Double Bass Marvin Tailpiece?

[FritzM]

After being out for a few years now, what is your general consensus on the Marvin tailpiece? I was thinking of giving it a go. Did it cause any problems for anyone?

Thanks

 

[eh_train]

After being out for a few years now, what is your general consensus on the Marvin tailpiece? I was thinking of giving it a go. Did it cause any problems for anyone?

Thanks

Hi Fritz,

I've never owned a Marvin, but I recently took one off of a bass and put on a traditional tailpiece. It wasn't a case of the owner disliking the sound: the E string holder had failed (i.e, pulled apart from the pressure).

 

[Eric Hochberg]

Hi Fritz,

I've never owned a Marvin, but I recently took one off of a bass and put on a traditional tailpiece. It wasn't a case of the owner disliking the sound: the E string holder had failed (i.e, pulled apart from the pressure).

Marvin will replace the tailpiece, Paul. Mine failed recently, too. This is common with a certain vintage where hardened brass (I think) was used for the rings. There is a thread about this.

I liked the Marvin very much on one of my basses and was using it for a few years until it failed. I haven't gotten around to changing back to it yet, but I'm really not disliking my wood tailpiece and now I'm not sure what difference the Marvin actually made, although at the time I thought it had "smoothed" out the sound... On another bass, the Marvin brightened up the sound to the point of harshness so I took it off. Wolf tones on both basses went from Ab to A, also.

 

[bassmanbrent]

Some people like them, some don't. I had one on my main bass for a while but decided to go back to the ebony tailpiece when I changed strings. It seems like the Marvin will make most basses a little louder in the low end, and a little darker on the top end. Some people also find that the Marvin can help reduce string tension on a tighter feeling bass...

 

[Eric Hochberg]

It seems like the Marvin will make most basses a little louder in the low end, and a little darker on the top end. Some people also find that the Marvin can help reduce string tension on a tighter feeling bass...

Not in my experience.

 

[bassmanbrent]

Not in my experience.

There you go. Like a lot of things related to the double bass, there are no absolutes. Hopefully one of the luthiers that frequents here can add their experience...

 

[DoubleMIDI]

String tension would not be changed by a different tailpiece. The same for pressure on the top.

But since the Marvin is kind of a longer underlength it changes the response of the underlength to vibration of the main part of the string and that can influence the perceived stiffness of the strings and wolf notes.

The string itself can have a large influence, since the underlength is not uniform in mass over the whole length and total mass and mass distribution in the underlength can vary from string to string (even from the same manufacturer string set family). So it might work well for one set and differently with the next one (regarding wolf notes). But, of course, the general influence of a more responsive underlength will still be there. If that is positive depends largely on your bass (and strings as well as of taste) as mentioned before.

 

[powerbass]

I made my own wire tailpiece, slightly heavier wire than Marvin.

 

[robobass]

String tension would not be changed by a different tailpiece. The same for pressure on the top.

Bravo! Although there are many who simply cannot accept this as fact. I would also add that the elasticity of the Marvin - compared to that of a wood tailpiece - probably does appreciably affect the "perceived stiffness".

 

[bassmanbrent]

Bravo! Although there are many who simply cannot accept this as fact. I would also add that the elasticity of the Marvin - compared to that of a wood tailpiece - probably does appreciably affect the "perceived stiffness".

Good point. Although I didn't say it specifically, I was actually thinking 'perceived' string tension rather than 'actual' string tension in my post above.

 

[DoubleMIDI]

But since the Marvin is kind of a longer underlength it changes the response of the underlength to vibration of the main part of the string and that can influence the perceived stiffness of the strings and wolf notes.

I would also add that the elasticity of the Marvin - compared to that of a wood tailpiece - probably does appreciably affect the "perceived stiffness".

Thanks for your support, but there wasn't a real need to _add_ that, since it was already in the second sentence.

 

[robobass]

Thanks for your support, but there wasn't a real need to _add_ that, since it was already in the second sentence.

But since the Marvin is kind of a longer underlength it changes the response of the underlength to vibration of the main part of the string and that can influence the perceived stiffness of the strings and wolf notes.

Perhaps it's a translation thing, but I was not referring to the resonance properties of the "afterlength", but to its elasticity, which is somewhat different.

 

[DoubleMIDI]

Perhaps it's a translation thing, but I was not referring to the resonance properties of the "afterlength", but to its elasticity, which is somewhat different.

No, it's not (at least in this case). It's just me not reading or differentiating correctly. Sorry.

Just to make it clear, I was rather generalizing about the longer underlength influencing the perceived stiffness of the playing part and you helped to emphasize, that the elongation under tension (elasticity) of the Marvin wires could be larger than with a wooden tailpiece (in the commonly used size, I think), which might have an influence because of small variations of length during vibration.

Although the bending stiffness of the string didn't change in the underlength, we all know by playing up the fingerboard, that shorter strings of the same kind do not vibrate as good as longer ones. The wooden tailpieces have a lot more mass, coupling the strings more than the Marvin (of course there is always coupling over the bridge and top) and effectively shorten the underlengthes mostly to their real length (or split energy in a large reflection from the tailpiece and little affection to the whole underlength-tailpiece-system), even though the whole beyond the bridge system vibrates from bridge to saddle. With the Marvin the underlength is only slightly disturbed by the ring and changing string mass per length unit, so each string has more independence from the others and the effective vibrational length goes from bridge to saddle.

 

[robobass]

Yes I agree. If I may, I'd put the effects into two categories.
1. Increased elasticity probably does reduce "perceived tension".
2. By effectively extending the afterlengths to the bottom saddle, you introduce a whole Smörgåsbord of sympathetic resonances, which are much more dynamic than with a conventional tailpiece configuration. This can be good and bad. Kevin should introduce a set of dedicated wolf weights to go on the wires. Buy a set of these, and you really have an excuse to come to your lesson without having your Simandl etudes properly prepared.

 

[etorgerson]

I don't notice a difference in string 'tension' in thumb positions as I had hoped for. That said, I do notice that I can play longer with less fatigue than prior to installation.
I feel that this is likely due to the extension of the individual strings through to the saddle.

It seems that my DB302 Christopher hybrid is more resonant and much more responsive to the bow, though maybe not really much louder (classical chamber & orchestral, I'm an amateur doubler on viola and violin.)
I believe that the sound benefits have more to do with the elimination of the damping mass that is the traditional tailpiece.

I found it very simple to install and am enjoying the reduction in weight as I lug it around.
All in all, worth every penny and I would not go back.

 

[bejoyous]

I made my own from hardware store parts and it made my bass sound $10 000 better. My bass improved in all the ways listed on the Marvin site. For me, the biggest improvement was the elimination of a huge wolf-tone on the Bb's and being about 25% louder.

I used a long, flat shoelace woven between the wires at the bottom to keep the wires from ringing. From 5 feet away it just looks like a little tailpiece. Most people don't even notice (it's usually the last stand of cellists that do because their head is at the same level as the bottom of my bass and they usually look at anything except the conductor). The zigzag pattern of the Marvin really sticks out, perhaps it could be applied more discreetly.

I'd highly recommend getting one. It's a tax deduction, as well.

Here's the long response version: Photo link is in response #11.

 

[LouisF]

Not knowing anything about physics, I can safely say that I use the Marvin (and have used it for a long time on two very different basses) because they seem (at least in my non-scientific opinion) to "loosen" the bass up and give a quicker and fuller response. I generally play with solo strings tuned down to orchestra pitch (or light gauge strings such as Corelli or Jargar) so this may have something to do with it. I'm a big fan (I don't know about louder - that seems equal to regular tp). Hope this helps in non scientific way.
Louis

 

[FritzM]

Thank you for your input. Well, i ordered one yesterday. We will see.

 

[FritzM]

Well, sent payment over a week ago, no tailpiece, no reply from emails. Any suggestions?

 

[bassmanbrent]

I seem to remember that I had a little trouble getting a response from Marvin as well. Maybe just keep at it. I think he gets pretty busy with his other life (day job) from time to time...