautiful (ivory?) inlay work on the scrolls and top and bottom plates, they all appeared to have ebony fingerboards, but none had ebony tailpieces. Two other celli, also Italian but not Strads, had ebony tailpieces. While the questions this old geezer may have may seem sophmoric to the more learned Talkbassers, they are unknown to me all the same.
1.Does ebony or a less dense grained wood allow a bass to resonate more freely?
2.What is the conventional thought behind the many basses currently made with ebony tailpieces, or is there any?
While I could only view the instruments through their plexiglass enclosures, the Strad tailpiece woods seemed to be pink or light red in color. Lighter in color than bubinga but not as dark as a mahogany.
3.Was there a tailpiece wood of that time period that was preferred by the old masters?
A Dr. Mike claro walnut tailpiece improved the tone of my laminated Kay but was no better than the ebony one on my carved Juzek/Wilfer. The Cleveland has been returned to original set up with the ebony tailpiece since there was no noticable difference in the compensated tailpiece.
Ken, with all those breathtaking basses of yours, what are your experiences regarding volume, or tone relating to tailpiece styles or materials (or do you think they have little or no effect)? Professor Arnold, Dr. Mike and all TB'ers, what have your experiences been?
As always, any and all input is appreciated.
Jim

Jake · #2 07-22-2006, 08:09 PM

A luthier told me that ebony kills a lot of resonance (spelling?) with too much weight. He said that light boxwood is the best. I know the Hill company makes neat boxwood tailpieces. When I asked this same luthier about titanium and carbon fiber endpins, he said, "YOU HAVE TOO MUCH #$%*ING SPARE TIME ON YOUR HANDS!!! STOP READING ALL THAT #$%* ON THE INTERNET!!!"

Jeff Bollbach · #3 07-22-2006, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake

A luthier told me that ebony kills a lot of resonance (spelling?) with too much weight. He said that light boxwood is the best. I know the Hill company makes neat boxwood tailpieces. When I asked this same luthier about titanium and carbon fiber endpins, he said, "YOU HAVE TOO MUCH #$%*ING SPARE TIME ON YOUR HANDS!!! STOP READING ALL THAT #$%* ON THE INTERNET!!!"

I say, "You go, girl!" to that guy.

The pinkish wood is likely pear and the creamy tan wood would be boxwood. Both slightly north of center on the specific density scale. In general a heavy tp will dampen some excess resonance and may help with wolfiness. A light tp would be my choice for a bass that is darker and more muted.

Jeff Bollbach · #4 07-22-2006, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSB - Ken Smith

testes .

"Heh,heh, heh,heh......Ken said testes" said Beavis

mchildree · #5 07-23-2006, 05:38 AM

Jim, I don't know about your Cleveland, but I don't think my tailpiece is ebony for some reason...seems I remember somewhere reading that it's a composition of some type. Doesn't specify on the NS site. Maybe I've been on the &*%$ internet too much again.

Maybe Arnold can clear this up....

Jeff Guevin · #6 07-23-2006, 09:41 AM

I recently spoke to a luthier at a violin shop about tailpieces--specifically those nice Pecanic wood TPs, compensated, adjustable, etc. He stated that he thought those things looked nice, and that adjustable TPs can help with wolf tone elimination, but that generally a TP dampens the sound, and that unless an instrument is too bright, the lightest tailpiece is usually best. So I was advised to leave my carbon tailpiece in place.

What say you, experts? I've certainly heard statements like the above in the past, but so far in this thread no one has mentioned synthetic materials. If "light boxwood is best", why not go even lighter? As Ken says, it stands to reason that the wood choice makes a difference, but is it possible that any wood in the TP is worse than no wood at all?

Jim Henderson · #7 07-23-2006, 02:26 PM

I never cease to learn from you fellas.
Ken,
From previous strands from you and Ed Fuqua I think I've got the tailwire in its' optimum adjustment and getting the "chef's mix" correct is a perfect analogy.
Jake,
Dr. Mike is right along the same lines as you and Jeff concerning weight in relationship to density. However, concerning the titanium endpin, tell your luthier that they made a difference in my and "Flatback's" basses and he can blow that out his port hole. No, on second thought, it may not be wise to tell your luthier that.
Jeff,
You're correct. "Ken is cool". "He said testes, heh,heh" says Butthead.
Big Mike,
On target as usual my man. I scratch tested the NS tailpiece and the wood was white under the black stain. Probably a composite or boxwood as suggested. It makes sense that it is a lighter (weight) material since the light weight Dr. Mike tailpiece made very little acoustic difference. Thanks for setting me straight partner.
jguevin,
Carbon fiber tailpiece eh? Light weight, super strong, yeah! You've opened a whole new list of possibilities. This sounds perfect for my old Juzek/Wilfer which has the same acoustic properties as a wine barrel.
Bottom line, it seems as Ken implies. Getting an upright to sound the way you want is a process of making a thousand small adjustments to bring it closer to what you want it to sound like.
Thanks for all of your help.
Jim

jady · #8 07-24-2006, 10:31 AM

I have read that a heavier tailpiece is better for arco work cuz it dampens the string movement while having a lighter tailpiece open up the string movement for a better pizz sound (Ive even heard of no tailpiece, just running the tailwire up to attach the strings it gives a huge pizz sound but makes arco work almost uncontrolable.) I have been meaning to experiment with my crappy chinese piece of s*** upright but just havent had the time.

Aleph5 · #9 07-24-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mchildree

Jim, I don't know about your Cleveland, but I don't think my tailpiece is ebony for some reason...seems I remember somewhere reading that it's a composition of some type. Doesn't specify on the NS site. Maybe I've been on the &*%$ internet too much again.

Maybe Arnold can clear this up....

I think he has somewhere before in an old post. If yours is like mine, our TPs are the lower cost CF or composite, plastic, etc. Yet I believe Arnold favors them because they are so light. As I remember it, when tapping the TP assembly on a strung bass, it should ring something like a reverb spring in a '65 Deluxe Reverb when kicked. For other string tensions, tops, setup, tastes, etc. YMMV.

#10 07-24-2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jguevin

I recently spoke to a luthier at a violin shop about tailpieces--specifically those nice Pecanic wood TPs, compensated, adjustable, etc. He stated that he thought those things looked nice, and that adjustable TPs can help with wolf tone elimination, but that generally a TP dampens the sound, and that unless an instrument is too bright, the lightest tailpiece is usually best. So I was advised to leave my carbon tailpiece in place.

What say you, experts? I've certainly heard statements like the above in the past, but so far in this thread no one has mentioned synthetic materials. If "light boxwood is best", why not go even lighter? As Ken says, it stands to reason that the wood choice makes a difference, but is it possible that any wood in the TP is worse than no wood at all?

Tailpieces with adjusters actually do nothing to help the wolf. I tried it out for myself because I have a wolf on my A string and thought that getting a Mike Pecanic tailpiece with the adjusters would help things. It actually made the wolf more pronounced. I settled for the wolf eliminator which got rid of the thing in an instant. I must say though that the Pecanic tailpiece (which I replaced for one of his standard cut off ones) makes my bass louder and more even across all the strings compared to my ebony one, so I'm glad I got it. Plus it looks great!

Uprightboy · #11 07-24-2006, 04:31 PM

Ebony holds up to abuse, well. Ebony definately has tone value. But, if you want to try something else, go for it! Just let us know what you find out in the differences in tone or whatever. I have seen some beautiful rosewood tailpieces. There are luthiers who will make you a custom one with inlays if you want. I think my old Kay M-1 had a rosewood tailpiece, I'm not sure if it was original, though.

_Burney

Don Carrigan · #12 07-24-2006, 04:42 PM

Mute for 5 string bass necessary? I find the most important adjustments of all components, tailpiece, bridge, cable, etc., are best optimized according to the resulting "spongyness" of the belly (don't know how else to describe it). Even if the string height over the fingerboard isn't what pleases my eye, if the belly is more "spongy" then that trumps other considerations, eh what? By the way, how do I raise Mike Pecanic to see if he make 5 string bass mutes. I'm not sure I need one, but what the hell, I'll be the first one on the block to have a 5 string mute! Here's my Prescott in 2002 when still a 4 string, 3 string neck. "A day at the beach".