VOTE: What do you want in a bridge redesign?

[cassius987]

I think this'll be an interesting poll since we know there is a new 4003 bridge in the works. Remember, though, this is just for fun/academic purposes. I'd just like to see what people want--if anything.

[doctorwho]

Because I'm just a hack bass player, it will be interesting to see how my choices line up with those of the true bassists.

[paologregorio]

What, no bass whammy bar bridge option?!

[jps]

Because I'm just a hack bass player, it will be interesting to see how my choices line up with those of the true bassists.

So, what are your choices?

[woodyng]

palm muting/individual saddles,interchangability,similar to hipshock.......i love the aluminum hipshot on my 4000,and when i play the v63,although that bridge is fine,intonation wise,the mute assembly/screws are in my way.......i would love to see the company design something similar to the hipshot,if only because that design seems to work so well,and they could completely lose the built in mute-i don't see any way for it not to be intrusive,in what i consider to be THE sweet spot for hitting the strings........so maybe we'll see this bridge in 2009????

[dog]

It will be interesting to see if anyone checks the last box.

[rickaddict]

One vote option that I didn't see listed above is better quality control on the saddles. So many bridge hassles could be eliminated if only the saddles fit on the bridge. Mostly, the holes on the stem of the saddles just needs to be drilled in the right place. I think the saddles might need more of a curve on the underside to match the curve on the bridge as well, but I'm not sure about that.

I like the current bridge/tailpiece. It is a huge part of the 4001/4003's look and tone. But it needs to either be made from a different material (so it won't lift anymore) or RIC should relocate the screws so that two are on top of the back like they were with the 7 screw tail of the 80's.

I voted above for different materials because I think somehow machining the tail out of Aluminum might be better. I don't know enough about metals to know how feasible of an option this would be for RIC. Would it be too expensive to CNC machine them from a block of aluminum and then chrome plate it?

[jps]

I chose 1, 2, 4 and 9.

I think a more modern version of this bridge would be just fine, really.

[cassius987]

What, no bass whammy bar bridge option?!

Seriously? If they feel up to it, sure, but I've never been a fan of floating tails because of the tuning issues they often come with. Plus I never use the whammy.

To be honest I think they have a hard enough job addressing the issues here (if they choose to) without stomping on the visual mojo that people have begun to expect from them, without introducing a complicated new feature like that. That said I would be impressed if they pulled it off... and if they left a hard tail option in place.

One vote option that I didn't see listed above is better quality control on the saddles. So many bridge hassles could be eliminated if only the saddles fit on the bridge. Mostly, the holes on the stem of the saddles just needs to be drilled in the right place. I think the saddles might need more of a curve on the underside to match the curve on the bridge as well, but I'm not sure about that.

Sorry I didn't list that option (can only have 10), but it makes more sense to me to replace the "four saddles in one bridge" setup with four individual saddles and it looks like some people agree with me.

If you have problem with saddle wobble on the current design, do this: take the bridge out, turn it upside down, locate which saddles wobble, and using pliers or another pointy-tipped tool stuff wax paper shims on either side of the small part of the saddle that the screw runs through. The wax paper should expand just enough to be held in place and exert enough force back that the saddle itself does not wobble. This works remarkably well. I got this idea from iiipopes in a slightly different form, then I modified it a bit to the present way, and have done it for myself and a friend to great success.

I voted above for different materials because I think somehow machining the tail out of Aluminum might be better. I don't know enough about metals to know how feasible of an option this would be for RIC. Would it be too expensive to CNC machine them from a block of aluminum and then chrome plate it?

They currently use very high quality zinc and I think last I heard they were talking about reanalyzing it's current mechanical/resonant structure. If they had to make a new die for it it would be very costly, but they may have enough accumulated revenue at this point that it wouldn't be impossible. My only concern is that this still wouldn't address issues regarding palm muting and intonation that I think some people rightly want to see changed, or at least evolved.

For the sake of transparency, I chose 1, 2, 3, & 9.

[rickaddict]

I don't see the need for individual saddle height adjustment. It's really easy to file saddle slots deeper and once you get your strings even, you'll never need to adjust them again.

And as for palm muting, some players do it, some don't. Some like the mechanical mute, some hate it. I think RIC should keep it. It's been a big part of the look and sound of the 4001/4003 for some 45 years now. But I also think that RIC should allow the Hipshot (or some non-infringing redesign of it) for those players who prefer it for palm muting, ease of adjustment, etc.

[cjj]

I'd like to see the option for 5 saddles, even Hipshot doesn't seem to do one of those.

Of course, I'd like to see a 5 string option for the rest of the bass too...

[cassius987]

I don't see the need for individual saddle height adjustment. It's really easy to file saddle slots deeper and once you get your strings even, you'll never need to adjust them again.

My main argument against this is that instruments are dynamic machines and things about them change over time, sometimes just at the player's whim, and so if you can be able to do something reversibly, such as set the height of a string at the bridge, so much the better. Filing down to a certain point and realizing years later with a new type of string such as a taper core that you want less of the saddle filed down means you have to install a whole new saddle. In the long run it just makes more sense (to me) to have individual string height adjustment.

The other advantage is that there aren't merely two points of height adjustment for all four strings together, which forces them to be co-dependent. If yo want to emphasize or de-emphasize the arc of the strings over the radius of the fingerboard, individual string height adjustment allows it.

All that said I respect your opinion and understand that it's all about different strokes for different folks...

[jps]

I have found that having the bottom of the strings at the same height from the last fret produces a nice, even feel across all the strings. That is why I don't need individual saddles. I first learned of this setup style from Roger Sadowsky, IIRC. My former Alembics, like Rickenbacker, did not have individual saddle height adjustment and they, too, had a great feel once I learned about this way of setting up the string height. I agree with you about those who switch between taper/exposed core strings and traditionally made strings, although I am not a fan of the former as I feel that taper/exposed core string design can produce a dramatically different tone due to the mass not being consistent throughout the speaking length of the string.

[tennis_nick]

Apart from sloppily installed saddles, I think 2 extra screws holding it perfectly flat would be nice.

[rickaddict]

My main argument against this is that instruments are dynamic machines and things about them change over time, sometimes just at the player's whim, and so if you can be able to do something reversibly, such as set the height of a string at the bridge, so much the better. Filing down to a certain point and realizing years later with a new type of string such as a taper core that you want less of the saddle filed down means you have to install a whole new saddle. In the long run it just makes more sense (to me) to have individual string height adjustment.

The other advantage is that there aren't merely two points of height adjustment for all four strings together, which forces them to be co-dependent. If yo want to emphasize or de-emphasize the arc of the strings over the radius of the fingerboard, individual string height adjustment allows it.

These are all excellent points, and I agree that being able to adjust each string independently is an attractive feature. My main reason for wanting to leave the saddles (mostly) as they are (which I probably should have posted earlier) is tone. I just can't find anything that sounds better to me than my 4001/4003's. I would think that the saddle material on the 4001/4003 would factor into the tone equation. But maybe I'm wrong.