Author Topic: Saddle-Less Bridge  (Read 3606 times)

Basvarken

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6888
  • hobby luthier. gibson bass nerd
    • View Profile
    • www.enkoo.nl
Re: Saddle-Less Bridge
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2019, 04:03:28 AM »
 :mrgreen:

Chris P.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5247
  • Warwickhoer
    • View Profile
    • The La La Lies
Re: Saddle-Less Bridge
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2019, 04:09:48 AM »
 :mrgreen: I agree with you this time, Rob. I don't like the idea of a but plug, but I never tried it.  :mrgreen:

I just mean that a lot of people tend to react quite negative, the half empty glass kinda way, instead of wondering if it can be something interesting.

Dave W

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 22259
  • Got time to breathe, got time for music
    • View Profile
Re: Saddle-Less Bridge
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2019, 06:47:38 PM »
I think it's interesting. I saw it at the NAMM, but you can't really examine or hear anything there. I posted it too here and thera round that time and I got negative reactions only. I'm really asking myself why. Yes, we don't have any problems with excisting bridges, I even love the flimsy Fender bridges and I even have no problems with the ones with only two saddles.

But I still think this is interesting and I'm curious if it makes a difference. I'm always - and I stated that here before - curious why people slag certain bands, basses, parts, ... of without even tried or heard it.

You don't have to hear it to make a judgement, all you have to do is look at the company's website. It reeks of bullshit. Just read the About Ray Ross page by Aaron Ross, "President of and Minister of Propaganda for Ray Ross Bass."  :rolleyes:  I've seen my share of bullshit claims about bridges before (like the Leo Quan bridge being made of "special tone-transfer metal") but this is chock-full of misinformation and subjective claims that can never be substantiated. The part about living and dead metals is especially preposterous. The actual meaning of that has nothing to do with what he's claiming.

Then there's the News page, prescribing the bridge "for relief of" conditions that bridge saddles don't contribute to. And again, just look at the photo of the bridge with the pin bearing on the thick winding at the end -- that's just plain wrong.

But, as either P.T. Barnum or David Hannum once said, there's a sucker born every minute.

Who is this guy, anyway, and where is he? There's no address for the company on the website, only a phone number which leads back to the distributor in New Jersey who handles many music products.

Basvarken

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6888
  • hobby luthier. gibson bass nerd
    • View Profile
    • www.enkoo.nl
Re: Saddle-Less Bridge
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2019, 10:43:45 PM »
Quote
Every bridge has a problem.  You need only observe the instrument you currently play.  If you notice, from the anchor position of the string, the string itself goes "up the hill" to the saddle, then completes its journey to the nut in a downhill fashion.  I suspected that this "kink" was a hindrance to at least vibration, if not overall tone.  As it turns out this is correct.  By making the anchor and saddle one piece, the "kink" was removed and what followed still amazes me to this day.

So only the open strings work perfect in his theory. Since every fretted note has a "kink".
 :bored:

uwe

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21514
  • Enabler ...
    • View Profile
Re: Saddle-Less Bridge
« Reply #19 on: August 16, 2019, 09:42:19 AM »
"Same with buttplugs. You have to wash it after use anyway, but it's just as easy to wash your thumb. So why do they manufacture them?"

Silly question. So that slap bass is deemed less unhygienic of course.
We've taken too much for granted ... and all the time it had grown ...
From techno seeds we first planted ... evolved a mind of its own ...