I've got a Wilkinson bridge I pick up on eBay for my P-Bass. Brass saddles, and it looks exactly like a vintage-style bridge. Sustains like a mofo!
Is it the two barrell one like on an early P?
Does it allow for proper intonation?
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.
High Mass Bridges vs. Vintage Bridges
- Thread starter grobe
- Start date
Is it the two barrell one like on an early P?
Does it allow for proper intonation?
- Aug 21, 2003
- 11,619
- 18,701
- Disclosures
- A-Designs Mike Lull GK Tsunami Cables GHS Strings RMI Basswitch Nordstrand Pickups Darkglass
Where high mass brides make a difference is in percussive attack slapping/heavy handend ghost notes exc...
I prefer it but to each their own.
I prefer it but to each their own.
that's the '70s downgrade with one groove per saddle; the original design with the threaded-rod saddles didn't have this problem.
the whole idea (especially with jazz basses) was to set the strings out a little wider than the saddle spacing, so the outer strings pushed their saddles in towards the inner ones, holding everything tightly together.
Yes, I seem to recall a guitar tech mentioning that to me at some point. It was a little over my head but you've explained it nicely.
Didn't hurt to keep the outside height screws a bit shorter than the inside ones, either.
I was always a high mass bridge guy until last year when I bought a road worn P bass (the red one). Wow. That bass has so much more tone (woody, brassy, growly etc) than my other Basses. In fact, I stopped playing my American Standard P, and ended up selling it. There are a lot of possible reasons for the road worn to have a great tone... it has a really wide and thick neck for one, and it has vintage fretwire, and a thin nitro finish. The road worn also has a vintage bridge with threaded barrel saddles. I suppose all of these factors could contribute to a different and subjectively better tone. I have a couple of other high mass bridge basses, that also happen to have thick poly finishes (which no doubt could contribute to the difference in sound). When I play these basses unplugged, the road worn is quite obviously acoustically alive compared to the others. If you pluck a string and put your ear to the bass body, you can hear the harmonics and overtones being produced from the body, especially near the bridge. You can hear the primary note, and many other notes above and below at a lower volume (harmonics). The high mass bridge thick finish basses produce these tones too, but much less so to my ears. Their tones are simpler and the fundamental note dominates. (And I have done quite a bit of audio engineering in the last few years, so I am familiar with harmonics and how they thicken and enhance a sound). Have you ever gone into a studio and seen an old piece of crap bass there that all the engineers seem to love for some reason? They always tell you to give it a try... that the tone records really well, and sits nicely in the mix. Well, now I seem to own one of those basses, and it does record very well. The problem is now I am completely unsatisfied with my other instruments, so I have started to try and figure out how to make them more lively. I'm going to start with a low mass bridge here and there, and see if that wakes them up. I'll probably find that the answer is not that simple. Hopefully I will stop before I strip all the poly off of my basses and spray them with nitro.
Just remember: any sounds you 'percieve' IN the body are for all intents and values, GONE and are not capable of re-energizing or causing the string to be re-animated so they can help produce any positive effect that the p'ups can use.
Once vibrations/sounds get into the body, it's like a roach motel --- THEY CHECK IN but don't check OUT.
Wood (as in: the body) is a black hole for sound propagation and/or resonance for a solid body instrument. If you WANT something removed, then use something that sends a particular range of frequencies into the body via different mass at the bridge.
This is my experience in building and repairing the instruments I make.
Once vibrations/sounds get into the body, it's like a roach motel --- THEY CHECK IN but don't check OUT.
Wood (as in: the body) is a black hole for sound propagation and/or resonance for a solid body instrument. If you WANT something removed, then use something that sends a particular range of frequencies into the body via different mass at the bridge.
This is my experience in building and repairing the instruments I make.
SurferJoe46, Isn't it true that while the sound that enters the body is lost, isn't it indicative of a similar porton of the sound that *does* animate the strings and thereby reach the pickups?
I don't see how a body that's as massive as, say a Jazz or Precision, could shake violently enough to make the strings vibrate without giving the player some vibrating thrill just strapping the instrument on.
The whole idea seems incongruent to the flow of energy and the fact that no matter how much a body 'hums' --- it isn't gonna do the magnetic p'ups any good especially if they are humming at the same freq as the strings - if that could ever be the case here.
I see all sorts of phasing and sine wave overlays causing death to the purpose for which the string was plucked in the first place.
If the body were able to (cough, cough) 'hum' in parasitic harmony to the strings, then we'd likely now have arrived at perpetual motion or gotten really REALLY close to it.
The whole idea seems incongruent to the flow of energy and the fact that no matter how much a body 'hums' --- it isn't gonna do the magnetic p'ups any good especially if they are humming at the same freq as the strings - if that could ever be the case here.
I see all sorts of phasing and sine wave overlays causing death to the purpose for which the string was plucked in the first place.
If the body were able to (cough, cough) 'hum' in parasitic harmony to the strings, then we'd likely now have arrived at perpetual motion or gotten really REALLY close to it.
"especially if they are humming at the same freq as the strings -"
Isn't that sort of how a sustainer works? As also, in face the cabs and let the waves from the cabs keep the strings oscillating, thereby keeping the pickups producing?
Isn't that sort of how a sustainer works? As also, in face the cabs and let the waves from the cabs keep the strings oscillating, thereby keeping the pickups producing?
I prefer the Hipshot Vintage bass bridges on my Fender/Squier basses. Good tone, easy to restring.
I just look for ease of use, adjustability, and a little bit of aesthetics in a bridge. I can't say whether or not a high mass bridge will make a difference in tone or not but I can say people listen with their eyes and their wallets.
High mass bridges,Power conditioners,its all Hype,a ploy to get you to spend more money on something that doesnt make a difference at all on your equipment...
I played a large venue with somewhat of a 'questionable' electrical supply and I was the only rig to not have any 60 cycle him going on. I use a Furman and it has been a decent expense for me as it shuts off the power below a decent Low voltage threshold and unlike those cheap-o power strips, it takes repeated line voltage spikes and clamps them out.
A power strip comes out of the store pretty much all consumed already especially if you shuffle your feet across the carpet when you carry it home.
So, yeah: I can't see any real auditory value in an HM bridge, but keeping electricity clean and spikeless is a good Idea as I see it.
Boy howdy, this was a good read. I didn't think it was possible for so many people to get bent out of shape (pun intended) because other posters hear differences in their basses when changing out a 50s design bridge for something different. Why not just play what you brung and be happy knowing the "Fender" name will keep you ahead in the resale value game for the rest of your lives?
The Gotoh 203 is an option for those who don't like the larger saddles and higher mass of the 201. It does have grooves and 2 extra mounting holes on the plate.
Link Removed
The reason I prefer a high-mass (please...) bridge has to do with those thin OEM bridges, the upright part of the bridge that the strings go through has a slight, but noticeable lean toward the neck from the pull of the medium gauge (.050, .070, .085, .105, and now, .135) strings I use.
That's enough to turn me off of the thin bridge. I could care less about whatever the hell other reasons are out there. Well, that, and I doubt that anyone makes one of those thin bridges to fit an Alembic Series 1.
That's enough to turn me off of the thin bridge. I could care less about whatever the hell other reasons are out there. Well, that, and I doubt that anyone makes one of those thin bridges to fit an Alembic Series 1.
that's one reason my favorite is the first-generation american standard bridges; along with the adjustable string spacing, you get the low-mass tone and vibe, but the string-through setup makes for rock-solid anchoring with no lean:
