Quote:
Originally posted by George Looney
Just to see if I really get it ...
So the tone of a bridge (or body or neck) is basically determined by how it affects the vibration of the string, right ? |
You are absolutely correct except that you could probably just lump the bridge/body/neck together as a single item. The revised version would be "The tone of an instrument is determined by how it affects the vibration of the strings" - and that's a pretty good statement. You've experienced this probably a hundred times when you've played different instruments - harder, denser woods like maple and ash seem to offer a brighter tone (emphasizing upper mid and treble frequencies) while softer woods like alder and poplar sound warmer (emphasizing lower mid and bass frequencies). Additionally, by varying the different bridge materials, neck and fretboard materials, and construction variables, you could, conceivably, "tune" a bass to a tonal range that pleases you.
But all of this gets away from my original intent to clarify Jani's blanket statement. And I think I've uncovered the exact nature of our disagreement. It's centered in the use of the word "purpose" as Jani wrote in his first post. I also take issue with the use of the word "any" that lumps solidbody electric instruments into the same category as acoustic instruments.:
The purpose of the bridge, besides anchoring the strings of course, is as with any stringed instrument to transmit the vibrations of the strings to the body
This statement hardly leaves room for stringed instruments like harps that have no bridge at all.
Jani's use of the word implies, if not outright states, that anchoring the strings is secondary to coupling the strings with the body. I contend that Uncle Leo's first desire was to get the strings bolted down on one end of his new instrument design, do it cheaply and effectively and not to achieve some glorious "sonic coupling". Just look at what was (is) offered as a bridge on these instruments and you'll have all the proof needed. They are inexpensive, lightweight, barebones designs that accomplish the task of holding the end of the string pretty well. The fact that string vibration passed through the bridge into the body was a natural part of guitar design and couldn't have been done any other way. Leo could have altered the
way these vibrations transferred to the body but this transferrence would have happened anyway to some degree - no matter the bridge composition or design.
In my constructions, I use high mass bridges for several reasons. I like the fact that sustain is increased because less string energy is lost through inertia to the body. I like the increased definition of attack and tone that I get when the upper mid and high end frequencies are maintained through the chain all the way to the pickups. I like the increased adjustability of these designs. And I like the way they look!
But I am NOT naive to the point of not understanding that string energy has another route back to the body and that's through the neck. I might even be persuaded to agree that there is more tone to be gained from maximizing the sonic coupling of the neck to the body rather than through the other end. I come to this from my own building experiences. When I built my first bass, I chose flame maple as a body wood with a maple/ebony neck with high mass bridge and string thru mounting. Given what we know about the characteristics of these components every indication was that this bass was going to be bright, maybe to the point of too much high end. It didn't matter though, I was going to do it this way come hell or high water since I had intended for the instrument to have active electronics. I figured that if there was a tonal characteristic that I didn't like, I could work with the onboard EQ to correct it. When I got the point of mounting the neck, I used threaded steel inserts (large ¼-20) with stainless steel bolts to match. I only did this because I wanted to be able to mount and remove the neck without fear of eventually stripping out the screw holes had I used the conventional method of wood screws only. As I assembled the instrument, I found that I could really torque down on those bolts - much more than wood screws - and the connection the neck made with the body was incredibly tight. When I played the instrument for the first time, I realized that not only was it NOT too bright, it had a nice balanced warmth compared to what I thought I was going to get. Not dark and thumpy but well defined. It also had incredible sustain for a fretless. This was even more surprising since I didn't use the active electronics I had planned on originally.
By the way Jani, you don't impress me at all with your quotes of manufacturer hype especially those coming from
6 string guitar manufacturers. That "harmonically positioned pickup" line is a hoot!
