Vintage Bridge vs Hi Mass Bridge

[ClassicVibes]

I've heard that most hi mass bridges will require a shim?

[dave_bass5]

7 minutes ago, ClassicVibes said:

I've heard that most hi mass bridges will require a shim?

I like to shim my basses when i get them, if i can. None of the basses ive had with HM bridges have come shimmed, and none have needed it. In my case I just like to have the strings more parallel to the fretboard. 

[chris_b]

I believe early versions of Badass bridges required either a shim or rebating into the body, but I've not heard about any others.

 

 

[jezzaboy]

For me, the best 2 designs are Sandberg`s and G&L`s, both could be classed as high mass. But I don`t mind the BBOT on a vintage P or J.

[chris_b]

I'd rather be playing a modern bass than one made in the 1950's. Whatever they do to them these days that's different is fine by me.

[Roger2611]

12 hours ago, ClassicVibes said:

I've heard that most hi mass bridges will require a shim?

On the basses I have converted none have required a shim with the Gotoh bridge

[BigRedX]

17 hours ago, peteb said:

Surely the only thing that is debatable is to what extent it affects the sustain? Replace the BBOT on an old (not particularly well made by modern standards) Fender and you can (or at least, you should be able to) notice the difference.

The following is from Hipshot on the pros and cons of hi-mass (i.e. brass) bridges. Please note that Hipshot also make lo-mass (aluminium) bridges (as well as better engineered versions of the BBOT) so they have no reason to guild the lily (they also do a pro and cons list for the aluminium model): 

 

Advantages and disadvantages of BRASS bridges

You’ve probably heard many times from many people that brass bridges have great sustain. Do they? Yes, they do. You can get nice long note decays when using a brass bridge, however there are a few tradeoffs to this.

Brass is a dense and heavy metal as it is made of copper and zinc (and possibly a small amount of tin depending on brass type). As such, most of the string vibration stays within the bridge and is not transferred out to the body because of its high mass content. The advantage is that you’ll get great sustain for your notes, but the disadvantage is that your tone won’t have as much punch in a mix.

But the bridge is mechanically attached to the body of the bass by several screws and therefore, as long as it has been fitted properly, to all intents and purposes it becomes part of the body. As I said before the increase in weight due to the high mass bridges is negligible. It may be that other aspects of the high mass bridge are better engineered such as designs which prevent the sideways movement of the saddles, which should provide additional sustain, but the actual weight of the bridge itself has little or no bearing on the sustain.

[peteb]

2 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

But the bridge is mechanically attached to the body of the bass by several screws and therefore, as long as it has been fitted properly, to all intents and purposes it becomes part of the body. As I said before the increase in weight due to the high mass bridges is negligible. It may be that other aspects of the high mass bridge are better engineered such as designs which prevent the sideways movement of the saddles, which should provide additional sustain, but the actual weight of the bridge itself has little or no bearing on the sustain.

It's more about the density rather than the weight of the bridge: 

"Brass is a dense and heavy metal as it is made of copper and zinc (and possibly a small amount of tin depending on brass type). As such, most of the string vibration stays within the bridge and is not transferred out to the body because of its high mass content" 

[BigRedX]

12 hours ago, ClassicVibes said:

I've heard that most hi mass bridges will require a shim?

Depends entirely on the design of the high mass bridge, the old bridge it is replacing and the build of the bass you are attaching it to.

I've only ever swapped out bridges on two basses. One - a Squier VMJ Fretless where I replaced the BBOT with a Badass (which made zero difference to the sound) and did not require any further adjustment to the bass. Second where I replaced the bridge on a Burns Sonic that had failed due to all the threads in the saddles wearing out, I had to fit a 10mm thick piece of wood under the bridge to get the strings to the correct height.

[BigRedX]

1 minute ago, peteb said:

It's more about the density rather than the weight of the bridge: 

"Brass is a dense and heavy metal as it is made of copper and zinc (and possibly a small amount of tin depending on brass type). As such, most of the string vibration stays within the bridge and is not transferred out to the body because of its high mass content" 

No, no, no.

As I said, because the bridge is securely attached to the body it becomes part of the body and can no longer be considered as a separate item. It's basic physics.

[peteb]

Just now, BigRedX said:

No, no, no.

As I said, because the bridge is securely attached to the body it becomes part of the body and can no longer be considered as a separate item. It's basic physics.

I'm quoting from Hipshot (via their page on the Bass Direct website).Presumably they have engineers who also understand basic physics. 

As I mentioned in the previous post you quoted, they publish a list of the pros and cons for both brass (hi-mass) and aluminium (lo-mass) bridges - see https://www.bassdirect.co.uk/bass_guitar_specialists/Hipshot_A_style_bridges.html if you are interested. 

[acidbass]

18 hours ago, pineweasel said:

Stability of the saddles themselves? Most replacement bridges are better engineered and hold the saddles firmly in place, whereas they can wander a bit on the simple BBOT.

This to me is the main advantage of modern bridges. Hard to see how this wouldn't impact, however marginally, on sustain.

[BigRedX]

5 minutes ago, peteb said:

I'm quoting from Hipshot (via their page on the Bass Direct website).Presumably they have engineers who also understand basic physics. 

As I mentioned in the previous post you quoted, they publish a list of the pros and cons for both brass (hi-mass) and aluminium (lo-mass) bridges - see https://www.bassdirect.co.uk/bass_guitar_specialists/Hipshot_A_style_bridges.html if you are interested. 

And they are wrong. As soon as you securely attach one component to another they act together as a single item. A heavier weight bridge will only make a measurable difference if it increases the overall weight of the instrument by a considerable amount, or if it is not mechanically attached to the rest of the instrument, like a floating bridge on something like a Hofner Violin Bass.

[Delberthot]

12 hours ago, owen said:

I did the whole two bridges one bass thing some time ago. The difference - for me - was negligible when I was in a room on my own. The difference with a band? Infinitess........infinatess.........infinti.....so small as to be not there - for me.

For the record, going from 9v to 18v on my EMG pre-amp was equally underwhelming. There - I said it.

I've got a Fender High Mass bridge and 18v to my EMGs going on my Jazz bass tonight 

Another thing I read was that high mass bridges improve the sound/sustain/bananas/snake oil on Jazz basses but make Precisions worse/sustain less/the spawn of beelzebub

[chris_b]

18 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

And they are wrong.

Oh dear.

[BigRedX]

2 hours ago, chris_b said:

Oh dear.

Why Oh Dear? 

The bridge and body are securely attached to each other and therefore act as a single mass.

The alternative would be that the high-mass bridge is so "massive" that it prevents any significant transference of string vibration energy to the body and therefore renders the choice of body material completely irrelevant. Also if that were the case, then fitting a high-mass bridge to a bass would mean that you would no longer be able to hear or feel the string vibration energy in the body of the bass. 

[NancyJohnson]

3 hours ago, BigRedX said:

As soon as you securely attach one component to another they act together as a single item.

This is like saying if I attach a lump of bacon to a fillet of beef, it all becomes some delicious baconybeefy thing.

[uk_lefty]

I can tell a very small difference but whether it's better or not depends in the bass. 

On my precision I prefer the original BBOT to a Badass. Maybe because I like big heavy flatwound strings.

On a jazz I prefer the Badass bridge to a BBOT. A halfway house is a BBOT with brass saddles. Probably because I want a completely different sound to my precision. 

[Maude]

I like playing in cold weather as cold air is more dense and thus better able to transmit soundwaves to my ear resulting in less loss of frequencies between the speaker cab and ear. 

 

 

If you believe that then you'll believe that different mass bridges make a noticeable difference to sound too. 

😄

 

[EssentialTension]

I don't much care. Both sound fine to me. And I have never thought 'I wish I had more sustain'.

[MrCrane]

4 hours ago, peteb said:

I'm quoting from Hipshot (via their page on the Bass Direct website).Presumably they have engineers who also understand basic physics.

They probably also have a marketing department who understand nothing.

[ClassicVibes]

1 hour ago, uk_lefty said:

I can tell a very small difference but whether it's better or not depends in the bass. 

On my precision I prefer the original BBOT to a Badass. Maybe because I like big heavy flatwound strings.

On a jazz I prefer the Badass bridge to a BBOT. A halfway house is a BBOT with brass saddles. Probably because I want a completely different sound to my precision. 

What difference would brass saddles make?

[Bassassin]

18 hours ago, ClassicVibes said:

I've heard that most hi mass bridges will require a shim?

I've shimmed necks on BBOT-equipped basses to avoid huge, spiky lengths of saddle height screw sticking out & trying to lacerate my hand! Particularly lethal for pick players whilst palm-muting. Never had to do this with a cast bridge, as far as I recall.

[drTStingray]

I think the answer is resonation - the bridge transfers string resonation to the body (as does the neck joint, and other elements which make up the 'system' of the bass you're playing). However it's not one way traffic - the resonation of the body returns back via connections like the bridge back to the strings and pick ups. 

Now if the bass you use has 1950s style design elements (which might include flatwound strings) it will be great for thump along 50s/60s style sounds but not for late 70s punk or 80s funk for instance. 

The sturdiness of the bridge would have a bearing and how well it transfers the resonance (and helps create it).

I have a Stingray with strings through the bridge - it increases sustain a lot compared with a non strings through bridge, with roundwound strings (flatwounds tend to reduce this a little). 

The up to 2018 Musicman basses have a large bolt each side of the bridge which run deep into the body, and a thick steel casting for a bridge - the bolts not only transfer resonance to the busy they also help to keep the saddles precisely in place - the post 2018 Stingray Specials have the same type of bridge but in aluminium (thus lightweight - as are the tuners and other hardware) and without the two large bolts. Those basses still have good sustain but of course neodymium pick up poles instead of alnico and 18 volt instead of 9 volt pre amps. I suspect these partially compensate for the change in materials.

The sound of a bass results from its overall construction as well as electronics, as a system. The bridge clearly has an important role in securing the strings and acting as part of the body/strings two way resonance process.

If you're playing thump along stuff that might matter less than if you want brightness like Stanley Clark, Louis Johnson, Mark King and Marcus Miller - I'm always reminded Marcis Miller's original 77 Jazz has a Badass bridge - presumably for reasons of performance! 

[4000]

3 hours ago, BigRedX said:

Why Oh Dear? 

The bridge and body are securely attached to each other and therefore act as a single mass.

The alternative would be that the high-mass bridge is so "massive" that it prevents any significant transference of string vibration energy to the body and therefore renders the choice of body material completely irrelevant. Also if that were the case, then fitting a high-mass bridge to a bass would mean that you would no longer be able to hear or feel the string vibration energy in the body of the bass. 

All I can say is whenever I’ve changed anything about a bridge material - even changing the saddles on one of my old Rics for ones made of a different material - I could definitely hear the difference. I didn’t necessarily expect to, I just did. I changed a BBOT on my early ‘70s Fender for a Schaller, sounded very different to me.