Ray Ross Bridges

[StefanMarinov]

I would also like to express my gratitude to an unknown hero(heroes), who has put 4 dislikes on almost all of my YouTube videos within minutes. By YouTube algorithms any interaction, regardless of thumbs up or down, shows interest in the videos, which then get more likely to be recommended to potentially interested users.

So, whoever you are, thanks for helping spread the word . Thumbs up or down, the bridge does sound better, and I’m grateful for the help popularising it, and my channel.
With respect,
Stefan

 

[BAG]

Hi guys, for those who aren’t following the other threads - here’s the two comparison videos I did.

Both examples are recorded under the same conditions - input path, compression, string action, volume, EQ, new strings, I’ve kept everything the same for the sake of a fair comparison.

To answer a couple of questions that have been asked in the other thread in advance - I haven’t been paid to make these videos.
I contacted Ray Ross because I was very curious about the design, I love innovation and I really liked what I was hearing and seeing in the Bacchus YT video here -

I loved the bridge on my first bass and approached them for artist/endorsement agreement, the following videos are from me as an artist - I absolutely love how the bridge feels and sounds, have it on 3 basses already, and I wanted to share my experience with anyone interested - please see below.

I haven’t had any issues at all with palm muting, the pins are actually not sharp and are comfortable to rest your palm on, a lot more so than a conventional saddle with the adjusting screws sticking out of the saddle in some cases.

Please feel free to ask anything related, this above and below is my personal opinion only - I love the bridge.





With respect,
Stefan Marinov,
Proudly a Ray Ross artist.

From the video the Ray Ross does appear to have a bit more clarity and articulation in its' sound.

We obviously have to take it on faith that between recording the pieces with the original bridge, changing the bridge and strings and then re-recording that nothing else whatsoever was changed such as "were the strings on the original bridge new as well?
Does it prove any of the designer's outlandishly wild claims??? Nope, not even close!

However, the fact that an obviously skilled player such as yourself likes how it works so much does give it more credence than anything yet posted about these bridges.

I will say that I very much like the design for adjusting intonation and action height. No philips head screws or allen grub screws for clutzes like me to strip out.

 

[StefanMarinov]

From the video the Ray Ross does appear to have a bit more clarity and articulation in its' sound.

We obviously have to take it on faith that between recording the pieces with the original bridge, changing the bridge and strings and then re-recording that nothing else whatsoever was changed such as "were the strings on the original bridge new as well?

Thank you for your post mate,
I did put a brand new set of Elixir strings for both takes, they don’t lose sound properties easily. The takes on the Ken Smith video were taken in the following order - new strings - new bridge takes, same new strings - old bridge takes. On the Lakland was the other way around - new strings stock bridge and then same new strings Ray Ross bridge. To me that order didn’t make any audible difference at all.

I have no interest to misrepresent what the difference is - I have no affiliated sales link, nor do I earn from other bridge sales. However I appreciate the fact that I am a stranger, and this is somewhat of a heated debate. Therefore if some of you guys like, I’m happy to do a zoom presentation live, it’ll probably take no more than half an hour.

However, the fact that an obviously skilled player such as yourself likes how it works so much does give it more credence than anything yet posted about these bridges.

I really appreciate your words man, thank you! I’m trying my best.


Unfortunately I cannot comment on any of the other technical matter questions raised in the thread, but from my own experience I can state, that for my personal taste, there’s absolutely no discomfort in playing slap, fingers, pick or palm muting, and, as you said the sound is punchier and clearer, and a lot richer to my ears. That’s my 5 cents.

Thank you!

 

[micguy]

OK, I'm going to jump in for a bit here. A lot of folks focus on bridges as magical things that can add sustain and the like. Technically, yes, they can, but.....

When a string is vibrating, there are waves traveling up and down the string. When one of those waves hits one of the ends of the string, most of the energy is reflected off that end and goes the other way. The bit that is lost is indeed part of what reduces sustain (there are air losses, and losses in the string too).

A lot of time around here I see people talk about a bridge coupling vibrations or energy into the body. This is nonsense - if you "couple energy into the body" really well, that energy leaves the string, and you get no sustain at all. What you want (assuming you want sustain) is for both ends of the string to NOT steal any energy from the vibrating string - you want both ends to be masive and stiff, so the energy reflects off the end and stays in the string.

Next point: We've got a string with 2 ends. If we want sustain, we want the ends to be massive and stiff. One end involves a decent sized chunk of metal (often with hundreds of grams of mass) bolted to a chunk of wood that weighs a few pounds. The other end has a small piece of metal (a gram or two maybe? - I've never actually weighed a fret), attached to a much thinner piece of wood. Given that discrepancy, the neck end of the string is going to have more loss of energy than the bridge. If sustain is you goal, which end do you work on - the one that doesn't lose much energy, or the one that loses most of it?

If you've ever had a bass with a bad dead spot, you know how much sustain a bad neck end condition can steal. All the weight in the world at the bridge end won't fix the typical dead spot - the problem is elesewhere.

OK, but what about tone? Well, tone (at least the part of tone you can affect by changing end conditions) is very related to sustain - if you leave all the energy in the string, it'll have a particular sound; what you take out is what'll give you a different sound. The most obvious example of a tonal difference from changing an end condition is...a fretless with a hard board. Mwah is simething you don't get on a fretted bass, you get it on a fretless because....one end condition has changed.

A bridge can add sustain or change your tone , but not as much as you might think - any improvement at that end of the string is pretty limited, given that the problem is elsewhere. I have owned a couple of basses with incredible sustain - enough that learning how to damp a string was a critical skill. What separated those basses from nomral ones? Metal necks - mass and stiffness galore on the end of the string that needs help.

So, we've got a buy with a "better" bridge - at least he thinks so, and is passionate about his design (I actually like that). Given what I know about how bridges work, the things I care about are things like do the saddles stay in place, is it low enough mass that it doesn't make my bass a boat anchor, does it start the string at a place where I don't wind the fat part around the tuner post, etc.

And yes, I'm not a fan of having the fatter part near the ball end as part of the vibrating string - in college we did an experiment where we half unwound a string - we chaged the mass distribution of the stringto where it wwasn't uniform along its length. The harmonics of that string were nowehere near multiples of the fundamental - the thing sounded horribly out of tune with itself. Granted, that's a more extreme example than what's happening here, but the principle is the same - its not a simple "intonation error" that that causes, it's something you can't actually compensate for - the harmonics are not right, no matter where you locate the bridge saddle. Wil you hear it? Maybe not, but it'd bug me knowing it was there.

 

[StefanMarinov]

OK, I'm going to jump in for a bit here. A lot of folks focus on bridges as magical things that can add sustain and the like. Technically, yes, they can, but.....

When a string is vibrating, there are waves traveling up and down the string. When one of those waves hits one of the ends of the string, most of the energy is reflected off that end and goes the other way. The bit that is lost is indeed part of what reduces sustain (there are air losses, and losses in the string too).

A lot of time around here I see people talk about a bridge coupling vibrations or energy into the body. This is nonsense - if you "couple energy into the body" really well, that energy leaves the string, and you get no sustain at all. What you want (assuming you want sustain) is for both ends of the string to NOT steal any energy from the vibrating string - you want both ends to be masive and stiff, so the energy reflects off the end and stays in the string.

Next point: We've got a string with 2 ends. If we want sustain, we want the ends to be massive and stiff. One end involves a decent sized chunk of metal (often with hundreds of grams of mass) bolted to a chunk of wood that weighs a few pounds. The other end has a small piece of metal (a gram or two maybe? - I've never actually weighed a fret), attached to a much thinner piece of wood. Given that discrepancy, the neck end of the string is going to have more loss of energy than the bridge. If sustain is you goal, which end do you work on - the one that doesn't lose much energy, or the one that loses most of it?

If you've ever had a bass with a bad dead spot, you know how much sustain a bad neck end condition can steal. All the weight in the world at the bridge end won't fix the typical dead spot - the problem is elesewhere.

OK, but what about tone? Well, tone (at least the part of tone you can affect by changing end conditions) is very related to sustain - if you leave all the energy in the string, it'll have a particular sound; what you take out is what'll give you a different sound. The most obvious example of a tonal difference from changing an end condition is...a fretless with a hard board. Mwah is simething you don't get on a fretted bass, you get it on a fretless because....one end condition has changed.

A bridge can add sustain or change your tone , but not as much as you might think - any improvement at that end of the string is pretty limited, given that the problem is elsewhere. I have owned a couple of basses with incredible sustain - enough that learning how to damp a string was a critical skill. What separated those basses from nomral ones? Metal necks - mass and stiffness galore on the end of the string that needs help.

So, we've got a buy with a "better" bridge - at least he thinks so, and is passionate about his design (I actually like that). Given what I know about how bridges work, the things I care about are things like do the saddles stay in place, is it low enough mass that it doesn't make my bass a boat anchor, does it start the string at a place where I don't wind the fat part around the tuner post, etc.

And yes, I'm not a fan of having the fatter part near the ball end as part of the vibrating string - in college we did an experiment where we half unwound a string - we chaged the mass distribution of the stringto where it wwasn't uniform along its length. The harmonics of that string were nowehere near multiples of the fundamental - the thing sounded horribly out of tune with itself. Granted, that's a more extreme example than what's happening here, but the principle is the same - its not a simple "intonation error" that that causes, it's something you can't actually compensate for - the harmonics are not right, no matter where you locate the bridge saddle. Wil you hear it? Maybe not, but it'd bug me knowing it was there.

Ok but... what if it sounds better? I’m not even gonna think about debating your post as my technical knowledge is very limited, but... it sounds better to my ears and to me that is all that matters at the end. Theorising is great but shouldn’t all debating be coming from the same place, like actually testing the product and measuring all the advantages/disadvantages it might have?

 

[micguy]

Ok but... what if it sounds better? I’m not even gonna think about debating your post as my technical knowledge is very limited, but... it sounds better to my ears and to me that is all that matters at the end. Theorising is great but shouldn’t all debating be coming from the same place, like actually testing the product and measuring all the advantages/disadvantages it might have?

If you like it better for whtever reason, then you don't need my input. If something (the sound, the look, the feel, the color, the weight, whatever) makes you want to play your instrument enough that you practice more, that's a huge win. In the end, the instrument is a tool. I spend a lot of time working on making my instruments as good as I can, but in the end, its really how much I practice that's my biggest asset as a bassist.

I can discuss things like this in technical detail because I work on pro audio gear, and have a backround in Acoustical Physics. Doing the work I do, when you're trying to make a musical device sound better, you need your ears, plus a lot of knowledge and experience. The knowledge and experience guides you to what to try to improve something (you can hone in on what needs work much faster with the right knowledge), but as you say, your ears are ulitimately what tell you if you've succeeded.

 

[StefanMarinov]

If you like it better for whtever reason, then you don't need my input. If something (the sound, the look, the feel, the color, the weight, whatever) makes you want to play your instrument enough that you practice more, that's a huge win. In the end, the instrument is a tool. I spend a lot of time working on making my instruments as good as I can, but in the end, its really how much I practice that's my biggest asset as a bassist.

Absolutely agree with you, although I do like doing a little research on things generally.
Where I’m coming from is that TalkBass, BassChat and a few other forums are a great source of information, I’ve often done my research on here before buying something, and if all that someone who’s googling “Ray Ross bridge” sees when they come here is pointing out flaws and disadvantages, that’ll likely put them off from even trying the bridge. Now I do care if that happens because I’ve tried and loved it, and I think it would be only fair if any criticism on such high profile Bass forum as TalkBass is coming from an actual test of the product rather than theory.

 

[ixlramp]

I think it would be only fair if any criticism on such high profile Bass forum as TalkBass is coming from an actual test of the product rather than theory.

I disagree with this, because micguy is not writing 'theory', they are writing proven science. I am a qualified physicist and can confirm what they write is scientifically correct.
Criticisms resulting from proven science are certainly valid to write about.
Results from scientific experiments are also valid, and i am looking forward to those that are coming from the independent and qualified instrument scientist Jonathan Kemp. I expect they will show significant benefits.

micguy is not claiming there are no benefits. The RRB may not increase sustain (i although suspect it could slightly) but it will probably increase clarity due to having a different string vibration termination, i seem to hear a clarity improvement in the videos.
I also expect some other minor benefits due to the design.

On the subject of the lock winding being in the vibrating length, in the other big RRB thread Jonathan Kemp has stated this will act a little like his 'lumped' bass strings and reduce inharmonicity.

On the subject of criticism, i want to be clear i am very supportive of this design and expect significant benefits, despite the fact that i will also challenge the large amount of scientifically false marketing nonsense and hyperbole.
It is unfortunate the RRB is being marketed in the way it is, because it is actually a very genuine and significant innovation.

 

[StefanMarinov]

I disagree with this, because micguy is not writing 'theory', they are writing proven science. I am a qualified physicist and can confirm what they write is scientifically correct.
Criticisms resulting from proven science are certainly valid to write about.
Results from scientific experiments are also valid, and i am looking forward to those that are coming from the independent and qualified instrument scientist Jonathan Kemp. I expect they will show significant benefits.

micguy is not claiming there are no benefits. The RRB may not increase sustain (i although suspect it could slightly) but it will probably increase clarity due to having a different string vibration termination, i seem to hear a clarity improvement in the videos.
I also expect some other minor benefits due to the design.

On the subject of the lock winding being in the vibrating length, in the other big RRB thread Jonathan Kemp has stated this will act a little like his 'lumped' bass strings and reduce inharmonicity.

On the subject of criticism, i want to be clear i am very supportive of this design and expect significant benefits, despite the fact that i will also challenge the large amount of scientifically false marketing nonsense and hyperbole.
It is unfortunate the RRB is being marketed in the way it is, because it is actually a very genuine and significant innovation.

I am also a supporter of any kind of criticism, but I disagree in this case man, and I call it “theory” because, even though if it might be 100% correct (I’m not debating that, just don’t have the knowledge to express a valid opinion on that particular subject), it has not been tested on this specific product.

That’s why I am a strong supporter of my opinion that any feedback, criticism or positive/negative conclusions must be made after the actual product has been tested and results have been recorded.

I’m all for science, however in any case you cannot be 100% sure and point out a number of flaws based on looking at a design. We are talking about general science on the subject, deducted by assumptions of how it would work, rather than actual measurements. In fact, I’m the only one here (from the debating sides) who has tested it, and I personally find no flaws, only benefits... Forgive me if I’m reluctant to agree to general science when I’m not hearing a problem. Maybe my ears aren’t that good, anything is possible, but again for me they’re the only hard evidence on the table so far.

 

[silky smoove]

In fact, I’m the only one here (from the debating sides) who has tested it, and I personally find no flaws, only benefits

Clarification: Since we're discussing the science of things it's important to note that you've PLAYED a bass with this bridge installed, which is distinctly different from TESTING a bass with this bridge installed. From your descriptions the controls were reasonable, but not to the level of a truly scientific test. Additionally your methods were also reasonable, and also were not to the level of a truly scientific test. Perhaps that doesn't matter for practical purposes by the end user, but if we're discussing the science of this bridge's function then we should be careful with what we label as a test and what is simply theory, what is anecdotal and what is truly a test.

 

[Turnaround]

I’m all for science, however in any case you cannot be 100% sure and point out a number of flaws based on looking at a design.

Sure you can. That's what engineering is all about. You don't have to build a tower with theoretical faults to know it cannot stand in a windstorm.

 

[StefanMarinov]

Clarification: Since we're discussing the science of things it's important to note that you've PLAYED a bass with this bridge installed, which is distinctly different from TESTING a bass with this bridge installed. From your descriptions the controls were reasonable, but not to the level of a truly scientific test. Additionally your methods were also reasonable, and also were not to the level of a truly scientific test. Perhaps that doesn't matter for practical purposes by the end user, but if we're discussing the science of this bridge's function then we should be careful with what we label as a test and what is simply theory, what is anecdotal and what is truly a test.

Agreed, I would call mine a practical functionality and sound test. It’s not a scientific test and therefore I cannot comment on any of the technical concerns raised in the thread.
What I can say is that it feels and sounds great to my ears (including intonation throughout the scale length since inharmonicity was earlier mentioned - I’ve personally not heard any of that).

When it comes to a proper scientific bench test - I’d love to see the results of one and compare it to the claims above, just out of interest.

 

[StefanMarinov]

Sure you can. That's what engineering is all about. You don't have to build a tower with theoretical faults to know it cannot stand in a windstorm.

Ok. So does your technical knowledge and understanding of science tell you, and should it tell me, that this particular bridge is not good? Because if I was a random guy researching the internet for opinions on this specific product, I wouldn’t go anywhere near it after reading about all the flaws... and that’s my point in general.

 

[silky smoove]

I would call mine a practical functionality and sound test.

I’d still push back on that since it includes the word test given the context of the conversation surrounding the bridge in this thread. Evaluation, experience, play through, use, demonstration, etc. would all be appropriate. It’s all semantic and I definitely know what you mean in your statements.

What I can say is that it feels and sounds great to my ears

I’m glad to hear you’re enjoying the bridge.

 

[StefanMarinov]

I’d still push back on that since it includes the word test given the context of the conversation surrounding the bridge in this thread. Evaluation, experience, play through, use, demonstration, etc. would all be appropriate. It’s all semantic and I definitely know what you mean in your statements.


I’m glad to hear you’re enjoying the bridge.

I accept that - to me it’s important that I’ve tried it. As you say - semantics. I’m happy with “experience” and “demonstration”.

 

[Turnaround]

Ok. So does your technical knowledge and understanding of science tell you, and should it tell me, that this particular bridge is not good? Because if I was a random guy researching the internet for opinions on this specific product, I wouldn’t go anywhere near it after reading about all the flaws... and that’s my point in general.

If you were researching this bridge on the net I would hope you would listen to my concerns, the concerns of others as well as the praises from other sources and make up your own mind. I would not go so far as to say the bridge is "not good", but I see problems. I see problems with Fender's original design as well as with a number of other bridges. The RR is not unique in this regard.

 

[bbh]

I just checked the comparison of a standard VS Ross bridge from this post
The Bass Vault - my YouTube channel
The way I hear it. There is more clarity with the Ross bridge than the stock smith setup. I’m thinking that’s definitive to me unless the strings got slightly brighter from destringing for the bridge swap. There were 2 vids the other using a Lakeland but I only checked the Smith.

 

[StefanMarinov]

If you were researching this bridge on the net I would hope you would listen to my concerns, the concerns of others as well as the praises from other sources and make up your own mind. I would not go so far as to say the bridge is "not good", but I see problems. I see problems with Fender's original design as well as with a number of other bridges. The RR is not unique in this regard.

Ok mate, thanks for replying. I, as a consumer don’t see problems - that’s why I’m a bit puzzled with all this.


Edit: I don’t see any practical problems is what I mean. As an end user, it holds the strings in place, looks good and sounds better than the other bridges I’ve tried.
If scientifically proving that this design is flawed (engineering right?) outweighs the positives that come out of it (something that again hasn’t been tested by the people opposing but I guess engineering and science can bring enough on the table to get an idea of how those positives would actually sound like too), then that’s fair enough.

 

[StefanMarinov]

I just checked the comparison of a standard VS Ross bridge from this post
The Bass Vault - my YouTube channel
The way I hear it. There is more clarity with the Ross bridge than the stock smith setup. I’m thinking that’s definitive to me unless the strings got slightly brighter from destringing for the bridge swap. There were 2 vids the other using a Lakeland but I only checked the Smith.

In the two videos I reversed the order of what bridge I use first, with the same new strings - that didn’t change anything in my opinion.

 

[Turnaround]

Ok mate, thanks for replying. I, as a consumer don’t see problems - that’s why I’m a bit puzzled with all this.

It's cool. It works for you and you like it. FWIW I didn't hear a significant difference in your videos , certainly nothing I would see as a marked "improvement". So for me there is no advantage, and several technical disadvantages. For you there is a sonic advantage and no technical ones. OK. Ballet does nothing for me either, maybe you are a big fan. That also is OK.