Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

jingle_jangle wrote:I wonder whose idea this survey was? There is nobody credited.

Anybody?

Well, Joshua created it, so I take it it'd be his idea?

sloop_john_b wrote:

rickfan60 wrote: I am surprised to see that someone picked the last option. In nearly 32 years of experience with Rickenbacker basses I have never heard anyone say that.

That was me. I've had my 4003 for almost seven years and have gigged it a TON. The bridge has never given me any trouble. No lifting, saddles are fine, etc. No need to palm mute as I like to use the mechanical mute on this bass.

I understand that many have had issues with it, but in my experience the bridge/tailpiece has been fine, no complaints.

The complaints generally center around the saddle adjusters (better on some than others) and the clumsiness of the mute screws. Adjusting the saddles is a major pain in the *ss as the screw heads cannot always be reached with the bridge and strings in place. I have one or two where the bridge is setup high enough to allow access to all four screw heads but on most the G and E saddles cannot be adjusted in place. The ones that setup high tend to rock in the tailpiece (and not in a good way) and have to be checked from time to time to make sure they are still upright and not leaning. High or low setup is entirely dependent on the underlying woodwork - new ones being far more consistent. Once setup, I agree, it does the job for most players.

tennis_nick wrote:

jingle_jangle wrote:I wonder whose idea this survey was? There is nobody credited.

Anybody?

Well, Joshua created it, so I take it it'd be his idea?

You take it right. But I'm not trying to be sinister. Let me say it for the thousandth time: the current stock bridge is meritorious and wonderful; plenty of people (would I be wrong to say the vast majority?) have gone on to be very happy with it. But we know there is a new one in the pipeline, and the poll is intended to allow people to say what they want to see when it appears. I like to have my finger on the pulse and see what people are thinking and compare that to my own ideas.

If you guys read my comments I don't think you'll find anything I say to be derogatory towards the stock bridge. I used mine for over a year until I couldn't stop the saddle wobble--THAT is why I switched to the Hipshot. This stuff about "What the new bridge should be like in [my] mind," is just musing, because we don't know what RIC has in store. In the mean time enjoy the current stock bridge. Don't burn me at the stake.

If there is ANYTHING intrinsic to the stock bridge I'd do away with, it's the teeth and the current foam mute apparatus (i.e. get the foam and turnscrews out of the way of my palm muting hand, in any case that you can do that, then cool, keep it). They make it too hard for me to palm mute. But does that ruin the bridge? Nope. Like I said, I was totally happy with it until I couldn't stop the saddle wobbling stuff. It is no accident that the only thing I will openly say I dislike about the stock bridge is ultimately a style issue. When it comes down to function, I know that it does.

Don't sweat it. It is entirely possible to be critical without being derogatory.

i voted for 1,2,3,7 - "Design something similar to the Badass and other rectangular "block" bridges. "
i think that the Badass is a great design and awesome piece of engineering. its the best bridge for fender basses and superior to other bridges IMO.
i have the hipshot bridge on my Ric but its have some issues and some faults that are the result of not so great engineering and the Badass is much superior IMO, design and sound wise.
even Geddy lee installed the Badass bridge on his Ric and also on his fender j.
i hope that Rickenbacker will make a mix of their design and the Badass bridge that would be a direct replacement and fully reversible. it could be used for the Geddy signature Ric.
also, the 4004 bridge look great too, but i have no experience with the 4004 at all. but i think, with the appropriate design, it would be cool for the 4003/1.

With the Badass, Its all about straight forward simplicity and mass.Thats what makes them so fantastic. But, I think the hipshot takes it a little further. They have even more mass but still retain the basic Ricky shape wich we all love and i feel is really the issue hear. Your always gonna get a few small quirks and movments when you have lots of different adjustments on the saddles but i have all three of my beloved Rickys waring them .Two with brass, and ,one with aluminum and i play them out every week and in MHO somebodys gonna have to put in a lot of overtime to come up with a better idea and still keep the rick asthetics .

I'm not sure if higher mass is always a plus. More mass = more long-wavelength waves get transmitted and overall more waves in general. But what this ultimately does to EQ is arguable. Sometimes, less is more: I have heard comparisons of the Fender stock bridge and the Badass II and most people in a blind test preferred the Fender stock. It was "tighter" sounding, whereas the Badass II was "soupy". They both sounded good but quite different. This may have had something to do with the high mass of the Badass transmitting more of those waves and diluting the crispness of the original sound.

I use a Badass III and like it, but that study made an interesting point. I wonder why Fender even did the HMV bridge after that--after all, it's just the old bridge with more mass.

cassius987 wrote:I'm not sure if higher mass is always a plus. More mass = more long-wavelength waves get transmitted and overall more waves in general. But what this ultimately does to EQ is arguable. Sometimes, less is more: I have heard comparisons of the Fender stock bridge and the Badass II and most people in a blind test preferred the Fender stock. It was "tighter" sounding, whereas the Badass II was "soupy". They both sounded good but quite different. This may have had something to do with the high mass of the Badass transmitting more of those waves and diluting the crispness of the original sound.

I use a Badass III and like it, but that study made an interesting point. I wonder why Fender even did the HMV bridge after that--after all, it's just the old bridge with more mass.

More mass=more sustain...
If you are looking for more sustain, even using a Fender, the greater mass bridge will give you that....also, the deadspots are removed (as has been my experience with BOTH brands of bass) and evens out the sound....this is does not have to be a debate on physics, it is simply that which appeals more to your personal ear and what type of tone you are going for. If you favor a stock bridge, go with it. if you are looking for something different or more, try an aftermarket....not a big deal really....

jaymi wrote:

cassius987 wrote:I'm not sure if higher mass is always a plus. More mass = more long-wavelength waves get transmitted and overall more waves in general. But what this ultimately does to EQ is arguable. Sometimes, less is more: I have heard comparisons of the Fender stock bridge and the Badass II and most people in a blind test preferred the Fender stock. It was "tighter" sounding, whereas the Badass II was "soupy". They both sounded good but quite different. This may have had something to do with the high mass of the Badass transmitting more of those waves and diluting the crispness of the original sound.

I use a Badass III and like it, but that study made an interesting point. I wonder why Fender even did the HMV bridge after that--after all, it's just the old bridge with more mass.

More mass=more sustain...
If you are looking for more sustain, even using a Fender, the greater mass bridge will give you that....also, the deadspots are removed (as has been my experience with BOTH brands of bass) and evens out the sound....this is does not have to be a debate on physics, it is simply that which appeals more to your personal ear and what type of tone you are going for. If you favor a stock bridge, go with it. if you are looking for something different or more, try an aftermarket....not a big deal really....

+1

Maybe this is already discusses, cos I need to be here more often... But I read about a new replacement bridge for Rickenbacker basses some days ago... I'll try to find a pic.

Chris P wrote:Maybe this is already discusses, cos I need to be here more often... But I read about a new replacement bridge for Rickenbacker basses some days ago... I'll try to find a pic.

From RIC?

Nope, this one:

http://store.hipshotproducts.com/cart.p ... tail&p=215

If I'm correct it's new?

Chris P wrote:Nope, this one:

http://store.hipshotproducts.com/cart.p ... tail&p=215

If I'm correct it's new?

Well, it's newer than RIC's design, but it's been around for a few years, and well discussed on this forum...

Edit: I see they say it's been completely redesigned, that's probably the new model to get around the trademark issues they had with the original version.

cjj wrote: Edit: I see they say it's been completely redesigned, that's probably the new model to get around the trademark issues they had with the original version.

Really? Redesigned? Pics? Link?

It's has been completely redesigned for a few years then. It's the same design as last year for sure. I guess if rickenbacker makes a new bridge, or even get a third party to make it, it won't be selling on some other company's webside first.