Ray Ross Bridges

[TrustRod]

An observation I made. Ray Ross made no claims about dead spots that I saw until someone on this thread asked if it has an affect on that. Ray said it cures dead spots and that is now part of the claims made for the bridge.

I feel all the claims are made this way.

 

[Joshua]

Moderator insert: I see no chaos, and this forum is specifically for these exact kinds of discussion. As long as we all are respectful I see no reason to not let the conversation continue.

 

[BunchyMutt]

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 there is a measurable decrease in downward tension (regardless of whether that's something to be sought after or not) I figure there is less transfer of energy to the wood (or whatever, depending on your view of tone wood). Therefore it seems like wood has less of an impact on tone than with traditional bridges, and perhaps sustain would increase.

Just some thoughts. Other than you, no one has given a thorough description of the RR bridge and alternative bridges. @alembicguy what do you like about the RR bridge versus the ones you had on your p basses? Did you A/B with the same strings and all?

 

[Snaxster]

Since there is a measurable decrease in downward tension (regardless of whether that's something to be sought after or not) I figure there is less transfer of energy to the wood (or whatever, depending on your view of tone wood). Therefore it seems like wood has less of an impact on tone than with traditional bridges, and perhaps sustain would increase.

What I keep thinking is that this lower tension reminds me of a sitar bridge. That could account for the reported "piano"-like response that results.

Just a feeling. I have not researched this yet. But I invite the technically knowledgable among us to do so.

 

[Turnaround]

Since there is a measurable decrease in downward tension (regardless of whether that's something to be sought after or not) I figure there is less transfer of energy to the wood (or whatever, depending on your view of tone wood).

What I keep thinking is that this lower tension reminds me of a sitar bridge. That could account for the reported "piano"-like response that results

There's tension and there's downward force. They are not the same thing. They are two forces at right angles to each other. And yes, less downward force means theoretically less energy transferred to the body.
The sitar has a distinctive sound largely as a result of the bridge design that allows the string to vibrate against the bridge in a fashion that we as bass players would call buzz.

 

[BunchyMutt]

@Turnaround Did you mean to respond?

 

[Turnaround]

There's tension and there's downward force. They are not the same thing. They are two forces at right angles to each other. And yes, less downward force means theoretically less energy transferred to the body.
The sitar has a distinctive sound largely as a result of the bridge design that allows the string to vibrate against the bridge in a fashion that we as bass players would call buzz.

 

[Roland GR 88]

Sorry to stick my nose in rudely.
I’ve been following this thread and others because I like new ideas and have much respect for those that think outside the box.
I would love to see Ray’s bridge do well of course, you’d have to be some kind of asshat to hope he fails.
As with all engineering attempts getting it to market is the biggest leap and refining it using real world use by players will determine it’s success.
Throwing stones doesn’t help whether you’re a sceptic or the maker as neither carries much weight without evidence.
I’ll keep quiet and watch the developments from now on.

 

[Tim Skaggs]

I’ve looked at every post in this thread and the other RR bridge thread. I have read some very valid questions about the design and I’ve seen some responses that answer those questions & some responses that generate more questions. I was skeptical about the intonation myself, with the over-wrap near the ball end being included in the vibrating length of the string. I think I’ve seen enough now to understand the overwind isn’t a large enough percentage of the overall string that it can’t be overcome with the available adjustment, however, that is the type of question & answer that gives a potential buyer some confidence for trying a newly designed product.

I don’t have the time or resources to dig into the claims of the developer of the RR bridge, but I do appreciate those who do. I think there is good potential for the bridge, and I also think there will be some refinements now that the product is on the market (the ultimate test lab). That’s how Microsoft used to de-bug new software; just release it to the public. If there’s a flaw, it will be found.

 

[BAG]

It is not my job to convince you of my creation's merits

You are trying to sell your new product and claim numerous improvements over conventional bridges so it definitely IS your job to convince us of your creation's merit.

Ok, you must mean thomastik-infeld flats

I actually prefer flatwounds, and have had no trouble with them.

This was my first red flag. TI Flats are flatwound strings as anyone with a passing knowledge of bass guitars would know.

RayRoss is not a bridge. It is a studio grade"pre-amp" and reference monitor for the bass, and it is MECHANICAL in nature. No plugs, cords, dials, etc..All the sound, instantly. No more dead spots. No more trouble hearing what you are playing, for you or anyone listening. Everything ELSE is a bridge.

And it's hyperbole like this that make me question every single claim you make.
There is no way possible that a bridge alone could be considered a pre-amp unless it has in-built electronics like piezo saddles. A studio grade pre-amp is a very high-end piece of electronics used to adjust your EQ. Your bridge may possibly change the tonal characteristics of a bass compared to the stock unit but in no way can it possibly increase or decrease selected EQ points by the user.
It may, or may not, increase the unplugged volume but in no way could it do so enough to be considered a reference monitor. A solid body bass does have some acoustic sound but not enough to be heard with even an acoustic guitar being strummed close by and there is no way you could convince me of your claims.

For these reasons, added to the way you have reacted to genuine questions about your claims by attacking the person without ever addressing the actual question, means I will view any of your claims with with a very large helping of skepticism.

 

[getBAK]

We can answer most of these questions you’re really simple manner.
Next time a base comes in to have a gray Ross Bridge installed. Stick it on an oscilloscope and get the wave form readings on a few notes. Install the bridge on the same bass, repeat the test. Compare the results. That’s really all that needs to happen. Everything that’s going on will be in the wave forms

 

[Kubicki Fan]

I’ve looked at every post in this thread and the other RR bridge thread. I have read some very valid questions about the design and I’ve seen some responses that answer those questions & some responses that generate more questions. I was skeptical about the intonation myself, with the over-wrap near the ball end being included in the vibrating length of the string. I think I’ve seen enough now to understand the overwind isn’t a large enough percentage of the overall string that it can’t be overcome with the available adjustment, however, that is the type of question & answer that gives a potential buyer some confidence for trying a newly designed product.

I don’t have the time or resources to dig into the claims of the developer of the RR bridge, but I do appreciate those who do. I think there is good potential for the bridge, and I also think there will be some refinements now that the product is on the market (the ultimate test lab). That’s how Microsoft used to de-bug new software; just release it to the public. If there’s a flaw, it will be found.

My RR bridge intonates perfectly on a cheapo short scale, with cheapo round wound strings that came with the bass.

However, the bridge has developed a buzz on the G string pin that comes and goes. Very annoying. When I press down on the pin the buzz goes away.

 

[David Jayne]

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 raised this concern in a much earlier comment.

 

[David Jayne]

I had two engineers look at the design and they both said that the geometry of a conventional saddle with a string breaking over it would produce more downforce in the bridge assembly than the RR design. I may not have correctly interpreted their explanation of why, but both referenced the forces from both sides of the break angle.

It's a moot point anyway since the downforces are within the bridge structure itself and those forces are not transmitted to the body of the instrument for either bridge unless the conventional bridge is a string-through-body type. The forces of the string tension on the bridge structure create a rotational force at the bridge where the leading edge will have down forces and the trailing edge will have equivalent up forces - net zero.

Exactly this. There's no free lunch.

 

[zombywoof5050]

I raised this concern in a much earlier comment.

Ahh, that was in a different thread.
Announcing The Ray Ross™ Saddle-Less Bass Bridge

 

[BAG]

It's a moot point anyway since the downforces are within the bridge structure itself and those forces are not transmitted to the body of the instrument for either bridge unless the conventional bridge is a string-through-body type. The forces of the string tension on the bridge structure create a rotational force at the bridge where the leading edge will have down forces and the trailing edge will have equivalent up forces - net zero.

I would think the Ross Ray would have more rotational force than a standard bridge, and therefore possibly less downforce, as the point where the bridge is being pulled is higher. Sure, the height of the string would be the same as a standard bridge where it goes over the saddle but the point on a standard bridge where the ball end is located is further back and lower. In theory, a string through would have the most downforce and all the forces would be pulling the bridge into the body with only a slight forward force. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

 

[David Jayne]

I would think the Ross Ray would have more rotational force than a standard bridge, and therefore possibly less downforce, as the point where the bridge is being pulled is higher. Sure, the height of the string would be the same as a standard bridge where it goes over the saddle but the point on a standard bridge where the ball end is located is further back and lower. In theory, a string through would have the most downforce and all the forces would be pulling the bridge into the body with only a slight forward force. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

It actually makes no difference. With a standard bridge, the rotational force originates at the tail and attempts to pull the tail up and over the saddles. This doesn't happen because the base is solid metal. But the force is applied directly to the end of the base, for maximum effect. With Ross, the rotational force originates at the 'saddle' and is transferred to the base as before but now the distance from the origin to the end of the base acts as a lever, which works AGAINST the rotational force. Zero-sum. Imagine a standard bridge, strung up to tension, and then somehow measure the rotational force. Now, without disturbing anything, magically fill the area between the saddles and ball-ends with solid metal. This metal will be fused to the base, strings and bridge saddles, from the ball ends to the witness points. The result is exactly what you'd have with Ross.

 

[BAG]

Thanks David. That does make sense.
It also makes it clearer why string through should in theory create more downforce on the bridge. Whether it helps with more sustain is probably debatable.

 

[David Jayne]

Thanks David. That does make sense.
It also makes it clearer why string through should in theory create more downforce on the bridge. Whether it helps with more sustain is probably debatable.

I'll have to think about the string through concept. Initially it does look like more downforce, simply because there's no rotational element. Instead of trying to pull the back of the bridge up and push the front down, it's pushing down more or less evenly across. There's still an element of shear but drastically less than with top-loading.

 

[Turnaround]

I'll have to think about the string through concept. Initially it does look like more downforce, simply because there's no rotational element. Instead of trying to pull the back of the bridge up and push the front down, it's pushing down more or less evenly across. There's still an element of shear but drastically less than with top-loading.

There’s a point where additional downforce has no appreciable affect on vibrational transfer. Studies have shown that the benefits of angles greater than about 5 degrees fall off quickly. So 5 degrees is an acceptable minimum and beyond that little advantage is to be gained with an increased break angle.