Bridges - BBOT vs hiMass

[chris_b]

I don't see this as a minefield, just a matter of choice.

BBOT bridges were cheap, simple and effective. That was Leo’s whole design ethos while he was at Fender.

If you rate your sound with a BBOT bridge that's good, and you don’t need to look any further. But if you do, high mass bridges can increase the resonance travelling between the strings and the instrument which can improve their tone. That's good too.

Interestingly, after he left Fender Leo never used BBOT bridges again.

[Twigman]

I have a BBOT on the JV P
A Gotoh 201 on the P/J
and a Babicz on the active P

The BBOT is the most comfortable and easiest to mute!
The Gotoh is very heavy and counterblances the Schaller machines effectively. because the base plate is so thick the saddles have to sit low (even with a shimmed neck) to get lowish action. thus I find the E string saddle is effectively full contact and is significantly louder than the other strings!
The Babicz looks cool as but is featherweight - still undecided if the full contact nature of it effects tone - hooky6string tried it and said the sustain went on forever.....is that really a good thing?

As for tone....it's hard to tell if there's any difference between each style of bridge as the basses are specced differently

Edited July 10, 2012 by Twigman

[dave_bass5]

I'd say that seeing as Fender sell P basses with HM bridges on them they cant possibly not sound like a Fender P bass ;-)

While a P bass will always sound like a P bass no matter what bridge is on it there are a lot of things that will make more of a difference to the tone IMO.

For me a HM bridge looks classier and is more comfortable to rest the side of my hand on. Ive had the Vintage bridges and have always found them to need regular adjusting, not so the HM bridges.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1341909384' post='1725837']

Interestingly, after he left Fender Leo never used BBOT bridges again.
[/quote]

Good point, In fact if anything it was the main area he kept changing from Musicman then again with G&L. For some reason the Fender is too sacred for many to accept the high mass bridge is better in more ways than just tone which is personal anyway, I am man enough to admit that even as a MM fan boy that the G&L bridge design is better

[discreet]

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1341903829' post='1725750']
What exactly does BBOT stand for and who coined that particular phrase?[/quote]

You are correct, it stands for Bent Bit Of Tin, but I don't know who came up with that.

And a note for the wider community: Aftermarket bridges make little or no difference to your sound. There!

[stingrayPete1977]

Who cares about the sound? If it stops the saddles sliding about and saves the skin on my fingers from being torn off Im all for them

[Rick's Fine '52]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1341935440' post='1726493']
Good point, In fact if anything it was the main area he kept changing from Musicman then again with G&L. For some reason the Fender is too sacred for many to accept the high mass bridge is better in more ways than just tone which is personal anyway, I am man enough to admit that even as a MM fan boy that the G&L bridge design is better
[/quote]

With me, although I'm a purist when it comes to vintage basses, it's not about them being sacred, or not man enough to admit something, its quite simply that I've never had the need to change it, or even consider changing one. It does everything it's supposed to, and whilst I don't doubt for one minute that others say HM bridges improve the tone, tone is personal, and i like my basses to sound as intended, simple, But none of my BBOT's have ever shifted, bent, or anything else, tuning has never faltered. If I had experienced problems, then I can assure you, I'd be on here saying that the BBOT's are sh*te, fact is, they're not.

Nothing sacred about Leo's creation, for example, the truss rod adjustment on a vintage Bass has to be the most ridiculously located thing ever, and this from a guitar inventing genius. Why did it take him decades to change the adjustment to the headstock, where it should always have been?? Personally I hate to see truss adjustments at the headstock, but thats the purist in me again , and I wouldnt touch one with a bargepole, but let's be honest, thats exactly where they should be!

[Twigman]

[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1341936112' post='1726524']
Why did it take him decades to change the adjustment to the headstock, where it should always have been??
[/quote]

Alternatively why not make the truss rod notch in the scratchplate actually long enough so that the truss rod is accessible?.....the truss rod notch seems pointless if access to the rod is still impossible without disassembly.

[Rick's Fine '52]

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1341936374' post='1726534']
Alternatively why not make the truss rod notch in the scratchplate actually long enough so that the truss rod is accessible?.....the truss rod notch seems pointless if access to the rod is still impossible without disassembly.
[/quote]

Indeed, but you still have to remove the scratchplate. Headstock is instant, so obvious, there must be another reason that my simpleton brain can't fathom.

[discreet]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1341936052' post='1726523']Who cares about the sound? If it stops the saddles sliding about and saves the skin on my fingers from being torn off Im all for them [/quote]

OK, what I should have said is this. Ahem... 'There is no point replacing your BBOT with an after-market bridge [b]unless[/b] it is for cosmetic reasons, to improve playing technique, to stop the saddles sliding about or to prevent the bloody skin on your fingers from being torn off.' I thank you.

[stingrayPete1977]

Those are all fairly good reasons IMO

Who invented the wheel of fortune adjuster I hope it was not Sterling? Thats for the win, meets everyones wants listed above too.

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1341902956' post='1725741']
Coming from a guy that can only afford a few really old ones!
[/quote]
ssh don't tease, he's still saving up for the status king bass
[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1341936112' post='1726524']
Nothing sacred about Leo's creation, for example, the truss rod adjustment on a vintage Bass has to be the most ridiculously located thing ever, and this from a guitar inventing genius. Why did it take him decades to change the adjustment to the headstock, where it should always have been?? Personally I hate to see truss adjustments at the headstock, but thats the purist in me again , and I wouldnt touch one with a bargepole, but let's be honest, thats exactly where they should be!
[/quote]
this on always made sense to me. Most fragile part on almost any guitar is the top of the neck into the headstock. (ask a gibson owner) Now drilling a big hole in this bit of wood makes it even weaker. But if you plug that gap with something else it makes it stronger... and then you can still access the truss from the bottom. viola!
Would I be right in thinking that by the time it ended up at the headstock end they were either using rosewood fretboards and putting the truss in from the front, or in many cases (jazzes, Musicman, G&L) the neck wasn't as flat and wide as the early fenders?
That's always been my explanation. Might be utter bollocks but makes sense to me!

Edited July 10, 2012 by LukeFRC

[Rick's Fine '52]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1341937003' post='1726548']
ssh don't tease, he's still saving up for the status king bass

this on always made sense to me. Most fragile part on almost any guitar is the top of the neck into the headstock. (ask a gibson owner) Now drilling a big hole in this bit of wood makes it even weaker. But if you plug that gap with something else it makes it stronger... and then you can still access the truss from the bottom. viola!
Would I be right in thinking that by the time it ended up at the headstock end they were either using rosewood fretboards and putting the truss in from the front, or in many cases (jazzes, Musicman, G&L) the neck wasn't as flat and wide as the early fenders?
That's always been my explanation. Might be utter bollocks but makes sense to me!
[/quote]

Fair point, although they used the bullet truss rod from i think '75 on a maple block neck? (Unsure, not big on 70's stuff, but it was around '76/'76?)

[Rick's Fine '52]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1341937003' post='1726548']
ssh don't tease, he's still saving up for the status king bass
[/quote]

You've sent me gassing again Luke!!

[LukeFRC]

[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1341937180' post='1726557']
Fair point, although they used the bullet truss rod from i think '75 on a maple block neck? (Unsure, not big on 70's stuff, but it was around '76/'76?)
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure a 70's P or Jazz isn't as thin front to back as a 50's P bass.
Market had changed a fair bit by then too

[Twigman]

[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1341936656' post='1726539']
Indeed, but you still have to remove the scratchplate. Headstock is instant, so obvious, there must be another reason that my simpleton brain can't fathom.
[/quote]
If the truss rod notch was longer then you could access the rod with a tool without removing the scratchplate.

[Rick's Fine '52]

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1341938795' post='1726604']
If the truss rod notch was longer then you could access the rod with a tool without removing the scratchplate.
[/quote]

Yes, but then it would look awful, as it would be quite some notch. Removing the scratchplate wouldnt be a problem, but it still isnt enough on trad style Fenders.

[Fat Rich]

[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1341937180' post='1726557']
Fair point, although they used the bullet truss rod from i think '75 on a maple block neck? (Unsure, not big on 70's stuff, but it was around '76/'76?)
[/quote]

Transition was '74, my '74 has the 3 bolts, bullet trussrod at headstock, pearl inlays and white binding.... but still has the notch out of the scratchplate like the 4 bolt necks with the adjuster at the heel of the neck.

[Rick's Fine '52]

[quote name='Fat Rich' timestamp='1341957303' post='1727159']
Transition was '74, my '74 has the 3 bolts, bullet trussrod at headstock, pearl inlays and white binding.... but still has the notch out of the scratchplate like the 4 bolt necks with the adjuster at the heel of the neck.
[/quote]

Didnt they have a small hole for tilt adjustment though, in the neckplate?

[Fat Rich]

[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1341957521' post='1727167']
Didnt they have a small hole for tilt adjustment though, in the neckplate?
[/quote]

Yes, 3 bolts and a small allen key adjuster for the MicroTilt. Which are completely seized on both my 70s Jazzes

[Sean]

I like the big old lead sled bridges that come on old Yamaha BBs, they rock and they look a bit C&W but not totally Kenny & Dolly so that's OK. BBOT bridges just don't work for me but if I want to replicate their sound I stuff a load of foam under my strings ;-)

[peteb]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1341909384' post='1725837']
I don't see this as a minefield, just a matter of choice.

BBOT bridges were cheap, simple and effective. That was Leo’s whole design ethos while he was at Fender.

If you rate your sound with a BBOT bridge that's good, and you don’t need to look any further. But if you do, high mass bridges can increase the resonance travelling between the strings and the instrument which can improve their tone. That's good too.

Interestingly, after he left Fender Leo never used BBOT bridges again.
[/quote]
This....

Personally, I don't know why some people insist on seeing design faults or outdated components as evidence of an instrument's superiority - it's like Harley Davidson riders in the motorcycle world!

[Fat Rich]

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1341995018' post='1727474']
This....

Personally, I don't know why some people insist on seeing design faults or outdated components as evidence of an instrument's superiority - it's like Harley Davidson riders in the motorcycle world!
[/quote]

Couldn't agree more which is why my other basses are carbon fibre, active, fancy EQ, high mass monsters. Some people seem to hate them because they're modern when in fact they were designed a little over 30 years ago.

Unfortunately a lot of people these days seem to want that "classic Fender sound" more often than not, and an unmodified Fender is one of the best ways to give them that. Plus image seems to be more important these days, playing something a bit different seems to be frowned upon in a lot of genres.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Fat Rich

[peteb]

[quote name='Fat Rich' timestamp='1341995452' post='1727486']
Couldn't agree more which is why my other basses are carbon fibre, active, fancy EQ, high mass monsters. Some people seem to hate them because they're modern when in fact they were designed a little over 30 years ago.

Unfortunately a lot of people these days seem to want that "classic Fender sound" more often than not, and an unmodified Fender is one of the best ways to give them that. Plus image seems to be more important these days, playing something a bit different seems to be frowned upon in a lot of genres.
[/quote]
Don't get me wrong, I think that the basic fender concept & sound is still great and that image wise it works for many genres.

I own a fender and a couple of fender type basses, but I have upgraded the bridge, dropped in better pick-ups and an active circuit! The only one I have kept 'straight' is a heavily relic'd Nash jazz.....

[Sibob]

I've had basses with BA2's, didn't notice any difference compared to my basses with BBOT bridges....genuinely.

New Fender's have higher mass versions anyway.

Si