• 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 Some questions on mounting gut strings

korotkov

korotkov

May 19, 2010
265
68
37
St. Petersburg, Russia
#1
since I'm very new to gut strings, I made some research on how to mount them properly and found some points I need to clarify. I have seen a bass recently with gut strings tied to the tail piece in the way garbo strings are attached, going from beneath the tailpiece. I assume that it was done to increase the pressure on the bridge and the top plate but this also prevents them from vibrating freely so I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do. There's a YouTube video for Dennis Irvin's bass where you can see his d string attached this way.

Second, I found an article on dlugolecki website saying that a thicker tailgut provides better angle for the tailpiece and allows the strings to vibrate more freely. On my bass I have modern tailpiece with the tailgut tied in parallel to the strings. I have regular steel cable installed and its very thin compared to the plastic/gut tail wire. I'm not sure if this affects the sound and playability of the instrument.

I spoke to a local luthier and he didn't really comment on any of these points. Searching in the web didn't give me any clues either. Hope someone here could give me some information


Sasha
 
#5
That's the idea stated in dlugolecki article. I have a strong opinion however that you can't do things differently and get the same result when it comes to do setup. When you mount strings differently it has to influence the tone and response of the instrument. It is also possible to put just one string ( say d string) to increase its angle and pressure on the bridge. That's what Dennis did to his bass.

My idea is that while on historic instruments, the setup may look very much like the modern one, the detail examination shows that there are a lot of small differences in saddle tailpiece and neck construction. So since I don't have a historic opinstrumen that was specially made for use with gut string I have to alter something in my instruments setup to let it accommodate gut strings and produce better tone and project better

Cheers,
 
#7
Jake deVilliers said:
I'm assuming you meant to say "thinner", yes?
Click to expand...
http://www.damianstrings.com/baroque set-up.htm said:
What role does the tailgut play in this system, and why was a thick tailgut seen as an advantage? This would seem to be counterintuitive if we are seeking greater flexibility in the tailpiece system. But examining and measuring the holes in original tailpieces we find tailgut thicknesses of 2.50 to 2.60. When tailgut of thinner sizes is used, it quickly reaches the limit of its’ yield strength. In other words the thinner material readily conforms to the line of stress; particularly where it bends on exiting the bottom of the tailpiece, resulting in a more rigid system. In contrast a thicker piece of tailgut maintains a gradual curve as it passes through the tailpiece and most importantly, retains its’ springy quality indefinitely. This attribute of thick tailgut enables the rotational movement of the tailpiece and enhances the dynamic qualities of the tailpiece system by providing it with a spring hinge. This makes an enormous contribution to the damping qualities of the bridge by permitting greater flexibility of movement.
Click to expand...

Thicker

http://www.damianstrings.com/baroque set-up.htm
 
#9
What role does the tailgut play in this system, and why was a thick tailgut seen as an advantage? This would seem to be counterintuitive if we are seeking greater flexibility in the tailpiece system. But examining and measuring the holes in original tailpieces we find tailgut thicknesses of 2.50 to 2.60. When tailgut of thinner sizes is used, it quickly reaches the limit of its’ yield strength. In other words the thinner material readily conforms to the line of stress; particularly where it bends on exiting the bottom of the tailpiece, resulting in a more rigid system. In contrast a thicker piece of tailgut maintains a gradual curve as it passes through the tailpiece and most importantly, retains its’ springy quality indefinitely. This attribute of thick tailgut enables the rotational movement of the tailpiece and enhances the dynamic qualities of the tailpiece system by providing it with a spring hinge. This makes an enormous contribution to the damping qualities of the bridge by permitting greater flexibility of movement.

I suppose some of this might make sense if you are using actual "gut" for the tailgut. Even then, it seems very speculative. For one thing, luthiers have in the past generally used tailguts much heavier than necessary, wanting to be on the safe side, and not really considering the dynamics. How many of you have had a coat-hanger or 3/16" steel rope on your bass? If mid-20thC luthiers set up basses this way, then why would 18thC luthiers have been more attentive to this detail?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jake deVilliers
#10
Well I didn't really think a thicker gut tailgut was used to improve the sound until I found this article. I've never seen a coat hanger on a high level basses, but I have seen very thick wire tailguts made of three braided ropes each of a regular tailwire thickness. These instruments sounded great and needed no adjustment as far as I can tell. I'm not sure the tail wire was made that thick just to be on the safe side.
 
#11
korotkov said:
These instruments sounded great and needed no adjustment as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
If you haven't had the opportunity to try any different tailwire/tailpiece/bridge/sound post options on these great instruments, you cannot say that they didn't need adjustments.

Without back to back testing, that's a completely invalid statement. :thumbsup:
 
#13
True, I haven't had the opportunity to try my regular braided tailgut on these basses, Im just saying they sounded good enough for me to not think of changing anything.

There are so many things about the instrument you can tweak for better sound. Sometimes you feel that an instrument calls for better setup when you play it. You may not know what exactly is wrong, but you can feel that there's something to be improved. With other basses, there's not much you can do, you can hear/feel that when you play that's what I think.

By the way, I read several articles on tuning the afterlength but I didn't find what a starting point is for most ppl, some say it should be perfect 4th, some perfect 5th or just 1/6 scale length. Any thoughts?

Many thanks
 
#15
The interval depends on the string, because close to the ball end or loop the mass per length unit changes. The reason either the windings stretching a lot giving less mass, the core looping back under the windings for fixing the string getting more mass but a lot more if the windings go over them unstretched.

Beyond different tension this might be a reason why some strings have a wolf note and others with the same pitch don't.

So you cannot use an exact mathematical relationship to conclude from ratio to pitch interval. It can help a bit to find the right after length for an interval, but only as a starting point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jake deVilliers
#16
DoubleMIDI said:
The interval depends on the string, because close to the ball end or loop the mass per length unit changes. The reason either the windings stretching a lot giving less mass, the core looping back under the windings for fixing the string getting more mass but a lot more if the windings go over them unstretched.

Beyond different tension this might be a reason why some strings have a wolf note and others with the same pitch don't.

So you cannot use an exact mathematical relationship to conclude from ratio to pitch interval. It can help a bit to find the right after length for an interval, but only as a starting point.
Click to expand...
An excellent explanation. I start out a little longer than 1/6 and from there tune to 2 octaves plus a fourth. I try to get the after-lengths to be the same note as the fifth position harmonic on the next higher string.. This won't work with all varieties of strings.
 
#18
Thanks for the input guys, I didn't mean to find a perfect ratio at all, just wanted to know what is a starting point for you. I started by making the afterlength 1/6 the string some time ago only to find out that it doesn't always work. Now I still start with 1/6 and from there I go down in pitch if I feel that necessary. I can see that at least I moving in the right direction
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back