Does changing the bridge make much difference?

[M@23]

I had a Babicz on a VM Jazz once, whilst also owning a standard one, sonically I don't think it made a bit of difference but it was a nice bridge.

[stingrayPete1977]

I had a badass on my Jazz, I'm sure it added some sustain which as others have said suits a Jazz more than a punchy P bass, more importantly I just found it better for setting up and the look of it. I dont like the way the saddles on a bbot can move laterally either.

[EliasMooseblaster]

See, if you'd started this thread saying you played a Gibson/Epi T-bird/SG/etc., this thread would have turned out quite differently. I can't comment on its acoustic qualities, but the BBOT offers the simple practical advantage that bits don't drop off - unlike the Gibson 3-point bridge, which gleefully spills its saddles all over the floor when you take the strings off!

[discreet]

In my humble opinion the only valid reason to change a bridge is for aesthetic reasons OR for purely functional reasons, i.e. you might replace a BBOT with something else because you're shredding your palm when muting on the bridge. Though even then I found shorter barrel grub screws did the trick anyway. A high-mass, full-contact etc. bridge makes no appreciable difference to the sound of your bass. Again, in my humble opinion of course.

[Mr Anthony]

I like the Babicz I put on my P bass. Can't comment on whether or not it changed the sound since it's a parts bass anyway, but the adjustability is great, and very easy.

If you don't need to change it, don't waste the money. Spend it on pickups, or new tuners or something. Even new strings. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Damonjames]

There are so many variables in a bass, it's a really open ended question. As far as I understand it from a science point of view is that assists in the transference of the vibration to the body. It "should" be more rigid than a BBOT and therefore absorb less of the vibration. Which "in theory" should give you better sustain, but again will vary on the species and density of the timber used for the body. People also claim that different metals of bridge/nut can have an adverse affect on tone so who knows, it's all down to personal preference.
Personally, I have a gotoh bridge on my jazz and wouldn't go back to BBOT, but the fact that most new USA fenders come with their new high mass bridge either suggests that the theory is sound, or there are enough people who think it is sound for them to make the change.
Just do it and get on with playing!

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='Damonjames' timestamp='1414709427' post='2592656']
... As far as I understand it from a science point of view is that assists in the transference of the vibration to the body. It "should" be more rigid than a BBOT and therefore absorb less of the vibration. Which "in theory" should give you better sustain ...
[/quote]
I'm not a physicist but that sounds contradictory.

If the bridge transfers more vibrations to the body then how is it possible that the bridge also absorbs less vibrations from the strings so that there is more sustain?

Surely, either the vibrations stay in the strings for more sustain or they are transferred to the body for less sustain.

Besides which I've never had a bass that needed more sustain. Muting and damping is much more often needed than more sustain - in my experience.

[stingrayPete1977]

I don't think that is how resonance works, to add sustain you want the whole bass, neck, body and strings to vibrate as a single piece, the solid bridge anchored well lets the strings and body become one rather than the bbot acting like a sponge bouncing the strings vibrations around and jumbling them up, less extreme but the same thing as stuffing a sponge behind the strings.

[gadgie]

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1414622297' post='2591627']
But the age-old question, [b]would I be able to tell in the mix? Not a chance.[/b]
[/quote]

Ah a man after my own heart. Been saying that for years now.

[NancyJohnson]

Bridges on and off on various basses over the years. Honestly I can't say I've noticed any big swings in tone or increased sustain, but what I do like is to have my basses intonating properly along with individual string height adjustment.
P

[BigRedX]

IMO the most important thing about a bridge is that it is mechanically sound and offers all the adjustment you need.

TBH a bridge that has been properly designed to fit the bass it is intended for shouldn't need individual sting height or string spacing adjustment as these should be matched to the width of the neck and the curvature of the fingerboard.

[chris_b]

It looks like Leo Fender recognised some inadequacies in the BBOT because, even though he was legendary for cutting costs to the point of meanness, he never used the cheaper design again. So, I'm assuming he used high mass bridges on his MM and G&L basses for very good reasons.

As has been said, if the bass has "issues" and can benefit from a high mass bridge then it will. Most basses probably don't [i]need [/i]this type of "first aid".

If you live your playing lives in recording studios the smallest differences will be important to you. It's not surprising that so many of us inhabiting the world of the pub gig don't care about those differences.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1414742398' post='2592755']
I don't think that is how resonance works, to add sustain you want the whole bass, neck, body and strings to vibrate as a single piece, the solid bridge anchored well lets the strings and body become one rather than the bbot acting like a sponge bouncing the strings vibrations around and jumbling them up, less extreme but the same thing as stuffing a sponge behind the strings.
[/quote]
Well, as I say, I am not a physicist so I'd be happy to be corrected by whoever actually knows the maths of this, however ....

I can see how what you say would apply to the sustain of an acoustic instrument but I don't understand how it would apply to an electromagnetic pickup that looks for moving metal not vibrating wood.

The player puts a certain amount of energy into the string by plucking it.

From that point on there is no further energy added.

The more of that energy that stays in the string the longer the string will vibrate, which is sustain.

The more of that energy which drains away either to a sponge under the strings or to the bridge and then the body, the less energy there will be in the strings and so less sustain.

Therefore, for greater sustain on an electric instrument you would need a non-spongy bridge that did not drain away the energy from the string.

Now, possibly, these higher mass bridges, being more rigid and less spongy, do resist absorption of energy from the string ... so more sustain not by absorbing the energy of the string and passing it to the body wood but by not absorbing the energy of the plucked string in the first place.

[stingrayPete1977]

Anyone who has tried my upright with a mag pickup has agreed that there is more to it than metal strings moving around, so the sound of the whole instrument is to some extent important.

As for the OP the answer is no not much.

[pfretrock]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1414754369' post='2592894']
Well, as I say, I am not a physicist so I'd be happy to be corrected by whoever actually knows the maths of this, however ....
[/quote]

I think you are spot on ET. The neck/body/bridge needs to be significantly more massive and rigid than the string. Otherwise, as you say, energy is drawn out of the string and lost to vibrate the former.

If you are unluck enough to have a resonance in the neck that is equal in pitch to the fretted note, then significant energy is lost in the string as it more readily transfers energy to the neck. You get a dead spot.

[pfretrock]

You might want to read Dan Armstrong's attempt to increase sustain, by building a massive body. He forgot about the bridge.

http://www.dinosaurrockguitar.com/new/node/640

[HowieBass]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1414754369' post='2592894']
Well, as I say, I am not a physicist so I'd be happy to be corrected by whoever actually knows the maths of this, however ....

I can see how what you say would apply to the sustain of an acoustic instrument but I don't understand how it would apply to an electromagnetic pickup that looks for moving metal not vibrating wood.

The player puts a certain amount of energy into the string by plucking it.

From that point on there is no further energy added.

The more of that energy that stays in the string the longer the string will vibrate, which is sustain.

The more of that energy which drains away either to a sponge under the strings or to the bridge and then the body, the less energy there will be in the strings and so less sustain.

Therefore, for greater sustain on an electric instrument you would need a non-spongy bridge that did not drain away the energy from the string.

Now, possibly, these higher mass bridges, being more rigid and less spongy, do resist absorption of energy from the string ... so more sustain not by absorbing the energy of the string and passing it to the body wood but by not absorbing the energy of the plucked string in the first place.
[/quote]

I'm in agreement here (and I do have a science background though not in acoustics). I'd suggest RIGIDITY rather than mass is what's at play with any perceptible change in tone when it comes to swapping bridges about. I doubt the change in mass of the whole system (tuners, neck, body, electronics, bridge) where you go from BBOT to a chunky bridge is sufficient to do much about the sustain. To my way of thinking, as with EssentialTension, you don't want to couple the vibrations of the strings with the instrument if you care about sustain; however, I can see that the loss of certain vibrational modes/frequencies from the string to the bass can colour the sound by a process of subtraction rather than by addition. If adding mass added to the sustain or tone of a bass we'd all be clamouring for the heaviest instruments possible but loads of the for sale adverts on here have people asking about weight and rejecting instruments that weigh over 10lbs. The place where adding mass does seem to have an appreciable effect is on the headstock where you're trying to eliminate dead spots by changing the resonant frequency of the neck, and again people seem to go from standard tuners to lightweight rather than the other way around. I suspect you could make more of a change to the tone of a bass by experimenting with different construction necks rather than by swapping about bridges.

[xgsjx]

For a bridge to make a difference to the sound you hear, I think it comes down to how much you spend on it. Obviously an ABM bridge must sound awesome, why else would they be so expensive?

I changed the high mass bridge on my Ibby to one similar to the Fender ones & other than looking different, it sounds no different at all.
Sustain is the same too. I know this, because one of a previous band's songs required long single notes & they fade on the same beat.
I was going to put a Babicz on it, but that would just be for looks & adjustability (should I have ever have needed it).

ET's theory is good, but I can't help think that to dampen a string, you put something against the string, not the bridge. It might be worth trying a test using a bit of foam between the bridge & the bass to see if there's any noticeable difference.

Edited October 31, 2014 by xgsjx

[mcnach]

[quote name='xgsjx' timestamp='1414759891' post='2593007']
ET's theory is good, but I can't help think that to dampen a string, you put something against the string, not the bridge. It might be worth trying a test using a bit of foam between the bridge & the bass to see if there's any noticeable difference.
[/quote]

Try a Floyd Rose equipped guitar! The bridge is connected to the springs which allow it to move relatively easily up or down. It's not so bad it kills all sustain, but it's easy to tell the difference if you have a floating bridge (I refuse to call it "tremolo"!) that can be locked in position, like the Wilkinson one.
If some string energy is used to make the bridge vibrate, that's energy lost from the strings, reducing sustain. As HowieBass says, rigidity is the main factor. Of course, a massive bridge tends to be rigid...

[BigRedX]

You probably lose more string energy in the neck than any other part of the bass, hence deadspots and the fact that you can move them by adding mass to the headstock.

[xgsjx]

[quote name='mcnach' timestamp='1414761534' post='2593040']
Try a Floyd Rose equipped guitar! The bridge is connected to the springs which allow it to move relatively easily up or down. It's not so bad it kills all sustain, but it's easy to tell the difference if you have a floating bridge (I refuse to call it "tremolo"!) that can be locked in position, like the Wilkinson one.
If some string energy is used to make the bridge vibrate, that's energy lost from the strings, reducing sustain. As HowieBass says, rigidity is the main factor. Of course, a massive bridge tends to be rigid...
[/quote]
You make a good point, but that's the difference between a bridge that is floated on some springs & rubber gromits & a bridge that's fastened to the body, which in turn I suppose saves having to try out my foam test.
Now, not being a geetarist (I play an electro acoustic, so different bridge (made of wood & plastic/bone), if you get high mass & bent tin floaters, is there any difference between them re: sound?

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1414755913' post='2592928']
Anyone who has tried my upright with a mag pickup has agreed that there is more to it than metal strings moving around, so the sound of the whole instrument is to some extent important.

As for the OP the answer is no not much.
[/quote]
Well, the way in which metal strings move may well be affected by the construction of the instrument but still an electromagnetic pickup wants moving metal not moving air or wood.

Either way, there's no extra energy coming from anywhere once the string is plucked.

Perhaps there's a reason double basses have soft wooden bridges ... so that the movement, the energy, of the string is more easily transferred to the body and so to the large sound box. My guess is that a more rigid bridge on a double bass would lead to the string ringing longer but the volume would be reduced because there would be less transfer of energy to the body/sound box.

YMMV.

[waynepunkdude]

Makes a huge difference, before my Jazz had a boring bit of tin now it says "Badass" Who wouldn't want that?

[mcnach]

[quote name='xgsjx' timestamp='1414762032' post='2593046']
You make a good point, but that's the difference between a bridge that is floated on some springs & rubber gromits & a bridge that's fastened to the body, which in turn I suppose saves having to try out my foam test.
Now, not being a geetarist (I play an electro acoustic, so different bridge (made of wood & plastic/bone), if you get high mass & bent tin floaters, is there any difference between them re: sound?
[/quote]

My point, which I did not quite finish, was that you *can* tell the difference when a bridge is allowed to vibrate a bit vs. being rigidly anchored... but the difference is not that great. A BBOT bridge is a lot more rigid than a floating bridge, so I suspect the difference is smaller. Some people may hear it. Some people may THINK they can hear it (which in the end amounts to the same).
I quite like the BBOT bridges, with threaded saddles, personally.

[mcnach]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1414761634' post='2593041']
You probably lose more string energy in the neck than any other part of the bass, hence deadspots and the fact that you can move them by adding mass to the headstock.
[/quote]


+1