High-Mass Bridges- Loved or Hated?

[totalnoob]

Placebo effect after spending the money etc.

Sadly, yes. Humans are extremely suggestible beings. And if you paid top dollar for X, X is gonna be excellent.

 

[TheArchitect]

I may be missing the context here, but are you saying transfering vibrfations from the strings to the guitar body is desirable? If that is the statement, I disagree - to maintain sustain, you want to keep the vibration energy in the strings, not transfer it to the body. This is diametrically opposite to acoustic guitars, where transfering the vibrations to the body is beneficial for making the sound audible.

Sustain is not the only desirable trait from transfer

 

[DrBnz]

So I've done a few P and J bass upgrades to a high mass bridge. I did NOT hear a significant difference in tone. One of them did require that I install a neck shim as the saddles were now bottoming out - that was a surprise to me. Now on the other side of the argument, I have swapped out a Ric 4003 bridge with a Hipshot. I only wanted to get a clean access to the strings (no mute teeth/screws). But when I got it back together it only took seconds to realize something was drastically different with the tone. I went back to see if my P/U heights were the same (they were). Now I did go from a 8.9lb to a 9.2lb ... so a good difference in weight (more so than a Fender "L" bracket to a high mass). But the 4003 I had chose was the heavier (brass) bridge. No regrets though. I never was impressed with the tone before, but I am now. Which was a surprise, side benefit of the mod.

 

[Marko 1]

I've never changed a stock bridge, but I have an ATK305 (kinda heavy bass) with that massive bridge,

that some have wisely replaced to make it significantly lighter...

but I can't bring myself to do it.

 

[imurrx]

I have a interesting observation. The past couple of weeks I upgraded on y 30 year old Washburn the tuners, bridge (both Hipshot) and replaced the plastic nut with a TUSQ XL.

Here is my completely unscientific subjective observations:

• The Nut: replacing the nut had the biggest change in the sound. Not only the open strings sounded more inline with fretted ones (the open strings sounded way different). It stays in tune better.
• The Tuners: replacing the tuners made it easier to tune by a little, and stays in tune better.
• The Bridge: replacing the bridge one main thing, It changed the sound a little due to the brass saddle instead of the chrome coated metal ones that the bass had.
• Sound from all 3: not much change except the small difference from the brass saddles and the open strings on the nuts. All things considered, only the open strings will be noticed by me while playing. Anyone else will probably say what difference.
• Sustain: Not much changed in the sustain when counting it.
• Resonance: One thing I noticed with all three modifications is the bass vibrates much more than before in a really good way. There were incremental increases with the bridge and tuners, but when the nut changed it made a bigger change. The whole bass acoustically is much louder as well. Yes I know this does not translate into the sound chain.

When I compare this 93' Washburn to my 08' MIM Jazz, the Washburn has longer sustain and sounds a bit louder acoustically.

This is what they have similar:

• alder body
• maple neck, rosewood fretboard
• high mass bridge (both brass)
• open gear tuners
• Rotosound strings same gauge
• bolt on neck
• Nickle silver frets

This is where they differ:

• Washburn is 15 years older than Jazz
• Washburn has a more contact to the neck than the Jazz
• Washburn is a smaller jazz style body with larger control cavity and battery box than the Jazz
• Washburn body is satin clear finish while the Jazz is Midnight red.
• Washburn weighs 8lb 9oz while the Jazz is 9lb 13oz
• Washburn has a slim C neck vs MIM modern C neck while the Jazz is one piece
• Washburn has an angled headstock and the neck has a joint
• Washburn neck as less runout of the ring pattern while the Jazz has runout towards the nut.
• Washburn has TUSQ XL nut and stock for Fender
• Washburn nut is at the end of the board while the Jazz is in the fretboard
• Washburn tuners are 3/8" 1 screw with nut and the Jazz is stock tuners 1/2" 4 screws and ferrules

If I had to take a guess, why the Washburn resonates better is probably because the 30 year old body is completely dried out. There are some cracks in the wood grain from it shrinking over the years. Since there is less moisture in it, would have more resonance. The nut, tuners and bridge is making better contact and not loosing and energy from vibration.

Oh, BTW... the 2008 Fender MIM Jazz sounds better anyway.

 

[funkinbottom]

I use Hipshot aluminum bridges on all my builds because they are light, look good and built well. Personal preference. I've use BA II, bent plate, Gotoh, Wilkinson etc. No significant differences as far as sound/sustain etc. that my ear hears.

 

[kodiakblair]

My observation.

I've owned many Peavey T-40s which along with the Ovation Magnum have the biggest heaviest lumps of metal bolted on in place of a proper bridge. When folks talk T-40, they talk about weight not sustain or any other supposed hi mass bridge property

Not always a bad thing. I built a P-bass last week, Paulowina body, it's light as a feather. Stuck a Fender Hi Mass on it for better balance. Now it hangs nicely yet still comes in just under 7 lbs.

 

[Garret Wheeler]

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.

I've had a two basses with Badass II bridges and one bass that had the Fender version of the badass. I liked them both, but my main bass now has a regular Fender threaded saddle bridge. I've considered putting a Badass bridge on it before, but I don't think they really add much other than looking cool.

 

[C M Stevens]

Zombie thread.

Ask yourself this if you’re a purist. Would Fender make them the standard on their P and J basses now if they weren’t sorta good? They cost more. Does Fender make design changes that increase their manufacturing costs? Is that something Fender would do for no reason?

I would say this: Any manufacturer that wants to stay in business will make what the customer wants, even if the customer's reason for wanting it is misguided - dollars is dollars.

 

[Turnaround]

I don't like the look of bulky bridges. I like to run my strings through the body anyway and that supposed improved sustain thing is not something I'm interested in.

May I ask why you string through the body?

 

[MYLOWFREQ]

May I ask why you string through the body?

First of all, I like them visually.

But more importantly, I've seen a few basses that have the strings pulled the bridge off the body. Strings on a string-through bridge won't pull the bridge off the body, in fact they push it down towards the body making a better contact. The bridge would stay there even without the bridge screws. I think regular bridges are a bad design and all basses should come with the string through body option. My Fenders allow you to string through the body, or the bridge which is the best of both worlds.

 

[58kites]

If strings pull a bridge off a body, there was something seriously wrong with the wood or the screws or the person that drilled the pilot holes...
...or all three.
I am not sure that string through actually does anything that anyone can pick out in a blind test.
But I feel like that is probably true of tone-wood too.

 

[imurrx]

The string through the body for me looks cool.

One more thing on just replacing the bridge, some bridges can be lowered or raised more than others. On the new MJT body / Fender fretless I had to go with a less beefy bridge so I can adjust the action to where I want. I know I could shim the neck, but this works as well.

 

[58kites]

I really never understood the high mass bridge thing.
Thought the Baddass bridge was junk from the first time I touched one.
Putting on aftermarket bridges only make sense to me if they have additional features like a Schaller 3D, some Hipshots, the G&L, or Babicz ...and your current bridge is crap.
The old threaded saddle Fender bridge usually gets good and low action and also allows for string alignment, I think they work very well.

 

[imurrx]

In my MB4 Washburn post earlier in this thread, I forgot to mention to mention this. When I swapped the stock washburn high mass bridge for the Hipshot, I was able to remove the baseball card shim I had to install in the neck. The bass had a angled heel and a basic angled shim would have made it look weird. The Hipshot really made the difference in getting the neck and action to where I really want it.

On my former fretless VM squire, I first started to mod the crap out of it. I found out the Fender high mass bridge did not work well and the stock bent plate was better in getting the action; it could not go low enough. For looks I got a cheap Guyker thick bridge and sanded the bridges a little to get the action where I want it.

My advice is, if you want a different bridge for aesthetics or function go for it. For anything else you are throwing your money away.

 

[WG Plum]

I disliked the string mounting of the bent metal bridge on my bass, I like how Hipshot A bridges work and look, so the swap is being made. Bonus that they come in black.

 

[Geri O]

Where hardware is concerned, I've pretty much stuck with whatever hardware comes on the bass. I don't know if the choices of the hardware they use is for function or for customer-driven desire.

I tend to believe the function idea. Past that, I really don't care. My basses happen to work well with the stock hardware (save for adding a Hipshot Xtender to all of them).

So no loss of sleep over bridge choices here.

 

[RestlessBoom]

I always swap out the stock bridge for a brass Hipshot A style on a bass I plan to play frequently. I play pretty close to the bridge and most stock bridges have their adjustment screws sticking up above the saddles- I’ve ripped up my hand multiple times. Plus, I hate feeding strings through the little holes, so top loaders are important to me. I also swap out the string retainer on the headstock for the same reason.

 

[micguy]

People talk about high mass bridges increasing sustain. Technically, they do, but it's a very small improvement - not nearly as much as you'd think. If you think about it for a second, you realize that a string has two ends (where you can lose energy - the other losses are to the air, which you can't do much about, other than play in a vacuum or high on a mountain) . Sustain is when energy stays in the string - having both ends being as stiff and massive as possible is what keeps energy in the string. When people talk about "coupling vibration into the body", they have it completely backwards - sustain happens when the energy stays in the string, and that means solid anchor points on both ends of the string.

OK, so let's ponder the two ends. On one end, the string is anchored to a massive piece of wood via a big block of metal. On the other end, the string is anchored to a relatively thin piece of wood (worse in a J than in a P or a 5'er), and that anchoring is done via a tiny strip of metal. Where do you think the string loses more energy? Yes, that's right - it loses most of its energy through the fret and neck (at a dead spot, that is doubly true), NOT into the body through the bridge. So, if you want to add sustain, why would you work on the end where the string isn't losing much energy?

If you want more sustain, what you actually need is a thicker, stiffer, more massive neck, and....high mass frets. Anyone who has ever owned a Kramer lumie (aluminum neck) knows this - a stiff, heavy neck is the ticket to unreal sustain (and neck dive).

 

[Bass Ameg]

Many people don't take in consideration that high mass bridges are considerably thicker than bent metal plates and after an "upgrade" to a hm bridge you need to do a neck shim because you can't lower the string action to the previous position anymore.