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.