bridge replacement for Starfire

lungimsam said:

But what about the curve o the SF body?

Click to expand...

Good point. I am looking to update the bridge on my JS II so it’s not an issue there.

lungimsam said:

But what about the curve o the SF body?

Click to expand...

There's really not enough of an arch to the top of the body in the spot where the bridge is mounted to cause a functional issue. Sure the corners have a bit of lift to them, but I'd still say at least 80% of the bridge was making contact. Similar to mounting a Hipshot Supertone on an Epiphone Casady signature bass. Perfectly functional.
In any case, I will try to get my buddy who has the sunburst '67 currently to send a few photos of the bridge area when he gets a chance. Busy guy though, so that may take a few days

Cool. Thanks. My only issue with the harp is lack of travel to get intonated on the low E, and broken wood saddles (replaced with brass). Guess I could file the E slot though.
But maybe I should not mess with my SF anymore since I am thinking of selling it to make room for a JSII some day.

lungimsam said:

Cool. Thanks. My only issue with the harp is lack of travel to get intonated on the low E, and broken wood saddles (replaced with brass). Guess I could file the E slot though.
But maybe I should not mess with my SF anymore since I am thinking of selling it to make room for a JSII some day.

Click to expand...

Or, if you intend to continue vintage, you can justify your experiments on the Starfire by saying they are a rehearsal so that whatever you do to the JS it will be done right the first time and a mod you will love forever

Since the JS has humbuckers, if it’s noisy all it’ll need is copper shielding in the cavity to be good to go. I would not like to mod an original vintage instrument. No no no. Keep as is if at all possible.

What I learned from the NS Starfire:
1. My NS Bisonic is a low quality, noisy pickup, as evidenced by noise, and wafer thin melted plastic surround that eventually fell apart.
2. It’s hard to work on and shield electronics in a semi-hollow body. I’m sticking’ to solid bodies from now on.
3. Semi-hollow tone isn’t that different to my ears than a solid body so just stick to the easier workability of solid bodies from now on.
4. Never settle for a brand new production bass that is a bad cosmetic factory blemish at full price no matter how unobtainium the model seems at the time. I am talking about the infamous fingerboard edge fog mentioned to be seen on pre-CMG NS Starfire like mine had.
5. Never let a vendor getaway with selling such.
6. The harp bridge is fantastic despite the low E issue.

Every JS bass I have seen or asked the question about, came from the factory with copper foil lining, and shielding, the control cavity.

Lengthen the slider play on the E string so the saddle can be nudged up a smidge. It helps a lot.

Here is a guy with a fender type looking bridge mounted on his Starfire with what appears to be a foam base between it and the bass face. Looks like a solid connection. At 3:16 you get a good look at how it is on there:

Adding another one to the compendium:

A big bulky rectangle bridge on a Starfire bass just does not work for me. I once rescued a Starfire from its brutish Badass bridge oppressor, though it was a Chrome one in that case. I don't know why, but it just looks wrong to me. All those beautiful curves and then BAM! Of course though, different strokes for different folks.

I think its a dapper looking bridge on there but I would not go out of my way to replace the stock harp bridge for it.
Now what I'd really like is the non-harp Guild bridge. The one they used before the harp.

Happy Face said:

Now and then you see the late 90s all metal versions offered. Not sure if the holes match up, however.

Click to expand...

fronobulax said:

I thought someone reported that the 90's harp bridges (metal saddles traveling on screws) did NOT have mounting holes in the same position as the vintage bridge.

Click to expand...

The "wood-saddle" and "barrel-saddle" harp bass bridges do not share the same mounting hole spacing. I think the Westerly and DeArmond bass "harp" bridges (both "barrel-style") mounting holes are the same distance apart. If memory serves, the hole spacing is wider on the barrel bridges and the bassplates, themselves, have slightly different proportions than the wood-saddle ones.

I will try to double check/verify all this tomorrow.

I get along fine with both types, but I don't play with a pick or slap and have a light finger-style touch: I've been told that slapping or very aggressive picking/plucking can send the wood saddles flying, but have never experienced that problem, myself. I have wood saddles on an NS-SFI and brass saddles on an NS-SFII.

Curiosity got the better of me, so I checked the spacing:

•NS-SF (wood saddles) mount hole spacing: 1-1/8"

•DeArmond SF (barrel saddles) mount hole spacing: 1-3/8"

So yes: switching from one to the other would require drilling a couple of holes.

I'll look at the Westerly (barrel) hole spacing tomorrow and report back, but I'm pretty sure it's the same as the DeArmond..

Minnesota Flats said:

The "wood-saddle" and "barrel-saddle" harp bass bridges do not share the same mounting hole spacing. I think the Westerly and DeArmond bass "harp" bridges (both "barrel-style") mounting holes are the same distance apart. If memory serves, the hole spacing is wider on the barrel bridges and the bassplates, themselves, have slightly different proportions than the wood-saddle ones.

I will try to double check/verify all this tomorrow.

I get along fine with both types, but I don't play with a pick or slap and have a light finger-style touch: I've been told that slapping or very aggressive picking/plucking can send the wood saddles flying, but have never experienced that problem, myself. I have wood saddles on an NS-SFI and brass saddles on an NS-SFII.

Curiosity got the better of me, so I checked the spacing:

•NS-SF (wood saddles) mount hole spacing: 1-1/8"

•DeArmond SF (barrel saddles) mount hole spacing: 1-3/8"

So yes: switching from one to the other would require drilling a couple of holes.

I'll look at the Westerly (barrel) hole spacing tomorrow and report back, but I'm pretty sure it's the same as the DeArmond..

Click to expand...

Quite a few years ago I recounted how a guitarist picked up my JS-II at a reunion gig and proceeded to play some slap & pop. A wood saddle skittered across the stage. Thankfully I was there watching and saw where it went. Lesson = don't go to the can, bar or to talk up a groupie when someone else is playing your bass.

OK.



Here is a shot of the DeArmond SF "barrel" bridge next to my spare, NS, "wood saddle" bridge. As you can see, not only is the spacing of the mounting holes different (as noted in my previous post), the bassplate itself is also slightly, though not dramatically, different in shape. Note especially that the "ball-end" end of the DeArmond bridge is wider and the overall width of the bridge is also slightly wider.

Other random observations:

•Guild NS-SF nut is 1-1/2" wide, while that of the DeArmond is closer to 1-9/16" wide.

• Guild NS-SF string spacing at the bridge saddles is, maybe, 1.5mm narrower than that of the DeArmond.

•The entire bassplate of the Guild can be raised or lowered with two Allen screws to affect string height, while the DeArmond lacks those two screws (and the holes into which the thread). The DeArmond bassplate always lies flush on the top of the bass and string height is affected with adjusting screws on each, individual bridge barrel.

Westerly comparison:



•Westerly barrel bridge seems to be pretty much the same design as the DeArmond, with these possible differences:

-Westerly appears to have been stamped from slightly heavier-gauge steel

-quality of plating on Westerly looks superior

•Westerly nut is 1-1/2" wide, which minimizes any playability "feel" differences due to the minimally wider string spacing at the bridge saddles.

Please note: any other, perceived, visual differences you may detect between the bridges based on the above PICs may be due to phone camera lens distortion. That issue has cropped up before in other PICs I've taken with this particular camera.

Also note (if your fastidious like myself): No beautiful flame maple tops were damaged while shooting these PICs: a folded paper towel was placed between the bottom of spare NS bridge and the top of the Westerly to provide cushioning and avoid marring the finish.

So, do any harp bridges fit NS basses other than NS harp bridges?

lungimsam said:

So, do any harp bridges fit NS basses other than NS harp bridges?

Click to expand...

I would assume that the pre-Westerly and vintage Hagstrom ones would, but cannot confirm that assumption since I have neither of those on hand.

Several members have either 1960s or 1970s Starfire basses and I believe there are even a couple of owners of old Hagstroms. Perhaps they will enlighten us.

Both the Bi-Sonic pups and the "harp" bridge design (though not the harp shape) trace their roots back to mid-1960s Hagstrom, unless I'm mistaken:

Iirc, I heard the screw holes are wider in the 60’s bridges but not sure which years.

For anyone who's itching to try a flat-front Hagstrom bridge, I'd recommend keeping an eye out for two particular early 70s Japanese (or maybe they were Korean) basses that came stock with them... they usually go for ~$300 or so. Finding a loose one of these bridges for sale is very difficult.

Madeira MB-100:


Univox Badazz bass (and yes that is the unfortunate, real model name):

mellowgerman said:

For anyone who's itching to try a flat-front Hagstrom bridge, I'd recommend keeping an eye out for two particular early 70s Japanese (or maybe they were Korean) basses that came stock with them... they usually go for ~$300 or so. Finding a loose one of these bridges for sale is very difficult.

Madeira MB-100:

Univox Badazz bass (and yes that is the unfortunate, real model name):

Click to expand...

I was pondering buying one of those Maderas to put the Alembic stuff into when I was having trouble finding a beater JS-II. Thankfully I did.