epiphone frequensator tailpiece

[Bill Ribas]

got one of these on my epi es5 copy, and just wondering what it does, and if
anyone has replaced with a standard tailpiece, etc. just curious.

[LarryV]

From Gibson ...

"The Frequensator tailpiece is designed to brighten the lower strings
while keeping the higher strings relatively dark, and, yes, it really
does work. The increased length of the three bass strings adds to their
vibrancy, while the treble strings are slightly, but nicely subdued due
to their shorter length."

got one of these on my epi es5 copy, and just wondering what it does, and if
anyone has replaced with a standard tailpiece, etc. just curious.

[St. John Smythe]

From Gibson ...
"The Frequensator tailpiece is designed to brighten the lower strings
while keeping the higher strings relatively dark, and, yes, it really
does work. The increased length of the three bass strings adds to their
vibrancy, while the treble strings are slightly, but nicely subdued due
to their shorter length."

One has to wonder why, if the Frequensator is so marvelous, Gibson
doesn't put it on all their tailpiece guitars.

[LarryV]

I don't think it's the desired effect for all of their guitars. It's
been around for many years though. Never played a guitar with one, but
I've heard it can be difficult to find strings to fit because of the
long length on the bass side.

Post by St. John Smythe

From Gibson ...
"The Frequensator tailpiece is designed to brighten the lower strings
while keeping the higher strings relatively dark, and, yes, it really
does work. The increased length of the three bass strings adds to their
vibrancy, while the treble strings are slightly, but nicely subdued due
to their shorter length."

One has to wonder why, if the Frequensator is so marvelous, Gibson
doesn't put it on all their tailpiece guitars.
--
St. John
Go out and tell a lie that will make the whole family proud of you.
-Cadmus, to Pentheus, in "The Bacchae" by Euripides

[St. John Smythe]

Post by LarryV
I don't think it's the desired effect for all of their guitars. It's
been around for many years though. Never played a guitar with one, but
I've heard it can be difficult to find strings to fit because of the
long length on the bass side.

...and the difference it makes is almost too subtle to be worth
bothering with. Really more of a marketing than technical breakthrough.

[LarryV]

Agreed, just another gimmick to suggest a difference.

Post by St. John Smythe

Post by LarryV
I don't think it's the desired effect for all of their guitars. It's
been around for many years though. Never played a guitar with one, but
I've heard it can be difficult to find strings to fit because of the
long length on the bass side.

...and the difference it makes is almost too subtle to be worth
bothering with. Really more of a marketing than technical breakthrough.
--
St. John
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice, they're not.

[RickH]

Post by Bill Ribas
got one of these on my epi es5 copy, and just wondering what it does, and if
anyone has replaced with a standard tailpiece, etc. just curious.

Any tail that shortens the length of strings 3,2,1 has the effect of
allowing you to use heavier gauge without needing a huge amount of
tension to tune, because the shorter length already gets you there.
The tension-bearing core of the wound strings 6,5,4 is already much
smaller than the outside diameter of the wound strings so they can
tolerate longer length and more tension without feeling too tight
anyway. Other than string lengths I dont see anything special about
frequensator vs a GB10 for example, thin strings will be floppyer than
a straight tail.

[dunlop212]

I had one of those MIK epi emperors, and found the tailpiece a
nuisance. A stewmac byrdland style tailpiece was pretty much a dropin
replacement IIRC.

[St. John Smythe]

Post by RickH
Any tail that shortens the length of strings 3,2,1 has the effect of
allowing you to use heavier gauge without needing a huge amount of
tension to tune, because the shorter length already gets you there.
The tension-bearing core of the wound strings 6,5,4 is already much
smaller than the outside diameter of the wound strings so they can
tolerate longer length and more tension without feeling too tight
anyway.

Rick, as much as I hate to disagree, I've gotta do it, because this idea
gets passed along frequently, and it's incorrect. The length of string
between the bridge and tailpiece is has no effect on tension; only the
length between the nut and bridge affects does that (in conjunction with
musical pitch and string gauge). For a given string and pitch, whether
the bridge<-->tailpiece distance is a millimeter or a mile, the string
tension will be the same.

Now, the *pitch* of the bridge<-->tailpiece segment will change with
length, as expected, but that's not the section we're tuning.

BTW, the subtle effect I referred to in an earlier post has to do with
the difference in bridge damping (very little) attributable to the short
end of the string.

If you doubt it, ask a physicist.

[Peter Huggins]

<<< Rick, as much as I hate to disagree, I've gotta do it, because this
idea gets passed along frequently, and it's incorrect. The length of
string between the bridge and tailpiece is has no effect on tension;
only the length between the nut and bridge affects does that (in
conjunction with musical pitch and string gauge). For a given string and
pitch, whether the bridge<-->tailpiece distance is a millimeter or a
mile, the string tension will be the same. >>>


Have you ever made a hands on, direct comparison between the two? You
might be surprised at the results.....

In the late `70s I had a `60s Epiphone Rivera, with the Frequensator
tailpiece. My roommate (who was attending GIT at the time) had a Gibson
ES-335 fitted with a stud tailpiece. With the same standard .010 - .046
strings on both guitars, the Epiphone had a lighter, more flexible
touch. The difference is also obvious when the headstock spacings are
altered as well, such as on the Gibson Firebird with its reverse
headstock. There is a reason Jimi Hendrix preferred to restring
right-handed Stratocasters instead of seeking out the left-handed
models.

Dan Armstrong disagreed with me about this, but once I acquired a 1968
Sheraton, I was able to convince him that there really was a difference.
Subtle, perhaps, but very noticeable to a knowledgeable player. Ol` Herb
Sunshine was a dedicated Guitar Engineer, and his designs were well
thought out, and for the most part well executed. They were not gimmicks
or styled just to be different cosmetically from what Gibson was doing
in the days when they were competitors. If you get the chance you should
compare a pre-war Emperor with a L-5 of the same era, you can feel the
difference.
Why did John D`Angelico switch to a stairstep-style tailpiece?

Finally, you could switch the short and long forks around to affect
differences in tone (check out old pics of Billy Bauer or Harry Volpe).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
" I`d dance with you Maria, but my hands are on fire " - Bob Dylan

" We had a knob, and all we had to do was turn it." - Les Paul

Grins, Peter
http://community.webtv.net/guitarmaniax/THISISTHE

http://community.webtv.net/guitarmaniax/unfinished3

http://community.webtv.net/guitarmaniax/PhotoReserveNo1

http://community.webtv.net/guitarmaniax/MYFRIEND

[St. John Smythe]

Post by Peter Huggins
Have you ever made a hands on, direct comparison between the two? You
might be surprised at the results.....

Direct, hands-on AND measured. We did it with a tension meter in the
'60s, and no, I wasn't surprised, although I was delighted; won a fifth
of scotch (Clan MacGregor, ($4.44 at the time)).

We spliced six e strings end-to-end, anchored the guitar to the
workbench and fastened the far end of the string to the wall. When
tuned to the same e, there was no difference whatsoever in tension
between the bridge and the nut for the string attached to the tailpiece
or the one attached to the wall.

That settled it, for us, at least. But if you'd care to repeat the
experiment, I'll happily make the same bet with you. Qualified and
impartial referee required.

[Peter Huggins]

<<< From: ***@n4vu.com (St.=A0John=A0Smythe)
<< Peter Huggins wrote:
Have you ever made a hands on, direct comparison between the two? You
might be surprised at the results..... >>
<<< Direct, hands-on AND measured. We did it with a tension meter in the
'60s, and no, I wasn't surprised, although I was delighted; won a fifth
of scotch (Clan MacGregor, ($4.44 at the time)). >>>

Cheap!

<<< We spliced six e strings end-to-end, anchored the guitar to the
workbench and fastened the far end of the string to the wall. When tuned
to the same e, there was no difference whatsoever in tension between the
bridge and the nut for the string attached to the tailpiece or the one
attached to the wall.
That settled it, for us, at least. But if you'd care to repeat the
experiment, I'll happily make the same bet with you. Qualified and
impartial referee required.
--
St. John >>>

You know what? You are talking about tension but I am talking about
playability. The tension may be exactly the same, but the flexibility is
different. It is easier to bend strings on a Riviera with a Frequensator
than it is on a 335 with a stop tailpiece. And you can effect the
playability on the 335 by how you adjust the stud. Different strings
feel different, and different string manufacturers show different
tensions, for string sets of identical gauges.

I would be interested in seeing photos of this experiment, if any were
taken. Were the six E strings the big E or the little e ? What means
were used to splice the strings together ? Were they soldered or welded
together, or did you just tie them in knots? What kind of guitar was
used? Did it have the other five strings fitted, and tuned to pitch? Did
the extended string go through the guitars tailpiece , or over or under
or around it? Was any attempt made to actually play the guitar, and if
so, how did the experiment affect the guitars` feel and tone?
Did you drink the MacGregor with the loser(s) of the bet or all by
yourself? Neat, OTR or Straight Up? Did you wait to crack the seal until
after the experiment was concluded? IMWTK....




<<< If it smells, it's chemistry; if it crawls, it's biology; if it
doesn't work, it's physics. >>>

Great Quote !

--------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
" I`d dance with you Maria, but my hands are on fire " - Bob Dylan

" We had a knob, and all we had to do was turn it." - Les Paul

Grins, Peter =

http://community.webtv.net/guitarmaniax/THISISTHE

http://community.webtv.net/guitarmaniax/unfinished3

http://community.webtv.net/guitarmaniax/PhotoReserveNo1

http://community.webtv.net/guitarmaniax/MYFRIEND

[St. John Smythe]

Post by Peter Huggins
I would be interested in seeing photos of this experiment, if any were
taken. Were the six E strings the big E or the little e ?

Y'know, I said e, but now that the memory cells have gotten exercised,
it was actually a b in the high e position (fit over instead of in the
nut slot), to match up with the standard b that was left on the guitar,
around a .017. While bringing the string up to pitch, the tuner needed
to wrap about six times the length because of the extra stretch, so the
guitar headstock was anchored to the movable jaw of a woodworker's vise
(with something like a guitar hanger) and the vise movement was used to
take up all but the last of the stretch.

Post by Peter Huggins
What means
were used to splice the strings together ? Were they soldered or
welded together, or did you just tie them in knots?

End looped through the next string's eyelet, twisted and soldered.

Post by Peter Huggins
What kind of guitar was
used? Did it have the other five strings fitted, and tuned to pitch?
Did the extended string go through the guitars tailpiece , or over or
under or around it?

Old green lacquered archtop, probably a Harmony, with five strings
normally in place and more-or-less in tune, and just the high e replaced
with the long b string. The long string went over the bridge, under the
tailpiece and across the room.

Post by Peter Huggins
Was any attempt made to actually play the guitar,

No, we just plucked the two b strings to confirm that they sounded the
same. No difference in feel was noted, but we weren't looking for that,
only the tension measurement.

Post by Peter Huggins
Did you drink the MacGregor with the loser(s) of the bet or all by
yourself? Neat, OTR or Straight Up? Did you wait to crack the seal
until after the experiment was concluded? IMWTK....

IIRC, that particular bottle would have gotten carried home unopened,
and eventually consumed with soda. (This experiment was done in the
back of Musser Piano Co., Jacksonville, IL, and Bob Musser wouldn't have
tolerated drinking in the store.)

[floreth]

Jacksonville IL? How interesting. A small town indeed.

Post by St. John Smythe

Post by Peter Huggins
I would be interested in seeing photos of this experiment, if any were
taken. Were the six E strings the big E or the little e ?

Y'know, I said e, but now that the memory cells have gotten exercised,
it was actually a b in the high e position (fit over instead of in the
nut slot), to match up with the standard b that was left on the guitar,
around a .017. While bringing the string up to pitch, the tuner needed
to wrap about six times the length because of the extra stretch, so the
guitar headstock was anchored to the movable jaw of a woodworker's vise
(with something like a guitar hanger) and the vise movement was used to
take up all but the last of the stretch.

Post by Peter Huggins
What means
were used to splice the strings together ? Were they soldered or
welded together, or did you just tie them in knots?

End looped through the next string's eyelet, twisted and soldered.

Post by Peter Huggins
What kind of guitar was
used? Did it have the other five strings fitted, and tuned to pitch?
Did the extended string go through the guitars tailpiece , or over or
under or around it?

Old green lacquered archtop, probably a Harmony, with five strings
normally in place and more-or-less in tune, and just the high e replaced
with the long b string. The long string went over the bridge, under the
tailpiece and across the room.

Post by Peter Huggins
Was any attempt made to actually play the guitar,

No, we just plucked the two b strings to confirm that they sounded the
same. No difference in feel was noted, but we weren't looking for that,
only the tension measurement.

Post by Peter Huggins
Did you drink the MacGregor with the loser(s) of the bet or all by
yourself? Neat, OTR or Straight Up? Did you wait to crack the seal
until after the experiment was concluded? IMWTK....

IIRC, that particular bottle would have gotten carried home unopened,
and eventually consumed with soda. (This experiment was done in the
back of Musser Piano Co., Jacksonville, IL, and Bob Musser wouldn't have
tolerated drinking in the store.)
--
St. John, who nowadays prefers single malts neat

[St. John Smythe]

Post by floreth
Jacksonville IL? How interesting. A small town indeed.

But with two colleges! Not jazz, but guitar connected: I was in school
there with Fred Newell.

[RickH]

Post by St. John Smythe

Post by RickH
Any tail that shortens the length of strings 3,2,1 has the effect of
allowing you to use heavier gauge without needing a huge amount of
tension to tune, because the shorter length already gets you there.
The tension-bearing core of the wound strings 6,5,4 is already much
smaller than the outside diameter of the wound strings so they can
tolerate longer length and more tension without feeling too tight
anyway.

Rick, as much as I hate to disagree, I've gotta do it, because this idea
gets passed along frequently, and it's incorrect. The length of string
between the bridge and tailpiece is has no effect on tension; only the
length between the nut and bridge affects does that (in conjunction with
musical pitch and string gauge). For a given string and pitch, whether
the bridge<-->tailpiece distance is a millimeter or a mile, the string
tension will be the same.
Now, the *pitch* of the bridge<-->tailpiece segment will change with
length, as expected, but that's not the section we're tuning.
BTW, the subtle effect I referred to in an earlier post has to do with
the difference in bridge damping (very little) attributable to the short
end of the string.
If you doubt it, ask a physicist.
--
St. John
Don't let go of what you've got hold of, until you have hold of
something else.
-First Rule of Wing Walking

Thanks for correcting, that makes sense.

[a***@invalid.co.uk.invalid]

Post by St. John Smythe

Post by RickH
Any tail that shortens the length of strings 3,2,1 has the effect of
allowing you to use heavier gauge without needing a huge amount of
tension to tune, because the shorter length already gets you there.
The tension-bearing core of the wound strings 6,5,4 is already much
smaller than the outside diameter of the wound strings so they can
tolerate longer length and more tension without feeling too tight
anyway.

Rick, as much as I hate to disagree, I've gotta do it, because this idea
gets passed along frequently, and it's incorrect. The length of string
between the bridge and tailpiece is has no effect on tension; only the
length between the nut and bridge affects does that (in conjunction with
musical pitch and string gauge). For a given string and pitch, whether
the bridge<-->tailpiece distance is a millimeter or a mile, the string
tension will be the same.

What you say about string tension is true. But, is it not possible
that a longer total length of string might give a softer feel,
especially if the string can move easily over the bridge?

Post by St. John Smythe
Now, the *pitch* of the bridge<-->tailpiece segment will change with
length, as expected, but that's not the section we're tuning.
BTW, the subtle effect I referred to in an earlier post has to do with
the difference in bridge damping (very little) attributable to the short
end of the string.

Is this damping by the mass of the tailpiece decoupled by the length
of string between the tailpiece and the bridge? Rather similar to the
action of a violin mute, which adds mass to the bridge.

In this context, I have found a noticeable smoothing of response
"de-acoustification" by clamping a deArmond pickup between bridge and
tailpiece.

I would guess that the Frequensator (and the Hofner compensator) was
based on the idea that the bridge damping could be controlled
separately for each string by altering the length of string between
the massive tailpiece and the bridge. The effect seems so subtle as to
be a complete waste of effort, presumably because the string to string
coupling _within the bridge_ is so great.

Post by St. John Smythe
If you doubt it, ask a physicist.

Arthur

[St. John Smythe]

Post by a***@invalid.co.uk.invalid
What you say about string tension is true. But, is it not possible
that a longer total length of string might give a softer feel,
especially if the string can move easily over the bridge?

I think that's possible, although at Frequensator lengths, there
shouldn't be much elasticity. Still...thought experiment: Roller
bridge, and strings anchored with springs at a tension equal to the
tension between the nut and the bridge. Compare that with a flattop
with bridge pins. The first case could allow a little movement, the
second, virtually none. Could you feel the difference? Does that
extreme case translate to the Frequensator? Good opportunity for a
double-blind test.

Post by a***@invalid.co.uk.invalid
Is this damping by the mass of the tailpiece decoupled by the length
of string between the tailpiece and the bridge?

Yes.

Post by a***@invalid.co.uk.invalid
I would guess that the Frequensator (and the Hofner compensator) was
based on the idea that the bridge damping could be controlled
separately for each string by altering the length of string between
the massive tailpiece and the bridge. The effect seems so subtle as to
be a complete waste of effort, presumably because the string to string
coupling _within the bridge_ is so great.

That's my take on it, too.

[Michael L Kankiewicz]

Post by RickH
Any tail that shortens the length of strings 3,2,1 has the effect of
allowing you to use heavier gauge without needing a huge amount of
tension to tune, because the shorter length already gets you there.
The tension-bearing core of the wound strings 6,5,4 is already much
smaller than the outside diameter of the wound strings so they can
tolerate longer length and more tension without feeling too tight
anyway. Other than string lengths I dont see anything special about
frequensator vs a GB10 for example, thin strings will be floppyer than
a straight tail.

I'm not sure this is true, especially the first statement. As long as the
strings are "stopped" at the bridge, the length of vibration is from
bridge to nut (or fret) only, and the *scale* is what determines tension.

MK

[oasysco]

Post by Bill Ribas
got one of these on my epi es5 copy, and just wondering what it does, and if
anyone has replaced with a standard tailpiece, etc. just curious.

Lots of folks replace the Frequensator with a Byrdland tailpiece.
Others reverse the forks/tines.

As for its purpose... string tension and tone... Per Epihone's website:
Designed and patented by Epiphone's Herb Sunshine, the frequensator
tailpiece was originally put into production in 1937. The short fork on
the bass side results in a deeper tone. The longer fork is used on the
treble side for extra brilliance. The forks are interchangeable for
varying tone as well as string tension.

Greg

[Keith Freeman]

Epiphone [... ]
The longer fork is used on the
treble side for extra brilliance.

That's the opposite of what Gibson claim!

-Keith

Portable Changes, tips etc. at http://home.wanadoo.nl/keith.freeman/
e-mail only to keith DOT freeman AT wanadoo DOT nl

[oasysco]

Post by Keith Freeman

Epiphone [... ]
The longer fork is used on the
treble side for extra brilliance.

That's the opposite of what Gibson claim!

I re-read Larry's post of the quote fomr the Gibson site - gotta love
it!
Greg

Post by Keith Freeman
-Keith
Portable Changes, tips etc. at http://home.wanadoo.nl/keith.freeman/
e-mail only to keith DOT freeman AT wanadoo DOT nl

[BFender]

The story I heard years ago was that the Frequensator tp was a just
marketing ploy to encourage sales of Epiphone strings, the only strings on
the market at the time that were long enough.

/bf/

Post by Bill Ribas
got one of these on my epi es5 copy, and just wondering what it does, and
if anyone has replaced with a standard tailpiece, etc. just curious.

[Greger Hoel]

Post by Bill Ribas
got one of these on my epi es5 copy, and just wondering what it does

It looks cool