Jump to content
Why become a member? ×

New bridge design... solving a bridge problem that doesn't exist!


warwickhunt

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, iconic said:

Wasn't that a Spector thing? 

 

43 minutes ago, LeftyJ said:

Yep, Spector did it first around 1980. Ned Steinberger designed that bridge, and used a variation on that design on his own basses later. 

 

According to this I dug up (I can't confirm its origin, but it's written as if it was written to represent Spector) - use of the Spector "solid brass locking bridge design" as they describe it didn't start until 1984.

 

https://2cw1d79cq4b2tsxk239w4ix1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/NS_BodyHistory.pdf

 

Edit: it's offical, it's linked at the end of https://www.spectorbass.com/History/

 

G&L been using their Saddle-Lock bass bridge since the first L-1000 came out also in 1980.  So whoever was first it must down to weeks or months difference.  Anyway, clearly both exist and co-exist quite happily without the pair of them suing each other (unlike Spector vs. Warwick re: NS body shape), but G&L sure do like to bang on about how revolutionary their Saddle-Lock bridge is (https://glguitars.com/saddle-lock-bridge/) so I thought I'd do some digging.

Edited by neepheid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, neepheid said:

According to this I dug up (I can't confirm its origin, but it's written as if it was written to represent Spector) - use of the Spector "solid brass locking bridge design" as they describe it didn't start until 1984.

 

https://2cw1d79cq4b2tsxk239w4ix1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/NS_BodyHistory.pdf

 

Maybe it's BS, but if so it's elaborate BS, the best kind :)

 

Ha! Now you've got me Googling fiercely too. Looks like I got my order mixed up, and Spector weren't first: Steinberger introduced the L-series basses with the saddle lock in 1980, before Spector started using a derivative of that same bridge but without the tuning section. The Steinberger bridge needs the side lock, because it doesn't have intonation adjustment screws and the saddles would move freely if they weren't locked in place. So G&L and Steinberger indeed  couldn't have been far apart! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LeftyJ said:

 

Ha! Now you've got me Googling fiercely too. Looks like I got my order mixed up, and Spector weren't first: Steinberger introduced the L-series basses with the saddle lock in 1980, before Spector started using a derivative of that same bridge but without the tuning section. The Steinberger bridge needs the side lock, because it doesn't have intonation adjustment screws and the saddles would move freely if they weren't locked in place. So G&L and Steinberger indeed  couldn't have been far apart! 

 

I appreciate that you took my post in the spirit it was intended - setting the record straight for the improvement of accuracy, rather than taking it as a personal put down or rabid fanboi "defence of the realm" type stuff.  This is how it should be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Machines said:

 

Looks like an Enigma machine

I was talking about the one in the first post... but yeah, I guess the one above my comment does!

 

The other thing which always makes me laugh, is when people rabbit on about the sustain - and then put up a video of how plucking a note sustains for 2 minutes.

 

Can I just ask... who has ever needed a bass that can produce a note that can last for such elongated periods?

 

I guess the question is this... do we need sustain? As long as a bass sustains to get us through the pieces that we are playing... does sustain really matter as much as it's marketed as? 

 

What I also know is this... damaging a bass by adjusting a bridge is more down to the wrong tool being used. I would wager there is a bigger risk of damaging a bass with a huge spanner slipping off a nut.

 

Oh and good luck finding any other hardware to match that bridge finish.

Edited by EBS_freak
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That whole 'tube' to increase contact area and thus increase sustain... WTF.  The ball end seats at the end of a tube, ergo the very base/start of the string won't be in direct contact with the tube unless the tube is the 'exact' diameter of the string.  You'll gradually get contact with the string till you have full contact/pressure at the start of the tube... the break angle the same as any bridge saddle.  Saying all of that I'd love to see the science that will show that this system has significantly more sustain than say a body through stringing. 

 

I'm also puzzled as to the 3cm of travel for that bar/tube if you need to wind it right back for the E string intonation and than you want to raise the action; is there room in the housing?  Essentially the cam to change string height doesn't travel up/down, it just rotates.  Surely the tube can not rotate around the barrel to the same degree when it is fully wound in, as it will when wound out!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, warwickhunt said:

That whole 'tube' to increase contact area and thus increase sustain... WTF.  The ball end seats at the end of a tube, ergo the very base/start of the string won't be in direct contact with the tube unless the tube is the 'exact' diameter of the string.  You'll gradually get contact with the string till you have full contact/pressure at the start of the tube... the break angle the same as any bridge saddle.  Saying all of that I'd love to see the science that will show that this system has significantly more sustain than say a body through stringing. 

 

I'm also puzzled as to the 3cm of travel for that bar/tube if you need to wind it right back for the E string intonation and than you want to raise the action; is there room in the housing?  Essentially the cam to change string height doesn't travel up/down, it just rotates.  Surely the tube can not rotate around the barrel to the same degree when it is fully wound in, as it will when wound out!

 

I always thought break angle at thr witness point, then mass/stiffness of the anchor point was more critical than surface area contact …

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

Thank you everyone for your comments, some laughed their heads off, others don't understand what this is all about, some engineers say it's nonsense to build something like this & to say it's the best... I was just trying to build something that makes sense to me, I can't convince any of you. I have never blasphemed or insulted other manufacturers, but many have done that to me here... it's a pity 😪

Edited by Sidlanir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sidlanir said:

Hi,

Thank you everyone for your comments, some laughed their heads off, others don't understand what this is all about, some engineers say it's nonsense to build something like this & to say it's the best... I was just trying to build something that makes sense to me, I can't convince any of you. I have never blasphemed or insulted other manufacturers, but many have done that to me here... it's a pity 😪

The only downside of this forum is a tendency for its members to think they know better than the person who actually produces the product. They do it to every manufacturer. Please don't take it personally.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stewblack said:

The only downside of this forum is a tendency for its members to think they know better than the person who actually produces the product. They do it to every manufacturer. Please don't take it personally.

@stewblack many thanks for your comment & info! I didn't know it, that small manufacturers were treated like this...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sidlanir said:

@stewblack many thanks for your comment & info! I didn't know it, that small manufacturers were treated like this...

 

 

Believe me, big manufacturers get it in the neck here too.  The collective naysayers here are a fairly equal opportunities bunch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, neepheid said:

 

Believe me, big manufacturers get it in the neck here too.  The collective naysayers here are a fairly equal opportunities bunch.

@neepheid many thanks for your feedback I didn't take the blames personally ... Big manufacturer are not represented here in this forum & didn't care about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, warwickhunt said:

Leo Fender got it wrong... why should we go easier on anyone else?  

 

@warwickhunt Leo Fender was never wrong ! He was simply great, but a lot of members will never understand, how difficult it was for Leo to convince in the 50's people like here in this forum ...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic, it's an interesting design.  I don't think it should be shot out of the water just because it's different.  I'm not that interested in it per se, but at the risk of damning your innovation with faint praise, it looks like a better bridge than the Gibson 3 point :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, neepheid said:

it looks like a better bridge than the Gibson 3 point :)

 

Is that really the best you can say? It's better than a bridge which is hated by everyone who has used one!

 

I'm all for new design and innovation if it serves a purpose and solves a problem. I don't care whether the solution comes from a legendary instrument builder or some bloke in a shed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sidlanir said:

@warwickhunt you're probably playing Warwick basses ... 🤣 

Warwick, Bolin (designed by Ned Steinberger), Sandberg, G&L, Musicman, Nordstrand, Schack, Fender, Maruszczyk, Godin, Taylor, Yamaha, Aria, Squier, Danelectro... I think that is my present set of basses but I may have missed one.  Oddly enough not one of them is perfect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, neepheid said:

Getting back on topic, it's an interesting design.  I don't think it should be shot out of the water just because it's different.  I'm not that interested in it per se, but at the risk of damning your innovation with faint praise, it looks like a better bridge than the Gibson 3 point :)

@neepheid Jens Johnsen is the inventor of this kind of bass bridge ... he stopped the distribution & sale of his bridge , due to lack of interrest.... I had unfortunalety the same idea & Jens Johnsen contacted me & we exchanged our point of view ... attached is a schematic picture of the bass bridge ... take a look & try to understand the functionality....

EVO Bass Bridge Schnitt.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...