• 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.

Naimish Bridges

#25
JoelEoM said:
thank you. what are your thoughts on the (highly volatile/subjective) issue of sustain with a lower-mass aluminum bridge as compared to brass?...
Click to expand...

Sustain is, BY FAR, the most overblown NON-issue regarding ANY bridge made of ANY material......EVER!!
How much sustain do people think they need?

Increased sustain is a sales pitch. Just like high mass is a sales pitch. The alleged increase in sustain is, and always has been, unimportant. Mass is unimportant.
What is important is tone.

From the Master himself; "Tone sustaining capability of a string is a direct function of the rigidity of it's endpoint connections"....C. Leo Fender.

....im planning a neck thru fretless right now, and i'm wondering how it applies.
Click to expand...

You lost me here. :confused: How does what apply to what?
 
#26
Khronic said:
Sustain is, BY FAR, the most overblown NON-issue regarding ANY bridge made of ANY material......EVER!!
How much sustain do people think they need?

Increased sustain is a sales pitch. Just like high mass is a sales pitch. The alleged increase in sustain is, and always has been, unimportant. Mass is unimportant.
What is important is tone.

From the Master himself; "Tone sustaining capability of a string is a direct function of the rigidity of it's endpoint connections"....C. Leo Fender.



You lost me here. :confused: How does what apply to what?
Click to expand...

i was obviously correct in stating that this is volatile subject. please forgive me for asking a respectful, uninformed question on a forum designed to provide informed answers.

my last question was about the application of your bridge design to a fretless bass, and its relevance to sustain. i see that you think there is no relevance.

as per leo fender's quote, it would logically follow that a denser, higher-mass material would provide more rigidity, and therefore more sustain, correct? this is what i was asking about in the last question.
 
#27
JoelEoM said:
as per leo fender's quote, it would logically follow that a denser, higher-mass material would provide more rigidity, and therefore more sustain, correct? this is what i was asking about in the last question.
Click to expand...

The statement "it would logically follow that a denser, higher-mass material would provide more rigidity" is partially right but in a different context. What many people tend to overlook is the weak link in the "chain"... the saddles. Sure a bass string is anchored by the tuning post and the bridge plate but the last points of a string's contact are the nut (of course only on an "open" string) and the bridge saddle. These points of contact are crucial because this is where the string's vibrations can be dissipated... and most popular bridges have tiny adjustment screws which provide a small contact patch between the bass' body and the saddle... a flimsy point of contact where vibration/energy is lost resulting in a comparatively thin tone. This is the problem that almost all aftermarket bridges fail to address with the exception of the Naimish bridge. Increase the saddle's contact patch with the body and you improve the tone.

To help illustrate my point let's refer to a typical double-bass. It's tailpiece is what anchors the string at the end of the body so that the strings can be tensioned. It's not made of a huge hunk of metal because it's not needed. The bridge, on the other hand, is pretty sizable but more importantly it has large contact patches where it meets the body. This large contact patch helps prevent the loss of energy while still tranferring as much of the string's vibrations to the body as possible for obvious reasons. Reduce the size of the contact patch and the bass' tone becomes thinner.
 
#31
sargebaker said:
^ I get it now...kinda... but then wouldn't say... a notched metal bar (for argument's sake) be ideal? (ignoring intonation adjustment) Or an acoustic style bridge?
Click to expand...

I certainly would prefer that over buying a Quan.

Most of the basses I make for fun are fretless and I try to keep the use of metal to a minimum so I'll usually fit a hardwood bridge.
 
#32
sargebaker said:
^ I get it now...kinda... but then wouldn't say... a notched metal bar (for argument's sake) be ideal? (ignoring intonation adjustment) Or an acoustic style bridge?
Click to expand...
Sort of. The logical conclusion to the approach I'm using would be the acoustic style bridge you've mentioned. I can't envision anything more solid and rigid than that.

The only nit I would pick in your statement is the use of the word ideal. Different bridges, just like different strings, have different sound characteristics.

Your Bass works as a construction of all of it's parts. Anything you do to change that construction will change the sound. Even something as seemingly minor as sanding a small spot in the finish on the back of your headstock. Now this may not be perceptible to your ear but the change is there none the less. Keep sanding off finish and eventually your going to be able to detect the change.

The same is true of bridges, tuning keys, fret wire, pick ups, wood,...everything and anything that is a part of the overall construction. This is why an Ash body will usually, but not always, be brighter than an Alder body. Round wound strings are brighter than flats and so on.

The two main reasons I prefer to use Aluminum in the Naimishbridge are weight and transparency. Weight should be obvious. By transparency I mean the Aluminum just seems to let the sound of the wood come through. I understand that this is a very poor explanation but it's the best I've been able to come up with.

From your observation it's clear that you understand perfectly the goal of my bridge design. Thanks for bringing it up and sharing it with the fellow TB members.

Rick
 
#34
Khronic said:
From your observation it's clear that you understand perfectly the goal of my bridge design. Thanks for bringing it up and sharing it with the fellow TB members.

Rick
Click to expand...

So, the "soundness" (for lack of a better word) of an acoustic bridge and the convenience/adjustability of an electric. Cool. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Aluminium kinda seems to be a pretty "in" metal these days, I see it popping up more and more on guitars. I'll actually be making a tailpiece out of it. I know Benedetto advocates the use of a light ebony tailpiece as opposed to brass, so I guess the aluminium would work on the same principles... Heck I doubt I'll be able to tell the difference but if it sounds good it sounds good right.

Cheers.
 
#35
fishhed said:
I have one of those in pre build stage too...seems like the physics and tonal issues are valid there too, no?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. And of course I hope to build Naimishbridges for the skinny string relative of the Bass eventually. It's simply a matter of time and resources. Thanks to you as well for bringing this up. I completely forgot to mention it.
 
#36
Diogenes said:
The statement ...... Reduce the size of the contact patch and the bass' tone becomes thinner.
Click to expand...

Khronic said:
Sort of. The logical conclusion ...... Thanks for bringing it up and sharing it with the fellow TB members.

Rick
Click to expand...

thank you guys for clearing this up. i dont understand everything about what goes into producing a quality bass, which is why i asked. im still very interested in one of your bridges rick, but like i said, i dont currently have the funds. when that changes, ill let you know so you can put me down for one. thanks.
 
#39
O.K. A little update. This is the latest info I have available. If you need any further details please don't hesitate to to send me an email, or post right here in the thread.
_________________________________________________

I appreciate your interest in the Naimishbridge, but most of all I appreciate your time. I'll take as little of it as possible.

Spacing on the 4 string will be 19mm, or 0.750". Spacing on the 5 string, as far as I can tell you at this point, will be slightly less. My best guess, as you read this, is 18mm, or 0.710". I'll have an exact figure for you by the end of the week.

Now the four and five string models with the string through body only option will be drop in replacements for made in America Fenders.

If you want the top load only model you'll have to make some choices. You can buy a drop in for a MIA, (3 mounting holes), or a MIM, (5 mounting holes). However, I will not guarantee that these base plates will not pull up from the surface of the guitar. This is due to the increased leverage exerted because the back rail on Naimishbridge is considerably further from the mounting holes compared to the stock Fender bridge.

I also have 4 and 5 string top load models available with mounting holes closer to the back rail. This, of course, will require drilling on the Fender model guitars, but I guarantee these models against pulling up.

As to the six string models, I currently have no designs available. However, due to the number of inquiries I've received in regards to bridges for six strings, it's something I'm forced to consider now as opposed to down the road. As for right now I just don't see the feasibility of it unless people are willing to pay a premium. (As Pete Skjold has pointed out in the threads, all of these bridges are extremely expensive to design and manufacture). And seeing as how the cost is my biggest draw back at this point, I just don't see it happening in this production run. I'm having enough trouble securing the one hundred,(100), orders that will make this batch of bridges happen.

Thanks again to everyone. :hyper:

Rick
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back