High-Mass Bridges- Loved or Hated?

[Jordandrinkwine]

I've noticed recently on the Classifieds and in other recent NBD posts that a lot of people have been swapping out the High-Mass bridges on their basses for "stock" bent-metal bridges, while for other people the first thing they do when they get a new bass is install a High-Mass bridge. Are there any of you out there that just HATE the High-Mass styled bridges like the Badass/Omegas? I know people say the High-Mass bridges give you more sustain, but are there any other advantages/disadvantages to them that I just haven't heard of? FWIW, I have one bass with the Fender version of the Badass on it and I don't particularly find it to have better sustain than any of my other basses.

 

[Gorn]

Increased adjustability is a demonstrable benefit of many bridges. Any other benefits that are often brought up are shenanigans, IMO. A threaded saddle bent plate is all you need.

 

[BassLover668]

Adds tons of mojo and shine LOL.
Only experimented can notice that if you close your eyes.

 

[bolophonic]

I buy bridges that look good for the bass I'm building. My favorite is the Fender brass bridge from their "Special" series in the early 80's. I also like Schaller roller bridges and G&L bridges.

 

[Batmensch]

The reason I see most often for switching back to a stock bridge from a HM bridge, is that the HMB didn't improve the tone and/or sustain like they were led to believe, offering little to no difference, and in a lot of cases. a "worsening" (if that's a word) of the tone, i.e., the original bridge sounded better. Basically, expectations were not met because of excessive hype.

 

[Jazz Ad]

I like bridges that stay in tune and are easy to adjust on the fly.
Saddly, a lot of supposed upgrades are a nightmare to setup.
I prefer high mass, top loading bridges but I won't sacrifice an easy setup to them.

 

[Warhawk]

I can do without the high mass bridges for the most part, unless the bass came with a good one like G&L. I do like the Fender high mass bridge that I got in a package deal of parts from a 2005 US P-Bass. It looks like a regular bent Fender bridge just thicker and has threaded saddles. It's on my '99 MIM P and while I'd like to say it magically made the tone better it sounds the same as with the original bridge. Besides the advantage of the threaded saddles, I simply like the look of the thicker bridge.

 

[2saddleslab]

Different strokes, depends on what works for you.

 

[MCF]

Increased adjustability is a demonstrable benefit of many bridges. Any other benefits that are often brought up are shenanigans, IMO. A threaded saddle bent plate is all you need.

Right again, Gorn.

 

[Turnaround]

Sustain vs Resonance

That's the story. A high mass bridge that offers more sustain transfers less energy to the body of the instrument. That means that such a system will not gain as much character from the resonance of the instrument's body. Now it's a question of whether there is a enough of a difference to either the sustain or resonance that you would notice or care about either way.

 

[buldog5151bass]

I bought a used Fender back 30 years ago. Last winter I restored it, and replaced the BadAssII with a vintage style bridge. Other than the weight, no difference.

 

[sissy kathy]

Hate is a strong word, more like indifference. I can't hear a change, so if the bridge that came on it does the job, there's no reason for me to use another.

 

[Groove Doctor]

I can change strings faster with my Badass II bridge. It saves me at least 60 seconds when I change them every year or so. Money well spent!!

 

[bassie12]

I recently ordered a custom finished '54 p-bass style body from a popular maker. They botched the positioning of the through body holes. This was the second body from the maker. The first had the wrong shaped neck pocket. This created a challenge for standard style bridge placement. The easiest solution was a Hipshot Kickass typye bridge. Sounds great, though I'm not convinced it sounds BETTER than a standard bridge. Looks like ass, IMO. Oh well.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

The bridge on my G&L L2k is as good as I'll ever need, and a clear improvement over a Fender bent plate. Leo invented both, I don't supppse he would have bothered if he didn't think it was worth the effort. Solid chunk of metal rabbeted into the body, easily adjusted, and locking saddles. Done.

 

[DaveAceofBass]

Hi mass bridges are more even sounding, have a little more sustain, and are a bit more snappy sounding. Low mass bridges are more punchy sounding, there is more attack/articulation to the note. However these are not rules because other construction factors can affect the bass tone. I prefer medium weight bridges. The Babicz, aluminum Hipshots (with brass saddles), and the Sadowsky bridge (all brass and custom made for Sadowsky by Hipshot, but a slimmed down version compared to other Hipshot bridges) are all excellent. I compared the aluminum B-style to the brass one, and prefer the aluminum.

 

[Jazz Ad]

A high mass bridge that offers more sustain transfers less energy to the body of the instrument.

I don't understand how you reach this conclusion but I'm interested.
Mechanically it makes no sense to me. Denser materials vibrate less, thus transfer MORE energy faster toward the body.
Thinner metal tends to vibrate, negating some frequencies and that's where the supposed personnality and loss in sustain would come from.
I appreciate to feeling of a solid bridge but I can't say I ever noticed a big difference in tone.

 

[Lord Chopper]

Honestly I just like them for the adjustability and the looks. IMO some bases just look better with a big chunk of chrome sitting at the bottom. On the other hand, other bases look better with a bit of finesse and style and a delicate bridge. For me it depends on the bass and the style, then I'm all about the high mass, agin, purely for style and adjustability. Like a Jazz bass, IMO it has to have a big chunky bridge.

 

[Turnaround]

I don't understand how you reach this conclusion but I'm interested.
Mechanically it makes no sense to me. Denser materials vibrate less, thus transfer MORE energy faster toward the body.
Thinner metal tends to vibrate, negating some frequencies and that's where the supposed personnality and loss in sustain would come from.
I appreciate to feeling of a solid bridge but I can't say I ever noticed a big difference in tone.

The more mass there is in the bridge, the less it will vibrate. Think of an acoustic guitar top. A thick one doesn't vibrate well and produces less sound. A thin one offers more sound because it vibrates better.

In order to transfer energy, which is in the form of a vibration, a material has to be able to vibrate freely. If it's not vibrating it can't pass it on. And there is no other form of energy involved, so no vibration in the bridge means no vibration to the body.

 

[39-Bassist]

I like what I get from my Hi mass bridges...but it is just a personal taste.
I have heard great sustain and tones from both types of bridges, so it tells me it is matter of taste, how playable it is and what the rest of the basses parts and woods are combined.