Quote:
Originally Posted by LouieAtienza
I think there's some correlation. Possibly analogous to a flywheel. If you make a flywheel too light, it will be very easy to start, but at the same time very easy to stop. On the contrary, a very heavy flywheel would be difficult to start, but at the same time slower to stop.
At the same time a denser bridge may lead to more sustain, but may act as a ballast, keeping most of the energy in the string and transferring less vibration to the top. Conversely, making a bridge too light may allow a quick transfer of vibration, yet have very little sustain.
The final aspect is hardness of bridge. A soft bridge may damp some high end, a bridge of steel may be overly bright.
I would hazard a guess I'd want a bridge where the graphs of these three variables converge ...
|
Stiff rather than soft. Also the same size bridge for an 0 as compare to a dred? Should it not be lighter? But if you have the same scale length maybe heavier bight be the part of the answer to get some bass response? Just taking mass into account the main resonance peak would be less with more mass, less responsive but a more even note response. Would spreading out the mass and stiffness give you a better response or if the bridge takes up more area will the high frequency nodes change, actually be smaller than if you had a bridge with a lower footprint? What was the original question again?