High mass versus light weight bridges

[B.Flat]

I am looking for comments from people who have changed bridges from high mass to light weight or vice versa. Is there a definitive characteristic for each type or is it all in the ear of the beholder ?

[itu]

The most important thing is that it is attached well. So if you make a change, tighten the screws (to body) after a month or so.

I think that there are few different designs: some attach bridge pieces together with screws so they do not move anywhere, while some have these F-type saddles that may move under some serious funkin'. I have had that issue with one Wilkinson bridge. Took some time to find the reason for funny rattle.

[Dan Dare]

I find there's little difference between my expensive (Babicz and Gotoh) bridges and a BBOT, to be honest. I do like to change a standard BBOT for the nicer Gotoh version, because it has two extra screw mounting holes and is better finished, but I can't honestly claim it makes any difference. They just look nicer. Agree with itu that you must tighten them down properly, but be wary of torquing the heads off screws (which I managed to do in a ham-fisted moment).

Edited March 27, 2019 by Dan Dare

[Paul S]

I've tried most of the aftermarket bridges at some point or other on my Fender/Squier basses - Badass, Gotoh, Schaller 3D, Hisphot, Babicz.  To my knackered old ears none made any difference in the sustain or tone and certainly any miniscule effect they may have is going to be lost within the context of a band.  But as DD says they look better and i found them more comfortable when resting my palm on them, which I do sometimes when playing with a pick or thumb.  They are generally better engineered and some of them also allow for greater and easier adjustment of the strings.  But, fundamentally, they do exactly the same job.

[chris_b]

Usually this is a one-way upgrade. It's all about resonance and the ability of the bridge to transfer frequencies to the body, and then back again.

BBOT bridges do the job but high mass bridges usually do a better job because they transfer more frequencies, more effeciently. Which is what you need for a better sound. Of course, this depends whether you need better or can recognise it when you've got it!

If you are upgrading Hipshot bridges a very good and the ones used on many boutique basses. 

[Andyjr1515]

I'm also not convinced it makes any perceptable difference provided, as many above say, they are well seated and secured on a flat base.

It does make a tangible difference on an electric stratocaster trem system, but I suspect that's the increase in inertia preventing loss of string vibration by the trem vibrating rather than the effect of the extra mass per se.

But on a bass, or a hardtail electric, I've never been able to hear a difference.

[B.Flat]

OK, now bear with me , this could take some time.

We speak of frequencies etc. but what we are really talking about is energy transference, which we remember from school physics lessons is conserved and cannot be eliminated or lost, only changed to our perceptions .

Now here is the experiment. Take three identical coins and a clamp of some sort. Clamp one coin to the table, or firm flat surface, as hard as you can. Put another coin to touch the clamped coin anywhere in its circumference edge.  Now shoot the third coin to hit the clamped coin directly opposite the second coin touching the edge. This second coin will absorb the energy from the shot coin, which passes through the clamped coin, and jump away.

OK, so just another version of Newtons Cradle. But now clamp two more coins on top of the original clamped coin  ( now 'High Mass, yes?) and repeat the experiment. The second coin jumps away exactly the same !

So I contend the transfer of energy/frequencies remains the same, irrespective of the mass of the transferring, fixed, mass.

OK, so the bridge might have a resonant frequency that may or may not ( I don't know) absorb a certain frequency, but I suspect the greater the mass the lower the frequency so, to keep the maximum amount of frequencies in the string, surely a low mass, high resonant frequency, bridge will be better for the register of a bass guitar ? (But maybe the resonant frequency of any bridge is so high as not to make any difference,  again I don't know.) 

Maybe just better to forget it all and listen to the the beautiful bass lines of great bassists, which are still beautiful ideas even if we hear them on 'less than perfect' equipment. I never heard anyone say a poem was< more meaningful on high mass paper.

 

P'll have to go and have a lie down for a bit

[Lozz196]

Sounds feasible to me, my impressions of having had Badass bridges on my Precisions was that they made the lows and highs more focused, losing some mids in the process. Which kind of defeats the point of a Precision imo so I moved them on.

[Marky Screen]

well trodden topic but I recently changed a fender vintage bridge for a high mass on a fender precision deluxe. It's definitely did make a difference with was a nice surprise. in agreement with @Lozz196 it definitely brought out slightly more focused top and bottom. I kinda didn't like it. lost some of the mid thump and character IMO so I went back to original bridge.

[chris_b]

So we have people saying they can't hear the difference and people who say they can.

I'd draw the obvious conclusions from those experiences that high mass bridges make a difference and people hear differently.

Pretty much the same conclusions as the interminable and tedious wood threads.

[Marky Screen]

3 minutes ago, chris_b said:

So we have people saying they can't hear the difference and people who say they can.

I'd draw the obvious conclusions from those experiences that high mass bridges make a difference and people hear differently.

Pretty much the same conclusions as the interminable and tedious wood threads.

Yeah, but at least here that a shared and safe space space for me to bore the tits off people.

[ahpook]

I've put high-mass bridges on all my jazz basses.

They all sounded better after - no question in my mind.

Edited April 11, 2019 by ahpook

[TheGreek]

From an aesthetic point of view high mass wins hands down. Also less risk of minor nicks from saddle screws.

[micguy]

When you're playing a string, the vibrating part has two ends - one is at the bridge, the other is either the nut or a fret. A fret is a rather small/light piece of metal, anchored on a somewhat flexible piece of wood (the neck). The bridge is a relatively massive piece of metal attached to a much less flexible piece of wood (the body). When you think about this for a bit, you realize that the majority of the losses in the string's energy (when vibration leaves the string and starts vibrating the wood) occur at the fret/neck end of the string, as things are less massive and less stiff there. If you want to improve sustain of a vibrating string, the bridge is the wrong end to work on. A more massive, stiffer neck, with bigger frets will get you more sustain faster than making the bridge heavier. It's like a boat with a pinhole in one end and a hole a foot across at the other end. If you want to stay afloat a long time, you work on patching the big hole first.

A lot of people talk about the bridge;s job as being a means to couple vibration into the body. That's wrong - the ideal (infinitely massive) bridge would not put any energy into the body - any energy put into the body or neck has to come from somewhere, and in fact it' is "stolen" from the string and thus reduces sustain.

 

Physics lecture is done for today. Tomorrow I have a quiz for you on the Acoustics of Tort.