Turnaround
Commercial User
I'll pass this on the the two engineers I spoke with and get their response. Thanks.
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.
Turnaround
Commercial User
Though we agreed that downforce at the saddle/tone pin above a minimum necessary level is probably insignificant, it occurred to me that I still have a rig I used to test string compliance under tension. With a minor mod I can use this to measure downforce under these two models. It will save us wondering if we made any errors in the calculations. I'll get back to you after I do the test next week.
I may be completely wrong so call me out if so...... imagine the saddle or in case of the rr the anchor point as a pulley and it becomes clear that the rr cannot achieve the downforce of a conventional bridge.
Like I believe has been stated above, i’m not saying the rr doesn’t have sufficient downforce but I don’t think it can be equal to or greater than a conventional design.
Like I believe has been stated above, i’m not saying the rr doesn’t have sufficient downforce but I don’t think it can be equal to or greater than a conventional design.
Last edited:
I'm still concerned about the string, anchored at the ball-end, possibly touching the sides of the hole where it comes out of the pin (see my post #137) and vibrating against it and causing either buzzing or wolf tones. It might possibly happen when doing extreme bends and/or if the pin was turned slightly to where the string was just about touching there. Someone claimed of wolf tones that were alleviated when the post was turned enough to create a witness point at that front edge of the pin, and I believe this is related to what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to bash or anything, just bringing up a legitimate concern. You have to really make sure that the string is either: 1) Perfectly lined up such that it won't vibrate against the edge of the hole where it comes out (and also it mustn't touch when doing extreme bends), or 2) Turn the pin enough to create a witness point there at the front edge of the pin instead of at the back where the string is anchored. Can no one else understand what I'm talking about?
I understand what you’re saying and I can picture in my head how that could happen but I’ve only ever seen pictures of a Ray Ross bridge so don’t have any practical input.
Turnaround
Commercial User
Rotating the pin may help with that problem, but I don't know if you can lock the pin in that position. If not I wonder if it would work its way back under vibration.
Turnaround
Commercial User
Somewhere there is an error in your mathematical model or my physical one. I ran a test with my modified tension rig. The RR bridge geometry was made by affixing a bolt (black) to a hinge (grey) like this:
I set it up so that the measurements A and B are the same as the conventional setup which looks like this:
This ensured that the angles were the same. Both were set up with 34" scale (speaking length). The string was tensioned to a specific frequency, the same in both test cases, thus assuring the same string tension. A gauge was hooked onto the string at the point where it met the saddle/tone pin and was raised until the upforce from the gauge just exceeded the downforce enough to allow a 10 thou feeler to be slipped under the hinge at the tone pin and under the saddle height screws.
So effectively I was measuring the vertical force applied by each setup at a string height of A+10thou.
The first (RR mockup) measured approximately 9 pounds. The second (conventional bridge) close to 18 pounds. I wasn't worried about precise measurements since I just wanted to see if they were close. And since they weren't even close I decided I didn't need to refine the setup for more accurate results.
Can you re-examine your mathematical model to see if you can account for this?
Turnaround
Commercial User
Just re-ran the test. With a different string gauge, an .065” String tuned to D. This time RR came in at approx 10 lbs., conventional close to 19. Had an extra .032 gauge, so tried it tuned to C. Roughly same difference, 11 lbs. vs about 19.5.
Turnaround
Commercial User
Just to be clear, in the RR model, the hinge was mounted thus:
@Turnaround has:
The equipment to test the things he's mentioned.
The technical expertise to perform these tests and analyze the results.
Skepticism regarding the claims made about the bridge.
Sounds like the most effective and convincing-to-consumers testing that could be done on any bridge.
The equipment to test the things he's mentioned.
The technical expertise to perform these tests and analyze the results.
Skepticism regarding the claims made about the bridge.
Sounds like the most effective and convincing-to-consumers testing that could be done on any bridge.
Seriously, ship @Turnaround a RR bridge so he can play around with it. We'd all love to see what he comes up with, and @TheRayRoss should have nothing to fear from it. At this point, anything else is just tongue-wagging.
Turnaround
Commercial User
Thanks @Gorn. I appreciate your response. It validates what I am trying to accomplish, simply trying to sort out what's real from what's hype and myth.
You can't just take someone for their word on an internet forum but you can have confidence they know what they're talking about. It seems to me that you know what you're talking about. The guy selling the thing has some extraordinary claims about the thing he's selling. Marketing jargon and some people saying they like it is enough for some people but if this thing is as innovative and game changing as the claims make it out to be, then it'll stand up to scrutiny and sales can only go up.
tension aside, did you notice a difference in tone and feel? I know that wasn't the test's intent but I would have given them a pluck if I was in your position
Turnaround
Commercial User
There can be no difference in the tension. The scale length does not change, the string does not change, so the tension to arrive at the same pitch is the same. Theoretically there is less string afterlength to stretch so it should feel slightly stiffer. But from the tests I have done concerning compliance, the difference is so tiny that it would be extremely unlikely that a human being could feel it.
Since I was testing the geometry of the design, not the actual bridge, I didn't check it for tone. My test rig would have been a poor platform for that kind of test.
Since I was testing the geometry of the design, not the actual bridge, I didn't check it for tone. My test rig would have been a poor platform for that kind of test.
Roland GR 88
Commercial User
Once again this thread descends into chaos.
My bridge is great.....
Yeah but my friends say it isn’t....
Ray Ross should market his bridges elsewhere. Sales and long term use will determine its future and Turnaround - are you actually surprised that a MI product carries exaggerated claims or do you just feel compelled to save the world from Ray “snake oil” Ross.
Neither of you are winning much from this thread anymore.
My bridge is great.....
Yeah but my friends say it isn’t....
Ray Ross should market his bridges elsewhere. Sales and long term use will determine its future and Turnaround - are you actually surprised that a MI product carries exaggerated claims or do you just feel compelled to save the world from Ray “snake oil” Ross.
Neither of you are winning much from this thread anymore.
Turnaround
Commercial User
I’m glad you like your bridge. I simply raised questions about its design and the claims made by the designer. When challenged on my concerns I checked them out with a couple of engineer friends. And when the maker still claimed he was right I tested it myself. It was as much to confirm my own understanding as anything else. And it thought it was worthy of sharing.
If the bridge isn't snake oil then it'll stand up to scrutiny from skeptics. The truth has nothing to fear from investigation.
What chaos?
When critical discourse is reduced to being just a pissing match, we all just fight each other to avoid being called a loser while someone runs out the back with our money. (I hope I'm not seeming too political here....) Turnaround is conducting experiments and sharing his results, we get to contemplate and bounce ideas off each other based on his findings. More knowledge is always better in my book. And, of course, you don't have to read the thread.
Just imo, ymmv, no disrespect, etc.
