Tuning the fingerboard

aaronallen · #1 10-29-2010, 02:53 PM

Hi, Im trying to match the tap tone of the tailpiece to that of the fingerboard. I have the tailpiece note as low as I can get it without adding weight but it's still about a semi-tone above. So what do you think is the best way to raise the pitch of the fingerboard? I'm considering using sandpaper to remove wood from the underside of the end of the board, is this a bad idea?

Cody Sisk · #2 10-29-2010, 03:07 PM

Someone's been reading up some Traeger!

You will need a lot of elbow grease using sandpaper for that. It can be done, but a metal or glass scraper might do the job quicker..

dmusic148 · #3 10-29-2010, 03:19 PM

Pointless. What's the tap-tone of the tailpiece once it's attached to the bass with cable or wire, then placed under tension with strings? What then happens if you attach a quiver? Don't ruin your fingerboard over this.

aaronallen · #4 10-29-2010, 03:35 PM

I'm ascertaining the pitch of the tailpiece with the strings up to tension. Obviously I would never attach a bow quiver. How could taking some wood from the underside of the fingerboard ruin it? Have you experimented with mode matching yourself? If so, why do you think its pointless?

dmusic148 · #5 10-29-2010, 04:01 PM

No, I have not, to be honest. But my opinion, as a mechanical engineer, is that it's a waste of time, on a bass. I might be wrong, but I have a lot of experience with other vibrating systems to back up my assertion.
On a violin? Sure, I could see it- a violin is such a low-mass instrument as to make every part have a real effect.
Bass? IMO, no, because the tailpiece is such a small part of the overall mass of the bass as to be somewhat irrevelant. It's effect will be apparent on certain notes, and not others. My opinion is that it should have as little mass as possible, to allow as much coupling to the lower bout as possible. But of course, since it's essentially 'swinging in the breeze,' as it's attached at both ends by flexible cables, who knows what effect it has on sound? Physics says it's mass will work for you on certain notes, and against you on others. No 'cake and eat it, too' here.
My opinion is that the fingerboard of a bass should be as stiff and light as possible, so that it will transfer as much energy as possible to the upper bout, where it will do the most good. Reducing the thickness of the fingerboard, in a mis-guided attempt to match it's resonant frequency to that of the tailpiece, is an excersise in futility, and potentially detrimental to the overall performance of the bass. IMO.

fdeck · #6 10-29-2010, 05:23 PM

As an alternative, I suppose that one could add mass to the tail piece. This has the potential advantage of being reversible should the whole venture prove to be unsuccessful.

**Matthew Tucker** · #7 10-29-2010, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronallen

I have the tailpiece note as low as I can get it without adding weight but it's still about a semi-tone above.

How are you lowering the tailpiece tone?

aaronallen · #8 10-29-2010, 07:26 PM

Mostly by lengthening the tailpiece wire. Decreasing the spacing of the cables over the saddle also lowers the pitch with the added bonus of making the bass feel looser.

**Matthew Tucker** · #9 10-29-2010, 09:20 PM

Well as fdeck said you can also alter the tailpiece taptone by adding or removing wood from the tailpiece. Much easier than scraping the back of the fingerboard. And its not just change or mass that changes the tone, its where you add or remove it.

Alex Scott · #10 10-29-2010, 09:39 PM

My experience is I always go for crazy things like this, then it doesn't turn out quite right and I spend some dough getting it back to almost as good as it was. Maybe you just need a new set of strings or bass or something.

But I know you might have to do it because you have an itch.

I'm in North Austin if you need someone to talk you down. No bass-type luthiers I have used or feel comfortable with for miles, except there is some good stuff going on at Lisle Violins in Houston.

MIKMAN · #11 10-30-2010, 01:57 AM

Constructing some violins in the past i experimented a lot with tap tones and i found the paramount significance of mode matching. This is not easy to be done in double basses so i tried the Marvin wire tailpiece, which improved things considerably in each one of my basses. If i were in your shoes Aaron i'd try it. IMHO it eliminates the need for mode matching.
Mike

aaronallen · #12 10-30-2010, 02:13 AM

Thanks for the suggestions.
I'm going to try adding weight to the tailpiece to tune it to the fingerboard. This should give me an idea of how beneficial the matching is before I proceed with something irreversible.

Jake deVilliers · #13 10-30-2010, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronallen

Mostly by lengthening the tailpiece wire. Decreasing the spacing of the cables over the saddle also lowers the pitch with the added bonus of making the bass feel looser.

Hey Allen, you need to scoop out the back of the tailpiece to lower the tailpiece assembly note. Its easily done with a gouge.

Its also important that the after-lengths be 2 octaves and a fourth higher than the strings - otherwise you'll just be wasting your time!

After-lengths first, then mode-matching. Good luck!

aaronallen · #14 10-30-2010, 02:29 AM

Hey Jake, thats interesting, what your saying contradicts what Traeger says in his book. According to him, removing wood from the tailpiece will raise it's pitch. He mentions the afterlength tuning but says that its "not used if doing mode matching."

Cody Sisk · #15 10-30-2010, 12:04 PM

Anyone who I've talked to who has also read Traeger's book think that the mode matching concept is more hocus-pocus and psycological than it is fact. Don't look for drastic improvements overall, they will be subtile at best.

Bottom line- Traeger was a legendary luthier, but there's a lot to be said about the word of mouth in the professional musician community. I'm not doubting his ability, but have you ever played the telephone game?

Jake deVilliers · #16 10-30-2010, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronallen

Hey Jake, thats interesting, what your saying contradicts what Traeger says in his book. According to him, removing wood from the tailpiece will raise it's pitch. He mentions the afterlength tuning but says that its "not used if doing mode matching."

I guess that's another error in the book then!

**Matthew Tucker** · #17 10-30-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaronallen

Hey Jake, thats interesting, what your saying contradicts what Traeger says in his book. According to him, removing wood from the tailpiece will raise it's pitch.

As I said, it depends where you remove the wood. Tuning a tailpiece works the same way as tuning a marimba bar. Removing wood in the middle lowers the tone (making it more flexible) and removing wood from the END raises the pitch (removing mass).There's heaps of stuff on the net if you want to learn about it.

Greg Clinkingbeard · #18 10-30-2010, 02:28 PM

I don't think it makes much difference. Although mode matching once interested me, I understand that making any changes like hanging a quiver, changing strings, soundpost adjustment and maybe even changing string heights might alter that.
It just doesn't seem worth the trouble.

Jake deVilliers · #19 10-30-2010, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

As I said, it depends where you remove the wood. Tuning a tailpiece works the same way as tuning a marimba bar. Removing wood in the middle lowers the tone (making it more flexible) and removing wood from the END raises the pitch (removing mass).There's heaps of stuff on the net if you want to learn about it.

As far as I'm concerned removing wood from the end is shortening it!

**Matthew Tucker** · #20 10-30-2010, 05:18 PM

but only if you use a saw