Threaded Inserts (Steel) - TONE A/B TEST

[AMJBASS]

Quick question... before your initial recording before making any modifications, did you take the strings off and put them back on? I have found that strings do settle in, and when you take off a set and put them back on they sound a bit different.

 

[stingray69]

Quick question... before your initial recording before making any modifications, did you take the strings off and put them back on? I have found that strings do settle in, and when you take off a set and put them back on they sound a bit different.

The strings were Rotosound 66's in what I'd describe as mid-life condition where any harsh top end in the highs had wore off, well settled-in and well beyond the new string variable of going out of tune due to most any amount of playing. The only time I took the strings off was to install the inserts. FWIW, the strings were laid out flat (not coiled up) while I was installing the inserts. If I had to guess how long they were off the bass, I'd say 40 min, definitely under 1 hour.

 

[Stinsok]

Do you have a drill press or were you able to do it with a hand drill?

 

[stingray69]

Do you have a drill press or were you able to do it with a hand drill?

A drill press is the best option - if you have access to one, that is. I did all of mine however with a hand drill and a Brad Point bit (doweling bit). A nice touch is to use epoxy if you want maximum security of the inserts in the wood - it would make future removal of the inserts for any reason rather tricky though. Mine have been screwed into the wood without any adhesive...although I did one install with a dab of TiteBond II on the outer threads (thought it was suitable for metal-to-wood adhesion), it was not. In any case, all 3 instruments I've done to date have been without epoxy.

 

[koobie]

Stingray69, very interesting test, thanks for sharing your results with us. Pretty cool that the screen shots of the spectrum analyzer confirm what the differences in the clips sounded like, at least to my ears.

Although I appreciate the additional clarity in the upper mids (and up) from the threaded inserts, as a listener I'm not sure it's worth the loss of warmth in the 100 Hz range. Maybe since you were the player the added articulation really made it seem a worthwhile change.

 

[stingray69]

Stingray69, very interesting test, thanks for sharing your results with us. Pretty cool that the screen shots of the spectrum analyzer confirm what the differences in the clips sounded like, at least to my ears.

Although I appreciate the additional clarity in the upper mids (and up) from the threaded inserts, as a listener I'm not sure it's worth the loss of warmth in the 100 Hz range. Maybe since you were the player the added articulation really made it seem a worthwhile change.

Thanks koobie, and thanks for checking out the thread. I know that the changes may not be for everyone - again, I am just laying out the results as best as I can. I knew I was hearing some differences after installing these, and knew that if I could hear these differences, they surely could be captured - at least in theory. The use of threaded inserts to my knowledge is just not a very common thing & there's just not a whole lot of information regarding it to be found on the internet - part of the reason I wanted to do some of these tests.

I want to emphasize again that these tracks were NOT ran through a bass head nor EQ chain of any sort. Any tone balance of low/mid/highs was not adjusted in the recording. The 100Hz area can be easily bumped via EQ in a bass rig scenario. Running it through my practice rig at home, I noticed a richer, more "alive" sounding change to the bass. Very responsive to touch, etc. I feel a lot more resonant energy & and a fuller and more complex set of frequencies are making it to the body of the instrument rather than being lost at the neck pocket. But I didn't feel a tremendous loss of lows so much as hearing much more clarity & articulation all the way around. EQ is one of personal taste and adjustment - I'd normally EQ a little differently for recording or playing live regardless of wood screws or inserts. The spectrum analyzer shows that a slight bump at the 100Hz point might be required to keep the wood screw equivalent in balance.

Believe me when I say, the very last thing I intend this thread to be about is conveying any sort of "threaded inserts are better than wood screws" sense of air about it. Nothing could be further from the original intent. There is enough of that kind of sentiment on all sorts of TB topics, lol. There is just a huge lack of real information regarding any tangible tone/resonance/etc changes as a result. This is entirely about trying to capture & explain the resonance & tonal differences I noticed when using these threaded inserts.

I, of course, have my own preferences about the results, and I don't want to come across as trying to persuade others at all - my personal preferences towards the results do not matter. It's all about the science of it at this point, because I find it fascinating myself. My only hope is that the results make it useful for others to make an informed decision if these are worth having a look into for use on their instrument(s) - be that embracing it, or keeping it at bay with a 10-foot pole, lol. But we gotta have some facts in place first.

 

[stingray69]

Moving the thread forward into high mass bridge replacement/analysis...sorry for the wait everyone - I went a different route than I first anticipated for this High Mass Bridge Test. I decided to ordered a different high mass bridge than originally intended and it took a while getting here with Columbus Day, etc.


So first, about the bass - I am testing on an [DEL]completely stock[/DEL], Alder bodied Squier Affinity Jazz Bass 5-string w/D'Addario EXL-170's (nicklewound) strings. [DEL]This bass does NOT have threaded inserts. I thought it would be a better platform to test on because if you recall from the spectrum analyzer waveform pics, the threaded inserts added quite a bit of harmonic content and made the waveform very dense & complex looking. I think any detectable frequency changes would be much more easily spotted in a waveform that was a lot less densely populated from the start, rather than trying to find needles in a haystack so to speak. [/DEL]

EDIT: See Post #72 further down on this page for further clarification regarding the stricken comments in this paragraph.


So here we have the 2 particular bridges that I am going to test (see pics below). Before we go too far, I need to point out a couple of things about the bridge because it may matter. I decided to pony up the dough for a very common (and very nice) aftermarket bridge - the Hipshot A-style model (Aluminum, 5-string). This particular Hipshot bridge mounts with only 3 screws vs. the Affinity's 5-hole bridge. The Affinity bridge screws were a tad bit beefier, a tiny bit longer & with coarser threads. I would have much preferred to use them rather than the Hipshot supplied screws. I did not use my stock bridge screws for 1 main reason mostly. I decided the results would be most accurate, most "real world" if I simply used the provided screws from Hipshot - standard installation as-is (as intended I suppose) from Hipshot. The 5-holes from the stock bridge were filled with dowel rods (birch) and 3 new holes were drilled to accommodate the new Hipshot A-style bridge.

String height above the pickups was measured before & after the new bridge was installed. Same recording principle as before - no amps, straight into pc soundcard via M-Audio FireWire Solo, etc.

Although relatively close in physical baseplate size, you can see from the various picture angles that there is no doubt the Hipshot will be adding more mass vs. the stock bridge.

 

[stingray69]

The Audio Clips:

STOCK BRIDGE: http://www.zshare.net/audio/81494372b8e86483/
Hipshot A Bridge: http://www.zshare.net/audio/81494583f603f7fb/


What I'm seeing in the spectral Analyzer graph:

1. A very slight gain boost in the 300Hz area.

2. By far the most changes occur in the 469Hz thru 2.2Khz...a lot more frequency complexity showing up in that range, but at the same time, a slight drop in volume accompanies those frequencies. The overall high end frequency range looks a little more "evened out" as well - less spikes in the waveform especially between the 2Khz and 5Khz area. Should this be interpreted as a slight compression??? Don't know, but it looked like an area of interest worth mentioning as well.

So, in this case (between these 2 particular bridges on my particular instrument) changes were definitely brought about by the Hipshot high mass bridge. The SA graph shows what I am hearing in the recorded waveform - some slight mid & upper midrange enhancement, not overbearing...but noticeable. I am not hearing a lot of high end "zing" as I've heard people describe after swapping out for HMB's. Depends - but to clarify, in my mind "zing" refers to 3-4K and higher (upper-to-very high treble). So amped up through a bass rig at volume, I'd say clarity & fingerstyle definition would be enhanced a bit. So, apparently the high mass Hipshot bridge has made tangible changes to the tone of the bass & generally on par with a lot of reported tone change descriptions we've seen & read about after a high mass bridge installation.

Clearly the results are to a much lesser degree and behave in a very different manner as threaded inserts made to the waveform, but measurable/audible changes nonetheless.

Spectrum Analysis:

STOCK BRIDGE:

Hipshot A-style Bridge:

 

[stingray69]

In the rush of doing tests, posting pics & putting new soundclips up in a relative hurry, I think I missed something pretty interesting within the High Mass Bridge graph.

Take a look at what's happening in the 100Hz area. In the STOCK graph, there is a dip at the 100Hz area (kinda like what we saw with the threaded inserts). In the HIGH MASS BRIDGE graph, that 100Hz area came UP quite a bit.


STOCK Bridge (Yellow = 100Hz area):

Hipshot A-style (Yellow = 100Hz area)

 

[mongo2]

In the rush of doing tests, posting pics & putting new soundclips up in a relative hurry, I think I missed something pretty interesting within the High Mass Bridge graph.

Take a look at what's happening in the 100Hz area. In the STOCK graph, there is a dip at the 100Hz area (kinda like what we saw with the threaded inserts). In the HIGH MASS BRIDGE graph, that 100Hz area came UP quite a bit.


STOCK Bridge (Yellow = 100Hz area):

Hipshot A-style (Yellow = 100Hz area)

So much for the idea put forth by some that a high mass bridge suppresses lows/low mids.

 

[stingray69]

So much for the idea put forth by some that a high mass bridge suppresses lows/low mids.

Well, I gotta admit - based off all the reports I ever hear regarding high mass bridges adding top end "zing", I was looking hard at what the higher frequencies were doing foremost. That's a pretty sizeable difference though (about +5db) in the 100Hz range, I'm kind of embarrassed I missed it at first glance.

In my defense, I was analyzing & highlighting the High Mass Bridge graphs yesterday morning while trying to get enough coffee to wake up.

 

[stingray69]

As you can imagine, I've been installing lots of inserts/bridges, etc over the past 2 weeks while doing this thread. Well - I just discovered a big Oops regarding the Squier Affinity High Mass Bridge Test. The Affinity Jazz DID HAVE inserts installed already before I put on that Hipshot Bridge. Earlier tonight I was playing it and flipped it around & saw the machine screws in the neckplate, and had a small epiphany with something I recalled in the High Mass Bridge Test waveform.

Here's my face palm (I deserve it):

So to clarify - the Squier Affinity in the High Mass Bridge Test DID have inserts already installed. Guess that explains (and double-confirms) the same 100Hz dip that we saw happening after putting inserts in the SX neck. So BOTH basses have now exhibited that little dip in the 100Hz area after installing the threaded inserts. BUT here's what's very inadvertently cool about the oversight. The High Mass Hipshot Bridge brought BACK that little 100Hz band of frequencies on a bass that has the threaded inserts. Yay!

Sorry if I'm geeking out over this bit of information, but that 100Hz dip was really bugging me, as it appears to be the only frequency area that was reduced by using threaded inserts. The high mass bridge appears to correct that small dip.

 

[ghoulbug]

DOH.
just when I was gonna give the clips a closer listen. For now, all I can say is that the stock bent-plate bridge gives a pillowy attack, while the HMB seems to get a cleaner attack while adding a low-mid growl.

While you're recording the "proper" clips, I wonder if I could bother you to play some more slap lines with the bass. The hard attack really seems to bring out the different characteristics better.

 

[THand]

Man, I wish you would have gotten the brass Hipshot bridge!

 

[stingray69]

DOH.
just when I was gonna give the clips a closer listen. For now, all I can say is that the stock bent-plate bridge gives a pillowy attack, while the HMB seems to get a cleaner attack while adding a low-mid growl.

While you're recording the "proper" clips, I wonder if I could bother you to play some more slap lines with the bass. The hard attack really seems to bring out the different characteristics better.

Point taken - will do next time.

The bass that this Hipshot A-style is currently installed on is not the bass I intend to keep it on. I want to move it to a Sunburst Affinity Jazz I own (also currently with threaded inserts installed). That will give me another opportunity to at least record another Stock Bridge vs. Hipshot A-style High Mass bridge on that bass too. I hope to see/replicate the same gain in the 100Hz area.

 

[stingray69]

Man, I wish you would have gotten the brass Hipshot bridge!

Well THand, I'm open to the idea of letting you send me a brass Hipshot bridge for testing - although I must warn you that the testing could go on indefinitely. Just kidding...

Actually, I did wonder about the brass myself at the time of ordering the Aluminum bridge. Although I figured aluminum was probably a little more common place as a replacement bridge material - no hard facts on that, just my perception. That would be a very interesting sub-set of testing though - Brass vs. Aluminum, the ultimate smack down.

 

[THand]

Well THand, I'm open to the idea of letting you send me a brass Hipshot bridge for testing - although I must warn you that the testing could go on indefinitely. Just kidding...

Actually, I did wonder about the brass myself at the time of ordering the Aluminum bridge. Although I figured aluminum was probably a little more common place as a replacement bridge material - no hard facts on that, just my perception. That would be a very sub-set of testing though - Brass vs. Aluminum, the ultimate smack down.

LOL!

I have a Brass Hipshot bridge, but it's not going anywhere!

 

[stingray69]

LOL!

I have a Brass Hipshot bridge, but it's not going anywhere!

Awww c'mon, I'm sure I'll be done with all this testing stuff inside of 2 years. LOL. Again, just kidding.

 

[SurferJoe46]

Very interesting report and it surely clears up some mud in the philosophy of sound.

There was a statement by ghoulbug that said:

DOH.
just when I was gonna give the clips a closer listen. For now, all I can say is that the stock bent-plate bridge gives a pillowy attack, while the HMB seems to get a cleaner attack while adding a low-mid growl.

...........and that makes me think a 'low-mid growl' is just loss of fundamental frequencies and less attenuation of the secondary/tertiaries, etc. That could be the result in the brain filling in the frequencies that are missing with imprinted sounds that aren't there.

Since I firmly believe that the bridge is the gateway to the ablative values of the body wood, this would be prima-facia.

.

 

[stingray69]

Very interesting report and it surely clears up some mud in the philosophy of sound.

There was a statement by ghoulbug that said:

...........and that makes me think a 'low-mid growl' is just loss of fundamental frequencies and less attenuation of the secondary/tertiaries, etc. That could be the result in the brain filling in the frequencies that are missing with imprinted sounds that aren't there.

Since I firmly believe that the bridge is the gateway to the ablative values of the body wood, this would be prima-facia.

.

I definitely agree that low mid growl relies on secondary overtones to bring definition to the growl, otherwise it's just undefined lows. And I also agree without doubt that the brain & the way human ears hear, fill in what they perceive to be missing. Especially more-so when in a full mix of instruments (studio recording for example). An acoustic guitar track is often EQ'd in a mix to have little to no low end whatsoever and when isolated, will sound incredibly thin and well - awful sounding by itself. The brain & ear will "borrow" other low end frequencies happening in the mix & the track will sound very good & much fuller than what it actually is by itself. What I find interesting throughout these threaded insert tests is that all frequencies (with exception to the small 100Hz area) are more complex with overtones & brought out - including the lows. The growl factor is improved on the instruments that I have installed the threaded inserts on.