Its a better shape, but to my taste, the lower bout still looks odd, I'd let the bottom block spring out a bit so the bottom isn't so flat. otherwise it gives the impression of weight squashing down. I don't mind the small upper bout but the lower bout looks too squished. A little more curve in that area will give that lower lower bout area a bit more structural strength too.

I agree with your opinion that the 44" string length of Kens bass is likely to be a BIG factor in its great sound as well. That does not diminish its other qualities, of course.

Okay Matthew I am going to play with that a bit and see what I come up with.

44" length..
 

I have put wood under the string and experimented with 42" and there was not much loss of sound. It tightened up a bit but this has so much bottom, no one will miss the difference.

I don't think Ruggeri or Roggeri would make a Bass that looks so primitive. These guys were some of the neatest makers ever. i think sometimes people pull names out of a hat to make the Bass something it is not. On mine being a Storioni, it is only attributed to that name and I am equally doubtful it is his work.

The upper bout is crucial in the tone and depth of the Bass as is the middle bout. The middle bout has to reach the limit to where bowing is comfortable but the more you give it, the wider and deeper the sound will be.

Regarding the Ruggeri attributed bass. Have you ever seen a Ruggeri scroll? they are better than Strad! That bass does not have a Ruggeri scroll. I am glad to see you write that.

I am sure you are right about the width issues also.


Have another look, I took Matthew's suggestion. http://www.upnorthstrings.com/cornerlessbasspage4.html Looks better doesn't it.

Suggestions..
 

Yes, I see his idea there. The whole thing must be in harmony including the graduations, Arch and wood species.

Why does one Bass sound better than another? Why can't they make it just as good each time?

Does the words 'luck' and educated guess' mean anything? Yes, I think so but to what degree, THAT is the question..lol

yeah better! Imagine the bottom bracket is the bumcrack :eek: ... much more shapely now! LOL!

Ken M.-

That is the ticket! Build away!:)

Just a quick note and link to my progress. I have decided on the f hole design, it will be Gasparo da Salo style and the arching scheme is going to be Brescian style to go along with that. http://www.upnorthstrings.com/cornerlessbasspage6.

Thanks for you interest.

I like the style and width but to my eye they are still sitting a bit high, for balance I'd experiment with dropping them about half an inch or an inch, so that they "hang" into the lower bout rather than sitting above it. This is purely a looks thing for me.

Problem with doing that is your string length may be longer, depending on where your nicks end up.

Your outline is looking nice!

body stop:neck length
 

I would be able to move the f down about an inch and have the string length be 42.25. A lot of players will feel pretty comfortable playing it at that mensure.

By the way, Nick Lloyd wrote about a way to get mensure from body stop and neck length. For a bass I have here, it works out if I use:

1) neck length = from nut to where the neck joins the body.
2) body stop = top of bass (where neck and rib meet) to f nick-line.

Are 1 and 2 correct? Anyone know? where's Nick?


Did you look at the next page http://www.upnorthstrings.com/cornerlessbasspage7 where I started carving the plate.

Good to see it taking shape. I can see how you are getting the barrel arch. In fact, I started out trying to get the barrel shape on my bass because that's what the arching looked like in the photos. Then I thought that maybe the barrel was showing as a result of the top collapsing in the centre of the long arch over time. So then I modified it to a continuous long arch.

But the arching pattern on the plans Chandler drew up showed a long flat in the middle of the long arch, slightly higher on the lower bout than the upper bout.

I notice you're carving along the grain all the way around. I found it easier to carve in a radial pattern, meaning across the grain in the centre.

42.25??
 

As a rule most Makers and Restorers stay within the 41-42" range these days. 42.25" String length can make it harder to sell down the road.

[quote=Ken McKay;2692]I would be able to move the f down about an inch and have the string length be 42.25. A lot of players will feel pretty comfortable playing it at that mensure.

By the way, Nick Lloyd wrote about a way to get mensure from body stop and neck length. For a bass I have here, it works out if I use:

1) neck length = from nut to where the neck joins the body.
2) body stop = top of bass (where neck and rib meet) to f nick-line.

Are 1 and 2 correct? Anyone know? where's Nick?


Neck length plus stop length plus 1" equals string length. This formula will get you very close, assuming typical bridge installation angle.

I will try to stay less than 42 inches mensure. :cool:

Arnold, if I use +1 inch fudge factor, I get very close, thanks.:cool:

Matthew, Keep in mind that the long arch from top to bottom is almost perfect from the planer and since my wood started as pie shaped wedges, there is less roughing to be done compared to your 2 inch thick cedar. I get no tear out if I carve up, bottom to top, on the bass side and down on the treble, it is just the way this spruce wants to be carved, so I go with the grain to stay perfectly in control, and every gouge stroke leaves a shiny surface behind. :cool:

I will establish the flat perimeter next at a perfect thickness + 1/2 mm. Then my next tool is going to be a plane, to round the flat area into the generously arched barrel shape. Then a series of sharp gouges that match the recurve will be used to blend the two, then scraper. :cool:

As always, thanks for the comments and help.

I carved some more today and got this far.

Edges..
 

I have noticed that in proportion, my Bass and some other Cornerless Basses have thicker edges which might be for protection. This may help it over time from having to be re-edged during Top repairs.

http://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...de_detail2.jpghttp://www.kensmithbasses.com/Double...ide_detail.jpg

How wide are those bottom ribs Ken? they look DEEEEP!

http://www.upnorthstrings.com/040107-1.jpg

When I made my purfling I resolved to try a flexible glue like PVA next time as the hide glue was just too brittle.

But why would this be a feature of cornerless basses?

I would have thought regular basses would have the same if not more issues with edge repairs with all those corners to catch on things.

Edges and such..
 

A Bass with 6 separate Ribs and 4 Corner Blocks (2 per side) is much stiffer and moves or twists less than a Bass with only two very long Ribs and NO Corner Blocks at all. A Cornerless Bass has the sound it has because it vibrates more freely and without restriction of the stiffened center Rib construction. I will assume from this that the thicker edges are to prevent edge splitting since the Bass can twist more within its form. The greatly distressed Ribs of my Bass are evidence of this movement as they took the blunt of the damages over time rather than the Top or Back. Both the Top and Back has their share of cracks and splits but the Top of this Bass pre-restoration is in better condition than my Hart/Fendt Bass was. The Hart needed a complete mold made to fix the Top whereas the 'Storioni' is estimated to need only a fraction or Arch correction and can be done without a mold at all.

Old Basses tell their own stories but the language they speak is not always easy to understand or even listened to at all sometimes. Learning from the past is a great thing but that effort must be made.

On the Rib depth of my Bass the maximum at the bottom is only 7 3/4" (Ribs only). My Dodd being the other 'loud'/deep sounding Bass I owned was only 7 1/2" deep. I put this Bass up against Homer's Gagliano and Biase's (ex Homers') Guadagnini and it was deeper and smoother than the both of them on all 4 strings. The person who bought my Dodd also went to Biase's on my recommendation and played those Basses as well but still liked my Dodd better.

Rib Depth alone does not make a Bass sound deeper or louder in my opinion. It's the whole Bass and its woods that do this I believe.

What you say may be true. I guess I think there are relatively so few cornerless basses compared with regular basses that it's hard to make generalisations really meaningful, as there are still so many other variables. But we can try.

If cornerless basses sound so fine, generally, why then are they so outnumbered by regular ones?

(... and I was actually asking the other Ken about his rib depth on the build photo)