Setup: About the topic at "Warwick tips and tricks&quot

[Dragonlord]

Seth for some reason locked the topic there. The truth is that I would expect to see some more respect to the fact that I sat down and took so much time to discuss my arguments on his lesson, and after all I tried to prove my points and not just disagree. I started writing this topic here just to say "Seth seems to be right after all" because that was my initial impression, but thinking about it I still don't think he is. He says in his last post (after I explained that there won't be any difference in the nut-saddle distance) that it's the whole string (tuning peg to tail piece) that matters in tension. If that was the case, then a) everyone would take the tailpiece and tuning pegs as far from each other as they could, to give a tighter feeling, especially on the B string and b) strings B and G would be sloppier than E A and D, as the last three have a much longer total string length if you count the part from the nut to the tuning pegs. It may seem that by raising the saddle the string becomes tighter, but it will also bring the pitch up, so you'll have to tune down adding relief to the string, which will eliminate the change in tightness making the string just as floppy as before.
I explained before that the distance between the nut and the saddle will be the same, so the only thing that changes is the distance from the saddle to the tailpiece. But if that made any difference, then Warwick would already be putting the tailpiece 1 or 2 cm further back and have the tightest B strings in the world.

Seth dude, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Your lesson makes no sense. I'm not attacking you, it's just what I see. And I find it sad that you chose to lock the topic instead of talking with me and trying to explain why I'm wrong until it's clear to everyone.

Hope this doesn't get locked as well :roll: , I'm only arguing about a setup issue.
Panos

 

[I-play-bass]

Try it.

 

[jester]

Re: Setup: About the topic at "Warwick tips and tricks&

He says in his last post that it's the whole string (tuning peg to tail piece) that matters in tension. If that was the case, then a) everyone would take the tailpiece and tuning pegs as far from each other as they could, to give a tighter feeling, especially on the B string.

Check out the headstock.

b) strings B and G would be sloppier than E A and D, as the last three have a much longer total string length if you count the part from the nut to the tuning pegs.

You are comparing tensions between strings constructed differently (e.g. mass/length factor) and tuned to different pitches. How do you know that the contribution of total string length to final tension is not less for B and G and more for the rest of the strings?

It may seem that by raising the saddle the string becomes tighter, but it will also bring the pitch up, so you'll have to tune down adding relief to the string, which will eliminate the change in tightness making the string just as floppy as before.

How do you know that after detuning the string to restore the pitch the tension will be the same (or less) than before?

I explained before that the distance between the nut and the saddle will be the same, so the only thing that changes is the distance from the saddle to the tailpiece. But if that made any difference, then Warwick would already be putting the tailpiece 1 or 2 cm further back and have the tightest B strings in the world.

I think Warwick has already done that (among others) with the 2 piece bridge-tailpiece design. As a side note, placing the tailpiece further down would lengthen the body on the bottom side, strap pin would move 1-2 cm down, and the fingerboard would move a bit further away from you when wearing your instrument. And Warwick basses' fingerboards are already a bit far from you, cause they haven't got the longest of upper horns.

Seth dude, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Your lesson makes no sense.

Don't be stubborn. You could also be more polite with someone who's clearly a very experienced bass player and well intended in trying to provide us with a proven tip. Analysis and modelling are good, but I'm sure you 'll agree that when you make a model out of the real world you should think about what aspects you 've left out of it and if they are important for it to give you valid conclusions.

I don't agree with Seth locking the thread, but at least he provided some rationale (thread helpfulness, after all it's in the tips 'n' tricks section).

I hope you realize my comments are well intended.

Cheers

 

[Grgzilla]

I followed Seth's instructions (while my 3 year old son was distracting me,lol) & it worked for me,theory aside his tip does work,that much I know.
Rock On dudes 8)

 

[jay]

Re: Setup: About the topic at "Warwick tips and tricks&

Hope this doesn't get locked as well :roll: , I'm only arguing about a setup issue.
Panos

I also hope it doesn't get locked. I'm not sure who is right but I thought there were valid questions from Dragonlord, and I saw nothing attacking in his posts.

Thanks for all the info from the both of you...

 

[Dragonlord]

Goodmorning! OK then, suppose this works; even then it would be more logical to lengthen the tailpiece-saddle distance by putting a screw nut like these

under the string in the middle of that distance (before putting the string), so that it raises it a bit. This should have the same effect, and you wouldn't need to heighten the action. I read that tip from Gary Willis I think, don't know whether it does work but at least this one makes more sense because you don't screw up your action/intonation.

 

[Dragonlord]

BTW, when you raise the saddle 3 or 4 mm, the effect on the tailpiece-saddle distance is around the same as if the tailpiece was around 1mm more to the right (as you look down on your bass) because of the angle. So, if this does work all we need to do is convince Warwick to put their tailpieces 1mm further back...

 

[sethsbase]

Greetings, all...

I locked that post because I wasn't going to be around to keep tabs on it, and I didn't want any more confusion added to the subject while I was gone.

I think it is much more appropriate to have a discussion about the physics of the bass guitar here in a separate topic. I see the Tips & Tricks section as a place for people to go to and get info that will help them... not to question the validity of that help, or to get so off topic that the original intent is lost.

Thanks for bringing up the Gary Willis 'tube-in-the-bridge' tip; I was going to mention that (though it's not that helpful unless you've got a one-piece bridge, it does illustrate the point of adding tension), as well as to add the point that raising the bridge changes the angle of the string to the neck, thusly allowing for more free room for the string to vibrate without smacking the frets... there are many factors involved in why raising the bridge helps reduce the 'flop' of the low B.

The point is, and I think this has been lost... it WORKS. It's a TIP. It's been included in "TIPS and Tricks", and it WORKS. It is something I'm mentioning to people as a bit of help when they're starting out, and if they follow the tip, it will help them. To argue the physics of it is all well and good, and in the spirit of this forum, and if you'd care to debate it, go ahead...

...just not in that section.

 

[Grgzilla]

cool,I have a tight B string so it works, :wink:
so much so that I find I'm playing it more without tip toeing around it,which is a treat & a half.

 

[jay]

Greetings, all...

I locked that post because I wasn't going to be around to keep tabs on it, and I didn't want any more confusion added to the subject while I was gone.

Completely understood. Thanks again for the tip Seth...

 

[Dragonlord]

Greetings, all...

I locked that post because I wasn't going to be around to keep tabs on it, and I didn't want any more confusion added to the subject while I was gone.

I think it is much more appropriate to have a discussion about the physics of the bass guitar here in a separate topic. I see the Tips & Tricks section as a place for people to go to and get info that will help them... not to question the validity of that help, or to get so off topic that the original intent is lost.

Thanks for bringing up the Gary Willis 'tube-in-the-bridge' tip; I was going to mention that (though it's not that helpful unless you've got a one-piece bridge, it does illustrate the point of adding tension), as well as to add the point that raising the bridge changes the angle of the string to the neck, thusly allowing for more free room for the string to vibrate without smacking the frets... there are many factors involved in why raising the bridge helps reduce the 'flop' of the low B.

The point is, and I think this has been lost... it WORKS. It's a TIP. It's been included in "TIPS and Tricks", and it WORKS. It is something I'm mentioning to people as a bit of help when they're starting out, and if they follow the tip, it will help them. To argue the physics of it is all well and good, and in the spirit of this forum, and if you'd care to debate it, go ahead...

...just not in that section.

All understood 8)
You're right that it was posted in "TIPS and Tricks", but the topic itself was titled "Lesson 1". I expect from a lesson to help me understand why I should do something, how it works and not just tell me "do that" (that is something I could expect from a "tip" though - although in the end I'd still want to discuss how it works). What I was looking for was an explanation of the logic behind raising the saddle, so I presented my logic of why it wouldn't work and wanted to see why/if I was wrong.

BTW and on topic, not wanting to add oil to the fire but you said:

as well as to add the point that raising the bridge changes the angle of the string to the neck, thusly allowing for more free room for the string to vibrate without smacking the frets... there are many factors involved in why raising the bridge helps reduce the 'flop' of the low B.

1) The bass should already be well set up when we start. If it's not, then a string being floppy would be our last concern. So, a well setup means that the strings will be as low as they can without hitting the frets. Any more height will be unnecessary from this point of view and even unwanted because it makes for more uncomfortable playing.
2) Anyway, the string being too low and hitting the frets has nothing to do with it being floppy. Floppiness is about tightness. Although a floppy string will probably hit the frets more, other than that there is no connection. Making a string not hit the frets won't make it any less floppy...

And anyway, what I really don't understand is that, if this is true:

To start, I'd like to talk about a popular misconception I hear all the time in the bass community: "5 string Warwicks have a floppy low B string."

then why do you suggest us to have slightly less comfortable basses (with unnecessarily otherwise higher action) and not call Warwick and tell them to put the tailpiece 1 or 2 mm back. As I said above, that would have the same effect as raising the saddle 3-4 or more mm (I can prove why with another drawing ). I mean, if you indeed hear this all the time, then something must be wrong (I have no complaints from my B though), so if it's so easy why not tell Warwick about it... it would take zero effort for them to do it. And Warwick players, having paid good money for their basses, have the right to have great tension without sacrificing string height or anything. Especially if it's something so easy to do and with zero cost.

 

[TomCat]

Kiss and make up boys

 

[Dragonlord]

Well, really, I repeat that my tone should not be taken as hostile. We've exchanged a couple of pms with Seth, we're cool, but I'm indeed interested in this subject.

 

[Dragonlord]

OK, I've got the answer
I tried different height adjustments on my bass, and I'm pretty sure that I've found the answer. If you had followed the first topic at "Tips and Tricks", I said at one point:

One flaw that I found in my theory is that, when you press down the string at the twelvth fret, it will be just slightly tighter than when the string is open. So that might bring the pitch up a bit, but I really doubt that it will have any serious effect. At best, I would say that it might eliminate the effects of raising the action on the intonation.

Seems that I was wrong on my estimation that the increased tightness on the fretted string because of the saddle being higher wouldn't have "any serious effect". Actually, on my bass the effect was so significant that, when I raised the saddle, fixing the intonation I actually needed to set the saddle even more to the right! So, that's where the extra length (thus tightness) is coming from.

So after all, Seth was right that it works, but he got the reasons wrong when he said that

The reason the string does not become floppy again once you adjust your intonation is because the added height of the bridge has increased the "pull" all along the string from the tail piece to the tuning peg. The saddle, regardless of where you put it to affect the intonation, is one of FOUR points along the string where the tension is affected, and a minor adjustment like intonation is not enough to counter act the power pulling the string from both sides.

That's not the reason, the (main and practically only) reason is that the distance between nut and saddle has indeed increased. If what Seth gave as a reason was right, as I said above, bass builders would make their B strings tighter by putting the tailpiece 1-2 mm more to the right.

As the whole matter comes to an end, I'd like to answer to this statement:

In short, it seems you are trying to undermine this moderator's authority by attempting to disprove something you have very limited knowledge of.

(I can't sound very friendly replying to this, sorry). The only one who can undermine your "authority" is yourself, by not being able to prove something that you present as a lesson. Even if it was just "a tip", you could say "I don't know why it works, but it does and that's what matters!" and that would be just fine.
I also just noticed this quote:

Going on what you're saying, there would be a disadvantage to making a longer, 35" scale neck for a five string instrument, when in fact the opposite is true.

No, that's not what I was saying; 35" scale necks have longer distances between frets, so the 12th fret is further from the nut compared to a 34" scale neck - and this is why the total string length (nut-saddle) will need to be more when the intonation is correct (comparing same action heights).
Anyway, at least I admit it when I have "limited knowledge" of something. Honestly though, no hard feelings here, although I find your attitude and reactions wrong.

Closing, I hope it was an interesting read for those who followed the two topics this far. I also hope you learned a little something about your bass on the way - I know I did!
Panos

 

[Dragonlord]

Re: Setup: About the topic at "Warwick tips and tricks&

I explained before that the distance between the nut and the saddle will be the same, so the only thing that changes is the distance from the saddle to the tailpiece. But if that made any difference, then Warwick would already be putting the tailpiece 1 or 2 cm further back and have the tightest B strings in the world.

I think Warwick has already done that (among others) with the 2 piece bridge-tailpiece design. As a side note, placing the tailpiece further down would lengthen the body on the bottom side, strap pin would move 1-2 cm down, and the fingerboard would move a bit further away from you when wearing your instrument. And Warwick basses' fingerboards are already a bit far from you, cause they haven't got the longest of upper horns.

As I explained above, the difference in saddle-tailpiece distance because of raising the saddle will be the same with placing the tailpiece 1-2mm back. On my 'vette, this can be done easily without having to lengthen the body, there is enough space. I don't disagree that it might have a difference when we're talking about significant differences, but I really doubt that a couple of mms on that spot would make any difference at all. That's why bass builders don't exactly struggle to put the tailpiece on the very edge of the bass.

 

[anarchyok]

As I said in post in Set up...

*shrugs* I've benefited from reading both sides of the argument here guys. If we can't have robust discussion here guys, then its a poorer forum for it. As Dragon Lord said, Seth, don't take it personally.

I'm a maths teacher myself, and I love it when one of my students says "hang on a min....i don't agree with you..." Dragon Lords ideas, correrct or incorrect, have forced you Seth to elaborate and give reasons for you're set up ideas. Thats exactly the stuff I come to this forum for.