Best Bridge for Super Sustain?

[Protium]

The Gotoh 203 is a nice standard looking bridge with slots for the saddles so there's no movement side to side

[xilddx]

Well, this thread has inspired me to try fretless again, so I just bought a Mighty Mite ebanol neck for the Zulu Bass

[White Cloud]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1394044184' post='2387341']
Yes, exactly right. Never had flats though
[/quote]
Phew, close call....all is well again, equilibrium restored!

[Grangur]

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1394031225' post='2387120']
..... I also think that fretless basses (when compared like-for-like with their fretted versions) have less sustain anyway. YMMV of course. Although that will, to an extent, depend on fretting-hand techniques.

If the OP wishes to install a high-mass bridge, then he should go for it. But as part of a quest for improved tone and sustain, I think it will follow the law of diminishing returns.
[/quote]

Isn't that unavoidable for fretless to have less sustain, because the padded edge of the fretting finger will have some damping effect to the note.

Noob question: what's a bbot bridge?

[bubinga5]

bent bit of tin.

[Grangur]

[quote name='bubinga5' timestamp='1394048081' post='2387409']
bent bit of tin.
[/quote] [size=4] thanks[/size]

[bubinga5]

im not one for high mass bridges, but i had a Sei that had THE most adjustable bridge ever, was very cool. but the best was the nice and simple BBOT on my old Fender CS LT 1970 Jazz bass.

threaded saddles.

[HMX]

I'd recommend the Gotoh too. Cheap-ish but quality.

[Dood]

I'm going to chime in quickly to say that when I upgraded from a BBoT on a Precision bass to a 'no-name' (well made) high mass bridge, it was easy to hear the improvement, even in recordings. Don't get me wrong here, it wasn't Nigel Tufnell sustain or whatever. You could however tell that the notes had more depth and a stronger note definition. So, I stand by *decent* bridge upgrades if a 'no-name' can sound better. Who knows - maybe my BBoT was a sub standard part to start with. But that's very unlikely.

[xilddx]

[quote name='dood' timestamp='1394057115' post='2387562']
I'm going to chime in quickly to say that when I upgraded from a BBoT on a Precision bass to a 'no-name' (well made) high mass bridge, it was easy to hear the improvement, even in recordings. Don't get me wrong here, it wasn't Nigel Tufnell sustain or whatever. You could however tell that the notes had more depth and a stronger note definition. So, I stand by *decent* bridge upgrades if a 'no-name' can sound better. Who knows - maybe my BBoT was a sub standard part to start with. But that's very unlikely.
[/quote]

And yet Scott Thunes said he swapped the original BBoT for a Badass on his '65 P-Bass and swapped them straight back, said the Badass was a piece of sh*t. Maybe it's down to what you're used to and what you expect.

[GreeneKing]

A less rigid fixing point for a string will likely absorb or attenuate some string vibration. That isn't necessarily a bad thing if that's the tone you like or are familiar with.

A fretless absorbs string energy to a greater extent while the string vibrates against the board so changing a bridge in the hope of increasing sustain might be pointless. However a bridge that allows better intonation and string changes might be worthwhile.

Peter

[Mark Dyer]

It's all been covered here I think, but what I will add is this, not all replacement bridges offer through body stringing, last time I looked Gotoh didn't offer this on all Fenders, I think Badass offer a few options. I choose Hipshot on my Jazz, mainly due to Badass being near impossible to get at the time (something to do with founder passing away or sumfink) and it allowed through body stringing.

Did it make an audible difference? I'm going to go against most opinions here and say yes it did, it improved sustain marginally, it added a bit more grunt to the sound for sure and it improved the dead spot on the C. And what some people here call the original Fender bridge a workman like piece of kit, I call a cheap bit of bent metal with nasty, floppy screws that go rusty, some people seem to like that though

[Paul S]

I don't like the Fender BBOT as I find it uncomfortable just where I rest my hand when playing. I have tried BadAss, Hipshot A style, Gotoh 201 and cheapo Gotoh-a-like. I wasn't particularly aware of increased sustain or improved tone, but then my ears aren't what they were. But all of them proved more comfortable when resting my hand on the bridge, so have stayed on.

I found the best quality by a country mile is the Hipshot A style, a remarkable piece of engineering that is adjustable in every dimension, including the 4th. Heavy, though, and expensive. BadAss was ok but, IMO, overpriced for what it does. Gotoh 201 is very good. Gotoh-a-like nearly as good and, for my purposes, probably the best value for money as it was only around £13 on eBay. Not as well engineered as the proper Gotoh but it does the job.

[Telebass]

Barring Paul's comfort issues, I can see no reason, ever, to replace a BBOT. There are no strings in existence that could conceivably make one bend or be in any way less rigid than, say, a BAII. Those are made from zinc alloy, massively less rigid than the standard steel bridge. Hence the need for a bigger block of it.
Can see the point of string change slots though...

Edited March 9, 2014 by Telebass

[GreeneKing]

[quote name='Telebass' timestamp='1394361394' post='2390574']
Barring Paul's comfort issues, I can see no reason, ever, to replace a BBOT. There are no strings in existence that could conceivably make one bend or be in any way less rigid than, say, a BAII. Those are made from zinc alloy, massively less rigid than the standard steel bridge. Hence the need for a bigger block of it.
Can see the point of string change slots though...
[/quote]

I hope you don't object to me saying, that from an engineering perspective you are missing the point.

It's not about material A being more of less 'rigid' than material B. It's is about design, levers, stress and strain. A BadAss has a completely different design in respect of these considerations than a standard Fender style bridge. The standard Fender bridge was, like so many Fender design features, cheap and easy to make and make in volume.

A Fender bridge works. I'm not disputing that. I'd say that a Fender bridge will absorb or alter more string vibration than for example a BadAss bridge. Whether you can hear the difference is another issue as is whether is sounds 'better' or not. Some body wood and neck wood types and constructions and neck/body connection differences will absorb differing amounts of the complex array of string vibrations and that may have a significant difference on tone but it's not just about 'bending a bridge'. Some folk believe changing nut material affects tone and I don't think bending is an issue there.

Peter

[Toddy]

Quick one while we are on the subject,

I have a USA 97 Jazz,,strung thru, and to be completely honest,the bridge is off centre,

Have lived with it for years, however are there any hi mass bridges that do not use the original holes?,

[Paul S]

Another approach to that might be a bridge with lateral adjustment of the saddles, like the Hipshot A.

[rubis]

What about one of those Fatfinger things, anyone tried one?
Aren't they supposed to increase sustain and improve dead spots?

[Fionn]

[quote name='Toddy' timestamp='1394452862' post='2391407']
are there any hi mass bridges that do not use the original holes?,
[/quote]

The Schaller 3D bridge ... different screw positions to those which align with the standard Fender bridge screw holes.

[SteveK]

[quote name='Toddy' timestamp='1394452862' post='2391407']

I have a USA 97 Jazz,,strung thru, and to be completely honest,the bridge is off centre,

[/quote]
When you say 'off centre', do you mean off centre to the pickups, or off centre to the neck? It could be the neck has been knocked and is out of kilter. May just need realigning.

[Fionn]

Regarding the O.P ... If super sustain is what you want in a bass, then maybe consider an instrument with a neck-through body construction. Bolt-on basses offer less sustain, and bolt-on basses with neck shims even less so. High-mass bridges do make a difference, as does a brass nut for open notes. Certain wood types transmit greater sustain also. It's a fair point that folk make about fretless' though ... The finger with which you hold a note will dampen sustain anyway.

If you're happy generating big sustain elsewhere in the chain, this can be well achieved with a compressor. Fretless, or otherwise.

[neepheid]

[quote name='Toddy' timestamp='1394452862' post='2391407']
Quick one while we are on the subject,

I have a USA 97 Jazz,,strung thru, and to be completely honest,the bridge is off centre,

Have lived with it for years, however are there any hi mass bridges that do not use the original holes?,
[/quote]

Have you tried loosening off the neck screws a little then seeing if there's any wiggle room in the neck pocket? Might not take much lateral movement to get everything back in line. I did this with a Gibson G-3 once - was off centre when I got it but by this method got it straightened out.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Fionn' timestamp='1394582060' post='2393093']
Regarding the O.P ... If super sustain is what you want in a bass, then maybe consider an instrument with a neck-through body construction. Bolt-on basses offer less sustain, and bolt-on basses with neck shims even less so. High-mass bridges do make a difference, as does a brass nut for open notes. Certain wood types transmit greater sustain also. It's a fair point that folk make about fretless' though ... The finger with which you hold a note will dampen sustain anyway.

If you're happy generating big sustain elsewhere in the chain, this can be well achieved with a compressor. Fretless, or otherwise.
[/quote]
Is that a fact?

[steve-bbb]

i would agree to a degree with Fionn but would add further that one very real option of guaranteed monster sustain would be to fit a graphite neck

i have over the years owned bolt-ons and through necks of both woods and graphite - the through neck woods were very good but personally i wouldnt argue that they were any huge improvement in sustain over a well constructed bolt-on

graphite is a whole different thing - i currently have a bolt on carbon neck and it is not so much the phenomenal sustain it also has a significant effect on the envelope of the tone - the sustain and decay is very flat and long compared with an average wood neck - i previously had a through carbon neck and hence both ends of the string are anchored directly into the carbon - you could hit an open string go put the kettle on make a cup of tea and come back and it would still be ringing

is there a purpose for needing a huge sustain with the music that you perform? if so then might be worth investigating carbon necks especially if that long keyboard type sustain is what you're after? if it is then carbon neck would do it and a bridge mod would probably barely scratch the surface imho mcton etc

Edited March 12, 2014 by steve-bbb

[Fionn]

[quote name='xilddx' timestamp='1394613993' post='2393223']
Is that a fact?
[/quote]

Aye, it is.