Ray Ross Bridges

[StefanMarinov]

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?

Ok sorry probably I misunderstood.

Yes, I’m happy for anyone to conduct the sound test for which I bought and provided this bridge. I am interested in resolving the argument if this bridge sounds quite different than standard saddle design ones.

If somebody was interested in testing other properties of the bridge, they or the opposite side interested should have searched for a different agreement between themselves.

 

[Gorn]

Ok sorry probably I misunderstood.

Yes, I’m happy to anyone to conduct the sound test for which I bought and provided this bridge. I am interested in resolving the argument if this bridge sounds quite different than standard saddle design ones.

If somebody was interested in testing other properties of the bridge, they or the opposite side interested should have searched for a different agreement between themselves.

So it’s like lending a friend your car but only so they can see if they like the color and how comfortable the seats are. I don’t see why anyone would wanna “test” your bridge for that reason. I think the concerns and criticisms were more aboustructural and functional than opinions about tone. Like “how can this thing be the thing from which the strings are properly attached to the bass?”

 

[StefanMarinov]

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...

With all due respect mate,

I see where you coming from. Here’s where I’m coming from too.

I like a product. I make claims on its sound properties. These claims have been doubted. I buy and provide a bridge with the purpose of my claims being assessed.

What are my motives behind sticking to it being used for my claims only are irrelevant for the purpose of this argument and I don’t think anyone can question that since it’s my bridge provided exactly for the purpose of checking my claims. However I’m happy to explain my motives to an unbiased party, say a moderator.

 

[NoiseNinja]

On a more serious note, as much as I, admittedly without being any kind of expert, actually want to believe that Ray Ross's bridge works as claimed, and think that regardless it's an interesting new and fresh perspective of a potential alternative to the old and far from perfect design, that I think at least one owns the benefit of a doubt as something that potentially could actually be a real improvement and valuable innovation, and as much as I don't like people ganging up on people who dare thinking differently, not least because those are the true heroes of history, the people who alone owns all credit to any progress ever made, that thing about just being allowed to test one aspect of the product just seems absolutely absurd to me, while I understand the deserved earned mistrust this decision might have been born of it just doesn't make any real sense beyond that, and what worse is, in my opinion, in the end it is doing Ray Ross and his bridge a disfavor, weather he himself has a say in this decision or not.

If it deserves the praise it stands the tests, and if the testers are strongly biased and will do all in their power to color the result negatively, they will do so, regardless of weather they are only allowed to test one aspect of it or not, so absolutely nothing is gained from this other than more mistrust on each side of this debate.

As I said, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and isn't doing the product or it's maker (or even yourself) a favor, quite on the contrary.

 

[StefanMarinov]

So it’s like lending a friend your car but only so they can see if they like the color and how comfortable the seats are. I don’t see why anyone would wanna “test” your bridge for that reason. I think the concerns and criticisms were more aboustructural and functional than opinions about tone. Like “how can this thing be the thing from which the strings are properly attached to the bass?”

I see what you mean.

If my original claim was that the paint is more special than regular paint, and I like the colour, and the seats are very comfortable, and my mate argued those statements, then I offered to give him the car so he can see if all of those above are true or not, I don’t see an issue with your comparison.

Re you don’t see why someone would wanna test my bridge in that case - well because that is what was agreed to be tested when TrustRod and I made the deal. He agreed to test it for the claims I made. We were strictly arguing about the sound properties of the bridge and nothing else.

 

[StefanMarinov]

On a more serious note, as much as I, admittedly without being any kind of expert, actually want to believe that Ray Ross's bridge works as claimed, and think that regardless it's an interesting new and fresh perspective of a potential alternative to the old and far from perfect design, that I think at least one owns the benefit of a doubt as something that potentially could actually be a real improvement and valuable innovation, and as much as I don't like people ganging up on people who dare thinking differently, not least because those are the true heroes of history, the people who alone owns all credit to any progress ever made, that thing about just being allowed to test one aspect of the product just seems absolutely absurd to me, while I understand the deserved earned mistrust this decision might have been born of it just doesn't make any real sense beyond that, and what worse is, in my opinion, in the end it is doing Ray Ross and his bridge a disfavor, weather he himself has a say in this decision or not.

If it deserves the praise it stands the tests, and if the testers are strongly biased and will do all in their power to color the result negatively, they will do so, regardless of weather they are only allowed to test one aspect of it or not, so absolutely nothing is gained from this other than more mistrust on each side of this debate.

As I said, it just doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and isn't doing the product or it's maker (or even yourself) a favor, quite on the contrary.

I believe in the sound advantages of this bridge and I went as far as to buy one that I didn’t need, when told that my claims would be checked if I did so.
I still stand by that and I think it provides a good opportunity for some of the claims about this bridge to be tested (the ones I’ve been standing for), and I don’t think that is doing the product a bad favour.

I did exactly as asked and as I promised - I won’t be dragged into other arguments by changing the rules of the deal last minute.

 

[NoiseNinja]

My advice is free, makes no difference to me if you take it or not, your choice entirely, but we clearly are not of the same perception of how human nature tends to work.

 

[StefanMarinov]

My advice is free, makes no difference to me if you take it or not, your choice entirely, but we clearly are not of the same perception of how human nature tends to work.

I do appreciate your advice and taking it into consideration for how to proceed. We might have different perception, yes - that’s normal. I do take that into account too.

 

[Turnaround]

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.

Quite true that I was not willing to ignore my technical concerns when testing the bridge. But I was willing to test the sound qualities as well.

The offer to test the bridge was a standing offer from the first days of it's appearance here on TB. My standing offer is retracted.

 

[StefanMarinov]

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.

 

[wraub]

@Turnaround

Why not do the sound tests, and merely note any other details during install/test?
Many observations go into a good test of something, and a hands-on investigation is a good thing, right?

@StefanMarinov would something like this be acceptable?

 

[StefanMarinov]

@Turnaround

Why not do the sound tests, and merely note any other details during install/test?
Many observations go into a good test of something, and a hands-on investigation is a good thing, right?

@StefanMarinov would something like this be acceptable?

Thanks for trying to find some solution, however that’s unacceptable to me at this point.


I’m getting increasingly displeased by the fact that some of the posts are somehow implying that I am doing the wrong thing here and I have some sort of obligation or responsibility outside of what was agreed when we were agreeing it.

I’ve provided the promised means for the agreed test, and for that purpose only. What is my reasoning behind that, nobody has a right to question. This is my own property and I’ve supplied it for the reason agreed. I’m not gonna be pushed into taking any blame here. If anyone wants to carry any whatever other tests on anything - please find another way. If anyone however wants to carry out the tests we agreed on - please by all means. That’s why I bought it for.

 

[Gorn]

I’ve provided the promised means for the agreed test, and for that purpose only. What is my reasoning behind that, nobody has a right to question. This is my own property and I’ve supplied it for the reason agreed. I’m not gonna be pushed into taking any blame here. If anyone wants to carry any whatever other tests on anything - please find another way. If anyone however wants to carry out the tests we agreed on - please by all means. That’s why I bought it for.

You can do what you want with your property and don’t owe anyone anything, but you and I and everyone else here have the right to question whatever we please. No one is questioning moderator decisions or asking why we can’t talk politics. We, or I guess I am questioning what seems like a really odd rule that you’ve set up.

 

[StefanMarinov]

You can do what you want with your property and don’t owe anyone anything, but you and I and everyone else here have the right to question whatever we please. No one is questioning moderator decisions or asking why we can’t talk politics. We, or I guess I am questioning what seems like a really odd rule that you’ve set up.

Fair enough - you’ve worded it better than what I’ve managed.

Yes, everybody has the right to question things on the permitted topics here I guess.

With the severeness of the arguments, misunderstandings, blame throwing, finger pointing and name calling (part of these I’m guilty of too) that’s been going on in this topic, I don’t feel confident that an unbiased review can be produced by anyone actively involved in the argument, on one or more accounts. I’ve already seen how it is possible to claim theoretical flaws just by looking at it or a picture of it, and I believe that test results can be (consciously or not) affected by attitude previously accumulated in this thread, or as someone mentioned earlier today, represented in unflattering light.

Hope that explains my reasoning.

Saying all this, I am happy to send the bridge for full mechanical and sound and whatever tests to someone who has in no way been involved in both arguments, or hasn’t shown any sympathising to either side.

 

[dwizum]

I have a 5 string that I don't mind making extra holes in as it's about to get some surgery around the bridge area anyways. I would be happy to test the bridge and provide feedback specifically on differences in the way the bass sounds. @StefanMarinov let me know if you're interested. I haven't followed this thread except to notice that it keeps popping up, and I don't have any allegiance to any of the arguments here. Heck, I don't really even have the time to read the 20+ pages of arguments and decide if I agree with any of them or not, so I would consider myself impartial. I just happened to click on the thread out of curiosity today to see why this bridge has generated so much content, and I have only read the last few pages in terms of this offer for testing the bridge.

This bass has an aluminum Hipshot B right now, so that's what I would be comparing to. The bass is a semi hollow bolt on with Bartolini 59j's.

I'm not really keen to pay a ton out of pocket to ship this all the way to the UK (I'm in NY), but I don't really even know what the shipping cost would be - if it's in the realm of typical small-item shipping here in the US (say, under $15) then that's fine. I just don't want to find out after agreeing to the test that it's gonna be like $40-50 or something. Maybe if you can provide me your address ahead of time I can look it up first.

 

[StefanMarinov]

I have a 5 string that I don't mind making extra holes in as it's about to get some surgery around the bridge area anyways. I would be happy to test the bridge and provide feedback specifically on differences in the way the bass sounds. @StefanMarinov let me know if you're interested. I haven't followed this thread except to notice that it keeps popping up, and I don't have any allegiance to any of the arguments here. Heck, I don't really even have the time to read the 20+ pages of arguments and decide if I agree with any of them or not, so I would consider myself impartial. I just happened to click on the thread out of curiosity today to see why this bridge has generated so much content, and I have only read the last few pages in terms of this offer for testing the bridge.

This bass has an aluminum Hipshot B right now, so that's what I would be comparing to. The bass is a semi hollow bolt on with Bartolini 59j's.

I'm not really keen to pay a ton out of pocket to ship this all the way to the UK (I'm in NY), but I don't really even know what the shipping cost would be - if it's in the realm of typical small-item shipping here in the US (say, under $15) then that's fine. I just don't want to find out after agreeing to the test that it's gonna be like $40-50 or something. Maybe if you can provide me your address ahead of time I can look it up first.

Thanks for the offer - I’m happy with that. This is why I bought the bridge in a first place.

I’ll send you a DM with the requested details. I’m ok to cover the extra shipping costs anyway.

Thank you!

 

[silky smoove]

I’ve provided the promised means for the agreed test, and for that purpose only.

With all due respect; How would this be enforced? You've offered the bridge, which you paid for, to be tested, tried, demoed, etc. by someone and since shipping is involved they will almost certainly be in a different physical location from you. What's to stop someone from agreeing to your terms and then doing a more rigorous scientific test to analyze Ray Ross' claims which is what started all the heat in this thread to begin with? You're not going to be there when they're testing it, either through bolting it on a bass and listening, or by hooking it up to some testing rig. So again, how do you envision the enforcement of these terms to take place?

As I see it you either agree to let someone try it in whatever capacity they're going to, or you don't agree to let them try it. That decision is entirely on you, your comfort level with the individual and the assumed risk of sending a piece of your property to someone who is, for all intents and purposes, a stranger. What they do with it when they receive it is 100% out of your control.

 

[ixlramp]

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. ..."

Not sure if you saw Dr. Kemp posting in this forum about exactly this, see Announcing The Ray Ross™ Saddle-Less Bass Bridge

Although the raised mass of the locking twist may be beneficial for harmonicity, there is also twice as much core wire in that section too, raising stiffness, and stiffness raises frequency, so this might partly or entirely cancel out the inharmonicity-reducing effect. However, this is probably not a concern, the comparison video sounds to me like an improvement.

The large amount of controversial interest in this bridge is a good thing and i hope it encourages others to come up with alternative 'straight string' and/or 'direct to anchor' bridge designs, and innovative hardware generally. I have a design of my own (not engineered yet, might not work well) that i arrived at by a bizarre route before i was aware of the Ray Ross bridge.

 

[StefanMarinov]

With all due respect; How would this be enforced? You've offered the bridge, which you paid for, to be tested, tried, demoed, etc. by someone and since shipping is involved they will almost certainly be in a different physical location from you. What's to stop someone from agreeing to your terms and then doing a more rigorous scientific test to analyze Ray Ross' claims which is what started all the heat in this thread to begin with? You're not going to be there when they're testing it, either through bolting it on a bass and listening, or by hooking it up to some testing rig. So again, how do you envision the enforcement of these terms to take place?

As I see it you either agree to let someone try it in whatever capacity they're going to, or you don't agree to let them try it. That decision is entirely on you, your comfort level with the individual and the assumed risk of sending a piece of your property to someone who is, for all intents and purposes, a stranger. What they do with it when they receive it is 100% out of your control.

I think you’ve answered your own question here mate.

What’s to stop someone to agree to my terms and then do something completely different is honour, and that is something I haven’t doubted in either TrustRod or Turnaround, despite our heated arguments and other issues. If someone promises something and then decides to break their promise, that’s on them, not on me, but I didn’t see such possibility in this case.

As for the second part, since the original arrangement could not be completed, I am happy to move forward passing it on to someone who I feel comfortable enough is impartial and will provide an unbiased opinion.

 

[silky smoove]

I think you’ve answered your own question here mate.

Yep, and I knew that when I posted it

My implied point was that putting up restrictions doesn’t do anything for your goal of having someone else test the bridge. In fact, it may scare some people off the notion entirely by thinking that dealing with you would be problematic, whether or not that’s actually the case. For the record; I assume it’s not the case.