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.
If the screw holes match, it could theoretically be tested on a 4 too. Just throwing it out there also for anyone else who might have thought about trying but hasn’t got a 5 atm either.
Bridge is still there guys. Nobody interested in checking out its sound without actually paying for it? I’m surprised.
I cannot make an offer any better than this, I’m happy to leave it standing for a little longer, but to be fair when it comes back to me, to me this argument would be closed since I’ve gone out of my way to provide an opportunity for people opposing or doubting my conclusions on its sound to test it without paying, if nobody does.
I cannot make an offer any better than this, I’m happy to leave it standing for a little longer, but to be fair when it comes back to me, to me this argument would be closed since I’ve gone out of my way to provide an opportunity for people opposing or doubting my conclusions on its sound to test it without paying, if nobody does.
Last edited:
As has been mentioned previously; The screw spacing required to mount the bridge is going to be a major deterrent for most folks. Couple that with the number of people viewing this thread and it's an incredibly small chance that someone who meets the necessary criteria will pan out.
This might answer yours and several other people's quite similar question, who seems to have the same difficulties to wrap their head around it :
The Anatomy of a Bass String
To quote the linked to article:
"... An ideal string or oscillator would have its first upper harmonic at exactly twice the frequency, and so on.
Unfortunately, the strings’ finite stiffness makes them behave less than ideally, where the second harmonic is too high.
It’s even worse for higher partials.
It isn’t generally a bad thing, since it doesn’t make us sound like synths, but things can get really ugly for thicker strings when we move up the neck.
One can fight inharmonicity of an open bass string by increasing scale length.
That’s the reason there’s such a huge difference in the perception of the low end between a small piano and a concert grand, with the shorter of the two showing a much higher pitch glide.
Put simply:
Adding winding and mass to the string at the bridge area (Photo 1) means raising the specific weight-per-length when moving up the neck.
This mass fights the raising stiffness when fretting up the neck, finally reducing the shift of upper harmonics.
This construction, coined “lumped” strings (Fig. 1), has been researched specifically for bass by Dr. Jonathan Kemp at the University of St Andrews in the U.K. ..."
Last edited:
Yeah you’re right. It was my mistake to expect that the odds would be that anyone interested would have like 2-3 test basses as I do, or that it’ll match some of the interested side’s bridge screw holes. Maybe we should have checked all details before actually pulling the trigger but what’s done it’s done.
In this case, I’d like to get the bridge back, will leave a week or so if anyone wants to jump in last minute. If not, @TrustRod let’s arrange posting it to me at your convenience at any time after March 15th please.
As I've mentioned, you really went above and beyond, to the point I think Ray Ross should spot you one. But I just have no project bass to put it on.
Turnaround
Commercial User
There’s two arguments in this thread. One is technical which I don’t understand and not involved in.
The one I was involved in is regarding the bridge’s sound properties and comfort of use.
You did offer to test the bridge but your post above is incomplete and I think you should have clarified the conditions under which your offer was refused by me, that’d only be fair, otherwise it just looks like I’m offering something but I’m not really offering it...
I refused Turnaround’s offer because he refused to test only the sound properties of the bridge. As I explained, I am not interested in having any other tests carried out on my bridge, to which you responded that it wouldn’t make sense for you to test it at all if it’s for sound only. I think we can agree that we didn’t reach an agreement on testing the bridge in a way we were both happy with. So not sure what are you retracting there since there was no offer standing after we last spoke.
I am not interested in fuelling a fire I haven’t started, and I’m not gonna provide a sample to be tested for something I absolutely don’t understand nor care about, in a way that I don’t understand. I have a great work relationship with Ray Ross and as far as I am concerned, Ray has delivered on all accounts I personally care about regarding this product. Anything outside of that - I don’t care about being involved in any way.
Last edited:
I've been told this was given to him as part of his artist deal that he doesn't want to blow by having Turnaround test the claims. Notice he now lists RR as an endorser which he didn't when this thread started. Not the unaffiliated fan I was led to believe. I regret ever accepting his challenge, it's only been a headache for me.
Wow
You’ve been told by who? Enclose evidence since you’re throwing accusations.
I have paid for this bridge.
I have said at least 3 times that I am a Ray Ross endorser. I haven’t led you to believe anything
Check my older posts where I respond to questions if and how am I affiliated with Ray Ross.
Untrue, your whole post.
To be fair, as I read it he did agree to test the sound to the best of his ability and give his honest opinions. You cancelled it by refusing to allow him to test any of the claims made by the manufacturer and yourself as you did not want to jeopardize your endorsement deal.
I'm going by what you wrote me.Wow
You’ve been told by who? Enclose evidence since you’re throwing accusations.
I have paid for this bridge.
I have said at least 3 times that I am a Ray Ross endorser. I haven’t led you to believe anything
Check my older posts where I respond to questions if and how am I affiliated with Ray Ross.
Untrue, your whole post.
I told you I’m not interested in your feud with Ray Ross.
When I offered this deal to you, it was for the sound properties of the bridge to be tested. I supplied it for that reason. It’s still there for that reason. Not for any other, sorry.
And now for something completely different...
Perhaps this illustrates this thread better:
Perhaps this illustrates this thread better:
Last edited:
From my perspective I can see no reason to restrict the scope of independent testing or evaluation, especially since you apparently have no actual dog in the fight. Whilst sound properties are of paramount importance here, I think there is value to be had from wider test coverage. Fit and finish, the quality of materials, analysis of the mechanical forces and the material/component designs and specifications established to handle them are all indicators of long-term performance.
Evaluation and testing of all aspects often uncovers unforseen issues as well as providing paths to product improvement. IMHO, anyone adopting novel designs is entitled to some level of independent substantiation of what type of performance they can expect before parting with their hard-earned $$.
In my professional life, applications for partial testing are always viewed with suspicion, and are never allowed for new products. For small changes it may be permitted off the back of full understanding of the impact of the change and, sometimes, service history or other past performance data.
Here, with this bridge, we have none of those things. Whilst a Ray-Ross bridge failure won't cause an aeroplane to drop out of the sky, it is still a novel idea that attempts to overcome some quite tricky mechanical challenges. Plus it is marketed under some bold and as yet unsubstantiated claims. And whilst no-one expects you to personally back full indpendent testing, I am surprised at RR's reticence to do so.
YMMV, IMHO, etc...
Turnaround get test it out but only if that means installing it, playing the bass, and giving his opinion on the sound?
When I made this offer, it was to bring evidence to the claims I have personally made for this bridge. So yes, anyone is free to have it and test its sound and comfort properties.
For any other claims that I have not made, I did not offer anything.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your post - apologies if that’s the case, but why does it sound like I’m denying someone something that they’re entitled to?
I’m not talking about entitlement. Maybe I’m missing something.
You own the bridge right?
You’ll send it to turnaround so he can give his opinion on it?
But the only thing you’ll give him permission to comment on is the sound of the bass with the bridge on? You won’t give him permission to test it in any other way?
