David Gage on his site says that the bridge, viewed from the side, should be a tall, thin pyramid -- to me, that suggests an isosceles triangle, with the two faces being equal.
The bridge that came with my new bass is anything but: it's flat on the bottom and gently arc-ed on the top. I fitted it, as is, to the bass -- the feet fit perfectly in between the notches at the F-holes, which suggests to me that the feet don't need any further shaping. However, the string height (E-string) is a good 2 cm at the fb end; clearly, I need to lower it -- I have found a few ways to do this; but I've found nothing here which tells me whether I should sand the face of the bridge (i.e. the arc-ed face) to get the so-called pyramid. And, even if I sand the one face flat, the bridge won't be a pyramid (i.e. an isoscles triangle) but rather a scalene triangle (i.e. with not sides of equal length), and a 90 degree angle, where the bottom face of the bridge meets the body of the instrument).
Thanks everyone.
GeoffK
The bridge that came with my new bass is anything but: it's flat on the bottom and gently arc-ed on the top. I fitted it, as is, to the bass -- the feet fit perfectly in between the notches at the F-holes, which suggests to me that the feet don't need any further shaping. However, the string height (E-string) is a good 2 cm at the fb end; clearly, I need to lower it -- I have found a few ways to do this; but I've found nothing here which tells me whether I should sand the face of the bridge (i.e. the arc-ed face) to get the so-called pyramid. And, even if I sand the one face flat, the bridge won't be a pyramid (i.e. an isoscles triangle) but rather a scalene triangle (i.e. with not sides of equal length), and a 90 degree angle, where the bottom face of the bridge meets the body of the instrument).
Thanks everyone.
GeoffK
