- Apr 3, 2009
- Reaction score
When i switched to aluminum, i lost sustain. It is true. When i switched back to the heavy tailpiece, notes rang longer and harmonics were stronger.
callaham ( spelling) makes one out of stainless steel .Just overall the difference is noticeable. I'm gonna look into a brass tailpiece. Not worried about weight atm.
I have heavy brass tailpieces on a couple of guitars. But on most of them the bridges are also fairly heavy and dense, and on a few they're screwed into a 10 ounce hunk of brass bolted inside a rout in a solid mahogany body. Now we're talking sustain.When i switched to aluminum, i lost sustain. It is true. When i switched back to the heavy tailpiece, notes rang longer and harmonics were stronger.
Maybe the cycle has started again. I remember in the late 70s early 80s, everything was about "sustain", from pancake bodies to neck-through construction to heavy tailpieces to brass nuts. I believe at one point Yamaha would let you special order an entire Ford Anglia built into the body of an SBG 3000. I remember my poor soaking-wet 130 lb 16 year-old frame trying to wear some of those monsters on a strap.I was always under the assumption that the reason folks went to or want the light weight tail is because that is how the Holy Grail of guitars was setup.
So this is the first time I am actually reading that some will deviate from that original setup. Usually a LP owner will "upgrade" his guitar to be more like the '59 not less...
Perhaps this starts a trend? I have a worn heavy tail piece I was thinking about installing on my 81.. Only because since I put the aged tuners on her I dislike the brand new look of my Faber lightweight tail. Not because of tone or lack of sustain.