My BADASS II sounds crappy on E string?!?

Rokoko · #1 10-15-2010, 01:44 AM

Hi fellow bassplayers

After giving it some serious thought i wanted to improve the sustain and attack on my Fender '62 VRI (US version) jazz bass. So i went and bought a BADASS II (used, but unslottet) and got my local bass tech to slot it properly for me.

I got all the sustain and attack i want.... but i got a major problem.
the first five frets (and open string) on the low e have a strange resonant boomyness to them. It's so bad that it topples string balance (i tried raising the string, didnt work). There is a certain harshness that the other strings dont have.

I now swapped back to the vintage bridge, and miss the sustain a lot... is this a normal problem on highmass bridges? is it my bass thats "too vintage" for the BADASS?

Any suggestions and solutions are much appreciated

lug · #2 10-15-2010, 08:58 AM

My Pbass E string used to get lost in the mix. So much so, that I'd swap to my T-40 for certain songs that had any sustained riding E string work. Once I added the BA, couldn't tell a whole lot of difference by it self (sounded a bit brighter/sterile) but really noticed the difference in the mix. I'd say I got more overtones and more sustain. I've added BA's to 3 other basses and didn't notice much difference at all so I think it really depends on the particular piece of wood ths bass is made of as to which properties you will see as an outcome.

SurferJoe46 · #3 10-15-2010, 09:28 AM

Just another reason why Leo put that thinner and less massive bridge on them originally.

Any HM style bridge will change things - that's a given. I personally feel that the fundamentals get lost on the lower freqs and even though they can still be perceived, it's only the secondaries and higher orders that are left when you change to a HM bridge.

Somehow - it's consumptive of more energy (like I said: somehow) to create and keep the fundamental working than the cheaper-to-produce and maintain (2nd/3rd) upper orders. This may be why you can cut into the mix easier - if the energy hungry primaries are being redirected into the secondaries, etc.

I'm hoping for my weekly epiphany for more clarity on this at the mo. Stay tuned for the next chapter.

If you like to modify the LOWs and want more upper end shine, then a HM and the right ablative wood in the body can accomplish what you want.

Maybe.

But all design factors have to work in unison - this is why changing just one part may or may not achieve the tone and timber you want.

It's like shoving a huge cam in a stocker engine. It'll lope and sound badass, (sorry for that pun) but without the supporting rest of the system - bigger headers, higher compression, more air and fuel - it doesn't accomplish much - or very little. You can BRAG about having a monster cam in the engine - but it's a show-no-go type modification only.

Once you move off center of the original design (bass guitar/bridge/neck/PG screws/coats of wax) - it's anybody's guess where you have to go from there to get what you want.

There are some perceptions that a HM will help you walk on water, feed multiples of people with a single bagel and two Mrs. Paul's fish sticks and raise the dead - but being more realistic should tell you that there's more to this than just a HM bridge for HM bridge-sake.

The DO look cool though - but I vote for function over appearances on my gear.

walterw · #4 10-15-2010, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rokoko

the first five frets (and open string) on the low e have a strange resonant boomyness to them.

i would suspect the action to have changed, bringing that string too close to the pickups.

lower both pickups on the bass side a little and you should be fine. (bridges don't make that big of a difference.)

Rokoko · #5 10-16-2010, 03:47 AM

... thanks for the heads up. I was about to put the badass away for good (and give in to surferjoes arguments). But decided to give it a go with a new set of Rotosound pressure wound strings lying around and... problem solved.

For now i am satisfied with the tone, sustain and un-boomyness.
Perhaps i will eventually go back to the vintage bridge but for now i like the sustain and feel of playing high mass.

Perhaps it just makes me feel a bit more like a "badass" and its all just placebo, who knows.

Thanks again for the advice.

Vincent P · #6 10-16-2010, 05:14 AM

Stings can play a big part in the over all performance of this bridge. I put the BadAss III on my MIA Deluxe Jazz and a set of Marcus Miller strings with full setup. Fantastic combination for me. Performance, tone, and all that.

I put set of Marcus Millers on my Geddy Lee with BadAss II. Was not impressed. Switched to a set of Rotosound 66 with improvement but not what I was after, found I had to much fret noise on my E and some buzzing on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th frets of D and G. Setup done every time. Put a set of Fender 738250406 8250M Nickel-Plated Steel Taperwound 34" 45-110TW (.045 .065 .085 .110TW) with a setup. This changed everything. Everything about the playability on this bass fell into place, so much so I couldn't put this bass down for weeks.

My suggestion if you can. Experiment with strings and setups.

SurferJoe46 · #7 10-16-2010, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rokoko

... thanks for the heads up. I was about to put the badass away for good (and give in to surferjoes arguments). But decided to give it a go with a new set of Rotosound pressure wound strings lying around and... problem solved.

For now i am satisfied with the tone, sustain and un-boomyness.
Perhaps i will eventually go back to the vintage bridge but for now i like the sustain and feel of playing high mass.

Perhaps it just makes me feel a bit more like a "badass" and its all just placebo, who knows.

Thanks again for the advice.

Wow! You make me feel like Don Quixote - chasing after people who want to ruin their basses by installing a HM bridge.

I don't condemn that action - for several reasons.

1) looks
2) timber
3) sustain
4) musical style

My only argument is that they do change things - maybe good/maybe bad - and that they can only be considered a single step in a long journey seeking The Valhalla Of Your Personal Tone - and for the thrill of the hunt I think you should do what you want.

I only want to point out that taking a (perfectly good) bass and changing something can confound and confuse your quest - and just be prepared to go back to zero after a frustrating and perhaps valuable (hole-making) lesson.

Like most things in life - changing to a HM bridge for reasons of experimentation is the human way, and chasing that musical unicorn is about as good as having a wife with several different colored wigs - variety being the spice of life.

I say go for it - but don't expect changing the bridge to always be good and something you really wanted in the first place.

Pardon me for now, Pancho needs to talk to me about our next quest.

Rokoko · #8 10-16-2010, 11:09 AM

Sorry bout making you feel Don Quixote'ish, which wasn't at all what i intendend.
Actually i had (as i stated in my initial post) gone through your exact line of argument.

1) bass sounds ok
2) badass bridge+new strings different but crappy
3) revert to original bridge = back to original tone

For now i dig the sustain and punchy timber of the highmass, but i know that i, sometime in the future will go back and give the vintage bridge a go again. There is a nice clean simplicity in the vintage spec. jazz bass.

But in the meantime i'll continue to experiment as long as the experiments are reversible. (might try the stellartone tonepot?, a audere pre? coated strings? who knows.´)

Anyways its nice to have a bass where i completely dig the core feel and sound of the wood and the pickups. Gives me a solid base to judge the small mods im doing.