| Author | Message | ||
| lbpesq
Senior Member Username: lbpesq Post Number: 6336 Registered: 7-2004 |
Like most of us, I have always considered the adjustable nut on my Alembics to be a wonderfully simple and yet surprisingly effective design, illustrative of the innovative qualities we have come to appreciate in our instruments. Some of you may have read posts where I have written about the Babicz Full Contact bridge saddles. These replace the standard Fender type saddle, (where the physical connection with the body is two small adjustment screws), with saddles that rest flat on the body and have internal cams that raise and lower the strings. When I replace the Fender type saddles with the Babicz saddles on both Strat and Tele type guitars, the acoustic volume virtually doubles. This translates to better tone and more sustain plugged in. So, I got to thinking: What's happening at the other end, at the nut? Does the adjustable nut, where the physical connection with the neck is only with the three screws, result in a change in tone? Does a traditional nut, which has full physical contact with the neck, have sonic advantages? Does the area of physical connection where the strings connect to the intrument at the bridge and nut impact differently at the two extremes? I suspect that the bridge has more impact as the body is more massive than the neck, but it's just a guess. Just thinkin' Bill, tgo | ||
| adriaan
Moderator Username: adriaan Post Number: 3301 Registered: 6-2002 |
If you should forget to tighten the middle screw at the nut after setting the height with the two outer ones, you will notice a loss of sustain - at least on a bass. So to a degree there might be a change in tone, but only when used incorrectly. At the other end, don't forget that the bridge connects to the body/sustain block only by two screws, so it is far from "full contact" - which doesn't seem to harm sustain. | ||
| edwin
Senior Member Username: edwin Post Number: 2179 Registered: 5-2002 |
I would think nut issues would only be a problem with open strings. Not that that isn't sometimes important, but given that I rarely use open strings, it's not a huge problem that I've heard. | ||
| bigredbass
Senior Member Username: bigredbass Post Number: 2551 Registered: 9-2002 |
IIRC, I seem to have read where Ron's idea of the brass nut (on a brass base) and bridge atop the sustain block was to isolate the strings from the influence of the wood body, to where with the lower magnetic pull from low impedance pickups and the brass isolation, the string could vibrate as long as possible. Of course this is only completely operable on open strings, but nonetheless, fretted notes are ending on the sustain block/bridge on the other end. They weren't adjustable at first, but always brass, I believe. That's where the sustain is, and the strings drive the pickups which are influenced in some fashion by the body makeup. To me, the harder the woods, the more defined the tone. Think ebony lams or the Warwicks made out of those crazy, dense African woods. A different flavor of the same thing is my Elan, all maple and ash. Start mixing all the other choices, including mahogany and it tends to soften that harder edge. The sustain is also fed by the laminations, another idea to scatter the resonances by using the different densities of the selected woods for the neck (though not always entirely successful due to physics: Hard to get away from that pale B on the D-string sometimes), and since the neckthru has no break for a bolt or set neck, the first several harmonics carry thru better, the real secret of neck-thru construction, not 'better sustain', which has already been seen to by the other features. IF, when you play a low C or D, and you can hear a repeating beat at the bottom of the note, you are hearing that neckthru at work. 'Better sustain' has always to me been more a function of reasonably live strings and decent technique, after the guitar's construction is included. Hell, plug in a beginner Squier on a loud stage, it'll sustain just fine. I think for me, the Babicz is today's take on the 70's idea of yanking your pot metal bridge (just like today on a Fender ! ! ) and replacing it (in those days) with some fat, brass aftermarket bridge, like those fatso DiMarzio's or the Stars parts. I did that back then, then when I started playing neckthru BB Yamahas, they had the same pokey little bridges like Fenders and they sustained a lot like an Alembic. The 70's and 80's BB's were as Alembic influenced as all the Japanese basses of the day were. Slab ebony fingerboard, five piece laminated necks, sound familiar, and they sustained just fine with a tacky little bridge. Loud enough to hear fine unplugged. Hmmmmm . . . . .Didn't buy any more bridges. Strats and Teles, etc., are far simpler systems, and I have no doubt you can hear that bridge, and hey, if it works for you, that's all that matters. Joey (Message edited by bigredbass on February 02, 2016) | ||
| keith_h
Senior Member Username: keith_h Post Number: 2357 Registered: 2-2005 |
Joey, You forgot the Badass II. I will say it was the best upgrade I did to my Jazz Bass when it was still passive. I did modify it slightly by using larger attachment screws but its mass and size helped sustain substantially. However its more important characteristic was the stability of the strings, lack of noise it introduced and the intonation problems it fixed. The sloppy screw holes of the Fender for the saddles, the springs and flat base they sit on let the bridge parts move all over the place and rattle. The Badass added channels for the saddles and was much tighter in tolerances so things didn't move much making it more stable once it was setup. Alembic addressed these same issues much more elegantly with their bridges by using the adjusting screw and rail to keep the saddles in alignment. Keith | ||
| sonicus
Senior Member Username: sonicus Post Number: 4739 Registered: 5-2009 |
Many years ago the best improvement to a passive made in USA Fender "Jazz Bass " was install a SCHALLER roller bridge. I already had a BADASS bridge on a made in USA " Precision Bass " The Schaller roller bridge is my favorite of the one piece bridge units ! http://www.warmoth.com/Schaller-463-4-String-Bass-Bridge-Chrome-P914.aspx Wolf | ||
| mario_farufyno
Senior Member Username: mario_farufyno Post Number: 1124 Registered: 9-2008 |
wow, Joey, that was eye opening | ||
| bigredbass
Senior Member Username: bigredbass Post Number: 2552 Registered: 9-2002 |
Keith, I sure did. The BadAss was the 'go to' hop-up bridge for a lot of guys, and was used as OEM in some cases as well. This sort of thing (all the aftermarket parts for Fenders) sets an interesting observation: Fender (and their landmark of building the first commercially successful electric bass) and Alembic (that same product refined thru the eyes and ears of an artist and engineer) had two fundamentally different approaches, both world-changing. Fender saw a need (as did George Eastman, Hershey, King Gillette, and others) to take a radically different approach to constructing a low cost instrument. He skipped all the cabinet makers woodworking, screwed a neck to a plank with rudimentary pickups and hardware, and the world beat a path to his door. Fender saw it as a shop problem, not a deeply felt need for a different musical instrument. Hell, at first, they thought guys would unscrew the neck so it would travel more compactly. The amps were taken straight from the RCA tube manuals, as tube amps were the norm at the time. To predate Hartley Peavey (a huge fan of Leo Fender), they were working man's tools that could be had on a working man's wage, far less than an ES or LP or a Gretsch. But as in many things, there is a great deal of elegance and useability in simplicity. And those basic planforms of Tele, Strat, and Precision were ripe for better bridges, keys, and electronics, and the market responded where players wanted these things. Alembic's idea was driven by Ron's observation that the basic idea could be much better than what was current. The Alembic Series pickup system has never, nor will it ever be bettered. The idea of wide-r aperture single coil pickups that could be tuned to virtually eliminate any noise was groundbreaking, as was their frequency response. Making them low impedance helped this, as well as removing any worry of magnetics-induced drag. The filters removed any phase rotation from conventional pots, and allowed for any amount of thud or snarky highs you could stand. Phantom power guaranteed the headroom: You could add distortion inline, but you'd have a damn hard time making the bass do it on its own. These things are why you suddenly think you're all thumbs for a while after your first Alembic comes home with you. It's that clean . . . . because it's that clean, and what else would you expect from a former Ampex engineer? It's classic high-end audio: Serious parts kept to a minimum in a simple design with as few gew-gaws between point A and point B to keep things clean and untouched as possible. The tone was a revolution. Taken to its' ultimate expression of a Series left and right into an F2B and then left and right to a stereo power amp and paired cabinets, alongside a P-Bass thru an Acoutic or Ampeg of the day, it was the first time bass players had a complete and proper system with no excuses or shortcuts, with elegantly simple high end controls. There is still nothing like it today, in a world full of basses with batteries and 3-band EQ and amps with graphics and/or parametrics, even octave boxes built in. For what? Is it so thin you just need all this to get there? Then you suspend the strings over this system, with the thought being to isolate them from the body, seemingly contrary to what most think that the better string/body meld is where the sustain is. You may need a tight joint on a Fender neck pocket, but we're in another world here. Now you build the body to have a continuous frame beneath the strings for durability, and to eliminate that neck joint. Use 1/4" ebony for durability and harder woods as well in the neckthru with the laminations' grain running in opposite directions. This adds mechanical strength, but the different properties of these hardwoods tend to raise the resonances, hopefully, out of hearing range. The other not talked about advantage of carbon-fibre necks. Add the body wings to make the desired shape and balance, and you're there. And yet the woods color the tone, so harder for more attack and fundamental (the mighty ebony lams) or some mix of the softer mahogany-ish woods to let a little air in and smooth it out. Much less the looks of the things !! There's no aftermarket parts for Alembic. It was designed as a whole system, of re-imagined electronics and wood construction, in a way never seen before in one place on one instrument. That's why to me, Ron and Susan, are easily on the short list with Mr. Fender, Les Paul, Rupert Neve, etc. They really came quite close to re-inventing the wheel. These were from the start, artist grade instruments, which was unheard of in bass guitars, and bass as we now know it would be far different if The Bear hadn't stimulated that original Dead-based search for a better way to do things. A lot of this is lost on guitar players, who are still looking for a wiggle stick that will always stay in tune and the perfect tube amp, but there's always hope . . . . Sorry for the long winded posts, I promise I'm not on new meds . . . . . . Joey | ||
| elwoodblue
Senior Member Username: elwoodblue Post Number: 1816 Registered: 6-2002 |
Nice Synopsi(plural for synopsis?) Joey. I'll refer guitarists in the future to your post. One more word(sort of); 2Tek. ...I might need new meds  ... | ||
| slawie
Senior Member Username: slawie Post Number: 849 Registered: 8-2002 |
You're a true wordsmith Joey! | ||
| moongerm
Advanced Member Username: moongerm Post Number: 348 Registered: 8-2013 |
Love reading your posts Joey. -Brian | ||
| rraymond
Senior Member Username: rraymond Post Number: 417 Registered: 6-2002 |
I got absolutely nothing to add to this discussion technically, but "Adjustable Nuts" sounds like a great band name! LOL Great thread, BTW. | ||
| adriaan
Moderator Username: adriaan Post Number: 3302 Registered: 6-2002 |
Plural would be "synopses", but my Latin is a bit rusty. | ||
| gtrguy
Senior Member Username: gtrguy Post Number: 992 Registered: 9-2004 |
I have a question: I have strummed many laptop guitars, with the strings way up off the neck, and they seem to really ring out and sound great. I have always wondered how that is? | ||
| elwoodblue
Senior Member Username: elwoodblue Post Number: 1817 Registered: 6-2002 |
Thanks Adriaan...I'll blame it on the rusty synapses ...(another good band name!). | ||
| bigredbass
Senior Member Username: bigredbass Post Number: 2553 Registered: 9-2002 |
Because David (see above), the strings are suspended between two points and they just ring, same as a pedal steel, a grand piano, or virtually any stringed instrument. Differences in windings, single wire strings, it will vary, but it's the string: There's nowhere along the production line at Taylor or Fender or Ibanez or Yamaha, etc.,etc., where they 'add sustain' into the body of the instrument. If you've ever read any of the interviews with the 60's session bassists, Babbitt, Carol Kaye, Joe Osborne, et al, they all added a piece of foam rubber just ahead of the bridge to keep the sustain down, and they were playing flatwounds, often with a pick. This idea that the sustain is in the wood somehow is just not accurate. Granted, some guitars are louder and seem to sustain better than others (in acoustics you are really at the mercy of the snowflake randomness of wood), and I personally hate cheap basses made out of poplar or 'basswood' (w-t-h is that anyway), so it does color it. But I daresay a Series One in knotty pine or all alder would sustain the same way. To me, the wood 'seasons' the inherent tone of the pickups, makes it lighter or heavier, but I fail to see any way wood adds any sustain on its own. It's all so very subjective . . . . Joey | ||
| jazzyvee
Senior Member Username: jazzyvee Post Number: 4895 Registered: 6-2002 |
Love this thread. My thoughts are this, once you pluck a string on your solid body bass or guitar, all the energy that will keep the string vibrating is transferred to the string at that point. So with that in mind, after that initial pluck everything else removes energy from the string at differing rates. If the points where the string is connected to the instrument, bridge, nut or frets), are loose or not very dense then those parts will vibrate and dissipate the energy of the vibrating string as sound/heat much more quickly than if the points connecting the vibrating string to a body are stiff and highly dense. In this case this energy will take longer to decay because it will be harder for the string energy to move these stiff dense objects and hence the losses will take longer to take place and result in the string vibrating for a longer period. What I understand about alembic is, this is part of their design, stiff dense neck and dense hardware so that the energy imparted on the string takes longer to dissipate and hence the string sustains it's vibrations for longer. Sustain is not added the idea is to allow the string to vibrate for as long as it is able. So back to Bill's point I think if the nut is tight and of dense material which the brass nut is then on open strings at least it should make a difference to the sustain of the instrument. Standard nuts I presume are there to allow less impedance to the energy of the string getting into the body. As for tone, I'm still working out my thoughts on tone generally but my thoughts are that assuming the pickups are not voiced, then what they output will be the frequencies of the vibrations that have not yet been attenuated by the body, hardware, magnetic pull, air resistance etc etc. Just an early morning wild thought. | ||
| jazzyvee
Senior Member Username: jazzyvee Post Number: 4896 Registered: 6-2002 |
Love this thread. My thoughts are this, once you pluck a string on your solid body bass or guitar, all the energy that will keep the string vibrating is transferred to the string at that point. So with that in mind, after that initial pluck everything else removes energy from the string at differing rates. If the points where the string is connected to the instrument, bridge, nut or frets), are loose or not very dense then those parts will vibrate and dissipate the energy of the vibrating string as sound/heat much more quickly than if the points connecting the vibrating string to a body are stiff and highly dense. In this case this energy will take longer to decay because it will be harder for the string energy to move these stiff dense objects and hence the losses will take longer to take place and result in the string vibrating for a longer period. What I understand about alembic is, this is part of their design, stiff dense neck and dense hardware so that the energy imparted on the string takes longer to dissipate and hence the string sustains it's vibrations for longer. Sustain is not added the idea is to allow the string to vibrate for as long as it is able. So back to Bill's point I think if the nut is tight and of dense material which the brass nut is then on open strings at least it should make a difference to the sustain of the instrument. Standard nuts I presume are there to allow less impedance to the energy of the string getting into the body. As for tone, I'm still working out my thoughts on tone generally but my i think that assuming the pickups are not voiced, then what they output will be the frequencies of the vibrations that have not yet been attenuated by the body, hardware, magnetic pull, air resistance etc etc. So if the places where the losses occur dissipate specific frequencies then the amplitude of these frequencies remaining in the vibrating string will be reduced and less picked up by the pickup. Just an early morning wild thought. | ||
| dtothec
Member Username: dtothec Post Number: 99 Registered: 3-2015 |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that whether the nut is glued solidly to the finger board or attached by two screws there is no difference. An analogy would be if you had a 100lb vibrating box sitting flat on the floor, or sitting on 4 legs, the full force of 100lbs vibrating is still on the floor, it's just more lbs per sq inch but it's still 100lbs vibrating on the floor. I agree with Jazzy that if the nut is made of something soft the vibration would be absorbed and disapate quickly vs something hard that would not absorb as much of the energy thus a longer sustain. | ||
| dtothec
Member Username: dtothec Post Number: 100 Registered: 3-2015 |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that whether the nut is glued solidly to the finger board or attached by two screws there is no difference. An analogy would be if you had a 100lb vibrating box sitting flat on the floor, or sitting on 4 legs, the full force of 100lbs vibrating is still on the floor, it's just more lbs per sq inch but it's still 100lbs vibrating on the floor. I agree with Jazzy that if the nut is made of something soft the vibration would be absorbed and disapate quickly vs something hard that would not absorb as much of the energy thus a longer sustain. | ||
| lbpesq
Senior Member Username: lbpesq Post Number: 6339 Registered: 7-2004 |
I agree that the total pressure should be the same whether the weight rests on just two screws or a larger flat surface. Nevertheless, in the context of Fender type bridge saddles, there is a significant difference in how the guitar reacts. It empirically seems that the weight spread across the much larger contact area of the full contact saddles results in greater acoustic volume and a change in electric tone/sustain than when all the weight rests on the two adjustment screws. Bill, tgo | ||
| wick5
Junior Username: wick5 Post Number: 35 Registered: 10-2014 |
Are we sustaining longer with double posts? (Sorry...couldn't resist) | ||
| dtothec
Intermediate Member Username: dtothec Post Number: 101 Registered: 3-2015 |
You got it! Lol! | ||
| dtothec
Intermediate Member Username: dtothec Post Number: 102 Registered: 3-2015 |
Just being a NUT! I couldn't resist! | ||
| keith_h
Senior Member Username: keith_h Post Number: 2359 Registered: 2-2005 |
"Because David (see above), the strings are suspended between two points and they just ring, same as a pedal steel, a grand piano, or virtually any stringed instrument. Differences in windings, single wire strings, it will vary, but it's the string: There's nowhere along the production line at Taylor or Fender or Ibanez or Yamaha, etc.,etc., where they 'add sustain' into the body of the instrument. " I disagree with this premise as it implies the string is independent of its environment. In a theoretical setting the string between the nut and bridge is independent of its environment and in this case sustain is strictly confined to the energy that is introduced and how long it takes that string to dissipate the energy. However in musical instruments the string is coupled to the instrument so the instrument will have an effect on sustain by dampening and absorbing the energy of the strings. It can also increase sustain via feedback loops at certain resonance frequencies. An instrument does this through the materials, construction used to build it and their effect on the various frequencies being generated by the string. In some instruments like a piano the effect of the case is minimal because of the large mass of the harp but even here the selection and construction of the sound board will make or break its tone and dynamics. A perfect example of this interaction is the Fender bass dead spot (it actually exists on most if not all basses just not to the same degree). The problem is caused by harmonic resonance dampening that frequency and reducing the strings energy. Similar actions are taking place with the type of neck to body construction that is used. It is why bolt on necks have the midrange bump and typically less sustain than neck-through or set neck instruments. In general the looser the coupling between the instrument and the string attachments the more string energy that will be lost faster resulting in less sustain. The mass of the attachments will also have an effect as more mass serves to provide more isolation from the wood in the case of basses and guitars. It also has a second effect in coupling the strings better with the body or neck reducing the energy lost across the hardware instrument boundaries. Keith | ||
| ed_zeppelin
Advanced Member Username: ed_zeppelin Post Number: 244 Registered: 2-2010 |
I've owned a Rainsong WS1000 carbon fiber guitar for over twenty years, and everybody who plays it says the same thing. (Usually two words, one of which is "holy.") They're especially knocked out by the high end. It's crystal clear and pure, more so than any wooden guitar I've ever heard. I wanted to discuss something surprising I discovered, a factor that nobody has mentioned yet, that arose many years ago in the course of researching this phenomena. I found this profile of John Decker, founder of RainSong on a physics site. (I know what you're thinking; "what's that moron Forest doing on a physics site? That's like a gorilla in a knitting forum!") It's from the 90s, but something he said has intrigued me ever since. First, a little bit about John Decker. The only reason I'm including this is so people know that the dude knows what he's talking about when it comes to physics and materials:
See what I mean? MIT, Cambridge, multiple PhDs in physics, gummint work at high-falutin' optical thingamabobs. Smart guy. Hang in there. I'm editing the crap outta this to get to the point, but trying not to omit anything important:
Okay, here we are, finally. The crux of the biscuit. Ready?
Here it is again, in case you missed it:
Heat. Nobody has mentioned heat. And since its relevance comes into play above 1K - where upper harmonics and partials define the individual characteristics of a particular instrument - how does that damping/heat thing apply to bass? What I mean is that if you cut off every frequency above 1K or so, you can't tell the difference between a saxophone and a buzz-saw. It's like the old grade school science experiment where if you hold your nose, you can't tell the difference between an apple and a potato. In acoustics, the upper harmonics provide the defining characteristics of a particular instrument. And bear this in mind: in the olden days, on cold nights when Alembic owners gathered around a campfire made from Gibson basses (ptew), it was whispered that Wickershams can hear wood the same way Monet saw colors. Perhaps that explains the brass blocks, neck-thru designs and other mass-ive characteristics inherent in our masterpieces, as well (or instead of) the vaunted "sustain" issue this thread is predicated upon? They can teach us, if we behave. And I want to remind everyone that just because I raised the issue doesn't mean I know anything about it (or knitting, come to think of it). In fact, from the moron's point of view, all I've derived from this thunderbolt of wisdom about sound waves turning into heat is that it explains why Jimi's guitars burst into flames. Discuss. | ||
| gtrguy
Senior Member Username: gtrguy Post Number: 994 Registered: 9-2004 |
All a person has to do is go into a Guitar Center store and pluck the strings on a row of Strats hanging up side by side to realize that the wood plays some kind of part in the process. | ||
| pauldo
Senior Member Username: pauldo Post Number: 1588 Registered: 6-2006 |
Tungsten carbide bridge and nut. | ||
| bigredbass
Senior Member Username: bigredbass Post Number: 2554 Registered: 9-2002 |
Forest I didn't wonder why you were there (I love cruising the Help Wanted ads in the CIA website, the web allows investigation of so many arcane interests and subjects), but the idea of a campfire stoked with 'Gibson basses' (an oxymoron if I EVER heard one) has given me such a warm, wonderful feeling . .. . . Thanks to all and I appreciate the discussion ! Joey |
