• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Stingray bridge ..how come?

Apr 13, 2005
1,137
1,480
With all the topics discussed here how come I don't remember anyone ever arguing which bridge is better on Stingrays. Mine has the stubs for the long gone mutes and the new bridges look much smaller and have no mute nubs. So why don't I ever recall this topic? By the way I like the look better with the older style bridge. I have no idea if it effects the sound of the bass ;)
 
Because for the most part the people didn't like/actually use the mutes and the mutes would fall apart or get lost. For a lot of us it was addition by subtraction.

true. I pretty much NEVER use the mutes. Maybe onece or twice when I first got the bass, but that was 12 years ago...

and yes, they are falling apart...

DSC_0600.gif
 
I liked having the option of the mutes. I obviously wouldn't use them all the time, but I do when I go to blues jams, and especially for using different sounds in the studio.
But to me, no sound or tonal difference as far as the bridges themselves go.

I did a thread on restoring the mute pads about a year ago. A search would turn it up.

-Mike
 
  • Like
Reactions: shojii
I've heard the finger cutting thing before, but I have never personally seen anyone who's done it. And of all the years I've been playing them, have never scratched a finger on those bridges and can't wrap around my head how anyone could.

Nor can I wrap my head around how anyone could get their dental appliance caught in the net of a basketball hoop or blame food for making him fat, but apparently these are the issues of our age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GIBrat51
I've heard the finger cutting thing before, but I have never personally seen anyone who's done it. And of all the years I've been playing them, have never scratched a finger on those bridges and can't wrap around my head how anyone could.

+2
NEVER heard of such a thing...that is wierd.My fingers don't come anywhere near the mute assembly while playing...
 
  • Like
Reactions: shojii
Nor can I wrap my head around how anyone could get their dental appliance caught in the net of a basketball hoop or blame food for making him fat, but apparently these are the issues of our age.

No, see, it's one thing to get your dental appliance caught in a basketball hoop, and I know why people blame food for making them fat, but this is different.
 
true. I pretty much NEVER use the mutes. Maybe onece or twice when I first got the bass, but that was 12 years ago...

and yes, they are falling apart...

DSC_0600.gif

:eek: "They're falling apart"!??? :confused:

Who are you kidding :p, they're some of the finest condition foam mutes I've seen. Still, if you don't use them and you want to swap them for mine, you're more than welcome :D ....

134-3460_IMG.jpg


BTW, I know that the E string isn't in the saddle properly. This picture was taken on the day that I first got the bass. It's had a good clean up since then and been re-strung (several times).

;)

For the record, I love the look of the original bridge design and yes, I have a sneaking suspicion that the hollow saddles and wider baseplate do have a small influence on the tone ;).
 
I didn't think very many people actually used the mutes, most Stingrays I see they are long gone. I just wondered why the "mass" of the older bridge wasn't a topic as opposed to the smaller looking maybe lighter bridge. Guess it just isn't a topic but it seems there is much debate over so many such issues I just wondered why Stingray bridges weren't a topic. No biggie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Watchootognbout
:eek: "They're falling apart"!??? :confused:

Who are you kidding :p, they're some of the finest condition foam mutes I've seen. Still, if you don't use them and you want to swap them for mine, you're more than welcome :D ....

134-3460_IMG.jpg


BTW, I know that the E string isn't in the saddle properly. This picture was taken on the day that I first got the bass. It's had a good clean up since then and been re-strung (several times).

;)

For the record, I love the look of the original bridge design and yes, I have a sneaking suspicion that the hollow saddles and wider baseplate do have a small influence on the tone ;).


Are those pubes mutes????:confused::atoz:
 
Are those pubes mutes????:confused::atoz:

:p ROFLMAO

You don't know just how close you came with that remark, vene-nemesis.

I don't think that I actually mentioned it on TB, in my enthusiastic first post about this bass, but I did tell another bassist friend of mine about the "curly horrors" :eek:, which I found tucked into every nook and cranny of this "much-loved" :eyebrow: vintage bass, when it first arrived :D. There were actually pubic hairs, wedged under the bridge saddles and stuck to the string mutes :spit:.

Believe me, it's had a damn good clean since I got it - it now looks more like this:

135-3512_IMG-1.jpg


Just to wash away the nasty taste of that mental image, here's a picture of the bridge from a fretless 1988 'Ray that I sold last year.

139-3997_IMG.jpg


How could anyone prefer one of these "stubby monstrosities", I ask myself :confused: !?

121-2182_IMG.jpg


:hiding:
 
  • Like
Reactions: shojii
How can you be certain they were thoooose type hairs? Why would they be there? Maybe they were from an animal or just some fellows head?

:( You're right! I should have kept them and sent them for DNA testing, instead of ripping them out of the gaps as quick as I could, sucking them up the vacuum cleaner, emptying the dust bag into my bin, driving my bin to the local nuclear waste re-processing plant and waving goodbye to the freight ship that took it off to Bangalore for dumping :hiding:.

Maybe I over-reacted unnecessarily :hmm:!?

;)