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.
Double Bass bridge shapes
- Thread starter basic74
- Start date
Removing the bridge wings tends to make the bass sound bright and a bit raucous. Those wings act as a sort of low-pass filter. Kurt Muroki has a bridge like that on his solo bass (along with Spirocore solo strings); he likes to be heard! (And deserves to be.)
I love the bridge Arnold made for me which is on his fantastic Ergonomic bass #4. You should hear the bass now... HUGE. Great for orchestra and solo. Anything! Anyway he made two bridge tops... one regular and one with no wings. No question for solo, the no wings wins. Louder, more ring, greater resonance. Also the bass feels free and more open. Just threw orchestra strings on the bass. The kids think it sounds like a canon out at IU. I let one of them borrow it and the others were shocked at what a huge open sound it had.
I don't think it's about the weight. Those wings hang out there and vibrate. Because they are small they vibrate more at higher frequencies. If you remove them, less high-frequency energy is "robbed" from the instrument. Some violin makers are very aware of this and tune the bridge wings as part of a tonal adjustment.
"The procedure" (as it was referred to when I had it done at Orford one summer) works well for some instruments and some bassists, and not for others. Generally speaking, it is one of several pieces of the "5ths/Joel Quarrington School sound" and it usually leads to a brighter sound with more projection and presence. A "good candidate" as defined by Joel and the guy with the hack saw, is a bass that is lacking some definition, is darker than desired, or is slow to speak. My bass was such a candidate at the time, and the results were quite positive. Spending two weeks with Joel Quarrington focusing on technique for three hours every morning, followed by private practice, ensemble playing, and mini lessons likely didn't hurt either.
That bridge lasted for a few more years, but had some problems from day one. I had a new bridge cut that had wings, but was described as "low mass" by the luthier who was also a student of Joel's. It looks more like a traditional bridge, but the luthier has reduced the weight of it by a similar amount to removing the wings. While the bridge was much better shaped and fitted than the original bridge I had on my bass, it retained a lot of the characteristics of the old bridge. It just wasn't warped with a funny hump in the middle, fit the radius of the fingerboard better, the feet are apparently more appropriately spaced etc.
I am not entirely sure if it is because of the reduced mass, or because the current bridge is far better than the older bridge. I also do not know how much impact the wings being there or gone or there again has had on the instrument, as it occurred during my undergrad, and comparing my sound from the beginning of my degree to the end is apples to oranges. Hopefully that was a little clearer than mud.
That bridge lasted for a few more years, but had some problems from day one. I had a new bridge cut that had wings, but was described as "low mass" by the luthier who was also a student of Joel's. It looks more like a traditional bridge, but the luthier has reduced the weight of it by a similar amount to removing the wings. While the bridge was much better shaped and fitted than the original bridge I had on my bass, it retained a lot of the characteristics of the old bridge. It just wasn't warped with a funny hump in the middle, fit the radius of the fingerboard better, the feet are apparently more appropriately spaced etc.
I am not entirely sure if it is because of the reduced mass, or because the current bridge is far better than the older bridge. I also do not know how much impact the wings being there or gone or there again has had on the instrument, as it occurred during my undergrad, and comparing my sound from the beginning of my degree to the end is apples to oranges. Hopefully that was a little clearer than mud.
mikecanada, thanks for the interesting reading.
seems my bass is a good candidate. of course there´s no undo, so I am a bit unsure. if I don´t like the results I need a new bridge, but no risk no fun
anyway, would removing half of the wings be a step in between, like opening the low passfilter to 12 o´clock on the knob instead of all the way?
seems my bass is a good candidate. of course there´s no undo, so I am a bit unsure. if I don´t like the results I need a new bridge, but no risk no fun
anyway, would removing half of the wings be a step in between, like opening the low passfilter to 12 o´clock on the knob instead of all the way?
Removing wood from the long underside of the wing makes the resonance frequency (and so the absorbed frequency) lower. Removing wood from the open end of the wing will raise the resonance frequency of the wing.
Removing the wing totally will remove the frequency absorption of the wing.
Personally, I doubt you will hear small modifications in the sound of the bass, but when you pluck the wing you can hear the resonant frequency that gets absorbed/damped, so you might be able to tune the wings/absorbing frequencies a bit better than by just trying to remove wood and listen to the bass sound only.
Removing the wing totally will remove the frequency absorption of the wing.
Personally, I doubt you will hear small modifications in the sound of the bass, but when you pluck the wing you can hear the resonant frequency that gets absorbed/damped, so you might be able to tune the wings/absorbing frequencies a bit better than by just trying to remove wood and listen to the bass sound only.
I used a hobby store razor saw to remove the wings on my bass. I found out why it is called rock maple.
My bass room is on the 2nd floor of my house. My wife was in the basement on the computer.
After I had cut them off, I started playing a lot to feel and hear the difference. Everything seemed easier and it was much easier to hear and play notes in-tune with a definite pitch and louder. (This also makes errors much more apparent!)
My wife came upstairs and said, "Hey, what happened? I can hear individual notes rather than a stream of rumbles."
______________________________________________
I used this set up for years and switching to a wire tailpiece doubled the playability again.
However, a frequent bassist stand-partner noticed a noticeable metallic quality to my sound.
My former teacher Ed Tait has Dragonetti's Panormo from 1824. (it most likely played the Hayden London Symphonies first, possibly Beethoven's No. 9 recits, too!) noticed in a picture of Dragonetti playing a bass, the bridge's feet did not flare out as usual.
He had the feet of his bridge cut so the shank goes straight down to the belly. The width of the feet are the same as the width of the bass-bar and the soundpost.
He said the wings of the feet suppress the vibrations right away. By removing them, the belly wood starts moving quicker and more freely.
The lb/sq.in. pressure under the feet also increases significantly driving the vibrations from the strings directly into the bass-bar and soundpost . This spreads the sound to the rest of the instrument more quickly.
I had a new bridge cut like this and it works great. All the response and sound improvements of the Joel bridge but no harshness.
Also, it looks like a normal bridge and no one gives you a ***? look.
My bass room is on the 2nd floor of my house. My wife was in the basement on the computer.
After I had cut them off, I started playing a lot to feel and hear the difference. Everything seemed easier and it was much easier to hear and play notes in-tune with a definite pitch and louder. (This also makes errors much more apparent!)
My wife came upstairs and said, "Hey, what happened? I can hear individual notes rather than a stream of rumbles."
______________________________________________
I used this set up for years and switching to a wire tailpiece doubled the playability again.
However, a frequent bassist stand-partner noticed a noticeable metallic quality to my sound.
My former teacher Ed Tait has Dragonetti's Panormo from 1824. (it most likely played the Hayden London Symphonies first, possibly Beethoven's No. 9 recits, too!) noticed in a picture of Dragonetti playing a bass, the bridge's feet did not flare out as usual.
He had the feet of his bridge cut so the shank goes straight down to the belly. The width of the feet are the same as the width of the bass-bar and the soundpost.
He said the wings of the feet suppress the vibrations right away. By removing them, the belly wood starts moving quicker and more freely.
The lb/sq.in. pressure under the feet also increases significantly driving the vibrations from the strings directly into the bass-bar and soundpost . This spreads the sound to the rest of the instrument more quickly.
I had a new bridge cut like this and it works great. All the response and sound improvements of the Joel bridge but no harshness.
Also, it looks like a normal bridge and no one gives you a ***? look.
Late jumping in, but found this article, which talks about wings, modes of vibration, and frequencies.
https://violinbridges.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/bin.pdf
https://violinbridges.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/bin.pdf
