I don't understand bridge covers and pickup covers.seems a Fender thing.Is there a good reason or just for looks.I would think every string change you would have to unscrew and in and out of wood that don't seem too good.Help me out with this.
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.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF BRIDGE COVERS
- Thread starter Billy K
- Start date
Benjamin Strange
Commercial User
- Dec 25, 2002
- 9,737
- 310
- 49
- Disclosures
- Owner / Tech: Strange Guitarworks
I think the ones on the original P-Basses did some sort of shielding(grounding?)but I don't really know/bump...
I don't know. Something similar exists on certain old Rickenbackers as well. Some people speculate that 1) it increases resonance (but this is a pretty dubious claim); 2) it does look cool; and 3) it does prevent you from hitting the pickups or bridge with your fingers or a pick, although doing so doesn't do much harm anyway.
Oddly enough that's the way they came out of the box originally. I don't know at what point they began to stop gluing the foam into that cover,but my 1970 had a factory strip of rubber stuck right under the edge. The glue mark is still apparent. It was the first thing got removed back then. Aside from that?, the covers were attractive and hid the Pups. Some discussion has gone around about "Magnetic property effect" But I think it's effect on the poles was pretty minimal. Also, yes the first P's had the p/u grounded to the cover and yes they make excellent thumb rests. And further? I like the look and just revel in flashing the reflections on the audience,heh! Thanks for your time.
Not sure I know what they're for, but I just put an original F bridge cover on my Jazz and I just like the way it looks!
Leo thought they'd provide some shielding from RF. Whether that happens or not is debated.
They do, of course, look cooool!
They do, of course, look cooool!
Wow. Am I the only one on TB that doesn't like how the covers look?
To each your own, they're not my thing at all.
To each your own, they're not my thing at all.
i have the bridge cover on my jazz and hear an audible difference in resonance with the cover on than off.. but only when the instrument is unplugged. with the amp on there is no difference at all.
You know that, and I know that. But the people who perceive that it reduces RF don't understand that. Therefore, it is debated.
A great portion of what people are sure they hear in the sound of musical instruments is their own imagination.
Yeah, I've got a bridge[pickup] cover on my old J-copy. I definitely think that it reduces some of the static and believe that covering the neck pup in addition to that would reduce it even more. Those old pickups are so sensitive... For me, appearance isn't really and issue, but I definitely prefer the bridge cover to the ugly little dinky bridge that's under it.
leo's original idea was to hide all the adjustable parts.
look at the original product, the broadcaster: the neck pickup's adjustment screws were hidden under the pickguard, the bridge and the bridge pickup were hidden under a cover, and the neck itself had the truss rod adjustment hidden inside the neck pocket.
he didn't want the owner fooling with any of it.
look at the original product, the broadcaster: the neck pickup's adjustment screws were hidden under the pickguard, the bridge and the bridge pickup were hidden under a cover, and the neck itself had the truss rod adjustment hidden inside the neck pocket.
he didn't want the owner fooling with any of it.
I've often wondered if the bridge cover prevented neck dive. ??? Also I've read that they were used as ashtrays a lot. 
