LP type guitar tailpiece height.

[Toe-Knee]

Hey guys. As you know I got a LTD EC401 in a trade recently that had been proffesionally setup before I got it.

However I noticed that after playing for a while the low E gradually went sharp. I noticed that the tailpiece was bolted right down as low as it could go and the low E was catching on the actual bridge behind the saddle.

I raised it up a bit so there was no contact and it seems to have sorted it however the string tension now seems significantly less.

Is there an optimal height or is it more a case of personal preference so long as it doesn't cause any issues?

The guitar is fitted stock with an earvana compensated nut also which was a nice touch.

[Philly Q]

Is there an optimal height or is it more a case of personal preference so long as it doesn't cause any issues?

The received wisdom seems to be that the tailpiece should be as low as possible, but without the strings touching the bridge behind the saddles (which is usually only a problem with the E strings, anyway, because of the way the saddle height is staggered to match the fretboard radius)

But yes, it is personal preference.  Some people like the "top wrapping" approach where you feed the strings through the front of the tailpiece then wrap them over the top - this gives a very shallow string angle behind the bridge which, as you've seen, reduces the string tension a bit.

The problem doesn't usually arise on guitars with a vintage Gibson ABR-1 style bridge, because the bridge is so narrow.  But most manufacturers use the wider Nashville style bridge.

The neck angle and even the trussrod adjustment come into play as well, because if the bridge itself is low to the body, then the tailpiece can sit low without the strings touching the back edge of the bridge.

[Toe-Knee]

Is there an optimal height or is it more a case of personal preference so long as it doesn't cause any issues?

The received wisdom seems to be that the tailpiece should be as low as possible, but without the strings touching the bridge behind the saddles (which is usually only a problem with the E strings, anyway, because of the way the saddle height is staggered to match the fretboard radius)

But yes, it is personal preference.  Some people like the "top wrapping" approach where you feed the strings through the front of the tailpiece then wrap them over the top - this gives a very shallow string angle behind the bridge which, as you've seen, reduces the string tension a bit.

The problem doesn't usually arise on guitars with a vintage Gibson ABR-1 style bridge, because the bridge is so narrow.  But most manufacturers use the wider Nashville style bridge.

The neck angle and even the trussrod adjustment come into play as well, because if the bridge itself is low to the body, then the tailpiece can sit low without the strings touching the back edge of the bridge.

Some very good points there Philly. Thanks!

I may try the top wrapping approach when I restring it as it's something that I have never tried before.

Thanks again

[HTH AMPS]

I started top-wrapping on my LP when I bought it back in, errr.... let me see.... 1994, and haven't looked back.  Tried it back the normal way once or twice, always went back to the top wrap.

[richardjmorgan]

I started top-wrapping on my LP when I bought it back in, errr.... let me see.... 1994, and haven't looked back.  Tried it back the normal way once or twice, always went back to the top wrap.

What difference did it make? Just lessening the string tension, as Philly alluded to, or is there another reason for it?

[darkbluemurder]

I started top-wrapping on my LP when I bought it back in, errr.... let me see.... 1994, and haven't looked back.  Tried it back the normal way once or twice, always went back to the top wrap.

What difference did it make? Just lessening the string tension, as Philly alluded to, or is there another reason for it?

Most people who do it compensate the lesser string tension with thicker strings - which could be too hard to play without top-wrap. But it's personal preference as Philly already said.

Cheers Stephan

[_tom_]

Is there any benefit to top-wrapping as opposed to just raising the tailpiece? I've just been playing around with my tailpiece height and was surprised that there's actually a fairly noticeable difference in tension, I like it! Does having the tailpiece closer to the body help with sustain or what?

[Philly Q]

The higher you raise the tailpiece, the looser the studs are sitting in the bushings; also the strings are effectively trying to pull the studs towards the neck so if a lot of the stud is raised high above the body you get a "lever" effect which can make the studs tilt forward and loosen the bushings in the body (especially if the wood's relatively soft)

So personally I'd rather have the studs/tailpiece well anchored, tight to the body, with top-wrapped strings, in preference to just raising the tailpiece.

When I'm trying similar guitars with tune-o-matics or wraparound bridges, I look for the ones where the bridge and/or tailpiece are sitting closer to the body, I just prefer it that way.

I may be over-analysing this, of course.....