Bridges - Do They Make a Difference

[Jack]

On 16/07/2018 at 22:25, drTStingray said:

Musicman staff have stated on Talkbass that one of the reasons the bridges on the modern Cutlass and Caprice basses doesn't have the deep set side bolts is to assist with getting a more vintage sound. Similarly on the new Stingray Special models - so Musicman clearly believe the bridge design influences the sound, as an example. 

 

On 26/07/2018 at 10:02, Treb said:

Here you go: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/ken$20sadowsky$20bridge$20fundamental/alt.guitar.bass/wVRC_ZiYcj4/E45uRR7AdioJ 

I remember having read something about cheesy bass bridges. Don't take my word for it but I believe a bridge can make a difference. Even Roger Sadowsky switched from the Schaller 3D bridge to another design because it sounded better (to his ears I assume). The guys at Sadowsky know a thing or two about basses.

I don't have any inside knowledge at all, so please don't let this start any rumours or anything but it occurs to me that if a manufacturer HAD to change a bridge for some reason (the old one is no longer made, cut costs, aesthetic reasons, supplier problems, import restrictions, a million other reasons) then a press release that says " we have new bridges because they sound better than the old ones!" is a lot more marketable than "Stephen from accounts forgot to pay our old supplier so we had to get different bridges. Don't worry, they sound fine!".

Edited July 30, 2018 by Jack

[micguy]

The bridge is the end termination of the string - change it's mechanical impedance, and the string will vibrate a little differently. The Physicist in me knows this. Is it audible? The best demonstration I've done for myself on this was to change 1 bridge saddle - with a set of relatively new strings. I played them for an hour or so, to get used to the sound will all brass saddles, then changed the D string saddle to a titanium one. After the change, whenever I got to the D string, it was indeed a bit zingier than the G and A strings - it "jumped" out a bit. Swapping the saddle back, things became more even across strings again. Will anyone in the audience notice? Probably not, but I do. I adjust bridges and saddles as a fine tweak to a bass's tone, once I get used to the thing and figure out if I want to push things one way or the other.

[LITTLEWING]

On 29 July 2018 at 21:26, discreet said:

Heh. Seriously though, its fine to replace a bridge if you like the look of a different one, or your current bridge is uncomfortable in some way. But if you're expecting any major improvement in tone, I think you may be disappointed. Lot of placebo effect involved in this kind of thing.

Strings are something else. Different strings can change the sound and playability of a bass out of all proportion to their cost. Whether or not it's an improvement is moot, of course...

Isn't that a piece of foam you put under the strings near the bridge?......

[drTStingray]

On 30 July 2018 at 12:45, Jack said:

 

I don't have any inside knowledge at all, so please don't let this start any rumours or anything but it occurs to me that if a manufacturer HAD to change a bridge for some reason (the old one is no longer made, cut costs, aesthetic reasons, supplier problems, import restrictions, a million other reasons) then a press release that says " we have new bridges because they sound better than the old ones!" is a lot more marketable than "Stephen from accounts forgot to pay our old supplier so we had to get different bridges. Don't worry, they sound fine!".

I'm afraid I tend to be very old school on this - in the same way as I trust Mr Dyson to make me a vacuum cleaner that works (even though there may be hype in the marketing) without the need to concern myself whether I need to replace the motor with one which is quite adequate from the 50s or earlier because nothing can possibly better it, but is probably grossly inferior in various ways, I tend to believe what manufacturers say with one exception - if they're trying to sell me a 'vintage' reissue item containing all the characteristics of the original - in that case I have to accept there may be compromises and I may not get the same level of service - for instance a vintage Hoover compared with a Dyson or G Tech. It's the same with cars - gone are the days when I bought after market bits to make the thing go a nanosecond faster from 0-60 and toiled under the bonnet trying to fit them - I generally accept the manufacturer's offering these days. I know there are people who modify cars but there are probably far more who don't!! 

On bridges, not only do I believe what manufacturers/luthiers say, I also have first hand experience - my Stingrays with through strung bridges (I have two of these and 6 which don't) have noticeably more sustain than the ones I have without the feature - not sure whether it affects Fenders the same - it's even to the extent that other bass players who've used those particular basses have commented they have to be extra careful to mute correctly to avoid it sustaining or other strings ringing when not required. (And by the way - where did anyone get the idea it has ever been difficult to get strings long enough to string through say a Stingray bridge - even as a 20 something in the late 70s I never had a problem with this - Rotosounds always fitted and GHS must have done as the factory used them - flats and rounds 👍 - blimey internet myths eh!!)

So whilst there can be all sorts of views (and everyone's entitled to their own), I tend to believe that the design, mass, fixing and saddles on a bridge play an important part in the sound characteristics of a bass. How much or how little is probably a personal opinion - but I'm really much more inclined to believe manufacturers and luthiers and my own experience than anyone else as I said. 

Edited August 1, 2018 by drTStingray

[discreet]

Well... I'm not convinced that the notional extra sustain available from an aftermarket bridge is even a desirable trait. Especially given the number of people who shove foam under their strings to reduce it.

Sustain may well be sought after in the guitar world, but not bass. And I've never tried a bass and rejected it on the grounds it didn't have enough sustain.

Also, I certainly wouldn't take a manufacturer's word on their own products - especially aftermarket bass components and the wild claims made for them. These people are in business to make money and they're not going to tell you their spiffy new bass bridge does bugger-all, are they?

[drTStingray]

18 minutes ago, discreet said:

Well... I'm not convinced that the notional extra sustain available from an aftermarket bridge is even a desirable trait. Especially given the number of people who shove foam under their strings to reduce it.

Sustain may well be sought after in the guitar world, but not bass. And I've never tried a bass and rejected it on the grounds it didn't have enough sustain.

Also, I certainly wouldn't take a manufacturer's word on their own products - especially aftermarket bass components and the wild claims made for them. These people are in business to make money and they're not going to tell you their spiffy new bass bridge does bugger-all, are they?

I agree there's always a certain amount of hype in advertising but if the product does 'bugger all' then they're soon going to go out of business, surely?

Sustain is very useful if you're playing ballads (muted thump tends not to be) but the advantage of a muting system you can apply or not is you can make changes between songs and even during them - if you've got one of those trick systems which apply to individual strings you can have sustain on higher strings more thump on lower (if that takes your fancy - I've found it quite useful at times). 

I was really replying to the OP question of whether bridges make any difference, not whether the difference is desirable or otherwise - I also recall the epic thread covering the desirability or otherwise of sustain on a bass!! 

Just to be clear, I was referring to manufacturers/luthiers views rather than suppliers of aftermarket equipment in my post (although I still disagree that their product claims are made up - possibly exaggerated sometimes but even that's debatable). 

[Andyjr1515]

There are some interesting observations above.  With the risk of everybody telling me I'm wrong - because I usually am - a couple of further views to my earlier post:

In my experience, the mass of the bridge can make a perceptable change to the sound of a bass - both unplugged and amplified.  Whether that change improves it, degrades it or is just different is entirely down to the individual listener's opinion and taste.  Adding a modern high mass bridge to a genuine 50's holy grail P bass therefore will change the sound.  Whether that is a good thing or not, though...

Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.

[nash]

My string thru Fender P has loads of sustain which I like, also my compressor adds a little to it. It does play a role as much as shorter notes in my playing. One song in particular totally relies on sustained notes. So having string thru and hi mass bridges certainly help. 

[discreet]

12 hours ago, drTStingray said:

I agree there's always a certain amount of hype in advertising but if the product does 'bugger all' then they're soon going to go out of business, surely?

Not at all, IF you believe the hype. If someone spends £100 on a new bridge you can bet they'll hear a positive difference. Otherwise they've wasted their money and no one wants to admit they've done that, do they?

Even if you compared the old and new bridges in the lab and found no difference, the buyer will still say they 'prefer' their new bridge - for whatever reason.

That's how marketing works. People will always buy things they genuinely need because they must. Everything else has to have a 'need' artificially generated for it. That's what advertising is for.

Edited August 1, 2018 by discreet