About bridges.

[Modern Growl]

Originally Posted by F-Clef-Jef

All of this correlates to incorrect claims made in the article...
"most of the string vibration stays within the bridge and is not transferred out to the body because of its high mass content."

B.S.

I've used many, many different bridges in the last 35 years, most of which worked just fine. I love my tone, which I can achieve with pretty much any decent, functional bridge. There is so much at play here, the material that the bridge is made of is only a tiny little fraction of the entire system. Strings and pickups matter sooooo much more.


Use whatever makes you happy, doesn't matter to me. I'm all for people buying stuff and supporting the people that make the stuff they are buying. (buy American please!) I just don't like to see false information and bad science thrown around.

Understood. I'm sure the physics of string vibration/mass/etc... should of probably been left out of that article - and tonal observations given only. But what are ya gonna do...

[Modern Growl]

Originally Posted by kurosawa

What I'm interested in doing is finding out what that something is, how it's caused, understanding it so we can have a fun time playing with it.

I don't think that will happen here man... very little of us are scientist. We may know a little - but I doubt we have the knowledge, desire, and equipment to display to all the measurable scientifical differences.

Thats why I based all my comments on tone.

[Modern Growl]

Originally Posted by DaveAceofBass

I think it's all very subjective, and the one thing that no one is mentioning is something that their article did mention at the end: what wood are you pairing it with? A lighter wood like swamp ash may benefit from a heavier bridge, and a heavier wood like walnut may benefit from a lighter bridge. No one has mentioned that here.

Very true. I like my Sadowsky's with Brass bridges. I love Nordy's with bent plate steel bridges... it all really depends.

[Modern Growl]

Originally Posted by mjac28

you have one more thing to drive you crazy in your search this has been fun thank you.

Right you are.

Right now I'm doing a Nordy vJ5 build, and the very last thing I can't decide on is the stupid bridge. I know I want to go low-mass. But I'm stuck between the bent plate & an aluminum Style A. To a point, it starts to get ridiculous.

[kurosawa]

I'm wondering if mass makes much difference. I just found an aluminum Hipshot B in my junk box and all other things being equal, I'd prefer it to the Babicz because of the quick release string loading (drop it in the slot, no threading through a hole). It DOES have brass saddles, so I'm wondering how that might affect the sound. Seems the path taken by vibrations from the end of the string is into the saddle, down through the height screws, through the base plate and into the wood, so I can't see it sounding much different from a bent tin bridge with brass saddles that I have somewhere. Oh well, only one way to find out.

[Modern Growl]

Originally Posted by kurosawa

I'm wondering if mass makes much difference. I just found an aluminum Hipshot B in my junk box and all other things being equal, I'd prefer it to the Babicz because of the quick release string loading (drop it in the slot, no threading through a hole). It DOES have brass saddles, so I'm wondering how that might affect the sound. Seems the path taken by vibrations from the end of the string is into the saddle, down through the height screws, through the base plate and into the wood, so I can't see it sounding much different from a bent tin bridge with brass saddles that I have somewhere. Oh well, only one way to find out.

Do an A/B and report back. In my "theory", an Aluminum Style A or B should sound kinda similar to a Bent Plate style being they are of similar mass.

Let me know what you find out.

[kurosawa]

Originally Posted by Modern Growl

Do an A/B and report back. In my "theory", an Aluminum Style A or B should sound kinda similar to a Bent Plate style being they are of similar mass.

Let me know what you find out.

Will do. And I agree, I think it'll sound like bent tin.

[Bassamatic]

Someone said above "The higher the mass, the more easily the vibration passes through it" - NOT!!! Ever try to push a car? Which one pushes more easily - the light car or the heavy car?? DUH! You don't even have to have studied physics to know that the heavy object doesn't pass energy as easily as the light one.

As long as we had great, good sounding old-growth wood, the light, bent metal bridges were great, as they pass the string vibration to the body, and you hear the "sound" of the wood.

Nowadays, the "good" wood is very hard to find. All that is left is newer wood with a lot of variation, so many makers are using high mass bridges to provide consistency in the sound of their instruments. The body wood will have much less effect on the sound of the instrument if a high-mass bridge is used, and the higher the mass, the less the effect of the wood.

The high-mass bridge will also provide greater sustain, as less of the string energy is spent vibrating the wood of the body.

Sure, there are still some great sounding bodies out there, but you have the search for them.

[megafiddle]

I think it's interesting that one end of the string supposedly requires a large nass of
dense metal, while the other end does just fine with that skinny little fret.

[pilotjones]

Originally Posted by Bassamatic

Someone said above "The higher the mass, the more easily the vibration passes through it" - NOT!!! Ever try to push a car? Which one pushes more easily - the light car or the heavy car?? DUH! You don't even have to have studied physics to know that the heavy object doesn't pass energy as easily as the light one.

So, if I hit you in the head with an empty shoe box, and then I hit you in the head with a concrete cinder block, you would argue that the lighter one passes more energy to your head??

[Modern Growl]

I think its silly to argue which one transfers "more energy". Who really cares ??

If your interested in "more energy", you must have two goals in mind. Volume and / or Sustain. Again, who cares about either!

Volume - if your looking for a bridge to transfer more "energy" with hopes of being louder on stage, your way out there.

Sustain - if your sitting there with a stop watch, trying to figure out if your note can ring out for 13 or 15 seconds - your lost.

The coversation shouldn't be about which one transfers "more" energy. Rather it should be regarding the tonal impact a high mass or low mass bridge has on an instrument - which IME can be very significant.

Take a Fender Jazz with a standard bent plate and play it for 15 minutes. Feel it, listen, see how it responds to your fingers.

No slap on a BadassII or Brass Hipshot A and do the same.

If you don't hear / feel a difference well... your not very perceptive.

[Modern Growl]

Originally Posted by megafiddle

I think it's interesting that one end of the string supposedly requires a large nass of
dense metal, while the other end does just fine with that skinny little fret.

don't forget jumbo frets and how they sound compared to thin vintage frets

[megafiddle]

Or fretless

[96tbird]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

Inertia stores itself in a massive body with a swift movement.
There is no swift movement generated by a vibrating body such as a string into a bridge, because the bridge itself isn't moving. Only the string has inertia.
The more massive the body, the most easily vibrations transfer through it.

All objects have inertia whether in motion or not. There is no such thing as storage of inertia. All masses have inertia. Other Forces applied to objects overcome their inertia and set them in motion or bring them to a halt. The most common force that brings objects to a halt is friction. The more mass a bridge has, the more force needed to overcome its inertia and set it vibrating (moving).

I may be wrong but the more mass you introduce the more energy is lost to inertia more quickly to get the entire apparatus in motion: the shorter the sustain. Try this: hang an acoustic guitar with string on the strap buttons and ring a note. Now attach a mass to the body and ring it again with the same force. Now predict what will happen. Just as a player may pull the guitar away his body from and hold it by a small area on the tail and neck to increase the sustain at the opportune moment in a piece of music; we've all seen this done. Similarly they will damp the sustain by adding the mass of their arm to the top of the body. Now someone with a better knowledge of physics please tell me I'm wrong. What am I missing.

[Jazz Ad]

Originally Posted by Bassamatic

Someone said above "The higher the mass, the more easily the vibration passes through it" - NOT!!! Ever try to push a car? Which one pushes more easily - the light car or the heavy car?? DUH! You don't even have to have studied physics to know that the heavy object doesn't pass energy as easily as the light one.

You may however need a bit of studying to understand the difference between a vibration and a force. Vibrations transit through molecules. The higher the density of a molecule field, the easiest the vibration travels. This is why there is no sound in space. It is also why sound travels much faster in water than on land.
Another factor is dispersion. Higher masse objects transmit vibrations faster and waste less energy as a product of their own vibration.

Originally Posted by 96tbird

All objects have inertia whether in motion or not. There is no such thing as storage of inertia.

The very definition of inertia is the ability to store kinetic energy. There is no other. Inertia applies to forces, not to vibrations.

[96tbird]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

You may however need a bit of studying to understand the difference between a vibration and a force. Vibrations transit through molecules. The higher the density of a molecule field, the easiest the vibration travels. This is why there is no sound in space. It is also why sound travels much faster in water than on land.
Another factor is dispersion. Higher masse objects transmit vibrations faster and waste less energy as a product of their own vibration.The very definition of inertia is the ability to store kinetic energy. There is no other. Inertia applies to forces, not to vibrations.

Inertia isn't storage, it's the word giver to Newton's first law: an object at rest will stay at rest unless a force is applied. Reverse for an object in motion. So how is a mass at rest storing a force? Inertia applies to masses not forces. Forces overcome inertia, you may need some studying yourself; a quick google yields instantly that you are completely wrong in your use of the term inertia.

[F-Clef-Jef]

Originally Posted by pilotjones

So, if I hit you in the head with an empty shoe box, and then I hit you in the head with a concrete cinder block, you would argue that the lighter one passes more energy to your head??

Ha! But, you are kinda looking at it from the wrong end of the equation. The energy is being imparted into the shoebox (or the brick), from his head, er, ...I mean, the vibrating string. Whichever system has the least "give", (ie: absorbs the least energy from the string), will let the string vibrate longer.

Mass isn't as important as rigidity (modulus of elasticity) in this case. Equal masses of rubber and steel will not behave the same way...

... I think...