Top Wrapping a proper Burst

TTBZ

I do it on my SG because if I didn't the tailpiece would have to be ridiculously high to clear the back of the bridge which looks rubbish and would put a lot of stress on the tailpiece posts I think. Not even sure why because the bridge is pretty low on the posts so you'd think I could string it normally. Knowing Gibson they've probably ballsed it up somehow though. I don't think it makes a difference to the string tension or sustain. It would be nice to string it properly as it's just less fiddly, I wonder if a different bridge or tailpiece would help?

andy_k

It definitely makes a difference to the feel, and also has its pro's and con's.
A plus is the fact that the tailpiece posts are screwed hard down to the body, making a more solid contact point, and there is extra length behind the bridge (slightly)
A minus is the fact that you might need to add some ball ends to the string to avoid sharp ends at the rear bend, usually noticeable mostly on the plain strings, and over time you will mark the tailpiece.
I do it on most of my LP's, but have left one with it wrapped normally, because I like to fight it sometimes.
This is also the effect a reverse headstock has on a strat, If Jeff Beck does it-it is for a reason.

normula1

My 339 was top wrapped with 11s when I bought it. First thing I did was string it normally and didn't like it as much so put it back to top wrapped.
Don't have any other guitars like that as it always feels wrong to do so.
The 339 does have quite a steep beck angle though, so perhaps that's why top wrapping suits it.

Offset

Now let me think... shall I 'top wrap' my Firebird?  Hmmmm... nah.

Yorkie

Do the G and B strings feel slinkier than the E's on a Les Paul? 

Pabcrane

On a related topic, I was wondering if any physicists out there could explain why a string feels different to finger if it has longer bits after the nut and bridge, such as the difference between a stop bar and trapeze tailpiece. The tension must be same if it's the same pitch I would wager, yet it seems to feel different. I imagine that break angle has something to do with it but is that all?  Or is it all in my head?

Edit: attempt at clarity!

ICBM

Pabcrane said:

On a related topic, I was wondering if any physicists out there could explain why a string feels different to finger if it has longer bits after the nut and bridge, such as the difference between a stop bar and trapeze tailpiece. The tension must be same if it's the same pitch I would wager, yet it seems to feel different. I imagine that break angle has something to do with it but is that all?  Or is it all in my head?

Edit: attempt at clarity!

No, it's not all in your head. The length of string beyond the nut and bridge doesn't affect the tension in the string at rest for a given scale length, string gauge and pitch, but when you bend a note - or even fret it, since, that's a small bend - the extra length has to be stretched as well, which makes the string feel softer because you have to push it further for the same pitch rise.

The sharper the break angle at the nut and saddles, the more friction occurs there, so the greater the difference between the rise in tension in the sounding part of the string and the extra length, and so the less the extra length becomes noticeable. With a really sharp bend like on a through-body Tele, the string probably doesn't move over the saddle much at all.

But the confusing thing is that some people find the extra length and further distance to bend for the same pitch rise makes the guitar feel easier to play, and some feel that the quicker and more precise pitch rise on a string *without* as much extra length is easier to play. Neither is right, just personal perception.

Yorkie

Pabcrane said:

On a related topic, I was wondering if any physicists out there could explain why a string feels different to finger if it has longer bits after the nut and bridge, such as the difference between a stop bar and trapeze tailpiece. The tension must be same if it's the same pitch I would wager, yet it seems to feel different. I imagine that break angle has something to do with it but is that all?  Or is it all in my head?

Edit: attempt at clarity!

The strings are mildly elastic. A longer string means you can bring a tiny bit more string between bridge and nut (finger) when you bend, because the part that is beyond the nut and the bridge can also stretch and is effectively longer in a top-wrapped guitar. 

Now the ‘funny’ bit is that you’re bending a string to go to a higher note, but while doing so on a top-wrapped guitar you’re bringing a bit more string between bridge and nut (finger), effectively decreasing the pitch. So in theory you’d need to ‘bend more’ to get to the same place (for completeness, I am editing this message to say that @ICBM has also explained this in the previous, almost simultaneous message). And that brings us to my not seeing the point of it: if having longer strings made such a big and perceptible difference, then the difference in bendability between G or B and the E strings on a Les Paul would be huge (hence my previous question); yet I cannot perceive it either.

So, to me, it's not worth the hassle and potential loss of sustain. But I can see that others might have other reasons to do it, as per the other replies here. 

Jon

Logie

I was always a bit concerned about scratching the tail piece from top wrapping so I got a couple of small inserts that were made to fit under the tail piece ( acting like very thick 1/4" washers really ) to raise it but still be screwed tightly down to give support.
I've only used them on two of my Les Paul's but they perform the same function as top wrapping in regards to bridge clearance. 

Yorkie

Logie said:

I was always a bit concerned about scratching the tail piece from top wrapping so I got a couple of small inserts that were made to fit under the tail piece ( acting like very thick 1/4" washers really ) to raise it but still be screwed tightly down to give support.
I've only used them on two of my Les Paul's but they perform the same function as top wrapping in regards to bridge clearance. 

That’s a sensible idea. I have seen it on a few Les Pauls. 

digitalkettle

Yorkie said:

Logie said:

I was always a bit concerned about scratching the tail piece from top wrapping so I got a couple of small inserts that were made to fit under the tail piece ( acting like very thick 1/4" washers really ) to raise it but still be screwed tightly down to give support.
I've only used them on two of my Les Paul's but they perform the same function as top wrapping in regards to bridge clearance. 

That’s a sensible idea. I have seen it on a few Les Pauls. 

That's effectively the Faber locking tailpiece assembly

Logie

@digitalkettle ;
Aah, but shitloads cheaper

digitalkettle

Logie said:

@digitalkettle ;
Aah, but shitloads cheaper

You're not wrong there!

What tone-metals are you using though?

digitalkettle

On a related note, I've just Faber'd-up a LP (with ABR-1) and an SG (with wraparound). I'm surprised by how much difference this makes to both guitars. I thought that, at worst, it'd be nice if parts didn't fall off the guitar when I had all the strings off. Instead, I've got two guitars (which weren't bad to start with) with noticeable improvements in tuning and general stability with a snappier feel all round.

wraub

digitalkettle said:

On a related note, I've just Faber'd-up a LP (with ABR-1) and an SG (with wraparound). I'm surprised by how much difference this makes to both guitars. I thought that, at worst, it'd be nice if parts didn't fall off the guitar when I had all the strings off. Instead, I've got two guitars (which weren't bad to start with) with noticeable improvements in tuning and general stability with a snappier feel all round.

I just did similar, installed an aluminum Gotoh tailpiece and brass studs for the cast pot metal tailpiece and steel studs of the stock pieces on my import singlecut- and the differences it made are brilliant. Harmonic content I didn't know that guitar even had, a slight change for the better in playability, a weight loss of around 2 Ozs,  and it was a cheap and reversible thing to try.

Glad I did, too, because I wouldn't have guessed there was so much going on beyond the nut and saddles that can influence tone, but it's a real thing. I even used the same set of strings for the swap, the tailpiece and studs were the only things changed, and it's like a different guitar. Definitely worth trying.

digitalkettle

wraub said:

I just did similar, installed an aluminum Gotoh tailpiece and brass studs for the cast pot metal tailpiece and steel studs of the stock pieces on my import singlecut- and the differences it made are brilliant. Harmonic content I didn't know that guitar even had, a slight change for the better in playability, a weight loss of around 2 Ozs,  and it was a cheap and reversible thing to try.

Glad I did, too, because I wouldn't have guessed there was so much going on beyond the nut and saddles that can influence tone, but it's a real thing. I even used the same set of strings for the swap, the tailpiece and studs were the only things changed, and it's like a different guitar. Definitely worth trying.

Excellent...I don't know if yours was a locking assembly but I should add that, in my case, I think most of the benefit came from the locking aspect.

I always knew an SG would have a bit of 'wonk' about it but it's vastly reduced now and I'm not having to think about tuning/intonation as much when I'm playing. Also, that thing where, even on a hardtail, you'd hit a low E, bend a high string, and hear the tuning dip a little: massively reduced.

Offset

See my post in the 'resonance' thread.  I found exactly the same thing.

Yorkie

Oh wow. I can see my SG getting an aluminium prosthesis soon.

digitalkettle

Offset said:

See my post in the 'resonance' thread.  I found exactly the same thing.

Ah...so I see!

wraub

digitalkettle said:

wraub said:

I just did similar, installed an aluminum Gotoh tailpiece and brass studs for the cast pot metal tailpiece and steel studs of the stock pieces on my import singlecut- and the differences it made are brilliant. Harmonic content I didn't know that guitar even had, a slight change for the better in playability, a weight loss of around 2 Ozs,  and it was a cheap and reversible thing to try.

Glad I did, too, because I wouldn't have guessed there was so much going on beyond the nut and saddles that can influence tone, but it's a real thing. I even used the same set of strings for the swap, the tailpiece and studs were the only things changed, and it's like a different guitar. Definitely worth trying.

Excellent...I don't know if yours was a locking assembly but I should add that, in my case, I think most of the benefit came from the locking aspect.

I always knew an SG would have a bit of 'wonk' about it but it's vastly reduced now and I'm not having to think about tuning/intonation as much when I'm playing. Also, that thing where, even on a hardtail, you'd hit a low E, bend a high string, and hear the tuning dip a little: massively reduced.

Neither the one removed or the replacement was a locking type. However, on my guitar the posts were a mm or two too wide for the tailpiece, so some very careful file work ensued. Not visible from front or back of tailpiece, only slightly so inside the "u" parts, literally just enough to make it fit. Consequently, while not forced on, it feels very solidly connected to the two studs.

Everything feels connected. and every strum seems to engage the whole guitar, not just the strings. It's almost surreal, so dramatic is the change.