Can you hear the differences in tone between these two bridges?

[sratas]

I completed an assembly build almost a year ago, but I was never quite satisfied with the set up. The action was way too high, and even with the saddles bottomed out, it still couldn’t make it low enough to play reasonably, let alone strike fret.

After some careful inspection I decided to replace the Gotoh 201 high mass bridge with a bent tin that’s been knocking around in my tool box for almost 20 years. It seemed easier than shimming the neck.

As part of the process I decided to record a few clips so that I could compare tone along with the playability. My logic was that if swapping the bridge altered the tone to its detriment, I’d swap it back and then go through the headache of shimming the neck.

What I found was pretty interesting, so I figured I’d share.

For your listening pleasure, I’ve included three clips of me playing my bass in different bridge configurations.

One is bent tin with a proper set up, another is the original Gotoh “high mass”, and a third is the bent tin with too high action as measured by a digital caliper.

The bass in all the clips is the same with the same pickup configuration. The volume is set full out, no tone knob, with 500k pots where appropriate. I recorded the clips with a Tone Port Ux1, into Sonar Home Studio 7 with no effects or processing of any kind.

Can you pick out which bridge in each clip is which?

For bonus points, identify the type of pickup, the fret board wood, and the body wood.

Caveat: the neck is a Warmoth with jumbo stainless frets, and I am a tonewood skeptic.

I decided not to play this game, I think it's another failed attempt to build up a "scientific" test.

You should have to play the same exact way in all clips, like you were a machine or a robot, the same very exact bass line, you have to minimize all bias factors, like neck curvature and intonation in all settings and, one of the most important factors, pickups height.

Maybe some of us can hear some difference, but it's impossible to attribute these to a specific factor.

Believe or not believe, it's your choice, no way to prove or not in a scientific way until someone builds a robot player able to reproduce the same exact playing all times

 

[kurosawa]

It is when I play hard that I hear the differences kick in, both tonal and envelope.

 

[Munjibunga]

... but really, if a piece of equipment is supposed to change your life for fifty to a hundred bucks, it should really jump out at you.

Excellent point. In this case, the consensus seems to be that it doesn't. Hope that helps.

 

[kurosawa]

Yes, excellent. It is this contemporary expectation that one is entitled to life-changing results from anything one spends money on that is the real illusion. Should the entitled one not ask whether, for the money spent, he similarly changed the lives of others? And if not, must such expectation not reveal itself as unrealistic? But a purchase is merely a purchase, as attested to by closets, garages, basements, attics, and storage rentals full of creative and sporting gear that was supposed to create magical results all on its own without the owner's investment of a lifetime of honing the perceptions and skills needed to wring the potential benefit from the gear. Now if you were to poll the owners of that massive pile of stored gear, what would be their consensus on any of it? Would it not be the indignant protest of those who had been conned? But a comparatively tiny minority will have created art and set records with the same gear. They will not have expected automagic to proceed from the items, but would carefully and perceptively have selected and worked with and combined each item to yield what might seem to others a miniscule advantage per item, yet in total, all not crudely adding, but subtly interacting to the player's ends. And the voice of which group will be the consensus?

 

[kurosawa]

So don't play me a computer recording of anything being played by anyone else on whatever bass. Put a thing in my hands, let me install it, test it, work with it, try it with different strings and basses myself with my own chops and ears, THEN ask me.

 

[Deep Cat]

You didn't sound like like jerk. I may have, though. Sorry about that.

I was by no means criticising your playing. Just pointing out some things that really do
make a difference in tone. You, yourself, will have a large effect on your tone. That's all
I meant by "practice time". Time is just as much an investment, as money is when invested
in bridges, strings, pickups, etc.

-

I concede I got my knickers in a bit of an unnecessary twist. I think I myself argue the same point you brought up, which is, I think, if you want to improve your bass, practice more. You'll be amazed at how much better you sound after a few hours a day in the woodshed.

I think a lot of folks search for gear they want to give them a certain tone, or attack, or sustain or whatever when its really mostly in their hands.

 

[Deep Cat]

I decided not to play this game, I think it's another failed attempt to build up a "scientific" test.

You should have to play the same exact way in all clips, like you were a machine or a robot, the same very exact bass line, you have to minimize all bias factors, like neck curvature and intonation in all settings and, one of the most important factors, pickups height.

Maybe some of us can hear some difference, but it's impossible to attribute these to a specific factor.

Believe or not believe, it's your choice, no way to prove or not in a scientific way until someone builds a robot player able to reproduce the same exact playing all times

Please refer to post#7.

 

[Munjibunga]

Yes, excellent. It is this contemporary expectation that one is entitled to life-changing results from anything one spends money on that is the real illusion. Should the entitled one not ask whether, for the money spent, he similarly changed the lives of others? And if not, must such expectation not reveal itself as unrealistic? But a purchase is merely a purchase, as attested to by closets, garages, basements, attics, and storage rentals full of creative and sporting gear that was supposed to create magical results all on its own without the owner's investment of a lifetime of honing the perceptions and skills needed to wring the potential benefit from the gear. Now if you were to poll the owners of that massive pile of stored gear, what would be their consensus on any of it? Would it not be the indignant protest of those who had been conned? But a comparatively tiny minority will have created art and set records with the same gear. They will not have expected automagic to proceed from the items, but would carefully and perceptively have selected and worked with and combined each item to yield what might seem to others a miniscule advantage per item, yet in total, all not crudely adding, but subtly interacting to the player's ends. And the voice of which group will be the consensus?

I bought my Yamaha bass so I could play like Nathan East. It didn't really pan out for me.

 

[chadds]

I bought my Yamaha bass so I could play like Nathan East. It didn't really pan out for me.

LOL

 

[groucho]

Thanks for the effort DC (comparison files) but the thing (as others said) about
comparisons is to eliminate (as best you can ) non relevant variables.
I did this same thing on this thread - Even used the same strings as well as same
record path and settings, but I TRIED (best as I could!) to play the same thing!
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f18/great-bridge-debate-revisited-1008482/