Bridge Replacement

[dustinymichaels]

Nope. I had a badassII on a fender p,
Looked cool but 0 difference. Remember the only difference in sound is from the neck edge of the nut to the neck edge of the saddle. Anything past that area has 0 effect on the sound. Tort pickguard helps!

If you're saying that tone is greatly affected by the neck, I 100% agree. I'm not trying to open up the old tone wood discussion. But the string spends the most of it's life over the neck. Science shows that wood with more miles on it, i.e. more vibrations have passed through it, affects the tone.

 

[40Hz]

As others have said, it mught make sense to swap a bridge to gain its features and aesthetics. Swapping it out in hopes if getting “better tone” is a waste of effort and money. Because a different btidge won’t do that.

 

[dbsfgyd1]

Does replacing your existing bridge with a more expensive model make your bass tone better or something else?

I’m not so sure it does. I’ve lived with Fender stamped steel bridges for over 50 years. A Rickenbacker for 34 years tail lift and all. A Warwick Corvette , and my current PB with a cast bridge and multi groove saddles. They all sounded unsurprisingly like good electric basses.

The Warwick had the most ability to adjust the saddles (German engineering) but their tail piece on the 5 strings was too narrow for the windings at the ball end of a B string. The multi groove saddles of my current Fender PB and JB are cast bridges are a big plus, but IMO don’t necessarily sound better or provide more sustain than the ones I played in the 60’s and 70’s.

The Rickenbacker bridge on my 4001, despite being panned by more than a few posters, mainly over the tail lift which was a cosmetic design flaw but had no bearing on the tone or function.

The only bridge I’ve run across that was a piece of crap was a 5 string high mass bridge on a Fender Ultra. The saddles slide in a channel that rises over the height of the top of the strings. The retaining hole in in the tail piece of B and E string is off set to the grove in the saddle forcing a curve in the string to sit in the saddle groove which is less than the thickness of a .125 B string to the channel. This cause the string to rub on the channel wall that causes a slight but noticeable muting. This very noticeable when using round wound string.

In conclusion, IMO frankly a good set up (professionally done) with a new set of strings, revisiting your EQ and or rig will do more to improve your sound than swapping out a bridge.

 

[Dincrest]

I think the tonal difference from replacement bridges is negligible.

The only reason I would replace/have replaced bridges is for pragmatic reasons, like functionality.

For example, I had a Schecter Stiletto Stealth bass whose bridge saddles didn't have intonation adjustment screws. I'd have to loosen the string, loosen a set screw on the saddle, and slide the saddle back and forth with my fingers using hope and prayer to intonate. I couldn't intonate the bass with the string even remotely in tune. It had this bridge that Lobster criticizes on this Jackson and I 100% agree with what's said.

The Schecter's bridge was replaced with a Badass type bridge. The bass needed a neck shim too since the new bridge is taller, but being able to adjust the intonation more easily is win.

And, as others said, I'd also replace a bridge if it was corroded or damaged beyond repair.

When it comes to bridges, I don't need anything fancy. Just something where I can easily adjust action and intonation.

 

[watt]

My selection for many builds is the Hipshot KickAss...

bassslinger mephisto,

I got the hipshot kickass on my moon larry graham model for happening all-way adjustment they got but also dig much the broad angle the string's got on the saddle cuz of the design... am way into it.

on bass, watt

http://mikewatt.com/

 

[/\/\3phist0]

bassslinger mephisto,

I got the hipshot kickass on my moon larry graham model for happening all-way adjustment they got but also dig much the broad angle the string's got on the saddle cuz of the design... am way into it.

on bass, watt

http://mikewatt.com/

Thanks Mike! For chiming in. Agree with your assessment and observations.

Hipshot saddles can be bought separately and retro fitted to badass, 73nder hi-mass and omega bass base plates.

 

[Tommy Sparks]

I say do it. why not?
Report back what you think of it.

 

[Ritter667]

Compared to the standard simple bent piece of metal bridges, in my opinion high mass bridges makes the tone worse, as high mass bridges in my experience tends to absorb and attenuate the harmonic content of the notes, given the illusion of a thicker tone, cause the fundamentals of the notes will be relatively more pronounced, but in that making for a less complex and rich tone.

 

[Ostie]

I would say if you’re expecting a noticeable change in tone, you’ll be disappointed. If youre looking for better intonation, ease of string change, lighter weight, or different finish, you may be satisfied.

 

[BaltBass5]

IME it has less to do with tone and more to do with tuning stability, intonation and action or possibly weight or color.

 

[micguy]

A vibrating string on your bass has two ends. One is anchored in a relatively large clock of metal, which is screwed to a large block of wood. The other is held by a finger against a tiny strip of metal, which is anchored in a relatively thin strip of wood. If you want sustain, you want the energy to remain in the string, not leave it. Energy leaves the string by 3 methods:

1) Vibrating the air around it.

2) Vibrating the wood in the body

3) Vibrating the wood in the neck

If you want increased sustain, you can't do anything about #1, other than playing in a vacuum, which has negative health effects for the player. For now, let's move on.

So we're down to $2 and #3. As a Physicist and an Engineer, the thing you do to improve something is look for the place where the most compromise exists in the design and improve that. In the case of en electric bass guitar, that place is not the bridge. More sustain is available, but to get it, you fix the other end - anyone who has owned a Kramer metal neck bass (I've had 3) can tell you that is has undeniably more sustain than a wood necked bass. It's not a minor change where people argue about whether or not its audible - it's OBVIOUS. Why? Because they fixed the part of the design where the most compromise exists - the neck. Yes, they neck dive, but if you're young and strong enough to deal with holding up a neck all night ( I was in my relative youth), it's a great instrument.

 

[digmeout]

I want to give a +1 to the Fender Hi mass bridge. Although it's much cooler to have "Badass" stamped on a bridge, the Fender works very well. Very easy with it's construction and all of the edges are beveled and smooth so I don't impale the side of my palm and on a mute.

+1 from me also. My favorite high mass bridge. If I'm going to use one this is it. Much better than a "Badass" IMHO. For all the reasons you state.

 

[/\/\3phist0]

A vibrating string on your bass has two ends. One is anchored in a relatively large clock of metal, which is screwed to a large block of wood. The other is held by a finger against a tiny strip of metal, which is anchored in a relatively thin strip of wood. If you want sustain, you want the energy to remain in the string, not leave it. Energy leaves the string by 3 methods:

1) Vibrating the air around it.

2) Vibrating the wood in the body

3) Vibrating the wood in the neck

If you want increased sustain, you can't do anything about #1, other than playing in a vacuum, which has negative health effects for the player. For now, let's move on.

So we're down to $2 and #3. As a Physicist and an Engineer, the thing you do to improve something is look for the place where the most compromise exists in the design and improve that. In the case of en electric bass guitar, that place is not the bridge. More sustain is available, but to get it, you fix the other end - anyone who has owned a Kramer metal neck bass (I've had 3) can tell you that is has undeniably more sustain than a wood necked bass. It's not a minor change where people argue about whether or not its audible - it's OBVIOUS. Why? Because they fixed the part of the design where the most compromise exists - the neck. Yes, they neck dive, but if you're young and strong enough to deal with holding up a neck all night ( I was in my relative youth), it's a great instrument.

I own 2 aluminum neck headless ( a Kramer Duke, and Hondo Alien) the aluminum neck is great; without the headstock, no dive

 

[micguy]

I own 2 aluminum neck headless ( a Kramer Duke, and Hondo Alien) the aluminum neck is great; without the headstock, no dive

Removing the headstock is only half of what fixes the neck dive. Adding tuners to the tail of the instrument is the other half.

 

[BlueTalon]

A vibrating string on your bass has two ends. One is anchored in a relatively large clock of metal, which is screwed to a large block of wood. The other is held by a finger against a tiny strip of metal, which is anchored in a relatively thin strip of wood. If you want sustain, you want the energy to remain in the string, not leave it. Energy leaves the string by 3 methods:

1) Vibrating the air around it.

2) Vibrating the wood in the body

3) Vibrating the wood in the neck

If you want increased sustain, you can't do anything about #1, other than playing in a vacuum, which has negative health effects for the player. For now, let's move on.

So we're down to $2 and #3. As a Physicist and an Engineer, the thing you do to improve something is look for the place where the most compromise exists in the design and improve that. In the case of en electric bass guitar, that place is not the bridge. More sustain is available, but to get it, you fix the other end - anyone who has owned a Kramer metal neck bass (I've had 3) can tell you that is has undeniably more sustain than a wood necked bass. It's not a minor change where people argue about whether or not its audible - it's OBVIOUS. Why? Because they fixed the part of the design where the most compromise exists - the neck. Yes, they neck dive, but if you're young and strong enough to deal with holding up a neck all night ( I was in my relative youth), it's a great instrument.

I'm assuming that same reasoning holds for stronger/stiffer neck woods? Not to the degree of an aluminum neck of course, but still?

Also, do you happen to know how carbon fiber would compare?

 

[micguy]

I'm assuming that same reasoning holds for stronger/stiffer neck woods? Not to the degree of an aluminum neck of course, but still?

Also, do you happen to know how carbon fiber would compare?

A stiffer neck is indeed helpful - one thing is does for you is raise the resonance frequencies of the neck, and the main dead spot/area of reduced sustain moves up the neck, and becomes less audible. One simple way to make a neck stiffer is make it bigger in cross section - a P neck is stiffer then a J, and my 5 string necks are really nice and stiff - partly because they're bigger, partly because they're roasted, and lastly because they are carbon fiber reinforces. That plus ultralight tuners, and the "area of reduced sustain" is really moved up the neck, and I don't ever notice it while playing.

Different woods have different stiffnesses, but wood that is stiffer than maple also tends to be heavier, so neck dive becomes an issue. You can get much more stiffness from a thicker neck than you get from one where the wood is a bit stiffer - geometry wins; the stiffness goes up by the third power of the thickness of a beam.

Carbon fiber is indeed stiffer, but much more dense than wood - it's about 3x the density of maple. People talk about it as light, because they are usually replacing steel, which is much more dense than carbon fiber. It's good in reinforcements, or as a hollow neck (hollow so it doesn't weigh too much), but you wouldn't want a solid carbon fiber neck.

 

[J Wilson]

Speaking only from my experience, I've never heard some night and day difference, and would not change one. Besides, who knows? What if the 'new' tone sucks?

I'd consider it only if it was a bass I really liked and thought I was going to keep it around for quite a while AND the original was sticking my hand, barely had enough saddle travel to intonate, height adjustments weren't quite enough (or too much), etc,. , in other words some mechanical/functional issue I needed to address.

 

[Manticore]

I replaced the bridge on my '74 Ric so I could intonate the thing. It worked well. Tone difference? I don't remember. And for the purists worried about ruining a "vintage" ax? I bought it new. The original was a PITA to work with and simply would not get the thing properly intonated and it bugged me. And? I did it in '75 shortly after buying it so I could actually use the thing.

 

[bassdude51]

Does replacing your existing bridge with a more expensive model make your bass tone better or something else?

"Does replacing your existing bridge with a more expensive model make your bass tone better?" NO! (Many, many TB threads on this topic!)

".........or something else?" Obviously, a more expensive bridge will change the appearance of your bass. It will also add (probably) up to 6 oz more weight to your bass. Depending on how the bridge is made, it can help with string spacing and other adjustments.

Personally and it is just me, for Fender and Fender type basses, I like bent plate with threaded saddles.

YMMV

 

[bigdaddybass12]

If you're saying that tone is greatly affected by the neck, I 100% agree. I'm not trying to open up the old tone wood discussion. But the string spends the most of it's life over the neck. Science shows that wood with more miles on it, i.e. more vibrations have passed through it, affects the tone.

Yeah, throw in pickups, strings, playing style, and color of pickguard.