• 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.

Threaded Inserts (Steel) - TONE A/B TEST

#81
stingray69 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here comes da devil ---

'Growl-factors' and all - could achieving that nebulous sound just not better be done by EQ'ing and not somewhat crippling the ability of the bass to pass all tones/sounds/timbers along to the amp, to be adjusted for the user's needs or desires?

What I mean is - if adding a piece of hardware (machine screws/inserts or even a HM bridge) to the bass will attenuate certain sounds and less-attenuate others - then there's a big hole in it's [DEL]quantitative[/DEL] total ability to fill more genres and styles.

What comes to mind is the fifth note in a barbershop quartet. The note isn't so much 'sounded', but is 'perceived' by the listeners and performers.
 
#82
SurferJoe46 said:
Here comes da devil ---

'Growl-factors' and all - could achieving that nebulous sound just not better be done by EQ'ing and not somewhat crippling the ability of the bass to pass all tones/sounds/timbers along to the amp, to be adjusted for the user's needs or desires?

What I mean is - if adding a piece of hardware (machine screws/inserts or even a HM bridge) to the bass will attenuate certain sounds and less-attenuate others - then there's a big hole in it's [DEL]quantitative[/DEL] total ability to fill more genres and styles.

What comes to mind is the fifth note in a barbershop quartet. The note isn't so much 'sounded', but is 'perceived' by the listeners and performers.
Click to expand...

Well, no doubt outboard EQ'ing rather than altering anything on the instrument level would be a means to the same end - sort of. Threaded inserts would still maintain the benefits of much increased harmonic complexity, sustain (although not verified) & increased resonance. Those properties originate at the instrument-level. EQ'ing at the bass rig level will push and change existing frequencies around in the waveform where you decide they should be, but it will not inject or add that harmonic complexity content that the inserts/HM bridge bring. At any outboard EQ level, you're just balancing relative frequency band levels with each other, but adding no more harmonic overtones than what's already in the original waveform. I'd beg to offer that those added complexities make for a "richer" sounding instrument. That is what I am hearing anyway. I do find myself actually fiddling less with EQ with the inserts installed. I mostly find myself cutting frequencies to room taste rather than boosting anything.

I want to remind readers of the thread that the soundclips are not a showcase of any sort. They certainly don't capture the power of the tone coming through a bass rig through a series of 10" speakers. The soundclips are in their rawest form with no amps, no EQ - how one shapes it from there is left up to the individual. An EQ bump in the 100Hz area will compensate - and it's looking very promising that a HM bridge will fill that 100Hz area back in as well.

To answer the genres question - I'll say this. To me, my jazz basses sound "better" afterwards. So why would I hesitate to use a better sounding version of them in the same genres I currently do? ;)

But the point of this thread again is to show what exactly is happening tone-wise when using threaded inserts. Anyone actually considering going this route will have to decide if the results are the direction they want to go.
 
#83
That is a great answer and one to which I can completely subscribe.

Thanks for your insightful-ness and clarity of thought.

Now I've got to decide if I really want that 100Hz area beefed up or not.

Got a funny feeling that somehow using the HM to return what the inserts remove may do something odd to my sounds in other areas if the body sucks up all the frequency advantages after all is said and done.
 
#84
SurferJoe46 said:
That is a great answer and one to which I can completely subscribe.

Thanks for your insightful-ness and clarity of thought.

Now I've got to decide if I really want that 100Hz area beefed up or not.

Got a funny feeling that somehow using the HM to return what the inserts remove may do something odd to my sounds in other areas if the body sucks up all the frequency advantages after all is said and done.
Click to expand...

Thank You Sir.

Regarding the 100hz gain via HMB - I do see areas in the High Mass Bridge Test graphs that suggest a few more harmonic complexities being added through the 470Hz -2Khz range and a mild leveling out of a few small spikes (mild compression?) in the 2Khz-4Khz range.
On the other hand, the added content in the 470Hz - 2Khz range actually makes the waveform look more uniform in density - more in balance with the waveform content happening above 2Khz. It may make for a more musical & tonally balanced sounding instrument.
 
#85
This test is to test out a theory from something I noticed in the first High Mass Bridge test results. I originally installed the Hipshot A High Mass bridge on one of my Squier Affinity Jazz V basses (a black one, with threaded inserts installed). I saw in the waveform graph that among other changes in certain frequencies, the elusive 100Hz frequency band made a return. Fluke or not? That's what I am seeking to test/replicate here - to install the same Hipshot A-style HMB onto another Affinity Jazz V (Sunburst, with threaded inserts installed) that I own to see if the same bands of frequency are affected - with my own particular interest in the 100Hz band. Basically, looking to see if the test results can be replicated on a different bass.

Some clips, no amps, no EQ:

Slap-style STOCK bridge: http://www.zshare.net/audio/81916666e1432b6f/
Slap style Hipshot bridge: http://www.zshare.net/audio/81916740fc01bb86/

Finger style STOCK bridge: http://www.zshare.net/audio/8193226583164db7/
Finger style Hipshot HMB: http://www.zshare.net/audio/81932368676a9ff1/


Sunburst Affinity Jazz Bass with STOCK bridge & threaded inserts:

SunburstAffinityNOHMBwithinsertsStockBridgeRED.gif


Sunburst Affinity Jazz Bass with Hipshot A-style High Mass Bridge & threaded inserts:

SunburstAffinityHipshotHMBwithinsertsRED.gif


It appears that the Hipshot bridge did indeed show the same set of frequency gains/improvements in the same areas on this bass as it did on the Black Affinity in the 1st test. The 100Hz area shows a 6-7db gain after installing the HMB.

This whole HMB testing is quite interesting to me personally, as I haven't really been much of a proponent of changing out stock bridges for many years due to not really noticing much of a tone difference afterwards - at least not thinking I heard too much of a difference. Then again, the last time I really changed bridges out for anything High Mass was probably 15yrs ago & I certainly didn't have the means to take A/B recordings or perform spectral analyzer testing (gotta love computers) to see what was really going on with the tone of the instrument.

In any case, I will probably slow down a bit here in the thread for now. Too much drilling, recording, swapping stuff - not enough practicing, lol. I will certainly add more tests of relevance in the future (the brass vs aluminum would be cool). I've seen enough here in the test results that I will be picking up another HMB or two in the near future and will probably post up some testing results on those as well to see if the trend continues (most likely they will). I hope everyone found something of interest through the course of the thread to this point. I know I learned a lot myself, found a lot stuff to think about - and had fun in the process. :)
 
#87
Can you summarize your conclusions from all this testing? Is the difference between a stock bridge and an HMB significant enough to consider an upgrade?

In my own experience, exchanging a stock bridge for a BAII made adjustments to intonation and string height easier and more stable, eliminated side-to-side movement of the saddles, and to my ears improved sustain and clarity by small amounts. Of course, I don't have the waveform data to back that up.
 
#88
Could you - would you - categorically state that adding a HMB to almost any bass would therefor add at least a few dB to the 100Hz zone?

It would be nice to chart the apparent results in some sort of overall graph with lines and arrows and paragraphs to explain the lines and arrows (sorry, Arlo).

If I honestly believed that I would not add to the freqs above 1K, then I might reconsider adding one - maybe.
 
#90
SurferJoe46 said:
Could you - would you - categorically state that adding a HMB to almost any bass would therefor add at least a few dB to the 100Hz zone?
Click to expand...

Though the results of these two incidents with the same bridge look interesting, and inspite of my previous quip, I think it's a bit of a slim sample size upon which to base an absolute statement good for all basses and all high mass bridges.
 
#91
selowitch said:
Can you summarize your conclusions from all this testing? Is the difference between a stock bridge and an HMB significant enough to consider an upgrade?

In my own experience, exchanging a stock bridge for a BAII made adjustments to intonation and string height easier and more stable, eliminated side-to-side movement of the saddles, and to my ears improved sustain and clarity by small amounts. Of course, I don't have the waveform data to back that up.
Click to expand...

My own conclusions about the HMB is that I prefer them over the stock bridge but that is mostly about regaining the 100Hz area on an instrument-level to off-set the slight decrease the threaded inserts brought about. I mean boosting that frequency area at the bass rig level vi EQ is fine too, but my preference is to keep them at the instrument-level. That 100Hz area was reduced a little with the inserts, but not completely eliminated. So either method works for me to keep that area as strong or better than the wood screws response, but again I'd much rather have it in place without boosting at the amp level. Plus, all the benefits you mention are of interest to me as well. I especially like the elimination of side-to-side movement. It is kind of aggravating sometimes to look down at the bridge only to see that most of the saddles have copped a lean and are no longer dead center on the bridge plate. I'm especially interested in bridges that separate the saddles from each other with a full "wall" of metal between each saddle. I think the virtue of that kind of design keeps the "handling noise" (sympathetic vibrations, transference of heavy-handed thumps, etc) down to a minimum and increases overall playing articulation, but I have not directly tested these things. I have that kind of bridge on one of my basses though & that's the perception I get from it. But again, that's just my perception of it.

Wood screws or not, I learned a lot through the testing that a HMB will add low mid punch not just in the 100Hz area, but at 200Hz and up as well. It looks like frequencies as high up as 2-3Khz and slightly more perhaps are increased too. Tone is so subjective & personal however, one will have to decide whether or not threaded inserts or high mass bridges and the changes they bring about are something they would want. I just wanted to do a thread about measuring any tangible frequency effects of these sorts of things. I had never come across any kind of testing like this on inserts or HMB's. I wanted to see what could be captured and to see how the results lived up to tone descriptions/claims by manufacturers & player comments I've seen. Personally, I like the HMB tone changes, but that is strictly a personal preference. I understand other people might not care for the results. I hope the thread doesn't come across as "selling" any of these things. I have no desire to sell anybody on anything. I just wanted to have a better understanding of how some of these things (inserts, HMB's) work to affect an instruments tone and trying to get a handle on how exactly (which frequencies) they are enhancing things. I had never seen these kinds of tests anywhere & thought it would be a very interesting thing to do. :)
 
#92
as i found out from testing most of my preamps, tube amps, and power amps with a signal generator using TrueRTA (1/24th octave) as well as a stand alone real time analyzer, frequency response is only part of the equation when it comes to the tone of an instrument. attack, decay, sustain and release also contribute ALOT to the way a bass's tone is percieved. i could match the frequency responses of various amps/preamps almost exactly, but they still sounded quite a bit different.
 
#93
SurferJoe46 said:
Could you - would you - categorically state that adding a HMB to almost any bass would therefor add at least a few dB to the 100Hz zone?

It would be nice to chart the apparent results in some sort of overall graph with lines and arrows and paragraphs to explain the lines and arrows (sorry, Arlo).

If I honestly believed that I would not add to the freqs above 1K, then I might reconsider adding one - maybe.
Click to expand...

mongo2 said:
Though the results of these two incidents with the same bridge look interesting, and inspite of my previous quip, I think it's a bit of a slim sample size upon which to base an absolute statement good for all basses and all high mass bridges.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with mongo2 - I wouldn't want to make any absolute comments stating that every instrument will exhibit the exact same frequency changes nor to the same amounts of gain at certain frequencies. There are just too many variables in the kinds of woods (Ash, Alder, what have you), their resonance properties, etc. I do see a pattern across 2 Alder bodied bass behaving & reacting in the same general frequency locations to the HMB, but I think anyone would agree that making any blanket statement would be a little too presumptuous. I will continue to add to the thread especially after pickup up another HMB or two to see if the trend continues onto 3-4 basses rather than the 2 I've tested to date. But the trends & same general frequency areas are looking pretty solid on these Alder basses.

As far as guaranteeing that no frequencies above 1Khz won't be affected, I can see in the graphs that (among other frequencies), the 2-4Khz range is raised on both basses tested. But one thing to consider is that the other frequencies both below and above 1Khz are being enhanced in proportion. It's important to realize that there is no big "spike" in the waveform. Everything from 100Hz up through 2-4Khz or so, is enhanced pretty uniformly. You'd have to spend some time in the graphs, but I've noticed that wherever there was dips or peaks in the "before" shots, they pretty much follow the same dips & peaks in the "after" shots, only raised in volume and more harmonic complexity. If the frequencies above 1Khz took a big jump higher than the rest of the frequency enhancements, then yeah, you'd have an uneven sounding (bright) instrument, but I'm not seeing that in the graphs.
 
#95
johnk_10 said:
as i found out from testing most of my preamps, tube amps, and power amps with a signal generator using TrueRTA (1/24th octave) as well as a stand alone real time analyzer, frequency response is only part of the equation when it comes to the tone of an instrument. attack, decay, sustain and release also contribute ALOT to the way a bass's tone is percieved. i could match the frequency responses of various amps/preamps almost exactly, but they still sounded quite a bit different.
Click to expand...

+1

I saw this with the threaded inserts vs. the sustain. In a waveform, the fundamental is much stronger & much longer in decay as compared to the much quicker decline of the note in the "before" notes. This translates to pretty big tonal differences when playing through a bass rig - it's a stronger sounding instrument, IMO.
 
#99
LB75 said:
What about using threaded inserts to attach the HMB also? :)
Click to expand...

I know I've seen a couple of other TB'ers considering that, maybe have already done it. There probably would be a slight change in the waveform if the coupling force of the bridge to the body were increased, but I don't know if I'm up to doing that kind of testing for now. I think I'll stick with wood screws for bridge attachments. :)
 
#100
stingray69 said:
I saw this with the threaded inserts vs. the sustain. In a waveform, the fundamental is much stronger & much longer in decay as compared to the much quicker decline of the note in the "before" notes. This translates to pretty big tonal differences when playing through a bass rig - it's a stronger sounding instrument, IMO.
Click to expand...

How is it that you eliminated the variable of your picking technique?

When you say there's a stronger fundamental, couldn't that just mean that you picked a little harder? I mean, you will admit that you wanted the threaded inserts to sound better, won't you? And couldn't this have influenced how you played? In other words, isn't it possible that you put your thumb on the scales a little bit to get the result you wanted, maybe even without realizing it?

I'll bet I could perform this same experiment and prove that wood screws sound stronger, enhanced, more focused, etc..

The technical reason I'm skeptical of threaded inserts is that I'm pretty sure the relationship between pressure and sound transmission in a neck joint looks like a threshold rather than a gradient. In other words, once you've reached a pressure that's adequate to give good coupling, you don't get any appreciable improvement by going further. The basic assumption of those who advocate threaded inserts seems to be that more pressure improves coupling, but I don't think that's correct. To me, threaded inserts are like trying to get more compression out of your engine by cranking the head bolts another turn. It doesn't work that way.

BTW, a great way to see how little your tone depends on high pressure in the neck joint is to take your bass and back off on the neck screws while repeatedly playing a note -- not to the point where it's sloppy loose or anything but enough to where the pressure in the joint has been significantly lessened. You'll find that it makes virtually no difference. That's because the threshold pressure for effective coupling is much lower than even what wood screws provide when loosened somewhat.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back