Forum
I've always wondered if you've ever considered the Babicz Full Contact Hardware bass bridges at all?
They have now "mono" or "solorails" for each string. When reading their "rationale behind it" it seems to make sense. But their techniques and explanation goes quite against your own bridges so far. Your bridges looks like this:
[img:hr5muzd7]http://www.dingwallguitars.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Dingwall-Bridge.jpg[/img:hr5muzd7]
While FCH bridges looks like this:
[img:hr5muzd7]http://cdn.snappages.com/kug2i3/assets/1862299_2400061_1424374580.png[/img:hr5muzd7]
I wonder a bit if you think it's that important to have as much mass as possible from the string and bridge being in contact with the body as Babicz FCH, and why you choose your own design, which seems that the strings rests on two separate screws only which [i:hr5muzd7]seems[/i:hr5muzd7] to be as little contact as possible. Note, that I wrote "seems"... so there may be something other to it, that is not apparently evident.
0
Undo
Votes
Yes - by turning/rotating the saddle it changes height. It is not circular, but has a "compound radius". _don't know what exact word is in English. They are anchored with wooden screws from the upside when the Dingwall bridge is a solid metal block anchored from the back with machine screws. At least I can imagine what coupling is the strongest. Compared to flimsy Fender type bridges the Babicz is very, very solid, but the Dingwall bridge could anchor California so it won't tumble into the sea. (Thanx Steely Dan...)
0
Undo
Votes
Yes, they work like this, the e-cam saddle:
[url:3ihpvb7b]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PF3nRVyv7Q[/url:3ihpvb7b]
0
Undo
Votes
I thought it would (could?) be a good idea on the Combustions, and the Super J's and P's. And frankly, I don't really get the high end Dingwall bridge pictured above. The string seems totally isolated from the body on that part, at least as much as possible. As I think string residing on two phillips screwheads will not "contact" that much. No matter what's underneath it. But there must be something else to it, that is not readily detectable.
0
Undo
Votes
[quote="Mats Eriksson":t2i3c6l3]I thought it would (could?) be a good idea on the Combustions, and the Super J's and P's. And frankly, I don't really get the high end Dingwall bridge pictured above. The string seems totally isolated from the body on that part, at least as much as possible. As I think string residing on two phillips screwheads will not "contact" that much. No matter what's underneath it. But there must be something else to it, that is not readily detectable.[/quote:t2i3c6l3]
Definitely a good idea for the Combustion and NG-2! I don't like the crappy single string bridges on those basses; not on any bass, for that matter.
0
Undo
Votes
[quote="bassmayhem":1qvnmoew][quote="Mats Eriksson":1qvnmoew]I thought it would (could?) be a good idea on the Combustions, and the Super J's and P's. And frankly, I don't really get the high end Dingwall bridge pictured above. The string seems totally isolated from the body on that part, at least as much as possible. As I think string residing on two phillips screwheads will not "contact" that much. No matter what's underneath it. But there must be something else to it, that is not readily detectable.[/quote:1qvnmoew]
Definitely a good idea for the Combustion and NG-2! [b:1qvnmoew]I don't like the crappy single string bridges on those basses; not on any bass, for that matter.[/b:1qvnmoew][/quote:1qvnmoew]
Given the price point of the Combustion, it's pretty much what I'd expect. The Babicz is a great product but a bit pricey. If given the choice of upgrading hardware, I'd rather see the money spent on nicer tuners like the lic'd Hipshot Ultralites.
Riis
0
Undo
Votes
Yeah, but I sense the "rationale behind it" so to speak, seems different between the two. Dingwall & Babicz. One will have full contact as possible (Babicz) the other on seems to "reside on two screws only" making as little surface contact as possible (Dingwall).
Would be interesting to know the difference behind between the two "schools of thought".
0
Undo
Votes
Where the string contacts the witness point on the Babicz or pretty much any well functioning bridge is microscopic. A round string touching a rounded surface equals a very small contact area. We used to use a Kahler saddle that had a very large radius contact surface front to back. The improved sustain and clarity of the current system was immediately noticeable when we switched over. This is not to say that there aren't any tone advantages from a larger radius but this needs more exploring.
There's no room in the budget for the Babicz bridges on the Combustions. They are a great system but very expensive.
- Page :
- 1
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
