• 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.

High Mass Bridges vs. Vintage Bridges

#21
There is probably some "placebo effect" going on with the high mass bridges. People hear that a HMB is going to improve their bass. They spend their money on one. It *looks* like it ought to make a difference. They install it, and they think they hear a positive difference whether they do or not because they thought they would and they spent the money.

I am not sure if it makes a difference or not. I kind of think that it probably makes very little difference. That said, I will soon be trying one of the Squier himass bridges that come on the 50s CV on my VM Precision. I doubt it will make any real difference I can hear, but I like the look.
 
#24
A lot of people confuse loose-saddle, high mass bridges with lockdown bridges like the Babicz or the old Gotoh's. Lockdown bridges can be made of lighter materials (the Gotoh is made of pot metal), and seem designed to connect the string more firmly to the body resonance, rather than isolating it like a Badass.

Either way, the differences are audible to me, but different doesn't necessarily mean better. Given the magnitude of the acoustic differences between supposedly identical Fenders, IMO the difference between bridges is just a seasoning, like choosing toppings for a Sundae.

I have an Ibanez ATK, which takes the "high mass" concept to its logical conclusion- the finish encases the body in a thick, brittle plastic staightjacket, and the bridge is massive. There are two grooves to keep the saddles from sliding side to side, but they're still loose from the backplate, like a Fender. The body is pretty much isolated from tone production, so it's all down to strings and electronics.

Somewhere in the middle, I had an AV '62 P-bass a while ago, with a light nitro finish over a fairly light alder body and the vintage "threaded saddle" bridge. The saddles were only coupled to the body mass by string tension, but there wasn't a ton of metal in the way.

At the far extreme from the ATK, the 5-string in my sig is a heavy neck-thru singlecut with an oil finish, and a light pot-metal Gotoh lockdown bridge. The wood-to-metal ratio is very high, and there's pretty much zero interference between the wood and the strings.

I like all three basses. The ATK sounds very "active", and the sustain is good but not great. Still, it's got an interesting range of tones, and it's great for fast, burpy 16th note lines. The Fender had about the same amount of sustain (and similar dead spots!), but with a classic passive P-bass tone, very woody and articulate. Meanwhile, the heavy neck-thru has a more woody character than the ATK (even though it's loaded with active EMG's), but not as much as the Fender. The biggest difference, is that it's so lively and has so much sustain, that it's hard to choke it back for staccato stuff. Great for legato lines, but it stinks for the burpy stuff where the ATK and Fender excel.

Back in Fenderland, a bridge change might have moved the AV '62 a tad in one direction or the other, but it certainly wouldn't have made it sound like the ATK, or my "Rolfodera"...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexanderB
#26
michaeln said:
There is probably some "placebo effect" going on with the high mass bridges. People hear that a HMB is going to improve their bass. They spend their money on one. It *looks* like it ought to make a difference. They install it, and they think they hear a positive difference whether they do or not because they thought they would and they spent the money.

I am not sure if it makes a difference or not. I kind of think that it probably makes very little difference. That said, I will soon be trying one of the Squier himass bridges that come on the 50s CV on my VM Precision. I doubt it will make any real difference I can hear, but I like the look.
Click to expand...

By saying there may be some "placebo effect" going on, you are really saying that it's all in one's head.
Have you ever swapped out a standard Fender bridge for a Higher mass one? You should. I have, and there is a difference in punch & sustain on my Jazzes. It's not just in the head, trying to justify a $100 Badass replacement bridge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexanderB
#27
Then how do you explain all those ads selling Badass II bridges I am constantly seeing because the people found it didn't work as it's supposed to. The comment I see most often from folks who have tried them and ende up selling them is the BA II's added a "little" sustain but nothing else. Seems to me from all I've read is that the BA II's are not what they are cracked up to be.
 
#28
I prefer the new Fender Bridges to the original ones, but mostly because of the string through and the fact that adjustments are a bit smoother than my 40 year old one.

I have tried the badass bridge and didn’t like it at all, but I really like the hipshot A.

I can hear a difference between them.
But really, at stage volume with a band, your audience won’t know the difference.

MM
 
#29
C.Linton said:
Then how do you explain all those ads selling Badass II bridges I am constantly seeing because the people found it didn't work as it's supposed to. The comment I see most often from folks who have tried them and ende up selling them is the BA II's added a "little" sustain but nothing else. Seems to me from all I've read is that the BA II's are not what they are cracked up to be.
Click to expand...

The BAII is just one of the many High-mass bridges on the market, and probably the best known.
All I can tell you about is my own personal experience with them. I also have a couple basses with no-name HMB's that do the same. I just happen to like a "brighter, snappier, crispier" tone than some players do. The standard Fender style bridges are fine. They would'nt have remained virtually the same for 60 years if they were flawed in any way.
It's nice to have so many choices of gear & accessories.
Otherwise, everything and everyone would sound the same!
 
#32
michaeln said:
There is probably some "placebo effect" going on with the high mass bridges. People hear that a HMB is going to improve their bass. They spend their money on one. It *looks* like it ought to make a difference. They install it, and they think they hear a positive difference whether they do or not because they thought they would and they spent the money.

I am not sure if it makes a difference or not. I kind of think that it probably makes very little difference. That said, I will soon be trying one of the Squier himass bridges that come on the 50s CV on my VM Precision. I doubt it will make any real difference I can hear, but I like the look.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with the placebo effect theory.....you're welcome.

I would love to do a blindfold test of two identical Fenders and have somebody listen and tell me which has the hi mass bridge. I'd love to do the same thing with these erstwhile 'sound techs' who swear by gold plated connectors.

I have original hardware on all mine but played a knock off for a while years ago with a hi mass bridge on it, not a fair comparison, but it didn't trip my trigger.
 
#33
bjabass said:
I would love to do a blindfold test of two identical Fenders and have somebody listen and tell me which has the hi mass bridge.
Click to expand...

Problem is, there *are* no two identical Fenders or Squiers. Look at the huge variations in wood, for instance, and the wood will likely make a lot more difference than the bridges.

I think you'd have to do it with one bass and record it direct with each of the bridges, playing exactly the same thing, then compare those.

I bet nobody could tell the difference. Well, except maybe for those guys who can tell the difference between a Switchcraft jack and an OEM jack by sound alone.
 
#34
bjabass said:
II would love to do a blindfold test of two identical Fenders and have somebody listen and tell me which has the hi mass bridge.
Click to expand...

It's not really a question of determining which one is the high mass bridge, it's a question of whether the listener can tell whether the basses sound different with a different bridge. Some can't.

BTW, that's best accomplished using the same bass but swapping bridges. I've done that on nearly every bass I've ever owned to eek out the best tone I can get from it.

I find there's definitely a discernible difference between bridges. Plus what that difference is can vary from bass to bass due to the characteristics of the bass itself.
 
#35
I just built a Phil Lynott tribute bass out of a Fender MIM Precision. It had a Badass I on it, and I thought I'd switch it back to the factory bent L. The bass lost a lot of tone. I ended up leaving the Badass on.

But that is a rare exception to my normal experience where it doesn't really matter.

I think, under certain circumstances, it may be an improvement, but a concrete scientific explanation as to why or how has evaded this website for a long, long time.

If you like the looks, feel, and you hear an improvement, and if it motivates you to be a better bassist, go for it. That's all that really matters.
 
#36
michaeln said:
Problem is, there *are* no two identical Fenders or Squiers. Look at the huge variations in wood, for instance, and the wood will likely make a lot more difference than the bridges.

I think you'd have to do it with one bass and record it direct with each of the bridges, playing exactly the same thing, then compare those.

I bet nobody could tell the difference. Well, except maybe for those guys who can tell the difference between a Switchcraft jack and an OEM jack by sound alone.
Click to expand...

This is the weird thing.
I have done just that - swap the bridge on a bass then record again,DI, same bass with the other bridge. Same EQ settings, same volume, same attack with pick or fingers.
Maybe i'm crazy, but to me there is a difference.
I don't think i'm the only one here on TB. Maybe this is a topic where feelings run a little too high on (like the headstock decal argument) for many to chime in about.
All I know is what I have experienced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexanderB
#37
electracoyote said:
I just built a Phil Lynott tribute bass out of a Fender MIM Precision. It had a Badass I on it, and I thought I'd switch it back to the factory bent L. The bass lost a lot of tone. I ended up leaving the Badass on.

But that is a rare exception to my normal experience where it doesn't really matter.

I think, under certain circumstances, it may be an improvement, but a concrete scientific explanation as to why or how has evaded this website for a long, long time.

If you like the looks, feel, and you hear an improvement, and if it motivates you to be a better bassist, go for it. That's all that really matters.
Click to expand...

Thank you for saying it so plainly
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexanderB
#40
electracoyote said:
I just built a Phil Lynott tribute bass out of a Fender MIM Precision. It had a Badass I on it, and I thought I'd switch it back to the factory bent L. The bass lost a lot of tone. I ended up leaving the Badass on.

But that is a rare exception to my normal experience where it doesn't really matter.

I think, under certain circumstances, it may be an improvement, but a concrete scientific explanation as to why or how has evaded this website for a long, long time.

If you like the looks, feel, and you hear an improvement, and if it motivates you to be a better bassist, go for it. That's all that really matters.
Click to expand...
I think that may be where the difference in opinions here lies.
The question to me would be, is it an actual "improvement" or merely "different"? To a particular individual, "different" doesn't always mean "better".
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeyondFiredUp

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back