Badass II - you cannot change the laws of physics - or can you?

[Stub Mandrel]

The original Badass II high mass bridge claims:

 

1 Extremely high wood energy transfer.

2 Longer sustain.

 

Is there a physicist who could explain the mechanism by which transfering more energy from a vibrating string to the body of a bass guitar causes it to keep vibrating for longer?

[BigRedX]

You can't. It's marketing guff.

 

Most high-mass bridges work better (although that is subjective depending on the sort of bass sound you want) because they are more robustly engineered and less string vibration is lost vibrating the flimsy parts of the typical BBOT bridge. The actual additional mass itself is negligible when you consider that, when properly fitted, it is coupled with the body of the bass.

[Beedster]

Badass bridges are mostly placebo but as is the case with other placebos, can still be quite effective 👍

[AndyTravis]

They make a difference, wether or not it’s an improvement is a matter of preference/opinion.

 

i think they look better than standard BBOT and fill a bit more space visually…

 

They're just a bit of an iconic thing now aren’t they - synonymous with “pros” who know how to improve things.

 

Now back in mass production via All Parts - should have brought prices down…but seems to have at least levelled them out.

[itu]

To be precise, an added mass affects instrument's resonances. Therefore there should be difference in sound, but is it something we can hear, is another thing. Placebo and new strings is probably the best explanation to a "better" sound.

[bloke_zero]

I've tried a bunch, badass, babicz full contact, hipshot aluminium and a couple of stingray ones. I think there is a clear difference in how it feels to play - whether that translates into much sound wise I don't know.

I didn't really like the babicz or the aluminum - I think the idea there is to transfer resonance to the body as much as possible. I liked the badass as it makes it feel a bit tighter and more resonant in the right register? Though as noted that might be placebo.

 

I think it's also worth noting that the BBOT bridge has it's pros - feels like a good balance between body transfer and resonance - I'd say it's my favorite!

[Stub Mandrel]

If they increase sustain, it can only be by reducing the transfer of energy to the body.

 

Perhaps this is why you don't find high-mass bridges on acoustic guitars, violins and double basses.

[Beedster]

11 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Perhaps this is why you don't find high-mass bridges on acoustic guitars, violins and double basses.

 

Interesting point 👍

[bloke_zero]

15 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

If they increase sustain, it can only be by reducing the transfer of energy to the body.

 

Perhaps this is why you don't find high-mass bridges on acoustic guitars, violins and double basses.

That makes sense and chimes with my understanding

[BigRedX]

Any increase in sustain will come from the fact that they are engineered in a way to reduce unwanted movement of the parts in response to the vibration of the string(s). The increased mass makes little difference, it's just that to achieve the first goal it is easier to construct something that just happens to be more solid and have a greater weight.

 

If you compare the weight of the modern version of the Badass (224g) with the typical BBOT bridge (100g) it looks as though the Badass gives a 124% increase in mass. However what the marketing conveniently ignores is that the bridge and the body essential become a single unit, if they didn't the tension of the strings would pull the bridge away from the body, and when you consider that the typical bass body weighs around 2000g, then the percentage difference is less than 6%, and even smaller if you consider the whole bass including the neck and all the attached hardware as a single whole.

Edited August 14 by BigRedX

[Beedster]

33 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Any increase in sustain will come from the fact that they are engineered in a way to reduce unwanted movement of the parts in response to the vibration of the string(s). The increased mass makes little difference, it's just that to achieve the first goal it is easier to construct something that just happens to be more solid and have a greater weight.

 

If you compare the weight of the modern version of the Badass (224g) with the typical BBOT bridge (100g) it looks as though the Badass gives a 124% increase in mass. However what the marketing conveniently ignores is that the bridge and the body essential become a single unit, if they didn't the tension of the strings would pull the bridge away from the body, and when you consider that the typical bass body weighs around 2000g, then the percentage difference is less than 6%, and even smaller if you consider the whole bass including the neck and all the attached hardware as a single whole.

Also a very good point 👍

[Hellzero]

And don't forget the bridges with locking saddles...

[three]

I could be talking through my backside (again) but I think there's an argument that the Alembic bridge assembly is designed to isolate the strings as far as possible - and the sustain of Alembics is pretty legendary.  There's also a lot of clarity and ping with each note (depending on how the bass is set-up, of course).  That said, there's also a lot of discussion on the Alembic site with respect to the impact on tone of the various woods that are used in the basses (especially the top and back laminates).  If there is a higher degree of string isolation given the design of the bridge, I'm not really sure how the timbers would impact on tone - then again, I don't really care, Alembics sound splendid to me (and to repeat, I could be talking rubbish).

[bloke_zero]

The understanding I came to is that everything that goes into the bass makes up the tone, though clearly somethings will influence the tone more than others.

 

I would go further and say: that the closer to great tone you get from the basics (technique, pickup placement, pickup, preamp, strings, setup, neck/body connection) then things that might be considered secondary e.g. neck facing, body wood, bridge (in no particular order) will have a more important effect. I mean, who cares what the bridge is if the bass pickup is in a bass with a terrible preamp? It won't make any appreciable difference, but on an Alembic where everything else is well considered and beautifully made, then the bridge might play a part in making the instrument really sing.

[Beedster]

2 hours ago, three said:

I could be talking through my backside (again) but I think there's an argument that the Alembic bridge assembly is designed to isolate the strings as far as possible - and the sustain of Alembics is pretty legendary.  There's also a lot of clarity and ping with each note (depending on how the bass is set-up, of course).  That said, there's also a lot of discussion on the Alembic site with respect to the impact on tone of the various woods that are used in the basses (especially the top and back laminates).  If there is a higher degree of string isolation given the design of the bridge, I'm not really sure how the timbers would impact on tone - then again, I don't really care, Alembics sound splendid to me (and to repeat, I could be talking rubbish).

 

No I think you're right mate, timbers effect the tone because no matter how well isolated the bridge from the body, the other end of the strings attach to the neck and that is very much part of the vibrating timber system (first time I used a Fat Finger I realised that, but have also realised it every time I've switched necks on basses, different woods and different dimensions = (often) different tone). Difference of course, as suggested above, doesn't always mean improvement, and I suspect the mods that a lot of people (including myself) have made to their to instrument - and despite a discernible difference in tone/envelope/sustain as the result - have often had an overall negative effect on how the instrument sounds.....

[Stub Mandrel]

5 hours ago, Beedster said:

Difference of course, as suggested above, doesn't always mean improvement

 

This is absolutely true.

 

The thing with musical instruments is that aesthetics are given great weight when they (unlike ergonomics, for example) have no practical significance.

 

I would note that my comment on the Badass II's had nothing to do with it's benefits (I'm sceptical, especially as more sustain than I need possibly also means more susceptibility to sympathtic resonances) and simply to to question of how it can deliver more energy to the body from the string and yet rather than damping the string, it makes it vibrate longer.

[Lozz196]

I saw this thread and immediately thought of

[3below]

On 14/08/2024 at 08:40, Stub Mandrel said:

The original Badass II high mass bridge claims:

 

1 Extremely high wood energy transfer.

2 Longer sustain.

 

Is there a physicist who could explain the mechanism by which transfering more energy from a vibrating string to the body of a bass guitar causes it to keep vibrating for longer?

I can't, but I can explain the opposite. In a former life I was a Physicist although it seems a lifetime ago.  I would tackle this analysis through an energy balance approach.  The string is plucked with a an amount of energy E.  Some is absorbed by the surrounding air molecules.  Some is absorbed into the neck and body through the contact points - bridge, fret.  Eventually all the input E has been dissipated and the string stops vibrating.  Transferring more energy into the body would allow greater energy losses into the body.  In Physics world we want a bridge that is decoupled from the body and it absorbs no vibrations (energy) from the string.  Ideally all the frets should also be decoupled from the neck.  This means that all input energy E (from plucking the string) remains in the string and is then lost through air resistance and elastic strain energy in the string.  The string will heat up slightly as a consequence.  In Physics world we would also have the strings surrounded by a vacuum to minimise air damping losses.  While we are improving the instrument we should also dispense with magnet  or piezo based pickups since these also absorb energy.  This bass has the ultimate physics and engineering basis.  It is however unplayable in the real world.  My conclusion:  transferring more energy into the body should decrease sustain.

[rwillett]

22 minutes ago, 3below said:

I can't, but I can explain the opposite. In a former life I was a Physicist although it seems a lifetime ago.  I would tackle this analysis through an energy balance approach.  The string is plucked with a an amount of energy E.  Some is absorbed by the surrounding air molecules.  Some is absorbed into the neck and body through the contact points - bridge, fret.  Eventually all the input E has been dissipated and the string stops vibrating.  Transferring more energy into the body would allow greater energy losses into the body.  In Physics world we want a bridge that is decoupled from the body and it absorbs no vibrations (energy) from the string.  Ideally all the frets should also be decoupled from the neck.  This means that all input energy E (from plucking the string) remains in the string and is then lost through air resistance and elastic strain energy in the string.  The string will heat up slightly as a consequence.  In Physics world we would also have the strings surrounded by a vacuum to minimise air damping losses.  While we are improving the instrument we should also dispense with magnet  or piezo based pickups since these also absorb energy.  This bass has the ultimate physics and engineering basis.  It is however unplayable in the real world.  My conclusion:  transferring more energy into the body should decrease sustain.

 

I'm still thinking through what you've written, not to pick it apart, but to learn from it. Actually now I think about it, I will pick it apart and learn from it. Thanks.

 

This sounds like a bass that Disaster Zone would play

 

Rob

[3below]

34 minutes ago, rwillett said:

 

I'm still thinking through what you've written, not to pick it apart, but to learn from it. Actually now I think about it, I will pick it apart and learn from it. Thanks.

 

This sounds like a bass that Disaster Zone would play

 

Rob

Pick away, at nearly 66 I am way less sharp now than I was in my early 20s, (I now tune my basses more often lol).   In real world basses I think @BigRedX is on the money with that explanation.

[JPJ]

I currently have basses with BBOT, Hipshot model A, an original Ibanez hi-mass from the 80’s, a Badass, and monorails. The only bass that sounds significantly different is the bass with the mono rails. The difference is more noticeable unplugged, and I put it down to less sympathetic vibrations from the unplayed strings.

[bloke_zero]

12 hours ago, JPJ said:

I put it down to less sympathetic vibrations from the unplayed strings.

I'd not even thought of that. Makes me think that good right hand mute technique probably helps with that too.

[tauzero]

On 15/08/2024 at 20:20, Stub Mandrel said:

I would note that my comment on the Badass II's had nothing to do with it's benefits (I'm sceptical, especially as more sustain than I need possibly also means more susceptibility to sympathtic resonances) and simply to to question of how it can deliver more energy to the body from the string and yet rather than damping the string, it makes it vibrate longer.

 

Surely if it transmits 100% of the energy from the string to the body, it is infinitely rigid and therefore not deforming and not absorbing energy, so no damping. If it was absorbing 100% of the energy and transmitting none, it would be damping the string.

[3below]

7 hours ago, tauzero said:

 

Surely if it transmits 100% of the energy from the string to the body, it is infinitely rigid and therefore not deforming and not absorbing energy, so no damping. If it was absorbing 100% of the energy and transmitting none, it would be damping the string.

This is correct and has made me think further.  Rather than being concerned with "delivers more energy to the body" it might be more direct to state "less energy lost in the bridge".  Reflecting on this my earlier conclusion "transferring more energy into the body should decrease sustain" needs to be qualified somewhat.  In its simplest form I see this as a 3 part system.  Energy input (string) >  coupling medium (bridge) > energy sink (body-neck).  Start with  a 'physics' bridge that does not absorb energy and is  decoupled from the body. Now couple it to the body-neck, this will increase energy losses, resulting in less sustain.  A real world bridge is more complex (surprise!).    Simplistically, with the 'good' bridge more energy can go into the body-neck, if the body-neck dissipates the energy more slowly then the 'poor' bridge then sustain will increase.  However, if the body-neck dissipates the energy faster than the 'poor' bridge did the sustain could decrease.  I feel that this needs some maths to be certain.

Edited August 19 by 3below

[Stub Mandrel]

7 hours ago, tauzero said:

 

Surely if it transmits 100% of the energy from the string to the body, it is infinitely rigid and therefore not deforming and not absorbing energy, so no damping. If it was absorbing 100% of the energy and transmitting none, it would be damping the string.

 

If 100% of the energy from the string goes to the body, then the string will stop vibrating. Total damping.