Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Badass Bridge III, Not Recommended
- Thread starter Bassbwithu
- Start date
What a total lack of respect...but, in defense of my review.
1. The neck on my bass was already shimmed, but irregardless, the sheer size of the saddles simply don't allow for the full range of motion that other bridges allow.
2. I should mention that all my strings are TOP loaded. You won't experience ALL of these problems string through.
3. The issue with the strings not lining up is not an issue as far as placement over the pole pieces. You are simply locked into use 1 slot. If you want to change spacing, your string will "bend" or "break" before the saddle.
1. The neck on my bass was already shimmed, but irregardless, the sheer size of the saddles simply don't allow for the full range of motion that other bridges allow.
2. I should mention that all my strings are TOP loaded. You won't experience ALL of these problems string through.
3. The issue with the strings not lining up is not an issue as far as placement over the pole pieces. You are simply locked into use 1 slot. If you want to change spacing, your string will "bend" or "break" before the saddle.
Please keep in mind, I'm referring to the Badass III. I've owned the Badass II, and I did not have these problems.
I've got a bass with an original Badass I (One). That one is NOT a drop in replacement, though I didn't know it at the time I bought it in like 1990. It's extremely tall, and even with saddles all the way down the action was unplayably high.
Back in the days before the Internet, there was no information to be had. I suspect that there wasn't even a Bass Player Magazine in 90. There was nobody to ask. It never occurred to me to shim a neck.
So, I did what seemed most reasonable. I took it to my father's house and had him route a 1/4" deep bridge shaped depression in the face of my bass. Bridge sits down in that, saddles got RAISED, and action was perfect.
The change in the character of the bass was remarkable, compared to the cheap bent metal bridge on my Yamaha BB300. You could FEEL the string vibration much more when you played.
I've always thought that the "poly vs. nitro, thin skin, your finish is robbing tone" camp are completely loony. I do, however, suspect that having the base of the bridge in direct contact with raw wood can only be a good thing.
I've got a Squire P that I'm pondering upgrades. I had been thinking BA, since I love my other one so much. I may do a bit more digging.
EDIT: (Preview and Post are RIGHT NEXT to each other):
The thing I don't like about neck shimming is that in a perfect neck join, the flat of the back of the neck heel is fully in contact with the flat of the neck pocket, transferring vibrations completely over the entire surface.
You shim a neck, that joint is now transmitting vibrations along the very edge of the neck pocket, and through whatever size and material your shim has. I'm no physicist, but that can't be optimal.
My Squier P was shimmed, theoretically at the factory, with a tiny piece of plastic between the two neck screws toward the bridge.
My own personal theory is that every place you've got two pieces connected, you benefit from maximum contact and vibration transfer, and shims just don't cut it.
Back in the days before the Internet, there was no information to be had. I suspect that there wasn't even a Bass Player Magazine in 90. There was nobody to ask. It never occurred to me to shim a neck.
So, I did what seemed most reasonable. I took it to my father's house and had him route a 1/4" deep bridge shaped depression in the face of my bass. Bridge sits down in that, saddles got RAISED, and action was perfect.
The change in the character of the bass was remarkable, compared to the cheap bent metal bridge on my Yamaha BB300. You could FEEL the string vibration much more when you played.
I've always thought that the "poly vs. nitro, thin skin, your finish is robbing tone" camp are completely loony. I do, however, suspect that having the base of the bridge in direct contact with raw wood can only be a good thing.
I've got a Squire P that I'm pondering upgrades. I had been thinking BA, since I love my other one so much. I may do a bit more digging.
EDIT: (Preview and Post are RIGHT NEXT to each other):
The thing I don't like about neck shimming is that in a perfect neck join, the flat of the back of the neck heel is fully in contact with the flat of the neck pocket, transferring vibrations completely over the entire surface.
You shim a neck, that joint is now transmitting vibrations along the very edge of the neck pocket, and through whatever size and material your shim has. I'm no physicist, but that can't be optimal.
My Squier P was shimmed, theoretically at the factory, with a tiny piece of plastic between the two neck screws toward the bridge.
My own personal theory is that every place you've got two pieces connected, you benefit from maximum contact and vibration transfer, and shims just don't cut it.
I saw several people either ignoring or simply not noticing that you were talking about a III, not a II.
I agree that overly thick saddles is a problem. Thanks for the review, I'm sure some people appreciated it.
Rickett Customs
Commercial User
there's a dutch builder(great builder!) who did an experiment... placed an inner tube of a bike inside the neck pocket(so kinda like a shim) bolted it all down, strung the bass up.... nobody there could hear a difference! and I've never ever noticed a difference in sound with shims...
but back on topic: I have had a BAII: the high adjustment screws completely stripped the inside of the saddles, making them useless: new saddles are almost as expensive as a new bridge... and all the black fell off...
and on the one I have now(came stock on my high way 1) the string break angle is kinda scary looking to be honest...
When I needed some part for a bass I don't have anymore, I called and Leo's son picked up. Was very friendly, sent whatever it was I needed out for free, and it came fast.
Their customer service is great, but their operation is VERY small.
Their customer service is great, but their operation is VERY small.
- Aug 21, 2003
- 11,587
- 18,604
- Disclosures
- A-Designs Mike Lull GK Tsunami Cables GHS Strings RMI Basswitch Nordstrand Pickups Darkglass
The only compelling feature of those Quan bridges with today's choices is that they say "BADASS" on them.
And if you're a "BADASS", high action and bulky bridges do not faze you.
Also, if one truly is 'badass', does one need a label saying so?
BTW, I have a 73 P w/a BA-I; it's sunk into a route in the body. I've seen this fairly often on BA installations. That being said, it was apparently sunk a bit deeper than ideal- the height screws stuck way out until I had the neck shimmed to effectively raise the strings.
the badass came out in the early to mid seventies man. at the time they rocked hard.
sure there are other ones now. never tried a baIII. but my first p-bass in the seventies got a dimarzio pup and a badassII and a brass nut installed about 1 hour after i bought it.i think when i installed my baII it did't have any slots in the saddles. that's what swiss files are for.
maybe the baIII works better for a bass with some neck tilt built into it or maybe an arched top. if the strings didn't line up with pup poles then wrong spacing for your bass?
no ap notes or material available in catalogs or on-line?
sure there are other ones now. never tried a baIII. but my first p-bass in the seventies got a dimarzio pup and a badassII and a brass nut installed about 1 hour after i bought it.i think when i installed my baII it did't have any slots in the saddles. that's what swiss files are for.
maybe the baIII works better for a bass with some neck tilt built into it or maybe an arched top. if the strings didn't line up with pup poles then wrong spacing for your bass?
no ap notes or material available in catalogs or on-line?
Thanks to the OP for the review and heads up on the BA III.
I am not sure how much hype there is over Leo Quan bridges. I will say that he was the first to realize the benefits of having a high mass bridge and created replacements for the crap Fender was using in the 70's. Long before any one else did, probably before a lot of you were born. For that, he deserves kudos.
It was largely because of him, that Fender began to up the quality of their bridges in the 80s.
True enough that gotoh, schaller and others are making good bridges for less than what a BA II goes for.
Leo Quan was a trailblazer though and for that, he earned a place in bass history.
Also, if one truly is 'badass', does one need a label saying so?
Not for your personal glorification, but as a herald of badassery for others.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
I did.
I did as well. Im putting a new bridge on my Squier, decided on the Gotoh 201, just arrived last night, so I get the joy of putting it on today!
Going to have to put in my 2 cents on this one.
There is absolutely nothing wrong w/ the BA III, as I put it on my American Standard Jazz, and while the action was too high at first, a slight shim (those complaining, do you know how to shim a neck?) now I can bring my action as low as I like it, hitting the frets if I want and the saddles are still raised off the base of the bridge.
The pole piece issue is another complaint I don't understand. There's multiple groves on the saddles to line them up, are you not using them? And if you are, and your worried about a 1/4 a millimeter it may be off, then nobody can help you.
Is it worth the price of admission? I prefer a high mass vs. low mass bridge (while the stock Fender bridge is also absolutely fine (not its not "flimsy", quite sturdy and very functional) its just not my bag tone wise).
There is absolutely nothing wrong w/ the BA III, as I put it on my American Standard Jazz, and while the action was too high at first, a slight shim (those complaining, do you know how to shim a neck?) now I can bring my action as low as I like it, hitting the frets if I want and the saddles are still raised off the base of the bridge.
The pole piece issue is another complaint I don't understand. There's multiple groves on the saddles to line them up, are you not using them? And if you are, and your worried about a 1/4 a millimeter it may be off, then nobody can help you.
Is it worth the price of admission? I prefer a high mass vs. low mass bridge (while the stock Fender bridge is also absolutely fine (not its not "flimsy", quite sturdy and very functional) its just not my bag tone wise).
For those supporting the Gotoh 201, now THATS a bridge where the pole pieces definitely wont match up. That bridge, time and time again is always too narrow.
