Brass vs. aluminum

bgartist · #1 03-21-2007, 03:59 PM

I'm cosidering a Warmoth project and want to use a Hipshot model A or B bridge. They come in either aluminum or brass. What difference will either make to tone? I know Mike Tobias uses the B bridge on MTDs. Does anyone know if he uses aluminum or brass?

Musiclogic · #2 03-21-2007, 10:56 PM

Don't know what Mike uses, I beleve it is generally Brass.

Brass is much heavier, and that should translate to more sustain. NOW, THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION, but Brass, "To Me" has a fuller sound over aluminum. Aluminum has always sounded "tinny"to me. But this is only my opinion.

BassicJohn · #3 03-22-2007, 06:55 AM

I agree. It seems that aluminum reinforces the treble slightly, but it is a subtle difference.

Modern Growl · #4 03-22-2007, 07:00 AM

Mike uses aluminum. His words "It sounds more Fender, more open"

Bryan316 · #5 03-22-2007, 07:29 AM

Well, they don't make aluminum trumpets or tubas or trombones or saxophones, they make em outta brass. I don't always agree with tradition, which is why I hate Fenders, but sometimes, you still gotta stick with a few traditional materials and methods. And brass is one of them. Wood is the other. Those two in combination have worked for centuries, so that's what I'm following.

Also, for what it's worth, I ordered up my Hipshot A-Style 5-string bridge in brass, coated black.

wilser · #6 03-22-2007, 07:54 AM

of course, brass instruments generate the sound from their brass frame, bells, etc. A bass bridge is only part of the equation. I find no audible difference between brass and aluminum, and I generally use the latter (unless being specifically asked to use the former) because of it's weight.

Fender bridges are not brass (I think they used brass saddles at one point) so where's the tradition?

zac2944 · #7 03-22-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilser

of course, brass instruments generate the sound from their brass frame, bells, etc. A bass bridge is only part of the equation. I find no audible difference between brass and aluminum, and I generally use the latter (unless being specifically asked to use the former) because of it's weight.

Fender bridges are not brass (I think they used brass saddles at one point) so where's the tradition?

+1

IMHO, in a blind test you would never hear the difference.

The Craw · #8 03-22-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zac2944

IMHO, in a blind test you would never hear the difference.

Depends. A heavier bridge means more inertia, which means more sustain and less energy transferred to the body. So if all things were equal -- like using the exact same design Hipshot bridge, one in brass, one in aluminum -- and if the difference in weight between the two bridges were enough, IMHO most people would hear a difference.

wilser · #9 03-22-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Craw

Depends. A heavier bridge means more inertia, which means more sustain and less energy transferred to the body.
...

Funny you should say that, because most people I've heard say that a heavier (eg. brass) bridge would transfer MORE energy towards the body, hence the increase in sustain.

pilotjones · #10 03-23-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilser

Funny you should say that, because most people I've heard say that a heavier (eg. brass) bridge would transfer MORE energy towards the body, hence the increase in sustain.

That's wrong, at least in theory. People may be generally thinking about transmitting energy vs. absorbing it. But there is also reflecting. A heavy, stiff termination would do the best job of reflecting energy back into the string, so it never leaves the string to be absorbed or transmitted. And therefore, result in long sustain.

Beyond theory, in real life, is a different matter!

wilser · #11 03-23-2007, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilotjones

That's wrong, at least in theory. People may be generally thinking about transmitting energy vs. absorbing it. But there is also reflecting. A heavy, stiff termination would do the best job of reflecting energy back into the string, so it never leaves the string to be absorbed or transmitted. And therefore, result in long sustain.

Beyond theory, in real life, is a different matter!

yeah, that wasn't my theory, as I said before, I don't think there's a real audible difference, I just relayed what I've heard other people saying ...but your analysis sounds dead on ...after all, you ARE the LC certified in house engineer

zac2944 · #12 03-23-2007, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Craw

Depends. A heavier bridge means more inertia, which means more sustain and less energy transferred to the body. So if all things were equal -- like using the exact same design Hipshot bridge, one in brass, one in aluminum -- and if the difference in weight between the two bridges were enough, IMHO most people would hear a difference.

Inertia? Energy Transfer? Are you serious?

It makes sense that a heavier bridge means less energy transfer to the body and more sustain. But how much difference does it really make.

Here's what you have to think about, wouldn't the bridge and the body of the bass be the same mass as far as the string is concerned? To some degree, wouldn't the bass player's body even effects the mass that the string sees at the bridge end (boundry conditions). If you consider this, changing from a 5 ounce bridge to an 8 ouncs bridge gives you another 3 ounces of mass at the end of the string. An average bass body weighs about 80 ounces (5lbs) without paint, pickups, etc. If the string sees the body and bridge as the same mass, changing the bridge takes you from an 85 ounce mass to an 83 ounce mass. That's only a 3% difference.

Another thing to consider is that most of the energy that the string loses is through the neck end of the string. source

I've swapped bridges before (Fender to Bad Ass II) and honestly didn't hear any noticable change in tone or sustain.

I'd love to do an experiment. Maybe record two basses, one with a stock fender bridge and another with a heavier Bad Ass, and compare their decay rates. Could that be done accurately enough on a home digital recording system?

Just because I don't hear it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I could totally be wrong here.

The Craw · #13 03-23-2007, 08:26 PM

Yes, of course I'm serious. Sustain and body resonance always move in opposite directions. You can't have more of both, it's more of one or the other.

Why do Alembics have a heavy brass bridge which attaches to a heavy brass inertia plate sunk into the body? Their stated purpose is to neutralize the body wood, so it will be as small a factor as possible. The heavy bridge/plate combo prevents a good bit of string energy transfer to the body. Less resonance, more sustain.

Why do true acoustics have light wooden bridges? So they can transfer more energy to the body and move the necessary air. But of course that drastically reduces sustain.

But you're missing the point talking about comparing a Badass II vs. a Fender bridge. They're two different bridge designs (and the Badass II isn't that heavy anyway, it's diecast zinc, not brass). When I said all things being equal I mean the exact same bridge design but in different weights, like the Hipshot in brass or aluminum.

I agree that some string energy is lost at the neck end, but that has nothing to do with a discussion of bridges.

pilotjones · #14 03-23-2007, 09:28 PM

Zac does have a point, though. If the bridge is firmly affixed to the body, as it normally is, then the bridge and body do in many ways act as one mass. And then the bridge's mass might be largely overshadowed by that of the body. In this case then, the most significant factor of difference might not be the actual mass of the bridge plate, but its stiffness.

ehque · #15 03-23-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pilotjones

That's wrong, at least in theory. People may be generally thinking about transmitting energy vs. absorbing it. But there is also reflecting. A heavy, stiff termination would do the best job of reflecting energy back into the string, so it never leaves the string to be absorbed or transmitted. And therefore, result in long sustain.

Beyond theory, in real life, is a different matter!

now here's the problem. brass is heavier, yes, but isnt aluminium stiffer? haha.

Angus · #16 03-23-2007, 11:31 PM

No, brass is in general stiffer than aluminum, but aluminum is harder.

throbgod13 · #17 03-24-2007, 01:03 AM

amazing..

use what you think will sound/feel the best in your situation..

i replaced my stock fender bridge on my J with a BAII, and noticed an instant change in overall tone.. IMO, for the better..

jim primate · #18 04-05-2007, 01:13 AM

i like the whole neck made of aluminum. i think my bridge is brass.

i don't know, what're shaller roller bridges?

Bryan316 · #19 04-05-2007, 07:50 AM

So who's ready to make the investment, and buy two exact copies of the same bridge?

I'd say, two Hipshot A-Style bridges, used on the same bass. Finish everything up, bolt on the brass, record. Immediately, remove that brass bridge and swap the aluminum one, and re-record. Don't change ANY settings in the recording environment, just the bridge. Post results, and that's the only way anyone's ever gonna believe that there is or is not a difference.

Suburban · #20 04-07-2007, 02:52 AM

Well, that test is invelid because you do change things like action, intonation and string tension when you change the bridge.
In a real life situation, you will notice a difference due to a heap of reasons.
Go with what feels best for you. For me, weight is a factor, and that makes a hard alu my choice.

I could go on on this topic for a few weeks, facts and experinces stacked on eachother, but finally, I'd be back on the same page.