• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Afterlength: Big Deal?

#23
Marcus Johnson said:
What, Michigan Ave? :hiding:

Sorry, man... the imagery of that has been buggin' me since you posted it.... :D
Click to expand...
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 .
 
#24
Bassalova said:
...Is this just bull, or does it actually make a difference?
Click to expand...

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)
 
#25
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.

TroyK said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#26
William Hoffman said:
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)
Click to expand...


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?
 
#27
William Hoffman said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
#28
longfinger said:
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?...
Click to expand...

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.

Jake deVilliers said:
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.
Click to expand...

yeah, yeah, now all that makes sense to me Jake. there's a whole new dimension of wisdom opening up to me... hehehe :smug:
 
#30
bejoyous said:
Of course, if you replace that 14oz chunk of sound deadening and endangered wood with a [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] all those problems disappear and your bass will sound $10 000 better!
Click to expand...

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...
 
#31
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
 
#33
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 :)
 
#35
Jake deVilliers said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
#38
bejoyous said:
Of course, if you replace that 14oz chunk of sound deadening and endangered wood with a [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] all those problems disappear and your bass will sound $10 000 better!
Click to expand...

"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:
 
#40
Kevin Marvin developed this wire tailpiece. 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.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back