ISB 2013, Fifths

[Robert J Spear]

I'm hoping a lot of the forum members will find their way to ISB 2013. If anyone has even the slightest interest in what's going on in the world of fifths-tuning, this convention promises to be a feast. And I just might have a few surprises of my own there . . .

[Anselm Hauke]

so, first you make our mouth water an then you expect us to wait TWO years???

[Robert J Spear]

Time warps are not uncommon if you make basses. :) To me, the convention is only 20 months from now. It will probably take me at least a year or more to prepare everything, which means that I am thinking of it as being only six or eight months away! Bad habit. I must get over it. Sorry if I whet your appetite too soon, but at least now youwill have plenty of time to make plans.

I have heard that there will be a lot of events that will be of interest to players who either tune in fifths already or who are just curious. The fifths-tuning community looks like it will make a strong showing. My part will be the presentation of new bass designs that lend themselves to fifths tuning. Of course, these basses can easily be tuned in fourths as well.

[Ken Smith]

Time warps are not uncommon if you make basses. :) To me, the convention is only 20 months from now. It will probably take me at least a year or more to prepare everything, which means that I am thinking of it as being only six or eight months away! Bad habit. I must get over it. Sorry if I whet your appetite too soon, but at least now youwill have plenty of time to make plans.

I have heard that there will be a lot of events that will be of interest to players who either tune in fifths already or who are just curious. The fifths-tuning community looks like it will make a strong showing. My part will be the presentation of new bass designs that lend themselves to fifths tuning. Of course, these basses can easily be tuned in fourths as well.

Several years ago after talking about 5ths, I walked into my office and re-tuned two of my basses to 5ths in the morning. By lunch time I tuned them back in defeat. I know a few hours is not enough but how do you reverse 40+ years of playing, training and thinking in 4ths? I have read that in the 19th century, 5ths players (3-strings only then) didn't play as well in tune as 4ths players. Shifting, stretching and pivoting all more of a necessity in 5ths than in 4ths. To get the Low C, I can see some merit here for the idea but with the limited usage of the notes below E, isn't the relaxed less stretched left hand faster to shift and fly than one stretched out with tendons screaming? Do you need bigger hands to play Cello fingering/tuning on a Double Bass. Isn't the bass big enough with 41-42" string length already when playing in fourths and wont 5ths make the bass feel even bigger? Please, correct me if I am wrong. Also, I would love to hear from players that make their living playing bass and playing it in tune. When I worked in NYC professionally, intonation wasn't an option. It was a prerequisite. Why chance a career change now if 4ths work!

I like the idea of the range but Cello tuning on a full scale Orchestra bass seems a bit painful for me. Like with a 5-string bass, when you are not using the B/C at all, it is still there. With a C-extension, the extended lower range is only there when you call for it. In 5ths, you are always stretching, for everything, not just the low notes.

One question for subject I have here is this; When you convert a bass from 4 to 5 strings, you have to beef up the bass bar as Luthiers did in the past converting 3 stringers to 4s. So, IF you want to tune your bass from 4ths to 5ths, will your regular 4-string bass bar experience any extra force exerted upon it like when adding a 5th string, to any degree?

[Paul Warburton]

So, IF you want to tune your bass from 4ths to 5ths, will your regular 4-string bass bar experience any extra force exerted upon it like when adding a 5th string, to any degree?

No, not to any degree.

[Terry McDougal]

No, not to any degree.
So Paul, do you play in 5ths? Your profile is a bit sketchy.

[Scott Pope]

Regarding the 4ths to 5ths tuning for a four string bass and as to whether there is any more tension requiring the bass bar to be altered, here's something to consider: On the TI website, the factory specs for tension for a set of S42 Weichs is just shy of @ 260 lbs total tension. The 5ths Mitts set is right on 260 lbs, or just a fraction more, total tension for the set.

So it would seem quite the contrary: a well-designed 4-string set of 5ths tuning strings should be about the same as a conventional 4ths set of strings, and because everything is going down, a 4ths set of strings loosened up to the 5ths tuning will actually have less tension.

This is, of course, a completely different issue from adding a 5th string, which if a player likes the feel of a certain 4-string set, and adds a matching 5th string, by definition, that's adding roughly 25% more tension to the top of the bass.

[Ken Smith]

Regarding the 4ths to 5ths tuning for a four string bass and as to whether there is any more tension requiring the bass bar to be altered, here's something to consider: On the TI website, the factory specs for tension for a set of S42 Weichs is just shy of @ 260 lbs total tension. The 5ths Mitts set is right on 260 lbs, or just a fraction more, total tension for the set.

So it would seem quite the contrary: a well-designed 4-string set of 5ths tuning strings should be about the same as a conventional 4ths set of strings, and because everything is going down, a 4ths set of strings loosened up to the 5ths tuning will actually have less tension.

This is, of course, a completely different issue from adding a 5th string, which if a player likes the feel of a certain 4-string set, and adds a matching 5th string, by definition, that's adding roughly 25% more tension to the top of the bass.

As highlighted above I think you are wrong. Everything is NOT going down. To have even tension as best as possible we can start with the only string not getting changed (maybe). That is the D. The G going up to an A would be thinner like a Solo G/A string. The A going down to a G would be a heavier string to maintain tension in the set. The E will NOT be going down to C. For that, you need a special made C or, a B string that tunes up to C at even tension with the rest of the set. Some 5-string DB players actually tunes the fifth string to a C instead of B. It avoids one shift but for octave passages, the B is better or rather more familiar to use.

I have taken a few basses and tuned them up and down to put the bass in fifths and although it was in 5ths, the tension was all over the place so, not the thing to do if you wanna play in 5ths for real. For a quick trial of the tuning 'musically speaking' it's ok.

One bass that came in awhile ago for a possible trade was tuned in 5ths with a correct set of strings. In order for me to test and evaluate the bass, I had to put a regular set of strings on to test the bass. As soon as I did, the string height came up as if it had taken enough tension off of the top to allow the wood to spring upwards. This to me meant that that particular set of strings had way more downward pressure on the Top than a 4 string set.

When a company tells you the pressure or poundage of a string, is it the downward pressure on the Top over the bridge they are measuring? I would like to see what the use to test this. Maybe they are testing the length and pitch only because this doesn't add up in my mind at all.

Also, each bass has different wood (even if the exact same species) as far as grain strength goes, different arching which will give it more or less strength under the bridge, different graduations and also, a different bass bar. Length, width and design of the bouts in regards to the Top also makes a difference.

As with any bass, a string that works and sounds well on one bass may not work the same on another.

Also, I was mainly talking or rather asking about 5th in regards to a Bowing bass. Spirocores are not really the first choice for bowing. They are maybe the first for jazz that are used smaller modern 3/4 basses that are more affordable for the masses but the larger and often the more expensive/older basses used in Orchestras are a bit more finicky and require just the perfect match for bass, player, bow and style.

I think 90-something percent of the time, you can just throw on Spiro-reds on any Juzek-type 3/4 and play jazz for the rest of your life. This is not the case at all for bowing classical. There is no main string anymore for classical. This would apply for 4ths or 5ths tuning as well as 5-string set-up as well. Once you put a bow in your hands, everything changes, a lot!

[Scott Pope]

It is my understanding that the tension specification is internal linear string tension. In other words, a machine suspends a speaking length of string with some sort of scale or meter attached to the string and the reading is taken off the string at pitch, or it is done mathematically by computing the mass of the string in relation to pitch. So this is the linear tension, not the downforce over the bridge. D'Addario has taken this to a high art, publishing not only the relative tensions of all of their orchestral strings, but also a pdf booklet with every one of their guitar and electric bass strings at conventional scale lengths for every reasonable pitch.

Ken, I see your points in your post. And all things do change from bass to bass. I only used Spirocores as an example because it is what I am familiar with and easily pulled it up, and because they do have a dedicated 5ths tuning set of strings. Besides TI and D'addario, other companies are now publishing their tension specs. Pirastro seems to be the holdout, not publishing anything besides the general subjective class of tension for their sets.

Am I ever going to choose a string bassed (pun intended) solely on a published mechanical specification? No. But it may help narrow the universe of strings to a few sets that may be suitable for me to try in a particular situation besides the subjective "Weich," "Mittel," or "Stark."

No, a raw string tension spec may not be that usable for a variety of reasons, and because of the differences in construction cannot predict how a string will feel or sound or react under a bow. But by using some vector physics equations the linear tension can be used to derive an estimate of the downforce over the bridge and onto the top, for a particular stand, bridge height and tailpiece setup, and the corresponding break angles over the bridge, and more importantly, compare the relative downforce over the bridge of different sets. In other words, If I wanted to change from 4ths tuning to 5ths tuning, and I do use Spiros Weichs, and I didn't want to change the setup of my bass (besides possibly having to adjust the nut slots for the increased diameter of the lower strings), I would start with using the 5ths Mitts set, because the published specs indicate that with the similar linear tension for the set, it will have a similar downforce over the bridge and therefore load the top in a similar manner on the same bass with the same setup. Now, once there, I may or may not like the feel or the tone of the set, but at least I have a starting point for trying it out, and that's the whole point of publishing tension specs for strings. If I don't like it, then I can see from there where I would want to go with a different set, and get an idea of how the bass might need to be set up differently from there, and avoid a lot of wasted time and money in the hit-and-miss approach to trying out strings, as we see so much of the fallout from that on the various forums "for sale" sections.

So obviously, and sorry to take the Spiros example again, of course their Mitts set will have more tension overall than their Weichs set, but less than their Stark set, but how do I know how they will compare, other than anecdotally from other players describing their experience, to something like a Pirastro Jazzer, which is also labeled as a medium tension or feel set? Published string tensions would help a little with that. Not much, granted, but a little.

Then again, as you say, even with the best of care, a string just may not sound good on a bass. The example you gave where there was obviously less downforce on the bass with the conventional set of strings indicates to me that the 5ths set that was on there had significantly more linear tension than the set used to replace it for evaluation, even though both sets may have been labled with the same generalized descriptive term.

I'm not trying to provoke arguments. All I'm saying is that unlike a lot of the rest of the musical world, basses, bass strings, and such are still spoken of with so much subjectivity that it makes it very difficult and frustrating for everyone, from relative novices to DB like me, to seasoned professionals such as yourself, to compare anything apples-to-apples. Publishing string tensions is only one minor way of trying to help with that disparity.

[Ken Smith]

It is my understanding that the tension specification is internal linear string tension. In other words, a machine suspends a speaking length of string with some sort of scale or meter attached to the string and the reading is taken off the string at pitch, or it is done mathematically by computing the mass of the string in relation to pitch. So this is the linear tension, not the downforce over the bridge. D'Addario has taken this to a high art, publishing not only the relative tensions of all of their orchestral strings, but also a pdf booklet with every one of their guitar and electric bass strings at conventional scale lengths for every reasonable pitch.

Ken, I see your points in your post. And all things do change from bass to bass. I only used Spirocores as an example because it is what I am familiar with and easily pulled it up, and because they do have a dedicated 5ths tuning set of strings. Besides TI and D'addario, other companies are now publishing their tension specs. Pirastro seems to be the holdout, not publishing anything besides the general subjective class of tension for their sets.

Am I ever going to choose a string bassed (pun intended) solely on a published mechanical specification? No. But it may help narrow the universe of strings to a few sets that may be suitable for me to try in a particular situation besides the subjective "Weich," "Mittel," or "Stark."

No, a raw string tension spec may not be that usable for a variety of reasons, and because of the differences in construction cannot predict how a string will feel or sound or react under a bow. But by using some vector physics equations the linear tension can be used to derive an estimate of the downforce over the bridge and onto the top, for a particular stand, bridge height and tailpiece setup, and the corresponding break angles over the bridge, and more importantly, compare the relative downforce over the bridge of different sets. In other words, If I wanted to change from 4ths tuning to 5ths tuning, and I do use Spiros Weichs, and I didn't want to change the setup of my bass (besides possibly having to adjust the nut slots for the increased diameter of the lower strings), I would start with using the 5ths Mitts set, because the published specs indicate that with the similar linear tension for the set, it will have a similar downforce over the bridge and therefore load the top in a similar manner on the same bass with the same setup. Now, once there, I may or may not like the feel or the tone of the set, but at least I have a starting point for trying it out, and that's the whole point of publishing tension specs for strings. If I don't like it, then I can see from there where I would want to go with a different set, and get an idea of how the bass might need to be set up differently from there, and avoid a lot of wasted time and money in the hit-and-miss approach to trying out strings, as we see so much of the fallout from that on the various forums "for sale" sections.

So obviously, and sorry to take the Spiros example again, of course their Mitts set will have more tension overall than their Weichs set, but less than their Stark set, but how do I know how they will compare, other than anecdotally from other players describing their experience, to something like a Pirastro Jazzer, which is also labeled as a medium tension or feel set? Published string tensions would help a little with that. Not much, granted, but a little.

Then again, as you say, even with the best of care, a string just may not sound good on a bass. The example you gave where there was obviously less downforce on the bass with the conventional set of strings indicates to me that the 5ths set that was on there had significantly more linear tension than the set used to replace it for evaluation, even though both sets may have been labled with the same generalized descriptive term.

I'm not trying to provoke arguments. All I'm saying is that unlike a lot of the rest of the musical world, basses, bass strings, and such are still spoken of with so much subjectivity that it makes it very difficult and frustrating for everyone, from relative novices to DB like me, to seasoned professionals such as yourself, to compare anything apples-to-apples. Publishing string tensions is only one minor way of trying to help with that disparity.

Ah, ok..:confused:

[Paul Warburton]

So Paul, do you play in 5ths?

No, but my mentor Red Mitchell did and he told me stuff.

Your profile is a bit sketchy.

Yeah, I know.

[Sam Sherry]

So Paul . . . your profile is a bit sketchy.

Yeah, I know.
Ah, the interweb.

[Paul Warburton]

Hey, Sam.

Hehe, and no, i've Never been affiliated with the Communist Party. :D

[Ken Smith]

Hey, Sam.

Hehe, and no, i've Never been affiliated with the Communist Party. :D

Communist Party? Is that related to playing in Fifths? :eek:

[Bin Hire]

Communist Party? Is that related to playing in Fifths? :eek:
Yes Ken, I must confess to being a little confused too. I think they must be using American humour like we get on Television.:confused:

[Terry McDougal]

Is the interweb the same thing as the net (internet)?
Hey, Bob Hope was a funny American. I loved his stuff.
Actually I've thought a bit about tuning in 5ths. I suspect the bass might reverberate better, because of the harmonic series thing.

[Bin Hire]

Hey, Sam.

Hehe, and no, i've Never been affiliated with the Communist Party. :D
Sorry to labour a point but are Americans not allowed to belong to the Communist Party?
Apologies to all for being off topic.
5ths would include big stretches? I'd surely like to hear more about what they discuss at the ISB fifths convention.

[Jeff White]

Sorry to labour a point but are Americans not allowed to belong to the Communist Party?
Apologies to all for being off topic.
5ths would include big stretches? I'd surely like to hear more about what they discuss at the ISB fifths convention.

Actually, it's more about an efficient use of the left hand than stretching- Watch Joel Quarrington play on youtube if you can. He's the most prominent living bassist using the tuning, and certainly the guy when it comes to Fifths tuning. He was also the last teacher I had before becoming a professional bass player. What he does is actually very akin to what Rabbath does. Joel studied with Petracchi as well, and his methods have also enabled what he does. When i studied with him ten years ago, Joel was using all Thomastik Dominant strings which have massive tension. Thomastik also made a set of Bel Cantos for him that were designed for 5th tuning.

Also, Ken, Sprirocores might be making a big comeback in the bowed world. I have it on good authority that one of the finalists for principal of Chicago played the audition with a full set.

[Bin Hire]

Actually, it's more about an efficient use of the left hand than stretching- Watch Joel Quarrington play on youtube if you can. He's the most prominent living bassist using the tuning, and certainly the guy when it comes to Fifths tuning. He was also the last teacher I had before becoming a professional bass player. What he does is actually very akin to what Rabbath does. Joel studied with Petracchi as well, and his methods have also enabled what he does. When i studied with him ten years ago, Joel was using all Thomastik Dominant strings which have massive tension. Thomastik also made a set of Bel Cantos for him that were designed for 5th tuning.
Thanks Jeff. Good point. I checked out Mr Quarrington on YouTube.
I also found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE5s5RTOBI&feature=related
I watched all three parts. What a player!
How's your Italian?

I thought you might enjoy these too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2ggfFFPh4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzNHUFzqG4Y&feature=related

[Jeff White]

Thanks Jeff. Good point. I checked out Mr Quarrington on YouTube.
I also found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE5s5RTOBI&feature=related
I watched all three parts. What a player!
How's your Italian?

I thought you might enjoy these too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2ggfFFPh4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzNHUFzqG4Y&feature=related

"I don't consider myself particularly talented..." That I would submit is the one flaw in Joel's teaching. He sometimes fails to understand the limitations of his more mortal students. Joel practiced 8 hours a day when he was studying but 8 hours a day is not going to turn any ordinary bass player into Joel Quarrington.

[Robert J Spear]

It was quite a pleasure to return to this thread and find some activity on the fifths-tuning topic. Since I've just designed and built (or am building) a couple of new basses, including one five-stringer, the question of string tension is one that couldn't be avoided. What I learned is that string tension and tension on the top of the instrument are not the same thing. The tension of the strings is controlled by a lot of factors including diameter, materials, tuning pitch, and length, but tension on the belly is a function of the string angle over the bridge.

Consider if you had a bridge carrying strings at an angle of zero. There would be no downward tension to speak of on the belly except the bare minimum amount needed to keep the bridge in place. It wouldn't matter how many strings were on the bridge; pressure on the belly would always be zero. When you begin increasing the angle, only then does pressure on the top become a factor. If you add strings, the downward pressure increases; if you remove strings, it decreases. I've read many comments in the literature that indicate that the reason many old basses only had three strings was that it allowed a freer top vibration and produced less pressure.

Downward pressure on the top can be mitigated by decreasing the angle of the neck or by raising the saddle. I used a combination of the two, but it's a game that can only be played so far. It was a very interesting exercise. A couple of years ago I had the chance to hear a highly experimental 15" viola a friend of mine made that had almost no string angle at the bridge. When it came out of its case, my immediate reaction was that it was an ingenious design that would have absolutely no sound at all. I was amazed at how good it sounded! Lots of mysterious things to learn in this biz.

[Robert J Spear]

We all know the advantages and drawbacks of fifths tuning; how the #$%@!* are you supposed to shift? The answer seems to be that you don't. A newer and more flexible technique is necessary. There have been a couple developed by Dennis Masuzzo in the USA and Silvio Dalla Torre and others in Europe. I understand the Joel Quarrington in Canada is also working on a method book that will, with luck, be introduced at ISB 2013.

But no matter how you finesse it, when you are playing on a bass with a string length of 41 1/2" - 43", fifths-tuning is a challenge. As a luthier and a long-ago bass player with only average-size hands, my feeling was that fifths tuning would get a boost when the instrument was designed for it; principally, when the string length was shortened. There are big problems with both, but modern string technology now allows for shorter string lengths with good sound.

It's also quite amazing that reducing the string length by just two inches makes a huge difference in fifths-tuning technique in the lower positions (except that you might have to think in a concept other than traditional positions). I actually had a bass designed with a string length of 38", but it required the thumb stop to be low and the shoulders got in the way (not by much) of reaching for the octave harmonic. The players definitely drew the line here. I increased the string length to 39" on a bass with a body length of 43 3/4", which is certainly in the realm of a standard 3/4 bass, and that reduced the problem considerably. It sometimes takes only a small adjustment to create a big-feeling difference. Perhaps the same would be true in how we think about a new tuning system and fingering technique.

In any case, I think ISB 2013 will be the place to be if you have any interest in the topic. And if you don't, it will probably still be the place to be! :D

[Ken Smith]

I think that if a bass is shortened or a bass is made shorter/smaller, it will have less depth in the tone than being 2 or more inches longer. I have and have had basses that were shortened in several ways from neck grafts, block cuts, false nuts and bridge shifts as well as some combinations of 2 or 3 items mentioned. The playability for finger stretch gets easier but often you are pushing the notes lower down away from the player in the upper register making that F# or G octave that much further away to find.

The sound is often more focused if that was a problem to begin with but there is some equal amount of depth loss in the process. The instrument being a bass to begin with is fairly deep anyway considering we are talking about a fairly large instruments over 3/4 or 4/4 even.

Now, from a players stand point, I don't see many people who are working to memorize fingerings for everything they play to avoid mistakes and intonation problems doubling on a bass in 5ths. Playing in 5ths is basically a move to playing a GIANT Cello that from a distance, is called a Bass!

You can play and double on 4-string in 4ths, 4-str. with C-Ext. of any variety or even 5-string bass BUT, with everything tuned in 4ths or occasionally the Low B moved up to C for some passages. Playing in 5ths is a Life change and is no small adjustment on ones mind either.

I can see some small improvements in playing in 5ths and some small numbers moving to it as well but I do not at all see this as a change in how the bass will be played in the future. It took centuries until the world agreed on the main tuning in 4ths with 4 strings and now some think they need to go back to a tuning that helped drive people TO playing in 4ths.

The 3-string bass in France was played in 5ths for extra range 150-200 years ago and then the switch to 4-string gave them that range and more. In most of Europe and partially in the UK, if you need the full Cello/Double Bass range, you play a 5-string bass. In USA, C-Extensions are much more common than 5-Strings but the 5s are out there as well.

Making a bass small enough to play in 5ths comfortably is just making in my opinion, a half sized bass with less bass depth in the sound. Most players I know are looking for more thick bass depth in their sound, not less.

[Joshua phelps]

I have to side with ken 100% on this topic. The biggest thing for me as well is the notes. Great playing, speed & good intonation come from reputation and playing those same positions repeatedly for years, for me changing seems like a nightmare. On a side note, I've always been fascinated by harmonics (on electric) but there again they really mess with my head when I know this fret as #f or bG but for harmonics there can be two notes inside the same fret that differ from the fretted note.

[Ken Smith]

I have to side with ken 100% on this topic. The biggest thing for me as well is the notes. Great playing, speed & good intonation come from reputation and playing those same positions repeatedly for years, for me changing seems like a nightmare. On a side note, I've always been fascinated by harmonics (on electric) but there again they really mess with my head when I know this fret as #f or bG but for harmonics there can be two notes inside the same fret that differ from the fretted note.

Please, lets leave Frets out of this, lol..

[Joshua phelps]

I said "on a side note" jeez :)

[Joshua phelps]

I meant to say "repetition" on that previous post as well, thanks auto correct :eek:

[Robert J Spear]

I'll agree with Ken that the decision to embrace 5ths tuning is one that means no looking back. You've basically got to lock yourself in a room for however long it takes. I've been trying to do that on a chamber bass I made in high 5ths tuning (GDAE) because it's small enough that I can fool my brain into believing that it's a totally different instrument. On the bigger basses, it is discouraging to realize how hard old habits die, if they ever die at all, but you'd need to talk with guys like Joel Quarrington or Paul Unger or other fifths-tuners to get a more detailed recounting of what the switch demanded.

As for the rest of it, my feeling is that if you want to make a bass for the 21st century, you need to step back and reconsider how a bass should sound. For me, I don't want a massive and cavernous rumble from my bass; I want a clean and focused sound that follows the listener and finds him wherever he's sitting in the back of the hall. I can probably numb your skulls with the many various acoustical reasons that underlie such a bass, but a good ****ogy might be from guys in my age bracket who remember pre-stereo "high fidelity" speaker systems.

Back in the day, to get a convincing bass in the lowest octave, you needed things like a monster folded horn. If you look at audiophile magazines of the era, you'll find projects where people used 30-inch woofers and turned their basements into part of their sound systems. No kidding. It gives literal meaning to the idea of shaking the floor. :D As time went on and technology improved, you could get the same result by using a closet as the resonating chamber for your system. You will also find pictures of guys who mounted 18" woofers in closet doors.

Time marches on. Woofer enclosures came down in size to six cubic feet, to four, and then to three. With the advent of the acoustic suspension theory, we were able to put entire speaker systems on a bookshelf. You will not find people using closets for woofer enclosures any more. I have a subwoofer in a 1 cubic-foot enclosure. It has a single 8" speaker that pumps out bass at 32 Hz at a volume that'll make your bowels move (:eek: needless to say, I dial it well back from that setting!).

Basses aren't loudpseakers, of course, but the idea is that we've gotten stuck in our thinking about basses. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better or even lower. The demands of modern music are exceeding what can be done on what is basically a 16th-century gamba. My first question would be whether players would switch from their conventional basses to one that was smaller and had lower ribs if it would otherwise do as much as well as their normal bass. Next question would be whether the players would consider switching if there were trade-offs; that is, they had to give up some things they liked on the old bass to get even more (but different) things they liked on the new bass.

[Ken Smith]

I'll agree with Ken that the decision to embrace 5ths tuning is one that means no looking back. You've basically got to lock yourself in a room for however long it takes. I've been trying to do that on a chamber bass I made in high 5ths tuning (GDAE) because it's small enough that I can fool my brain into believing that it's a totally different instrument. On the bigger basses, it is discouraging to realize how hard old habits die, if they ever die at all, but you'd need to talk with guys like Joel Quarrington or Paul Unger or other fifths-tuners to get a more detailed recounting of what the switch demanded.

As for the rest of it, my feeling is that if you want to make a bass for the 21st century, you need to step back and reconsider how a bass should sound. For me, I don't want a massive and cavernous rumble from my bass; I want a clean and focused sound that follows the listener and finds him wherever he's sitting in the back of the hall. I can probably numb your skulls with the many various acoustical reasons that underlie such a bass, but a good ****ogy might be from guys in my age bracket who remember pre-stereo "high fidelity" speaker systems.

Back in the day, to get a convincing bass in the lowest octave, you needed things like a monster folded horn. If you look at audiophile magazines of the era, you'll find projects where people used 30-inch woofers and turned their basements into part of their sound systems. No kidding. It gives literal meaning to the idea of shaking the floor. :D As time went on and technology improved, you could get the same result by using a closet as the resonating chamber for your system. You will also find pictures of guys who mounted 18" woofers in closet doors.

Time marches on. Woofer enclosures came down in size to six cubic feet, to four, and then to three. With the advent of the acoustic suspension theory, we were able to put entire speaker systems on a bookshelf. You will not find people using closets for woofer enclosures any more. I have a subwoofer in a 1 cubic-foot enclosure. It has a single 8" speaker that pumps out bass at 32 Hz at a volume that'll make your bowels move (:eek: needless to say, I dial it well back from that setting!).

Basses aren't loudpseakers, of course, but the idea is that we've gotten stuck in our thinking about basses. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better or even lower. The demands of modern music are exceeding what can be done on what is basically a 16th-century gamba. My first question would be whether players would switch from their conventional basses to one that was smaller and had lower ribs if it would otherwise do as much as well as their normal bass. Next question would be whether the players would consider switching if there were trade-offs; that is, they had to give up some things they liked on the old bass to get even more (but different) things they liked on the new bass.

I hear you, agree with you and, I remember that old Juke Box bass sound as well. I have a few great Orchestra basses here to compare. The Hart, Storioni and Tarr. The Hart is the easiest to play, the Storioni is close but the Tarr has a big size to it. Sound wise in a big Orchestra, you want the Tarr, hands down but this is not normal Germanic style gamba Tarr. It is one of the 9 basses Tarr made for the Orchestra some 30 years before it became the Halle, a 4/4 violin model. The Storioni is a true and quality old Italian sound but the Tarr literally shakes the room. The Hart on the other hand is the sweetest bass I have had but because it was built on the early Baroque Maggini/D'salo pattern and made with narrower/more normal Rib depth, it doesn't have the power of the other two monsters. It is not a huge difference to the Storioni but noticeable. To the Tarr, it's no contest in the power/projection department. Which do I take out more often that the others? The Hart, and the others in the sections I play in love it. The Storioni is a bit over the top within the section but is pure gold under the Bow. The Tarr scared the other 7 players the night I brought it to concert. I was more focused on the bass than the music that night but fortunately, I had played those pieces before so no harm, no foul.. :eek:

Now, I did work with Arnold recently on making a quasi modified copy of the Storioni and it came out great. Now, it just needs time to age as it did have somewhat of a new sound on day one to my ear as might be expected. To others as well as Arnold and myself, it sounded somewhat older than new due to the wood and design. Being that I had the original to compare it to, I knew the exact difference. Most people wont. Also, I did play an old Testore recently that was long bodied but not deep ribbed and it had a smooth and powerful deep-smooth sound. It was NOT thick sounding, just deep. Thick sounding is what I consider a deep powerful bass should have and not just deep and smooth. From having my basses tried by many orchestra players I often hear comments like that. Sweet and dark doesn't always cut it for them. They want to engulf the stage floor when they play. Right or wrong, this is what I hear. One night I brought my Neuner to a rehearsal just after using the Tarr with that same Orchestra. The principal turns and says something like , "hey, we need a section of those basses" referring to its power. I said something like. "this is NOT my big bass, it's just my back-up/rehearsal bass". He replied, "it's BIG Enough!"

So, for today Orchestras, I think deep and loud is more desired. Sweet and clear is for your own pleasure or for Chamber or solo playing. The Orchestras want THUNDER. Can you imagine the early 19th century Manchester Gentleman's Orchestra with 9 Tarr basses?:eek::eek: I think that was the 7.5 earthquake they had that season.. :D

Hey, for Jazz players, it's a totally different menu. I am speaking above mainly about Orchestra bowing basses, 4ths, 5ths or whatever!

[Arnold Schnitzer]

I propose a compromise between the fourths tuners and the fifths tuners: Tuning in augmented fourths will extend the range of the bass, and a side benefit is that the player will only have to know the notes on two strings. I propose, from bottom to top, D, G#, D, G#. Who will be the first to adopt this method?

[Robert J Spear]

I propose a compromise between the fourths tuners and the fifths tuners: Tuning in augmented fourths will extend the range of the bass, and a side benefit is that the player will only have to know the notes on two strings. I propose, from bottom to top, D, G#, D, G#. Who will be the first to adopt this method?

Arnold, I think you might have found a tuning that has been overlooked for centuries. I can only imagine playing double-stopped fourths or fifths and what it would do to what's left of my brain. And an Eb scale?? Well, why not?:D

There's plenty of room in the bass world for all kinds of variations on the theme. Happy New Year to all on the forum, and after tonight ISB 2013 will be next year!

[Ken Smith]

I propose a compromise between the fourths tuners and the fifths tuners: Tuning in augmented fourths will extend the range of the bass, and a side benefit is that the player will only have to know the notes on two strings. I propose, from bottom to top, D, G#, D, G#. Who will be the first to adopt this method?

Arnold, April fools is in April.. lol