Pecanic Tailpiece

[stan haskins]

Hey Mike and luthiers:

I wonder if you'd care to expound a little about the effect different tailpieces have on different basses.

Or, restated: Why should I, the consumer (that's my new nickname) try out a Pecanic tailpiece (or any of the others, for that matter)?

[Mike Pecanic]

Sure! The quick short answers to the question(s) is/are: wood, wood, wood...the different hard (and some soft) woods have different response characteristics. I've found that what Ray Brown used to say about lighter woods make better tailpieces for pizz. players. as pretty true. So have my customers. I've also discovered that the ebonies don't necessarily make the best pieces for the arco predominant players, and they (the ebonies)shore don't make good adjustable tailpieces as they are just too darn heavy. The compensation thing sorta came about after realizing that most high-end arch top guitars and mandolins have compensated tailpieces as well as the 5 string Pohlmann's...my basic premise is that the larger diameter the string, the longer the string length, you know, like the harp. Then there is the aethestics of the shape, I think they look pretty cool! Back to the various types of wood. One example I like is that A 440 on a marimba sounds way different than A 440 on a vibraphone, at least to me. And they are all "one offs", made to order, one at a time in a little shop in California, nestled in foothills which, by the way, have snow on them today(wonder of wonders)! As David Gage once said about them, (I paraphrase) "I don't know if they work, but they look cool..." Hey, I think thats a complement coming from David...and I get my Cocobolo from a well-known maker of high-end electric basses, (Thanks again Ken)...

[stan haskins]

Yes, they do look cool . . .

I'm wondering how much they do for sound, though . . . I've heard someone (a student) mention that the compensating tailpieces can alleviate wolf tones. Do you think this is true? Does anyone else?

[Bob Branstetter]

Mike, are you inferring that a tailpiece generates sound independently and/or that if you were to make two identically shaped tailpieces of different woods species, but of the same exact total weight (with everything else being equal), each tailpiece will make a bass "respond" or sound differently because of the woods response characteristic?

[Ken Smith]

First off, we need to know how much the TP contributes to the actual sound of the Bass. Then comparing two extremes like Ebony and Maple both the exact same size. Cocobolo as many of you know is used for Marimbas. I played behind a Marimba concerto last week and all the keys were Cocobolo.

I have been told the Ebony TPs are a 20th century thing. Out of all the older pre-1920 Basses I have acquired over the last 6 years, 5 out of 11 of them (half) had non-Ebony TPs on them. Some if not all may be original to the Bass. Most seem to be stained Maple but the TP on my English Gilkes (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/GilkesBass/images/tail.jpg) is heavy and might be some other hardwood (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/GilkesBass/119.jpg) used in England 200 years ago. It looks to be original or at least from its 19th century restoration. Out of the 5 non-Ebony TPs, only two of them look to be original as 4-stringers and the Basses being my Batchelder (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/BatchBass/thumbnials/frontangle.gif) and Martini (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/MartiniBass/martini13.jpg) were made as 4s as well. The Gilkes we are not sure about because during its c.1870s restoration & Cut it has two holes plugged (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/GilkesBass/120.jpg) as if it may have been a 3-stringer earlier. My Cornerless Bass has a 3 turned 4 str. TP with 3 holes plugged and 4 new ones drilled (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/Storioni/images/tailpiece.jpg). Some of the TPs have just plain holes in them about 3-4mm and no 'loop' like a modern TP with a narrow channel above a larger maybe 10mm hole. One 3-string TP has two holes added so it could even be used as a 5er but the Scroll is barely long enough to hold 4 gears (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery-bass/oldpics2/100_0096.jpg) being a 3-stringer originally.

That being said, and sorry for the rant, I NEVER change a TP that comes on the Bass unless it's broken or just plain garbage. I did get one composite one in on my Bisiach labeled Bass and put an old Ebony one on that came off my Loveri. The Loveri got a fancy carved Indian ebony one that I bought for another Bass but was too small and was perfect for the Loveri. Also, I believe the size of the TP may matter on the Bass so if too small or too big. I might change it if I think it will help but thinking of doing it and doing it are two different things. Once the Bass is strung up and working, I usually don't mess with it.

I put a Cocobolo Pecanic TP on my 5er (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/doublebasses/mystery2/images/m2_f.JPG) because it was converted from a 4.

Switching TPs back and forth with fresh strings is the only real way to tell if it makes much of a difference. Adding a Bow quiver to your Bass may alter the sound just as much if not more than changing TPs. Also, the compensating TP can possibly have a greater effect than wood differences unless the woods are drastically different. If the Bass is not overly responsive to slight changes then the differences might be less. Basses with better acoustical properties, might show the changes more.

Then again, I just might be wasting a whole bunch of cyber ink here rather than doing something more constructive with my time..lol;)

What was the question again?:confused:

[stan haskins]

What was the question again?:confused:

Do compensating tailpieces have a discernible effect on wolf tones and overall sound quality in the average bass?

[Ken Smith]

Do compensating tailpieces have a discernible effect on wolf tones and overall sound quality in the average bass?

I don't know. The only way to tell is to experiment on the Bass you have with each kind of TP. If the Bass has bad wolfs, i don't see how a TP can be the magic potent.

More mass in the TP might help but then again, it depends on the frequency/note of your top and back when tapped and the notes where the wolfs are. I am just guessing here but some Basses can absorb more and some just bounce frequencies like a beach ball.

My motto is that if you don't like your Bass to begin with, get a different Bass. All the money you spend in trying to fix or correct it will most likely not increase its value unless it sounds and looks like a higher grade Bass when done.

[Mike Pecanic]

Hi y'all, first hey Bob, how you been? To answer your questions in order. Ahnold once pointed out to me that the tailpiece, tailpiece cord, and afterlength function as sort of a 'reverb unit' to the whole part of sound/tone/projection/volume quotient of any particular bass. Does the piece 'generate'? It certainly responds but generate...? I wouldn't necessarily think I could claim that the piece/cord/afterlength truely generating anything.

Ok, "identcally shaped", "different species", "exact same weight" tailpieces are going to have identical reponse charateristics in my experience.

Hi Stan, thanks for the questions, now on to the wolf tone issue. Yes and no. Sometimes. Kinda. Never. A couple of months back Jeff B. posted that after he installed one of my pieces, the wolftone, and I quote, "left the building." But the phenomenon of wolftones is complex issue of AO/BO tunings of the multiple parts of any bass. The neck has a tap tone, the fingerboard has a tap tone, tension in the garland, etc. are ALL complicit in wolftones. Basically, I think Jeff just got lucky and its an easy experiement to change out the tailpiece!

[Bob Branstetter]

Thanks for clarifying that issue Mike. I think we had a discussion of this on TB in the past and we all pretty much agreed then that it was the weight, and not the material from which the tailpiece is made, that is responsible for any change in response, sound, etc.

BTW - Mike's tailpieces sure are pretty!

[stan haskins]

Yes. They look really, really cool. And Ken, I do like my bass, but there are areas of the fingerboard (especially on the A string) which don't play as responsively as the rest of the bass - I call it "wolfiness", but my experience with real luthiery(sp?) is negligable.

WHat I really want is for someone to say: "Yeah, you should try another tailpiece - it might solve that problem and make your bass sound better!"

Wait, I think I just said it, didn't I?;)

[Mike Pecanic]

"Yeah, you should try another tailpiece - it might solve that problem and make your bass sound better!"...or not...mebbe...make it worse...no change...transpose your instrument to Bb...I dunno...get 2, they're small...

Honestly Stan, its all a crap shoot! Lemme guess, the wolfiness is around the F# huh?

[stan haskins]

Actually, the whole string is a bit of a problem. the open A and A harmonic are rough, hard to start - it gets a little rough again around F# and G#, too . . . like I said, I'm not sure if it's by definition a "wolf tone" problem, but when I have problems starting the string with a clear fundamental, I think "Wolfiness"

Anyway, thanks for the responses, Mike. Those tailpieces sure do look cool, and all the basses I've heard with them sound good - if I ever decide to try one, I'll report back. I guess I ought to start with a wolf tone eliminator though, I haven't tried that yet . . . (they just don't look as cool)

[David Powell]

What you described Stan, sound like what happens on my B string when I try to tune it to the E sometimes using the fourth /fifth harmonics. The string fights the bow and you can't get a clear note and the sound it makes, well, there is just no hope hearing when it gets in tune. I'm guessing that is why they call it a "wolf";- because it kind of howls in this wierd strained dissonance if you get anything at all. Fortunately it is only on the low B. Once you are at C and above, the string plays well. The body cavity resonance as best I can tell is about C and the fingerboard is A. I don't know if that effects it but the C's are really strong everywhere and the A is pretty strong too. It's just the low B forth harmonic that jumps like that against the bow. Stopped B on the A sounds really strong as do the F#s.

My work around is just to tune that string at the octave to an electronic source. If it is really carefully tuned then the wolfiness is not as bad. And on some days for unknown reasons, it just isn't there at all. I've thought about the Pecanic TP, the tunable ones or even just a compensated one as at least something worth trying, but on my bass, it's just a few notes on one string that suffer. The original TP is a dyed hard wood, not compensated, and looks pretty good so it's not the highest priority to upgrade it, but considering most of the better 5 string basses I see photos of have compensated TP's makes me curious.

[JoeyNaeger]

FWIW, the pecanic tailpiece helped a lot with the tone and response of my bass. It felt much looser under the bow and the sound was more even. The wolftone isn't nearly as prevalent, but it still pops out occasionally. I had a carbon fiber tailpiece on before.

[Bob Branstetter]

I don't think that either Stan or David are experiencing a true wolf note. As Mike Pecanic pointed earlier out by asking if the wolf occurred around F#, a true wolf note does not encompass an entire strings or a large percentage of the notes on it. It is normally a break in the sound of a particular note and it occurs regardless of what string you play it on. My first reaction would be to try a different (brand) string or strings. If the anomaly still occurs and if your luthier can not eliminate the problem, you may just have to accept the sad fact the some basses have dead spots and/or do not respond evenly across the strings.

Here's a no cost or very low cost idea for trying a heavier tailpiece without making any permanent change.

I don't know if anyone has tried this on a tailpiece, but when tuning the neck/fingerboard in B0 tuning, we use common modeling clay to temporarily add weight to the end of a fingerboard. The same could probably be done with tailpieces to determine if a heavier tailpiece would be of benefit and find the exact weight needed for a new tailpiece. The clay adheres to smooth surfaces and can be added or removed without damage to the surface. Lead fishing weights can be added to the clay if even more weight is wanted.

[David Powell]

FWIW, the pecanic tailpiece helped a lot with the tone and response of my bass. It felt much looser under the bow and the sound was more even. The wolftone isn't nearly as prevalent, but it still pops out occasionally. I had a carbon fiber tailpiece on before. Interesting, Joey. Are you using the compensated or the tunable Pecanic?

[Brian Gencarelli]

Bob,

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the afterlength tuning important in the fight against wolfs, or it can at least mimic a "true wolf" when the afterlength is vibrating at a sympathetic frequency?

For instance, if your A string is hard to start, check all the afterlength and see if one of them is an A or very close to it. If so, put a wolf tone eliminator on to "correct" that pitch?

This concept was passed on to me by a luthier I worked with in the past, and I figured with your AO/BO expertise you could shed some light? Plus this would affect the tail length to shoot for.

I have heard that we should try to tune an octave and a fifth higher than the open string, but obviously that would be hard with a compensated tailpiece...

What are your thoughts? Or Arnold, Jeff, Ken?

Thanks,
Brian

[Bob Branstetter]

This concept was passed on to me by a luthier I worked with in the past, and I figured with your AO/BO expertise you could shed some light? Plus this would affect the tail length to shoot for. I'm sure that others will disagree with me, but I personally do not believe in "tuning" the after-length. I'm not going to say that players are wrong when they honestly think that their "tuning" performed some kind of miracle on their bass, but it usually turns out that several things were changed in addition to the "tuning". My problem with it is two fold. First, I've tried just about every scheme there is for after-length "tuning" and I never found one that consistently worked on different basses. In addition, the string does not slide freely over the bridge so the "tuning" frequently changes from day to day as you actually tune the instrument to play it. Second, no one has ever been able to give me a good, logical reason why tuning the after-length to some particular interval (3rd, 4th, b5th, etc) should work. The oldest method I know of for setting the after-length is to simply make the after length equal to 1/6th of the playing string length. A very logical argument could be made for that method because this places the bridge at 1/7th the total length of the string. By being there it cancels out the 7th harmonic of the (total) string. This is good because the 7th harmonic is false (http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/badnote.html). That is what I use most of the time although I don't measure it all that closely. FWIW, Pianos are made so the hammer hits on the 7th harmonic to deaden it.

If you are able to accept the concepts of A0-B0 matching (which I will NOT discuss here), the best way to tune the after-length is to not tune it, but rather tune the entire vibrating assembly as a unit. By this I mean the tailpiece wire length above the nut, the tailpiece and the string after-length as a unit. Each part affects the resonance frequency of the whole. Several excellent papers have been published in violin acoustics journals that say the ideal is to have the tailpiece tuned to 1/2 the frequency of the body cavity resonance frequency (which usually turns out to be in the 25 to 40Hz range). This job can be somewhat difficult since you have to add or remove weight to or from the tailpiece while it is still on the bass. I've only done this while performing the complete A0-B0 matching process, therefor I have no personal knowledge of just how well tailpiece-A0 matching works by itself.

[Mike Pecanic]

Yeah, c'mon Jeff, tell 'em about the "woo-woo" theory...

[Ken Smith]

Bob,

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the afterlength tuning important in the fight against wolfs, or it can at least mimic a "true wolf" when the afterlength is vibrating at a sympathetic frequency?

For instance, if your A string is hard to start, check all the afterlength and see if one of them is an A or very close to it. If so, put a wolf tone eliminator on to "correct" that pitch?

This concept was passed on to me by a luthier I worked with in the past, and I figured with your AO/BO expertise you could shed some light? Plus this would affect the tail length to shoot for.

I have heard that we should try to tune an octave and a fifth higher than the open string, but obviously that would be hard with a compensated tailpiece...

What are your thoughts? Or Arnold, Jeff, Ken?

Thanks,
Brian

Well, when I make an adjustment in the after length I am either moving the TP up or down. If up, the tailwire is longer with more flex possibly and iff down, less flex as the shorter wire is tighter. Also, there is more or less string below the bridge or the TP is closer away or farther towards the bridge.

What does this all mean scientifically? I have NO CLUE! :confused::confused:

But, I do feel that when the TP is lower, the string tension feels tighter and when the TP is closer to the Bridge, The bass feels easier to play. There is about a 5% - 10% difference if pay close attention. A day or so later, all is forgotten.

Now, I am doing this on some pretty good carved Basses, most of them being fairly old. These are all great Orchestral Basses and 'smoke' for Jazz if that's what I need them for. If It was a wolfy shop Bass or modern plywood Bass, I don't know if polishing the hood ornament would make the engine run smoother. No insult meant there by the way.

Newer Bass need to be broken in and stay well set up and cared for just like any other Bass. The only thing is that you may not live long enough to see, play or hear that Bass fully matured.

I have owned and used about 4-5 New Basses in my life. One was my first plywood from Germany (Lang/Juzek). the next would be my W.Wilfer (from Juzek, Master Art model w/o Juzek Label). That Bass was 5 or 10 years old when I bought it but never out of the shop or set-up b4 I picked it up. It replaced an older Shop Bass maybe 40-60 years old or so. That older Bass was tight and wolfy. The Wilfer was loose and smooth on every note. Just a better Bass regardless of age.

Next was 10 years ago when I got one of 2 Shens made with European wood, the 3/4 Gamba1000 model. Smooth and deep for its size and still going strong. That is now my son Jon's Bass. Then I got a 7/8ths 800 model Gamba Shen which I still have and use when needed. The 3/4 I think is a finer sounding Bass but the 7/8ths is a cannon, just a little new sounding.

Most recently I bought the Bollbach Lion which is amongst the best new Basses I have played ranking the the handmades that Arnold makes which I just don't own one but have played a few of them.

Good handmade Basses sound good, period. Shop Basses do not have the attention to detail internally or in the materials chosen combined which makes it a hit or miss gamble. Two other Basses I bought which were both represented originally as Italian Basses turned out to be most likely Hungarian and not as old as they are dated. These do sound good by the way and not at all like my Shens. They are just Italian fakes made in a country where they think making a fake is more profitable than building up your own name as a maker. Many people are searching to find who these makers are as they have fooled a lot of people in the business or at least made us interested rather than just disgusted as the Basses are very good for the most part.

So.. for the TP.. Dress up you Bass as you see fit but the set-up overall is more important than one single component or accessory.

By the way, if and when I DO need a new TP, Mike is my go-to guy for that. Jeff (http://www.kensmithbasses.com/DoubleBasses/Bollbach/images/tailpiece.jpg) and Arnold have made some nice ones for their personal Basses as well but I think Mike has the best ones on the market today.

[Bob Branstetter]

Here's a nice carved tailpiece by gold medal bass maker Dan Hachez.

[David Powell]

Brian, when I first got my bass, the shop set-up was with the afterlengths tuned to the major 3rd (plus at least one octave, perhaps two). I was surprised to find that this kind of detail had been paid attention to in design and placement of the TP. The tuning was too dead on for it to be accidental. So at least the maker thought it contributed something. I changed the string spacing and the only 3rd tuning that is surviving is the middle string, the A. The rest are close but of course the G and low B suffered the most. It really didn't seem to affect the way the bass played or sounded nearly as much as the new bridge, or even as much as when I did a very minor dressing on the FB. With a tunable Pecanic;- that is one with separate adjustable saddles on the TP for each string, I could have restored the tuning. I don't think it is that important what these are tuned to as long as it is tuned to something. It could help with getting intonation correct in the high range and might give a little constructive resonance to some notes here and there. I'd love to get one of them and play with it to find out. As far as wolf tones go, it seems plausible that if putting a weight on an afterlength reduces a wolf tone, then tuning the afterlength to something might also help, but I don't know that anyone has done the careful research that would be required to establish that. Like anything else in a system as complex as a DB, it might work sometimes, and it might do nothing.

As far as the compensated TP goes, the extra room for afterlength on the heavier strings probably makes those feel more balanced in terms of flexibility.

[Ken Smith]

I have been taught that the after length should be tuned to 2 octaves and a fourth. This will interfere less with the natural harmonics of the Bass.

[Bob Branstetter]

OK - we've got a third and a fourth. Anyone got a fifth or maybe a flatted fifth? Or an augmented ???

[Ken Smith]

OK - we've got a third and a fourth. Anyone got a fifth or maybe a flatted fifth? Or an augmented ???

Bob, I'm not much of a drinker, sorry..:(

[Brian Gencarelli]

Hey Bob,

Thanks for the thoughts. Personally, I kind of think afterlength tuning is hooey, too. It may make a difference, but I think as long as you are in the ball park...

On my very first bass I removed the tailpiece completely and it really sounded great! It was a Romanian Hybrid, the finished version of what Kolstein used for his orchestral model bass in the early nineties. I used a wire rig and wrapped each ball end in the wire. No mass equalled a much more resonant bass.

I am very happy with my "Heifetzbass". I pay no attention to what pitches the afterlength is tuned to, and I don't have wolfs, etc... My instrument is old and it moves. I can feel when the weather changes and I know that is stretching the tailpiece wire, string over the bridge, and such.

I was asking more for a colleague that I am sending to Dr. Mike for a new tailpiece. I will probably end up doing the installation. He has one of the Kolstein Carcassi's with the brick (read: cinderblock) of an adjustable tailpiece. I really think it is damping the sound (or at least the response) due to the weight.

I have toyed with putting one of Dr. Mike's compensating tailpiece on my instrument because of the looks. I like "other" woods used other than the traditional ones.

Thanks for the responses. I love hearing all the opinions and "old wives tales" within this realm. It really fascinates me. I really want to be a luthier when I grow up!;)
Brian

[Ken McKay]

I haven't messed around with TP after length tuning on basses much but do on violins as it can help with carrying power. In a violin I shoot for more power in the 2.5k range. I believe this is standard practice with the better violin set up artists. I don't achieve it consistently and the concept is a bit ellusive. The only way to test for the change in carrying power is to listen far away from the instrument, while it is being played with other instruments. I can get a rough idea of how well this might be achieved by measuring or listening for the right overtones up close to the instrument.

But with a bass it is unclear to me what I would be shooting for. Is there any standard for bass set up regarding afterlength tuning or TP weight?

[stan haskins]

This is interesting . . . After all the discussion about tailpiece tuning, etc . . . I decided to take some measurements (I don't have a stroboscope or anything, all notes were recorded by ear, checked against my reasonably (a=440) well-tuned Klavier . . .)


Tailpiece “chimes” (like a marimba, when I tapped it) just sharp of “C”

After-Length tuned to:
Eb on Gstr,
Bb on Dstring (this one's a little flat)
F on Astring
C on Estring (this seems to be different then everyone elses - tuned to a minor 6th . . .)

Body cavity resonance: A little sharp of G

I'm very curious to find out more about how all of these things interact in the overall tone production . . .

[Bob Branstetter]

I haven't messed around with TP after length tuning on basses much but do on violins as it can help with carrying power. In a violin I shoot for more power in the 2.5k range. I believe this is standard practice with the better violin set up artists. I don't achieve it consistently and the concept is a bit ellusive. The only way to test for the change in carrying power is to listen far away from the instrument, while it is being played with other instruments. I can get a rough idea of how well this might be achieved by measuring or listening for the right overtones up close to the instrument.

But with a bass it is unclear to me what I would be shooting for. Is there any standard for bass set up regarding afterlength tuning or TP weight?

I think that most of us can agree that moving the tailpiece forward or back will change the feel and the response. It's the afterlength tuning to some arbitrary pitch that is a bone of contention. I received most of my early training in the shop of an award winning violin maker. It was here that I learned about the 1/6 rule for after length, My mentor was very good at setting up instruments and tweaking them for best sound. Although he did deviate from the 1/6th rule on occasion, for the most part, the fine tuning consisted of swapping out tailpieces both in different density woods (ebony, rosewood and boxwood) and in style (Std and Hill) which no doubt was basically adding or subtracting weight. He would also swap out different weight and styles of E string adjusters. He must have done a pretty good job with this method since he won several international awards for tone in violin making competition.

I follow the same basic methods as my mentor did. I don't know of any shops that "tune" the afterlength on violin, viola, or cello to an arbitrary pitch the way some do in the doublebass community. I've often thought it would be interesting to ask those who "tune" the afterlength to accurately measure the playable string length and the afterlength and to calculate the ratio.

There seems to be another rule of thumb that heavier tailpieces work best for arco and lighter ones for pizz. I've found this to be true on most instruments, but just as with bridge height adjusters, there are some basses that do not follow this gereralization. My belief is that the optimum weight for a tailpiece is dependent on the afterlength and the vibrating portion of tailgut. If you examine the motion of a tailpiece, you observe that it moves in several directions at once. It twists on it's axis, it goes up and down and it goes side to side. It also vibrates at a constant frequency. Since the tailpiece does is not struck into motion like a marimba bar, the force that sets the tailpiece in motion has to be transfered to it via the afterlength and to a lesser extent the tailwire. Once the mass of the tailpiece is set into motion, some of this motion is sent back to the bridge which in turn sends it to the body of the instrument. If you change either of these, you change the vibrating frequency of the entire tailpiece assembly. You can also change the tailpiece frequency by adding or subtracting weight from the tailpiece. IMO, it is the mass of the tailpiece and the resulting vibrating frequency that has the greatest impact on the responce of the bass.

[Greg Clinkingbeard]

Bob,
Now you've got me thinking, or second-guessing. I've got what looks like an ebony tailpiece on my bass. At least thats what they told me.;)
In your experience with pizz playing, how do lighter and heavier tailpieces differ in response. Do they differ in tonal balance, clarity or both?

[Greg Clinkingbeard]

Of course, people other than Bob are also free to jump in.:o Please forgive me.

[Bob Branstetter]

Bob,
Now you've got me thinking, or second-guessing. I've got what looks like an ebony tailpiece on my bass. At least thats what they told me.;)
In your experience with pizz playing, how do lighter and heavier tailpieces differ in response. Do they differ in tonal balance, clarity or both?
Hi Greg,
My personal experience and most of the people I've talked to about it seem to agree that you get "quicker" response with a lighter TP. However, it also seems to make for rougher bowing. Tonal balance? Clarity? I can't say. Not every bass is the same.

[Greg Clinkingbeard]

Thanks Bob.
Quickness is something my bass could use. I rarely bow, so it can't get much rougher:(.I'll try a lighter one maybe at the next string change.

[Daniel Yeabsley]

Here's (http://www.gollihur.com/kkbass/tailpieces.html) a nice looking composite tailpiece on Bob Gollihurs site. And it's only $43. Hmmm...

[Greg Clinkingbeard]

Add to that, depreciation on a newish set of Obligatos and it just got more expensive. I think I'll wait a few months and try something lighter.
There was a thread on TB (I think) that Arnold is using composite tailpieces on his New Standards. FWIW.

[David Powell]

Bob Branstetter,

If the general rule in tuning the after length is 1/6, wouldn't that be a perfect 5th plus two octaves? (2/3 = the fifth degree, 1/3 is octave up, 1/6 another octave up)

[Bob Branstetter]

Bob Branstetter,

If the general rule in tuning the after length is 1/6, wouldn't that be a perfect 5th plus two octaves? (2/3 = the fifth degree, 1/3 is octave up, 1/6 another octave up)It really is not a general rule, it is known as the German rule. Length and pitch are two different animals where this is concerned. You must consider that the end of the string with the wrapping and ball are usually not even the same diameter or mass as the speaking length string diameter. I don't consider the 1/6 length something to be fixed in stone. I may make it a little longer or a little shorter depending on the bass. I have not found the pitch/interval of the after-length to be anything consistant using the 1/6 length.

I fail to see how anyone can logically isolate the after-length frequency (pitch) from that of the tailpiece and tailpiece wire/gut/rope/etc. They vibrate as a single unit and the vibration frequency of the tailpiece, which has by far the greatest mass and amplitude, is frequently below that of the the lowest note on the instrument. If I were going to "tune" anything, it would be the tailpiece. It makes more sense to me to make the pitch of the tailpiece the same or an octave (1/2 the frequency) lower than the body resonance frequency, but that would be getting into A0/B0 matching. I also find it interesting that many players who amplify routinely mute that after-length . I guess they must not consider the after-length pitch all that important either.

[bobwall]

I tune my afterlength, and it does do something, at least on my bass. I tune it to a 5th. There was one symphony rehersal that my bass felt "off," and I just idly plucked the afterlength and noticed it was not at a 5th. I changed it and there was an enormous difference - volume went drastically up, it was much easier to get a great tone, etc. I have a witness - my stand mate watched me do it and said that the entire nature of the tone became much "warmer" and the volume went way up. I didn't even tell him what I was doing - he just exclaimed after I was done. I am certain it has an effect. I did it by putting pressure up or down on my bridge just around each string.

Here's my take on it, though - you're not really "tuning" the afterlength alone - you're tuning the nut to bridge length, too, which is pretty important - scale length has a pretty measurable effect on sound. It seems to me that every bass has a scale length (or a "tuning") that it is most resonant at - mine seems to be really really happy when the afterlength sounds at 2 octaves and a 5th above the forelength. Other basses I'm sure are very different. I'm sure it's not a placebo - I can tell just with a couple bow strokes if the thing isn't "tuned."

[Bob Branstetter]

I tune my afterlength, and it does do something, at least on my bass. I tune it to a 5th. There was one symphony rehersal that my bass felt "off," and I just idly plucked the afterlength and noticed it was not at a 5th. I changed it and there was an enormous difference - volume went drastically up, it was much easier to get a great tone, etc. I have a witness - my stand mate watched me do it and said that the entire nature of the tone became much "warmer" and the volume went way up. You did not change the after-length, you just changed the pitch - two entirely different things. After-length is not after-length pitch. If you had said you took the bass home, took off the tailpiece and replaced or shortened the tailwire, you would have actually changed the after-length. The fact you were able to change to pitch simply means that the string was not sliding freely across the bridge (which of course is perfectly normal).

[bobwall]

I don't understand - if I move the bridge towards the tailpiece, changing the length of the string between the tailpiece and the bridge, how is that not changing the afterlength?

[bobwall]

By the way, speaking of Mike Pecanic tailpieces, about 3 years ago I added one of his tailgut cords. Great upgrade, did actually improve the sound.

[Bob Branstetter]

I don't understand - if I move the bridge towards the tailpiece, changing the length of the string between the tailpiece and the bridge, how is that not changing the afterlength?So you are saying that your bridge was not sitting in the correct spot or correct angle? If not, you are moving the bridge toward the tailpiece, then you are changing the string length and the relative postion of the soundpost to the bridge.

[bobwall]

Angle - no movement of the foot. But I don't know that it's about "correct" angle - we're talking about movement of a mm or so, well within the natural movement of the bridge. It's changing the length of the string on both sides of the bridge - adjusting this ratio.

Have you read Chuck Traeger's section on this subject?

[Bob Branstetter]

Angle - no movement of the foot. But I don't know that it's about "correct" angle - we're talking about movement of a mm or so, well within the natural movement of the bridge. It's changing the length of the string on both sides of the bridge - adjusting this ratio.

Have you read Chuck Traeger's section on this subject?Most good luthiers go to great effort to get the bottom of the feet to conform as closely as possible to the table. If you tilt the bridge in or out from the angle established by the luthier, the feet are no longer going to have complete contact with the top.

And yes - I have read all sections of Chuck Traeger's book.

[Trevor Bortins]

I'd have to guess that bridge angle, like stated above, is what changed your sound. The bridge likes to tilt as you tune your strings--especially after you change your strings. If you don't have the bridge sitting firmly where it was originally set up (with a good setup), you're going to negatively impact the sound and feel.

I change strings nearly daily from solo to orchestral and back again. If I don't check the bridge assiduously every time I do that (and after I tune a few times), the sound and playability goes WAY down--even if the bridge is only a mm or two off. I left the tiny wax marks on the top of my bass, where my repairman put them, just in case I need to put the bridge back exactly where he knew it should be.

-Trevor

[Adam Linz]

Hey everyone. Just put an ebony Pecanic on my Morelli and it is fantastic. Took some of the barkiness out of the mid section and my bass feels much better. Mike does great work and they are not expensive at all. I highly suggest that all of you with the means try one of his tailpieces out. Surprise yourself. Best, Adam Linz