Super Thick Bridge No Like Pick-Up!

[godoze]

oof!

[lowphatbass]

Originally Posted by Damon Rondeau

This may be irrelevant by now, but your too-thick bridge doesn't have to be that way. When it was set up, the bridge should have been thinned somewhat with a plane. A few minutes with a plane and scraper and you can use clip-on pickups if you want.

I've never considered this because it's never been mentioned to me before. The bridge seems to "fit" the bass very well. Is the purpose of thinning the bridge to focus the termination point of the string or to reduce mass? Certainly one would not scrape away on their bridge for reasons of pick-up selection, would they? You stated that the bridge "should" have been thinned, am I missing the boat on this, do I need to have this done??
Here's a crappy pick if it helps....

[Damon Rondeau]

New bridges arrive considerably over-sized because they have to be cut, carved and scraped to fit a given bass. Every bass is different and every one is a custom fit.

So the feet are huge and clunky. The bridge is waaaaay tall above the heart (center void) to accomodate being cut to fit the bass. And the bridge is very thick.

I'm no expert luthier, not by a longshot, but I'm with DZ in pretty much assuming it's standard operating procedure to thin down the above-the-heart-stringbearing portion of the bridge once it's been cut to size and profile. I just did one for a friend last week and took that part of the bridge down (with plane and scraper) to about 5mm. (Edit: Whoa! It's a tapered thing, as DZ mentioned. It tapers to 5mm. The tapering is a bit crowned, too, if that makes any sense.)

The essential idea is that the bridge should be beefy enough to do its job, but no more. There are some links on Bob G's site that take you through what's involved in setting up a bridge.

Sounds like your's wasn't thinned or wasn't thinned very much. Can't tell from the photo, which focuses on everything but the area of interest! (Actually, in taking another closer look at the photo it does rather look as if it's unlikely the top of the bridge could be anything but Very Fat.)

[lowphatbass]

Sorry, is this better?

[godoze]

Originally Posted by lowphatbass

Sorry, is this better?

2 phat 4 me...

[Monte]

Originally Posted by Damon Rondeau

How long before Monte chimes in? Or should I say "chimays" in?

Alright you drew me out.

I used to like Guinness, but I hate the freaking nitro contraptions. Makes it look nice in a glass, but it has no aroma and a "gassy" mouthfeel.

I love really hoppy imperial stouts. Great Divide Yeti is just heaven to me, or I should say it was. Now they came out with the Oak Aged Yeti (aged on oak chips) and it gices it a real nice vanilla/ oak smoothness.

As far as regular stouts, here are some ones to try in place of Guinness for those who want to expand their palate a little:

For those in Canada: St. Ambroise Oatmeal Stout. Truly world class.

For those in the Western Half of the US: Rogue Shakespeare Stout. If you like chocolate, the Rogue Chocalate Stout is also really good.

For those in the Midwest: ANY stout from Bell's. They are all out of this world. Kalamazoo is my favorite. Founder's Breakfast Stout is also amazing if you like espresso flavors.

I don't know much about East Coast brewers, but the Victory Storm King Imperial Stout and the Brooklyn Black Chocolate were bote very good Imperial Stouts. Don't know about regular stouts, but I hear good things about the one from Old Dominion.

And instead of Guinness, a widely available stout from across the pond that is much better is Mackeson's.

Monte

[Damon Rondeau]

Spoken like the true connoisseur you are, Sir.

Meanwhile, I agree: a fat bridge.

[lowphatbass]

Well I am not changing my name from LOWPHATBASS to TOOPHATBRIDGE but I will make an appointment to get things checked-out and gone over if needed, additionally I am glad I provided chance for some "brew talk". Often it's the little things that make life enjoyable.