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

[3below]

49 minutes ago, 3below said:

....... I feel that this needs some maths to be certain.

Having had a quick look at some of the maths involved it won't be me doing it any time soon.  45 years ago it was within my grasp, but 'use it or lose it' springs to mind

 

Some light reading https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys406/sp2017/Lecture_Notes/Waves/PDF_FIles/Waves_2.pdf

Edited August 19 by 3below

[Stub Mandrel]

If the nut-neck-body-bridge system is infinitely rigid, then it will not vibrate at all and sustain will be Determined by the extent of other losses.

 

If the nnbb system is highly resonant, energy from the string will be readily dissipated into it (e.g. acoustic instruments).

 

Note that many acoustic instruments have excellent sustain and produce a long note using only energy sapped from the string. I estimate acoustic guitar at <<0.1W.

 

Presumably energy lost into an electric instrument is the tiny power generated by the pickup (peaking around a mW by my estimate), a tiny amount of sound energy and the rest is heat.

 

Perhaps the energy lost into the body isn't especially significant.

 

However, the fact remains that a high mass bridge can't increase sustain by sapping energy from the string.

 

[3below]

3 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

If the nut-neck-body-bridge system is infinitely rigid, then it will not vibrate at all and sustain will be Determined by the extent of other losses.

 

If the nnbb system is highly resonant, energy from the string will be readily dissipated into it (e.g. acoustic instruments).

 

Note that many acoustic instruments have excellent sustain and produce a long note using only energy sapped from the string. I estimate acoustic guitar at <<0.1W.

 

Presumably energy lost into an electric instrument is the tiny power generated by the pickup (peaking around a mW by my estimate), a tiny amount of sound energy and the rest is heat.

 

Perhaps the energy lost into the body isn't especially significant.

 

However, the fact remains that a high mass bridge can't increase sustain by sapping energy from the string.

 

 

The last two points make me want to do some experimental work which is why I got into Physics.  Some measurements (sustain /decay times, spectral frequency distributions) of BBOT and high mass bridge fixed to an immensely rigid beam would help establish just what the effect is.  

[Chienmortbb]

It’s hard to carry on this or the Tonewood debate without lots of opinion and/or hocus locus.

 

The truth is that every component contributes to the sound of a bass. In fact the largest influence on the sound of a bass is the lump playing it.

Edited August 20 by Chienmortbb

[tauzero]

13 hours ago, 3below said:

 

The last two points make me want to do some experimental work which is why I got into Physics.  Some measurements (sustain /decay times, spectral frequency distributions) of BBOT and high mass bridge fixed to an immensely rigid beam would help establish just what the effect is.  

 

I think it would just have to be a reasonably rigid beam, as you're looking at a comparison rather than an absolute.

[tauzero]

13 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

However, the fact remains that a high mass bridge can't increase sustain by sapping energy from the string.

 

What I was trying to say earlier was that a totally rigid bridge won't absorb energy itself, so if the high mass bridge deforms less than the BBOT then it will absorb less energy itself and therefore the sustain will be greater, given that all other elements of the system remain the same.

[Beedster]

14 hours ago, 3below said:

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.

 

That makes a lot of sense to me and - if I understand correctly - explains why Badass bridges seem to work wonders on some basses while making absolutely zero difference on others?

[prowla]

It could even be that the act of putting a new bridge on tightens the screws and so makes a firmer attachment.

It's not dissimilar to trying a new cable on your Hi-Fi and the fact that you've unplugged and plugged back in makes a difference.

That said, I do like a Badass on a Fender.

I did have one on a Ric, but I don't think it seated so well and eventually found its way elsewhere.

[Stub Mandrel]

15 hours ago, 3below said:

 

The last two points make me want to do some experimental work which is why I got into Physics.  Some measurements (sustain /decay times, spectral frequency distributions) of BBOT and high mass bridge fixed to an immensely rigid beam would help establish just what the effect is.  

 

Perhaps if I state "A high mas bridge increases sustain by using its inertia to reduce energy loss into the body" it would be less radical.

However, this statement is not compatible with the manufacturer's claim of :

"Extremely high wood energy transfer."

 

My concern being that if one of their statements is nonsense, perhaps their other claims are dubious?

There is a get out if, and only if: The high mass bridge has 'extremely high wood energy transfer' but loses even less energy from the bridge than a traditional bridge than the increase in energy transferred to the wood.

No doubt someone will want to dance on the pin of how much more energy 'extremely high' is compared to what a standard bridge transfers.

 

 

Edited August 20 by Stub Mandrel

[Beedster]

18 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

 

Perhaps if I state "A high mas bridge increases sustain by using its inertia to reduce energy loss into the body" it would be less radical.

However, this statement is not compatible with the manufacturer's claim of :

"Extremely high wood energy transfer."

 

My concern being that if one of their statements is nonsense, perhaps their other claims are dubious?

There is a get out if, and only if: The high mass bridge has 'extremely high wood energy transfer' but loses even less energy from the bridge than a traditional bridge than the increase in energy transferred to the wood.

No doubt someone will want to dance on the pin of how much more energy 'extremely high' is compared to what a standard bridge transfers.

 

 

 

I suspect they don't really know why it works  

[Beedster]

39 minutes ago, Beedster said:

 

I suspect they don't really know why it works  

 

That wasn't as tongue in cheek as it sounded BTW, for example there's plenty of drugs that (appear to) work despite the fact that the mechanisms originally proposed by the developers have either been found absent or are present but not responsible for the drug's effect (SSRIs for example), hence my earlier comment about placebos  

[Beedster]

3 hours ago, Beedster said:

 

That makes a lot of sense to me and - if I understand correctly - explains why Badass bridges seem to work wonders on some basses while making absolutely zero difference on others?

 

And in drug terms, such basses would be termed 'responders' 👍

[rmorris]

On 14/08/2024 at 08:56, BigRedX said:

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.

 

+1 . It's "stiffness" rather than the mass itself that is important in not dissipating vibrational energy.

[prowla]

50 minutes ago, rmorris said:

 

+1 . It's "stiffness" rather than the mass itself that is important in not dissipating vibrational energy.

I reckon so - it's just that the Badass is a higher mass than a BBOT, so perhaps it came to be known as that.

[Jo.gwillim]

All good comments. Seeing as the neck is tons more wobbly that the bridge or the body I'd say that's the most important bit,  and that's been my experience. I'm wondering if the bbot bridge actually performs much the same as the badass at the fundamental frequency but at higher harmonics more energy is absorbed with the bent piece of tin.  More flexes per second equals more energy loss.  That might explain greater punch with the badass. For me,  I hate neck dive so I put high mass Bridges on to help a little but there.  My other thought is about contact area with the body.  More contact area might make the body look stiffer hence more sustain. Like other contributors I'm an old codger with a physics degree that was never really used.  Nice to exercise the little grey cells though!

[tauzero]

13 hours ago, Jo.gwillim said:

For me,  I hate neck dive so I put high mass Bridges on to help a little but there.

 

Chop the headstock off and put a headless bridge on. Gets shot of both neck dive and annoying questions about which bridge is best.

[Jo.gwillim]

7 hours ago, tauzero said:

 

Chop the headstock off and put a headless bridge on. Gets shot of both neck dive and annoying questions about which bridge is best.

Often tempted, added advantage of not clonking band menders on crowded stages. 

[chris_b]

What actually happens when you pluck a string on an electric instrument is all over the internet.

 

A quote that seem particularly apt for these threads. . . .

'The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge.' Charles Bukowski

 

 

[tauzero]

4 hours ago, chris_b said:

What actually happens when you pluck a string on an electric instrument is all over the internet.

 

The next door neighbour starts banging on the wall.

[Baloney Balderdash]

I think the increase in sustain is, at best, neglectable, they do change the tone noticeable however, but in my opinion for the worse, compared to the traditional simple bend piece of steel bridges : 

 

Edited October 1 by Baloney Balderdash

[Chienmortbb]

6 minutes ago, Baloney Balderdash said:

I think the increase in sustain is, at best, neglectable, they do change the tone noticeable however, but in my opinion for the worse, compared to the traditional simple bend piece of steel bridges : 

 

I have had many basses with many bridges and never really felt/ heard very much difference. 

[Baloney Balderdash]

Just now, Chienmortbb said:

I have had many basses with many bridges and never really felt/ heard very much difference. 

Try to actually watch that video and listen.

[tauzero]

1 hour ago, Chienmortbb said:

I have had many basses with many bridges and never really felt/ heard very much difference. 

 

And in that video there's very little difference.

[Jo.gwillim]

One of my bands records all our rehearsals in my living room. Quite often I'll leap up and swap basses because the sound is all wrong and feel much happier for it.  When I listen back it's very hard to tell which was the mike lull jazz and which was the £200 thrown together bitza jazz, so why did I feel so much better for swapping?  It's obviously psychological but maybe many small changes like one piece of bent steel over one piece of cast zinc. Maybe this can have more of an effect on how it sounds or feels to the player than how it sounds to the audience. How you can ever estimate the size of that effect I haven't a clue,  just musing....

[chris_b]

20 minutes ago, Jo.gwillim said:

. . . .  so why did I feel so much better for swapping?  It's obviously psychological . . . .

 

It's all about confidence and feeling happy.

 

If you like the sound of something you'll feel good, which will make you play better. No one else has to hear the "thing" that lifted you, but it happened, so it is a real difference.

 

You are right, psychology comes into it, but also there are real differences created by the way basses are made and the materials used. Tea tastes like tea to me but there are guys out there who know the differences between each type and make a living being able to blend different teas into a single product. Same with coffee, whiskey and wine etc. Likewise, there are differences in musical instruments that people who build them can hear, that accountants, IT managers, post men and gas fitters etc who play them on a part time bases can't. The silly thing is to insist that because some one can't hear those differences, they don't exist.