Question about braces

[Thomas Erickson]

I'm wondering about braces in a flat back bass; I know it has been covered before on this forum, but I didn't find quite what I'm looking for -

I'd like to know what people are thinking in regard to the top brace and the break, for a bass that has one - should the brace always be placed directly over the break, to reinforce it? I've read suggestions that three braces is generally suitable; in this case, should the top brace still support the break even if that leaves a fairly good amount of the rest of the upper bout bare, or would it be better to locate it lower where it would cover more width (or add another brace)?

Thanks for any thoughts...

[Ken Smith]

I'm wondering about braces in a flat back bass; I know it has been covered before on this forum, but I didn't find quite what I'm looking for -

I'd like to know what people are thinking in regard to the top brace and the break, for a bass that has one - should the brace always be placed directly over the break, to reinforce it? I've read suggestions that three braces is generally suitable; in this case, should the top brace still support the break even if that leaves a fairly good amount of the rest of the upper bout bare, or would it be better to locate it lower where it would cover more width (or add another brace)?

Thanks for any thoughts...

In the case of a definite upper angle break and especially if the Back has a cut there I think a brace there acts as a support piece to avoid or prevent the angle break area to crack because they often do.

As far as how many braces or the style of bracing that depends on a few things which include the size of the bass, the condition of the back, the strength of the wood species, the thickness of the wood and in some cases the tone desired in replacing or modifying the current bracing system.

On my 4/4 Prescott when it was restored it got two upper braces with one on the break. The 7/8 Hart ended up with just one upper brace as that's all it needed. Two other more modern basses that were restored has the bracing system changed to a single modified X-system. The Mougenot I have is between a 7/8 and 4/4 by French standards and that has only the original single center wide Stair-step 8" wide center brace. The brace system during the back restoration will get a normal center brace, a lower bout brace and a single upper bout brace. The upper and lower being shaped like a Bass bar rather than the wide flat style too often used in many basses which add too much wood, weigh the bass down and choke a bit of sound in the process.

You basically have to guess what will work best in the Bass you are working on. The more you have seen, done, changed, altered and had success and failure with, the more you will know to equate what the current bass needs.

[Ken Smith]

On some of my basses that were restored, the angle break does NOT have a brace there. My Hart for one has Linen over the break and a few long vertical 'finger' patches over the joint in places. I think in this case it was determined than the Back was very strong and in near mint condition and didn't need any more wood added than necessary. It has a center brace of normal width and a lower brace shaped like a bass bar.

My Lott copy bass has a modified single 1/2 X style brace with a bass bar shaped piece opposite it on the bottom as well. The upper angle break has mainly just Linen across it.

I would have to put both of these up on the Bench to better map out and explain things. Also, my Panormo school bass which is a round back has spaced out Studs across its break point as did my previous owned attributed Dodd/Betts bass of which was pointed out to me 'done in the style of Panormo'.

All in all, there is NO standard way. Those that put 3, 4 or 5 braces in by measurement alone are just not thinking things over all the way. Depending on where you and your bass live, the bracing might need less support so that the Back can breathe and move a bit rather than having something come apart.

Consider the sound of the bass before the job, the strength and thickness of the back, its repairs and condition of them, the size of the bass including length of the bouts and their width and then just take a guess at what would be enough to hold it together and not too much so as to hamper its vibration of sound transfer. Unless you continuously do it over and over in several ways on the exact same bass and do nothing else each time but alter the braces, it would be impossible to tell what the differences are. Weigh your options and 'why' and choose a sensible method.

I have seen more ways to brace a back than I could list.

[Matthew Tucker]

if you build a slight convexity into the flatback - maybe only 4-6mm over the entire width, the break becomes very rigid and strong. After bending the break, I re-cut the kerf to give it straight sides then glue in a fillet of wood. so i dont think in this case a brace is necessary at that point. i would rather save weight and brace further down to give the back its convexity.

however if the break is old, damaged or frail, then a brace there is an obvious choice.

[Ken Smith]

for my 2cents-brace it--anything that will help it keep its shape -a break in the wood is going to be vulnerable to loose its shape and come apart as many do that I have seen-good luck-good question

The Angle Break at the top to loose its shape? I don't think there is much stress there at all. Mostly what I have seen is at the lower bouts on a flatback with the wider part of the wood is trying to breathe and when it moves, something somewhere gives.

I have never seen any problem develop in an upper Angle break within MY time. I have seen old basses with problems and repairs but I think it takes a long time or an accident for something to happen. If the wood is very thin or the break cut or bend poorly done or ill-supported than maybe it will fail sooner than later. This IS the original way Bass instruments were made as developed by D'Salo from the Viol.

On the original Posters question we are not totally sure if he is making a Bass and asking how to do the Back or fixing a Bass new or old. Of course making a bass, roundbacks of any arch from shallow to severe if done fairly well will see less problems over time than a flatback, period.

For me, I prefer a Roundback with low arch and a semi-center brace as well. In place of the angle break I prefer some type of gradual bend towards the neck. I don't see how cutting across the back for an upper bend is a good thing for the long hall regardless of how well its done.

[Adrian Levi]

Is it possible that the differences in sound between flat back vs round has to do more with the crossbars found on a flat ? I have often wondered about this seeing as so much importance is placed on the ribs and plates vibrating as freely as possible ....?

[Ken Smith]

Is it possible that the differences in sound between flat back vs round has to do more with the crossbars found on a flat ? I have often wondered about this seeing as so much importance is placed on the ribs and plates vibrating as freely as possible ....?

Who is to say? Unless you change the Back of an exact Bass and test it after it settles in with one of more brace systems or as many as you try, the comparison is not between Backs but between Basses.

[Matthew Tucker]

Is it possible that the differences in sound between flat back vs round has to do more with the crossbars found on a flat ? I have often wondered about this seeing as so much importance is placed on the ribs and plates vibrating as freely as possible ....?

Don't assume that a braced flatback vibrates less than a roundback. A back arch is carved differently to the arch on a top; it is much stiffer, and a different wood. And as Ken says, many are now bracing the roundback as well. And there are flatbacks without a break, and these could be - depending on the bracing - somewhat less rigid than flatbacks with a break.

There are so many variables its hard to generalise. Everything in a bass contributes to the way it sounds.

[Thomas Erickson]

Interesting stuff, thanks all for posting.



On the original Posters question we are not totally sure if he is making a Bass and asking how to do the Back or fixing a Bass new or old. Of course making a bass, roundbacks of any arch from shallow to severe if done fairly well will see less problems over time than a flatback, period.

Not building a bass yet; just got to wondering if the break was generally considered a weak point that should be reinforced from the get-go, or if placing a brace there is more a matter of routine and/or to solidify older basses that are weak or damaged.

[Ken Smith]

Interesting stuff, thanks all for posting.



Not building a bass yet; just got to wondering if the break was generally considered a weak point that should be reinforced from the get-go, or if placing a brace there is more a matter of routine and/or to solidify older basses that are weak or damaged.

Each Back will need what it needs. It is up to the Luthier to determine that. Balancing strength and tone combined is not so easy. It must be in its best condition and best repair. As Matthew mentions, there are so many factors that create the sound. Equally, there are so many things that can kill it as well.

In any the piece of wood used for the Back (or Top as well) you have density, thickness and arch. If the Back is dense and well arched, it cannot be overly thick. If soft weak wood, it cannot be too thin. If so, it needs arch and some bracing. You need to balance those three items. How well the woods were dried before the bass was made and how much tension if any is in the carcass matters as well. If you force wood, it will fail and you loose sound along the way.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Two prominent makers I know of do the following with their flatbacks: Cut a narrow groove across the back where the bend will be; install a cross brace just at the lower edge of this groove (across the back); bend the back crease, using the cross brace as a kind of fulcrum; glue the upper part of the back to the rest of the already-assembled corpus. No reinforcement whatsoever of the bend. I'm wondering what you guys think of that method.

[Matthew Tucker]

Well, it's a neat way to get it done, and I like the idea of bending the break straight onto the ribs just as i like bending the ribs straight onto the mold. It doesn't allow for over-bending the break though - as you know, sometimes its nice to overbend and allow the wood to spring back to correct shape. And unless they fill the crack somehow it leaves a very thin bit of wood at the break. I don't know how strong that would be after 50 years of drying out - no weaker than rib stock I guess - and I suppose supported by a brace it's fine.

Kai-Thomas Roth in the Strad show how he puts a break in an "arched" back to reduce rib depth; he ends up with a compound curve which will be inherently strong and stiff. Then he fills the crack with glue and sawdust and finishes with a linen strip.

I prefer my method of filling the saw kerf with solid timber.

[Eric Rene Roy]

I've never liked the bend on flatbacks. Why build in a weak point? Why add anything that stops the back from vibrating freely??? I understand the ergonomics of it, the tradition of it, etc...but I like the idea of doing it through a greater rib taper from end block to neck block and keeping the back vibrating more.

I've always likened the crease on a flatback like the creases they add to a car's hood or fender. The crease on the hood of a car adds rigidity, keeping the panel from vibrating at higher wind speeds and making it stronger without overly bracing it on the inside. I think keeping the plate vibrating freely can only be beneficial to the tone.

I'm not sure if there has been any Chladni studies on bass plates the way they do violins...but I have to imagine the bend making a pretty big disruption to the lines of the plate.

Thoughts?

[Matthew Tucker]

i don't feel that the back plate works in the same way as the top plate. I'm not sure that it has to vibrate in the same way.

[Eric Rene Roy]

I'm not saying it does or needs to vibrate like a top. I'm saying why reduce its own resonant capabilities.

[Ken McKay]

There have been studies showing how flat back and carved back plates vibrate. There is a big difference! However, interestingly though neither experts nor non experts could successfully tell the difference between the two in blind listening tests.

iirc the difference is that properly graduated, carved violin style bass back plates have even resonances that are equally space apart while flat backs with cross braces have distinct peaky resonances from the braces stiffening effect.

Keep in mind though that these listening tests were the same model basses with either a well made carved back or a well made flat back bass.

My take on this is that a carved back has the smoothest, most even response but the flat back can be constructed in a way that has evenly spaced resonances by bracing it to flex in a similar way.

Smoother or more even resonances are not superior to a more "reedy" or peaky, viol sounding bass, only different.

I try for evenly spaced resonant back. I use thin, light braces that are X shaped and curved to a radius, resulting in the back being dome shaped which create about a half inch of curve from end to end and side to side. Even the area above and below the break angle is curved in the dome shape. The reason is to mitigate against cracks and to create a flat back that behaves like a carved one.

[Ken McKay]

Two prominent makers I know of do the following with their flatbacks: Cut a narrow groove across the back where the bend will be; install a cross brace just at the lower edge of this groove (across the back); bend the back crease, using the cross brace as a kind of fulcrum; glue the upper part of the back to the rest of the already-assembled corpus. No reinforcement whatsoever of the bend. I'm wondering what you guys think of that method.

I am not sure it is any better or worse than just bending without cutting the groove.

How steep is the bend? How thick are their backs?

[Matthew Tucker]

Smoother or more even resonances are not superior to a more "reedy" or peaky, viol sounding bass, only different.


Right.


... curved to a radius, resulting in the back being dome shaped which create about a half inch of curve from end to end and side to side. Even the area above and below the break angle is curved in the dome shape. The reason is to mitigate against cracks and to create a flat back that behaves like a carved one.... similar to my approach, and to the construction of a roundback, you are making quite a rigid shell, inhibiting "pumping" vibration very strongly. very different to the top plate with its inbuilt flexibility at the edges. It may feel like the back is vibrating, but I think this will be largely the resonance of the whole, via the ribs. The endpin material, density and weight of the bass (inertia) will affect how much vibration is felt through the back, and how much impedence there is in the shell.

But the outcome is, as usual, hard to predict!

I feel that the back, like the bridge and neck, has a filtering and reflecting effect more than an emitting effect. No proof of this though, just a feeling. The laws of conservation of energy and momentum say that for every movement there is an equal and opposite movement, and you can't create something out of nothing, so I would think that the MORE the back is a moving component, the less the top will move for any given energy input.

If the free vibration of the back is that advantageous, I'm wondering why anyone hasn't built a bass with identical top and back plates; identical materials, grads and arching?

[Ken Smith]

Keep in mind though that these listening tests were the same model basses with either a well made carved back or a well made flat back bass.

I had 6 modern basses here one day, all the same model with roundbacks. No two sounded alike and they were quite close to each other in wood and measurements. A flatback on one would be as different. You cant compare different basses and point to the back style as the reason for anything. It's only one component.

The first basses made in Brescia 400 years ago were flatback with an angle break. What kind of basses they were we don't know for sure but now they are Double basses and each costing more than my house.

Like I said, my opinion is that each bass made or repaired should be looked at individually and not as a model to be done one way unless you are making production basses in plywood or even carved.

I have 5 flatback basses right here in my office. Two English, two Italian and one German. Three of them have angle breaks. No two of these 5 basses have the exact same bracing system. Only one of them would I change anything inside and that is only because it was repaired a long time ago. The other 4 were all recently re-braced one way or another.

[Matthew Tucker]

That's why I love basses so much :)

[Ken Smith]

That's why I love basses so much :)

What does what? Who knows.. It is easy sometimes to gauge too much or too little in thickness and builds but which way to go to get the right stuff done is always interesting.

My Cornerless bass was/is ultra powerful and the back is a gradual taper with some gentle bend in the upper back, not an angle break cut. When I got it I glued up all the cracks that were open mainly from the outside just to keep it going till the restoration. It would shake itself apart and you could see daylight thru the F-holes coming from the back cracks. Other than fixing all that's loose and re-doing EVERY previous repair, we are leaving the bass alone. What's done was done and with old basses, over modifying is not always a good thing.

Why did that bass sound so good and so loud? A combination of things. How much of each we don't really know but it had the right stuff! It had its own internal can of whoop-ass!;)

The copy bass will have a gradual taper from block to block as well BUT a shallowish round back with a center brace. Three of my roundbacks currently have center braces as well. The Panormo School which is very old if not original, my Candi which was partially put in for a repair and to strengthen the softer maple used for the back and my Martini which is the same soft wood but thicker made in 3 piece. The partial brace in that is to protect the joint on the soundpost side. The two that were just done recently slightly improved the projection of the bass as far as speed of sound or it feels like it. The other is older than time but for a huge bass, not a bad idea.

Back designs, bracing systems, sizes of basses, the species or wood used and the thickness of the woods. All of these factor in.

[Thomas Erickson]

I've never liked the bend on flatbacks. Why build in a weak point? Why add anything that stops the back from vibrating freely??? I understand the ergonomics of it, the tradition of it, etc...but I like the idea of doing it through a greater rib taper from end block to neck block and keeping the back vibrating more.

I've always likened the crease on a flatback like the creases they add to a car's hood or fender. The crease on the hood of a car adds rigidity, keeping the panel from vibrating at higher wind speeds and making it stronger without overly bracing it on the inside. I think keeping the plate vibrating freely can only be beneficial to the tone.

I'm not sure if there has been any Chladni studies on bass plates the way they do violins...but I have to imagine the bend making a pretty big disruption to the lines of the plate.

Thoughts?

The break is going to affect the rigidity of the back across the top bout, yes, but there's no reason why that's going to make the back as a whole any less resonant. It isn't like the break in and of itself is going to change the mass of the back or introduce any stress into it.

As for the resonance of the back goes in general - I'm not sure it even matters much; certainly in the case of an orchestra player resting the back on his knee there's not much there to resonate! And even if it is left free to resonate, it certainly isn't being driven anything like the way a top plate is, so comparing the two doesn't make sense even with a carved back...

[Matthew Tucker]

Ken have you thought about adding cans of "KSB whoop-ass" to your online store?

[Ken Smith]

Ken have you thought about adding cans of "KSB whoop-ass" to your online store?

Matt, I can tell when it's there but I just can't put my hands on it physically!;)

Why, are you looking to order a few cases of it?:D

[Matthew Tucker]

Why, are you looking to order a few cases of it?:D

Depends on your warranty :D

[Matthew Tucker]

I'm not sure if there has been any Chladni studies on bass plates the way they do violins...but I have to imagine the bend making a pretty big disruption to the lines of the plate.
Thoughts?

my be wrong but that thesis "round back vs flat back" floating around a few years ago probably did this.

My thoughts on this are that chladni patterns of a braced bent plate would probably be just as good/bad as an unbent braced plate, except that the the plate would be effectively shorter. But that said, you're not going to easily get the common modes 2 and 5. And it all changes when you attach the rim of the plate to the ribs, eh.

I'll try to find a picture of the chladni pattern of my ladder-braced bent back on my first bass. As I recall it was almost a perfect circle mode centered around the lower bout. Above the C's there was very little resonance at all, perhaps if there was no break there would have been a circle mode there as well at a higher freq. But what they all mean ... that's the big secret isn't it? :)

[Matthew Tucker]

Last page of Andrew Brown's research project on the matter. The paper was highly technical, and I think the conclusions were ... inconclusive!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4687512465_7050ce21b5_b.jpg

[Ken McKay]

The papers I have read on vibration patterns of basses are on assembled instruments using lasers. This is a bit different from the free plate patterns which show the area of vibration of the plate only.

I think you are absolutely correct Eric, and Matthew. Bending the plate pretty much stiffens it enough to make it rigid so it only vibrates at higher frequencies in the area of the back above the break angle cross bar.

I think the major important factor of understanding this whole back stiffness concept is in the way it effects the bass response to bowing.

edit, thanks for putting that up Matthew, I am a big fan of Andrew Browns thesis work. I really think using the knowledge learned from his work has resulted in me making a better bass. In addition, I can't apologize for understanding the "technical" nature of the thesis. And it certainly doesn't imply that a maker has to understand what's in it to make a good sounding bass...obviously!

[Ken Smith]

Lasers, patterns, frequencies, research.... VOODOO

What ever happened to listening and feeling?

Unless you take the EXACT same Bass and keep remaking it with various backs and bracings you are Pissing in the wind.

You cannot compare Backs or bracings on different basses. There is that 'different bass' factor you are forgetting about.

I own many basses that were altered from one system to another, flat and round back. In this way we can tell BUT, even so, other restoration work was performed as well. Still, the other work performed had somewhat predictable results as it was not new science added into the bass so I am fairly certain I know what I am hearing when I listen to the changes.

Changing a bass from a 3, 4 or 5 piece brace system to a single 1/2 X brace with a bottom left angles bar (I have some like that) frees up the back in two ways. One, it can move easier with the weather and two, the sound spread up the back is aided by the long singe brace. The bottom angled Bar forms a an inverted 'V' pattern at the bottom with the longer brace to stabilize the wider lower bout.

On one of the basses like that it has an angle bend but is covered in sheer cut linen. It was left alone, unbraced or modified from the maker in 2007, England. The other is Italian about 30 years old, Cello-like un-tapered ribs, no angle break. Both of these basses were set up and played before the modification was done. Only set-up work was performed mainly other than the back work and some repairs that came about after the sound was evaluated.

I don't do this work myself but I do play the basses and my ear is pretty good.

I have two other basses in restoration that will be modified as well. One is an Italian round back and it will get a center brace. The back is fine but I like the idea. The other is an old Flat back pedigree (can't tell you for business reasons) and it had normal bracings before. It will get the modified X as mentioned before and what ever else it looks to need after all the back cracks are repaired and evaluated.

One other bass I have in repair is a large French bass with a single wide center brace. That will be modified to a normal center brace, one lower centered at the bottom bout and one upper brace just above the upper corner.

My Hart is a flatback with only a center brace and a lower brace. All braces other than center or X are shaped like a bassbar, never the wide flat ones you see in normal basses. The angle break has linen and vertical finger patches spaces along the bend.

Each bass got what it needed. No patterns here, just careful thought.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

There are two schools of thought about bass backs: 1) The back should be stiff and thick, so the top does the majority of the vibrating, and the bass will be more powerful; 2) The back should be treated like the top in that it vibrates and resonates freely, and the whole instrument will vibrate and the bass will be more powerful.

Several prominent bass makers carve their backs quite thick, and the tops fairly thin, adhering to school #1 above.

[Matthew Tucker]

So lets go for the more powerful one!

Interesting in Browns results is that the observation that the player is often able to mask or compensate for the difference in response between roundback and flatback so the differences are un-noticeable. I suppose if the back is contributing significantly to tone and volume you have a built in tone filter available with your left knee.

My observations of a free plate oscillating at a low resonant frequency, where the edges and centres of the plate can move by a centimeter or more, lead me to believe that a flexible rib structure helps allow the top to move, which is essential to transform string energy into movement of air, thus sound. The controlling factor is the strength of the box which must stay intact under high tension and compression. So you can see how both the schools of thought can work. But for me I think the back has a structural priority while its resonance is a by product of what's going on elsewhere.

Understanding its role in tone production I agree is not science yet!

[Pino Cazzaniga]

Put me in the second school, as I don't like heavy instruments, but top is moved mainly by bridge, back by soundpost (forgive the coarseness), and we have to consider the difference.
On flatbacks, sometimes I thought that a broken bend was due to the weather movements of the bend brace wood, locally stressing the groove.

[Brian Gencarelli]

There are two schools of thought about bass backs: 1) The back should be stiff and thick, so the top does the majority of the vibrating, and the bass will be more powerful; 2) The back should be treated like the top in that it vibrates and resonates freely, and the whole instrument will vibrate and the bass will be more powerful.

Several prominent bass makers carve their backs quite thick, and the tops fairly thin, adhering to school #1 above.

Maestro,

Which school do you subscribe to?

Brian

[Ken Smith]

Maestro,

Which school do you subscribe to?

Brian

Is there a Column 'C' (school 3)?

[Arnold Schnitzer]

I personally treat the back like a secondary soundboard. I want resonance, and I also want some stiffness in the soundpost area. My back graduations (on roundbacks) would be considered thin by some.

[Ken Smith]

I personally treat the back like a secondary soundboard. I want resonance, and I also want some stiffness in the soundpost area. My back graduations (on roundbacks) would be considered thin by some.

Are the Backs that are thin as you decribe Braced in the center somewhat like a flatback?

[Eric Rene Roy]

...it certainly isn't being driven anything like the way a top plate is, so comparing the two doesn't make sense even with a carved back...Again...same as Matt...I am not comparing it to a top plate at all. Is this assumption because I sited Chladni pattern studies?

I guess I am greedy and I want it all. I want a back that is as resonant as possible while providing enough strength to support and work with the top. Both plates are different and perform differently...I am not saying at all that they are the same.

It just never made sense to me to have a canted back, other than to gain playability (which I believe can be done other ways). I like to approach the bass like it's a giant cello...if I reduce my thoughts on this subject to the simplest comparison.

[Ken Smith]

It just never made sense to me to have a canted back, other than to gain playability (which I believe can be done other ways). I like to approach the bass like it's a giant cello...if I reduce my thoughts on this subject to the simplest comparison.

In my opinion, it's the 'giant cello' syndrome of makers in the past that made necessary all of the cut down basses we have seen made all over Europe.

Eric, I do not know all of your personal experience of playing bass or of owning/playing old basses that were cut or should have been. I have owned quite a few that were cut, some that were not and some that could have been. I also have over 4 decades of playing the bass under my belt. Just ask Arnold how much that belt has had to be loosened over the years!:eek:

For me, you can take those 'giant cellos' of bass design and .. well.. you get my drift.

As far as a canted or angle bent back which is what I think you are referring to, I don't know of a single orchestra sized d'Salo, Maggini or English copy of one that has ever had to be cut down.

Currently, my Hart bass is one of the easiest to reach the upper register because of this cant/angle break despite its fairly wide upper bouts. That coupled with the rib depth that looks like a half sized bass sitting in the rack beside the 4/4 Panormo school bass I have. The Panormo having massive rib depth, massive top and back arch and wide upper bouts is still more playable with the canted round bent upper back then it would be at that size shaped like a cello.

I have played this monster in Concert and I was very comfortable on it. It was a bit of a stretch as compared to playing the Hart but still, it was playable.

The other alternative is gradually tapering the rib depth from the lower block to the upper corner and then sloping it more towards the neck with a gentle back bend getting the width as the neck block close to 6" or so. Two of my biggest basses that have/had their original shoulders (only a block cut for string length) have under 6" rib depth at the neck as does the Hart and Cornerless as well. A few others measured around 6 1/2" give or take an 1/8th".

Cello shaped shoulders and ribs combined make for a difficult time playing all the registers as needed in Orchestra bass playing and I don't mean solo playing.

[Eric Rene Roy]

Taking the cello comment very literally, huh? Had we been talking about body shapes then I could see your points as valid to my comment (I do agree with your points in general on this....they are valid Ken, just not to my comment). I think the bass I made for last years ISB competition was the smallest bass in the room, so you know I don't subscribe to the cello shape idea.

We are talking about graduations and theories about how we view the back plate to the top at this point. It is in this regard that I study cellos to make better sounding basses.

[Ken Smith]

Taking the cello comment very literally, huh? Had we been talking about body shapes then I could see your points as valid to my comment (I do agree with your points in general on this....they are valid Ken, just not to my comment). I think the bass I made for last years ISB competition was the smallest bass in the room, so you know I don't subscribe to the cello shape idea.

We are talking about graduations and theories about how we view the back plate to the top at this point. It is in this regard that I study cellos to make better sounding basses.

Ok, but are you referring to a braced Flatback? If so, we are talking Viols and not violin family instruments. I guess I missed in the reading there about your exact point. As soon as I read 'Cello' my back started to ache as if I was bear hugging a giant bass, lol.

[Eric Rene Roy]

I hear you. This one was a ***** to play, made by Hammond Ashley in 1984.

Ok, but are you referring to a braced Flatback?No, I guess I wasn't. This thread has derailed a bit, I know the OP asked about flatback bracing and things just kinda morph...like a conversation, from that starting point.

[Ken Smith]

I hear you. This one was a ***** to play, made by Hammond Ashley in 1984.

http://www.stringrepair.com/images/db11/DB_HammondAshley_010.JPG
No, I guess I wasn't. This thread has derailed a bit, I know the OP asked about flatback bracing and things just kinda morph...like a conversation, from that starting point.

What was the Back, round/carved or Flat with braces? It looks like a Violin with an endpin.

[Eric Rene Roy]

What was the Back, round/carved or Flat with braces? It looks like a Violin with an endpin.round...no braces...

[Thomas Erickson]

I hear you. This one was a ***** to play, made by Hammond Ashley in 1984.

No, I guess I wasn't. This thread has derailed a bit, I know the OP asked about flatback bracing and things just kinda morph...like a conversation, from that starting point.

I think there's enough OT material in this thread to start a dozen more! :rolleyes:

As long as we're at it, any idea if that HA bass was modeled after a "Prescott" that they used to have? I remember playing such a bass a number of times; a big, cello shaped beast that they were threatening to chop because nobody wanted it. I wanted it but didn't have the 20k they needed... I didn't even think it was so bad to play and protested the chopping, but what do I know. :mad: