Bent bit of tin...

[Telebass]

I've been scratching my head for years over this. The standard Fender bridge is entirely up to the job. Basic, yes, just like the bloke who designed it. But, like all else he did in the early days, it was built to be easy to make, and therefore easy to service or repair. 100% on that score.
Although I doubt anyone really knows why he changed from string-through-body, it was likely that he felt there was no advantage to it, and it simplified the body drillings. The BBOT is more complex than the old 2-saddle job, but only complex enough to get the job done. I've owned Precisions with Badass IIs on, and never noticed the slightest difference in any way (except for the extra 'bling' factor).

But what really gets me about 'bent bit of tin' is that that is a grossly inaccurate description. That's a solid bit of steel by anyone's reckoning, and nothing so puny as a set of bass strings is ever gonna bend it. The current Fender Hi-Mass bridges are just marketing hype, IMHO. They're not hugely different from the BBOT.

So, I say again: what's the problem?

[Clarky]

Until I bought my 72 Precision recently I would probably have disagreed with you on the basis of little but prejudice. Excepting 2008/9 MIA Fenders I have religiously swapped over the BBOT for a Badass or occasionally Gotoh. My 72 Precision with BBOT bridge has sustain, power and tone (obviously also a function of the pickups and body wood) and my band mates actually commented on how good it sounded. So in this case the BBOT appears perfectly up for the job - and then you only have to think of the legion of classic bass players who have used the BBOT and yet are lauded for their tone, sustain etc

[Cat Burrito]

Here here Telebass! I have a few issues with the quality control on some of Fenders cheaper telecasters & hate the modern bridge on the USA ones but on bass the bridge is fine on mine and I see no point in getting a badass. The teles were different as they twang and chime better with a nice bridge plate but all the quality on my Fender basses has been great.

[wateroftyne]

I think a BBOT might help a flaky bass, but a good bass will be just fine with a BBOT.

[Dandelion]

When played finger style I find that the barrels of the bridge clatter together a bit with my BBOT.

But the more I read this forum the more I think that I might be playing to hard methinks.

[Buzz]

Telebass, I want to pick a hole in your post.

You haven't actually said you've swapped a BBOT for a Badass, Hi-Mass or Gotoh on one bass. You may have played basses equipped with them, but obviously you won't notice the difference from what that bass previously sounded like with the BBOT as you've not experienced it.

I've found thicker and stronger bridges do affect tone and sustain. I can definitely feel that the bass is more resonant with a Badass II compared to the BBOT on my Squier VMJ, and that the tone sounds a bit more substantial. Thicker if you will.

The increase in sustain isn't helpful though for my style of playing.

I'm erring towards WoT being right, good basses won't benefit, but flakey or average will.

[henry norton]

I'm pretty sure most people would fail a blind test between the BBOT and a high mass bridge. When players have mods done to their basses they 'want' to hear the difference their hard earned cash has cost them. That said, a high mass bridge won't make the bass sound any worse and if it makes a player happier having a nice chunky, shiny new bridge then they'll probably play better as a consequence!

[Beedster]

[quote name='Buzz' post='708432' date='Jan 11 2010, 01:37 AM']I've found thicker and stronger bridges do affect tone and sustain. I can definitely feel that the bass is more resonant with a Badass II compared to the BBOT on my Squier VMJ, and that the tone sounds a bit more substantial. Thicker if you will.

The increase in sustain isn't helpful though for my style of playing.[/quote]

On a PBass, agreed, but I tend to prefer a Badass II on a Jazz


[quote name='henry norton' post='708550' date='Jan 11 2010, 09:22 AM']I'm pretty sure most people would fail a blind test between the BBOT and a high mass bridge. When players have mods done to their basses they 'want' to hear the difference their hard earned cash has cost them.[/quote]

I see your point but don't agree. I've found, for example, far greater sustain and easier to hear harmonics, and have found that basses with, for example a Badass II, are easier to intone and set up (my tuner seems to 'prefer' to work with a Badass).

However, on a Precision it's the old Fender bridge for me every time. As was pointed out above, what a high mass bridge provides doesn't necessarily improve the tone as far as the song is concerned

Chris

Edited January 11, 2010 by Beedster

[Dr.Dave]

My problem with them is very real.

Many years ago I was gigging in Preston with my old P and the g saddle collapsed against the bridge plate. The grub screws had given way. Further inspection showed some of the springs perishing too.

I did a bit of pre internet research and came across badass. I'd decided already that if a bit of my bass broke I'd replace it with the best bit I could find and afford - so I bought one. Used Badass products on Fenders ever since and they've never let me down.

I'd agree that stock Fender bridges are adequate - but I don't want to go on stage with something that's just adequate. I've certainly described Fender bridges as a bent bit of tin and I'm glad I'm shut of them.

[Mr. Foxen]

I do need the sustain for the sort of stuff I play, I've not had a fender, but I have had bent tin bridges, and I have had very noticeable improvement with a more substantial bridge. Especially not that the saddles can't slip if I dig in.

[Beedster]

Welcome back Dave, haven't seen you around for a while. Fair points as well, if we were talking women, 'adequate' would never do!

C

[Beedster]

Should mention that my Ric sounds a lot better to my ear with the original very lightweight and almost impossible to adjust bridge compared to the ultra heavy and very expensive Hipshot on it at present

C

[GreeneKing]

The only Fender that I own has a BBOT and it's the best I've heard. Done the BadAss thing several times and I can't hear the difference in terms of a worthwhile improvement (you then have to ask yourself why I kept fitting them ).

Is it only me that thinks that eternal sustain (or even sustain increased above and beyond BBOT sustain) is never, ever used when actually playing?

[Dr.Dave]

[quote name='Beedster' post='708589' date='Jan 11 2010, 10:08 AM']if we were talking women, 'adequate' would never do!

C[/quote]

True - unlike bridge saddles , 'loose' is far more useful!

Edited January 11, 2010 by Dr.Dave

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='GreeneKing' post='708594' date='Jan 11 2010, 10:11 AM']Is it only me that thinks that eternal sustain (or even sustain increased above and beyond BBOT sustain) is never, ever used when actually playing?[/quote]

Not Doom.

[henry norton]

[quote name='Beedster' post='708568' date='Jan 11 2010, 10:36 AM']I see your point but don't agree. I've found, for example, far greater sustain and easier to hear harmonics, and have found that basses with, for example a Badass II, are easier to intone and set up (my tuner seems to 'prefer' to work with a Badass).


Chris[/quote]
I've no doubt whatsoever [i]you[/i] could tell the difference between a stock Fender bridge and a high mass replacement Chris, (even with the thumpy flats you like to use ), but I still believe the majority wouldn't really notice a significant difference.

This is coming from someone who's fitted Schaller 3D's to every Fender I've ever owned. It makes intonation and string positioning easier but if I had 50 quid to spend on improving a stock Fender's sound a bridge would be fairly low down on the list.

By the way, is the Hipshot Ric bridge you fitted the ali or brass version?

[Beedster]

[quote name='henry norton' post='708822' date='Jan 11 2010, 01:54 PM']I've no doubt whatsoever [i]you[/i] could tell the difference between a stock Fender bridge and a high mass replacement Chris, (even with the thumpy flats you like to use ), but I still believe the majority wouldn't really notice a significant difference.

This is coming from someone who's fitted Schaller 3D's to every Fender I've ever owned. It makes intonation and string positioning easier but if I had 50 quid to spend on improving a stock Fender's sound a bridge would be fairly low down on the list.

By the way, is the Hipshot Ric bridge you fitted the ali or brass version?[/quote]

Fair points Henry

The Hipshot is the brass version. Weighs a ton. Cost me around £100 to buy and around the same to have it flown over from the USA by Hercules

[Beedster]

And BTW, I can't hear a difference with flats, only rounds.
C

[mrcrow]

[quote name='Telebass' post='708169' date='Jan 10 2010, 08:49 PM']I've been scratching my head for years over this. The standard Fender bridge is entirely up to the job. Basic, yes, just like the bloke who designed it. But, like all else he did in the early days, it was built to be easy to make, and therefore easy to service or repair. 100% on that score.
Although I doubt anyone really knows why he changed from string-through-body, it was likely that he felt there was no advantage to it, and it simplified the body drillings. The BBOT is more complex than the old 2-saddle job, but only complex enough to get the job done. I've owned Precisions with Badass IIs on, and never noticed the slightest difference in any way (except for the extra 'bling' factor).

But what really gets me about 'bent bit of tin' is that that is a grossly inaccurate description. That's a solid bit of steel by anyone's reckoning, and nothing so puny as a set of bass strings is ever gonna bend it. The current Fender Hi-Mass bridges are just marketing hype, IMHO. They're not hugely different from the BBOT.

So, I say again: what's the problem?[/quote]

you hit it...if you own a badass II then it gets called a bbot...for snob reasons....

the through body initially didnt need a massive bridge
my guess is that when players got fed up of overly bent flats...they strung through the tail of the bridge
then since everything still sounded ok...no changes were made

it must be a fast bridge to produce in a bending machine and jig though

[Protium]

I prefer the Gotoh 203. Essentially the same but with grooves on the outer saddles to stop them moving over the base plate when you play. Though I do tend to play pretty hard.
I couldn't get the action low enough on a BAII as the base plate is too thick.

[Telebass]

Indeed, easy to produce and maintain. Precisely as Leo wanted everything he made.

To reply to some other comments:
No, I've never installed one, but did have two identical basses, one with, one without. The BBOT was every bit as good as the BAII, or the BAII was not any better than the BBOT - whichever way you care to put it.

Collapsing saddles and perishing springs is usually down to poor maintenance, not poor manufacture, although self-loosening grub screws is something I've been afflicted with just the once, easily remedied by improving the admittedly rather poor factory setup (something Fender still are not that good at, even on high-end stuff, although the transatlantic journey probably doesn't help much...).

I'm not in any way saying the BAII is a bad bridge - it isn't. But neither is it such a piece of uber-engineering that the BBOT MUST be replaced by it. Fitting them as standard to the MKII Highway Ones seemed an upgrade without a purpose, but if I had one of those, I wouldn't take the BAII off - wouldn't be worth the effort!

[wateroftyne]

It might be worth bering in mind than when Leo designed these things, It doubtful he was expecting them to survive for 20, 30+ years...

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='GreeneKing' post='708594' date='Jan 11 2010, 10:11 AM']Is it only me that thinks that eternal sustain (or even sustain increased above and beyond BBOT sustain) is never, ever used when actually playing?[/quote]
Agreed. The problem is not too little sustain, the problem is appropriate muting of easily enough sustain.

[henry norton]

[quote name='Beedster' post='708828' date='Jan 11 2010, 02:59 PM']The Hipshot is the brass version. Weighs a ton. Cost me around £100 to buy and around the same to have it flown over from the USA by Hercules [/quote]


Yeah, I guess it goes to show heavy bridges won't always give good results.

Funnily enough, the standard Gibson 3 point bridge I have on my EB-0 has to be one of the most maligned pieces of hardware ever - maybe even more than the BBOT, yet it's adjustable in just about every direction and weighs a ton! There's just no pleasing some people

[lemmywinks]

[quote name='henry norton' post='709736' date='Jan 12 2010, 09:40 AM']

Yeah, I guess it goes to show heavy bridges won't always give good results.

Funnily enough, the standard Gibson 3 point bridge I have on my EB-0 has to be one of the most maligned pieces of hardware ever - maybe even more than the BBOT, yet it's adjustable in just about every direction and weighs a ton! There's just no pleasing some people [/quote]


I really didn't like the 3 point bridge i had on my RD Artist, found almost any other bridge to be easier to get good results from. I foud it quite a clumsy design and thought it was pretty ugly too! Tbh i'd have killed for a BBOT on that bass!

I'll always prefer a Warwick style 2-piece bridge, really easy to adjust everything including string spacing. Looks the nuts too