What do you want in a bass ?
 

Since I'm getting no response on my thread, "Have You Designed Your Own Bass", let me turn it around to you as players.

What do you want in a bass? I know everyone wants great sound, but what do you like in a bass? String length, bouts, shape. You name it. Tell me. It will help me design my next bass.

Some makers have been building basses with large bottom bouts and smallish uppers like this photo of a Golia bass. It certainly looks unique and they claim the sound is huge.

Another area of discovery could be woods species. Using lumber with beautiful graining or color could be a welcome change from the faux antiquing most commonly seen. Different woods might evan perform better for a bass, willow? walnut? cherry?

Try a different scroll. Animal, human head, etc, etc.

If you complete a bass in 6 months or so, enter it in the Makers competition at the ISB convention this summer.

I like Busetto (busseto?) corners. Could be cos I have a great pic of Scott LaFaro looking real cool with his busetto-cornered bass? And Rufus Reid's bass looks great with them too.

The scroll is one of the first thing I notice that will make or break a bass for me (aesthetically speaking only). I like a nice decent sized well proportioned scroll. I'm afraid I don't have the vocabulary to fully describe what I mean but the eyes of some scrolls I've seen are sometimes a little off-centre looking, giving the impression that it's a bit flat to one side. Or sometimes the scroll is just too small for my taste.

Carved heads can be amazing too. Some of them are works of art in themselves. But for me nothing can beat a good old fashioned scroll (with hat-peg tuners) for looks. Except maybe a Gamba-style open scroll...

A nice small design with the purfling below the button can be nice too. Nothing too fancy, I've seen some really nice understated flurrishes.

My old teacher in Cork had a beautiful old French bass that had a lovely curve at the end of the fingerboard. It looked really well on his bass. I can't remember if the tailpiece had a matching (or opposing) curve or if it was straight but I think it was the latter.

Apart from that, I generally prefer darker varnishes (I'm probably not alone there) but I'm not a fan of the fake antiquing process that is now unfortunately so common amoung violin makers.

Anyway, there ya have it, for what it's worth (wouldn't buy many penny sweets I'd imagine!)

• Gamba shape
• 41 3/4" or 42" string length
• Simple purfling
• No fancy carving
• Big shoulders are fine (even preferred) so long as the overstand is sufficient to grant full access to the upper register
• Predrilled for Laborie endpin or something like the KC tilt block; or just make sure that the block is sufficiently sturdy to accept an angled endpin. More and more players use these and perhaps more would if basses were already prepared for them.
• Sloane tuning machines or something of equivalent quality
• Chromatic Extension; if it's between having an extension or fancy purling, carving and bee stings on violin corners, I'll take an extension any day of the week.
• I'm a sucker for nice flame, but many of the best basses that I've played have very plain wood and if using plain wood means more time/money for an extension, nice tuning machines, adjustable bridge... by all means use plain wood.
• Flat back vs. carved back: whatever you think works best, but, again, if it's an extra 100 hours to carve a back and you have a nice stable design for a flatback, save the time/money and put it into setup, wood etc...
• Simple bumpers (not everyone's keep of tea, but it's better than grinding the ribs)
• Detachable neck. It is becoming very, very difficult to travel. If your customer flies for even one or two gigs or auditions, you will easily save them hundreds of dollars.

In short, make it totally functional from day one.

BIG Question..??
 

With all of these various demands, what are you expecting to spend on a Bass new or old and what are you willing to spend if you are aware that your wishes are beyond your means?

Maybe it would be good to put an expected or wishful price next to your wish list. You can then see depending on the maker and or/quality what is possible and what is not.

Personally, I cannot stand those angled endpins. I like my Basses with as few holes in them as possible. I plugged up one of those angled holes on a Bass that came in and gained about 20% more noticeable volume and depth in tone. I tested this 'dry' before gluing the 'custom fit' Plug in the Bass.

Also good to note besides just your wishes is what you will be doing with this Bass as well as what type/level player you are currently. Sometimes, a maker can suggest things you are not aware of as well as exclude a few things that may not be in your best personal interest.

Have you ever heard of this scenario? ..

Player: Hey, this bass doesn't work as well as I had hoped for.:( ..

Maker: I made exactly what you asked for.:mad: ..

Good communication and well as understanding between maker and player is a Necessity you can't afford to be without, not a Luxury.

Very often, the maker is a better player than the customer and/or works with and for better players than you might ever hope to be. In this case, take the 'Doctor's' advise!

Good question/point. Since Martin asked in connection with his new build, presumably we're talking about new basses here. My hypothetical price range (not that I'm shopping): $17.5k to $24k. That's a broad range, but, not unreasonable, and, for a plain jane bass, I believe that it would include new basses from most luthiers in the US and Canada, while excluding many across the pond due to the Euro/dollar conversion. Other than the detachable neck, the bass that I described above is plain jane and would, I expect, be on the lower to mid end of the spectrum (flatback gamba with extension). Old basses are a whole different ballgame.

Then the KC tilt block or equivalent could be an option. No drilling. Relatively cheap and easy to add and remove. Of course, many notable players feel that the Laborie improves the sound of the bass. Personally, I didn't want to drill. I didn't notice a change one way or the other that I could attribute to the KC tilt block, but I changed a number of other variables, so I really can't determine. The bass did sound better with the tilt block than with the eggpin. In terms of playability, the angled pin made a world of difference for me, but, of course, it's not for everyone. Since Martin asked what I'd like to see, there you have it. You might find that a bass that was designed for the Laborie (rather than a bass later drilled for one by a luthier who may or may not have experience with the process) would have better results.

Me = amateur, classical, been playing for 19 years. Other than the detachable neck, the bass that I described above is very close to my primary bass. The detachable neck would have saved me a few thousand dollars and a great deal of hassle, and for a player that is on the audition circuit or traveling to gigs, it could make the difference between affording to go or staying at home; this I know from my limited experience with traveling (between 5 cities over the last 15 years). Some luthiers obviously feel that the detachable neck compromises the bass, but a number of well respected luthiers (e.g., Ross, Lamarre, Hamm, Radelet, Auray, Charton) offer the option. A debate for another day. Radelet and Ross are in the above stated price range; I don't know about the others, but probably not.

Detachable neck
 

It shouldn't add much of anything to the price of a bench made DB. Nor will the beefier tailblock. Handmade basses are way underpriced for the time it takes to design and make a custom one. They cost about as much as bench made Cello and even some violins are 25 - 30K.

Ken, I gotta wonder about that 20% change in volume and depth of sound with one little hole plugged at the tailblock area. As far as pure acoustics, pschychoacoustics of bowed stringed instruments it should not make that much difference. OTOH I am sure you don't speak lightly about stuff like that.

20%
 

Well, for what ever reason I was able to feel the air shotting down out of this hole when I put my foot under the bass while playing it unplugged, the hole that is. It felt like it was actually down firing out of the hole, the sound that is. I can't say I measured the volume and tone at 20% but it was a noticeable and clear difference when plugged.

Do you believe that F-hole size matters much as far as volume and tone of a given bass? I haven't seen this discussed all that much around here or anywhere else. For the record, I do!

F-hole size
 

No I haven't noticed any correlation of F hole size to either volume or depth of sound. This is easy to test if you cover a portion of the soundhole, it either changes or not.

From what I have seen and heard, the things that do seem to matter are f-hole placement. This might be from their effect on the top plate resonances. Of course this is hard to prove. I am thinking that wider spacing effects the depth because of the flexibility of the plate goes up across the grain when spaced wider apart. This would effect depth of sound the most I think if the f holes are wider spaced. But the air inside needs to be able to reinforce the plate movement or it is wasted movement. So air volume and plate resonance needs to match. More of this can be heard as more fundamental to the tone.

Holes in the side of the upper bout don't seem to effect depth or volume much. I have played Arnold's ergo and I heard him say this also.

A hole in a place of maximum rigidity of the plates (tailblock) might theoretically highly effected sound. I have read that air pressure is highest there. Since the air pressure reinforces the plate vibration of both the top and back, a loss of pressure could decrease volume or depth.

My non-scientific belief is that overly large f-holes are not good for tone. I will try to explain, based on a lengthy conversation I had about a decade ago with Tom Martin. We think that when the f-holes of a bass are really big, the sound jumps out of the bass quickly, creating the illusion of power. But when the f-holes are sized right, the sound has more time to roll around inside the corpus and it gets seasoned. Then the tone is more complex and woody, but the bass may not sound quite as loud in the immediate surrounding area. However, it will spread out into the hall and the audience will get more bass sound. Now this begs the question, "what is the right size?". My answer is, I know it when I see it. I think many of the Italian and English masters had it right, i.e., Panormo, the Testores, Ruggieri, etc. Contrarily, to my eye many of the Germans, Viennese, and some of the Americans make/made their f-holes overly large and open. And I have also had experience where very small f-holes seem to be holding back the power of a bass. I had the experience of enlarging them on a fine bass once, and I thought the instrument's power improved. Then again, other modifications were made, so I can't be sure.

what i want in a bass
 

I always go for sound and volume before all else especially in chamber music where I am all alone and do not need to blend and my primary objective.

Italians used proprotional geometry to place the f holes, Might that have a lot to do with them looking and sounding right?

Structuraly there is a lot going on in this area. The flexiblility of the plate in this area is highly effected by the placement of the f holes and their spacing, length, width of wings, slope and area. Arching, thickness and edge scoop also highly effect the structure of the top plate in this area. The bridge sits right in the middle and transmits the string movement directly to the top, right in the middle of the f holes. Theres a lot going on here!

Viols had C holes with a similar area as f holes. But the C holes covered much less horizontal grain so the plate was stiffer in that area. F holes evolved to create the more violin like sound that is now favored in larger concert halls.

So that is why I think f holes effect the sound a lot but not by air movement. The air pumping out of the box through the f holes creates a fullness to the sound. And I have noticed even cheap plywood basses have that whoomph, air sound. But the complex tone from a good bass comes from resonating of the bass body.

I just don't think the f hole size effects tone much by itself, unless they are too small or large. I am going to do some tests later this week.
edit: By allowing or not allowing air to pump, I should have said.

How does f-hole placement effect the sound?

If the f-hole is moved closer to the center of the bass, is the sound deeper with more bass response?

Or does the bass have a more treble response if the f-holes are moved closer to the outer ribs?

This is just a theory; still looking for evidence.

I would say you have that backwards. If the f-holes are close together, this necessitates a narrow bridge and then you have the bass bar and soundpost close together. When that is the case, the bass bar is constricted in its swinging. When the f-holes are farther apart, so can the bass bar and soundpost be, therefore resulting in a fatter, deeper sound. Also, when the f-holes are close to the corners you take advantage of the same effect that makes a bass player sound louder when playing out of a corner. I don't remember the name of this effect, but I bet Ken McKay does...

This does not mean you should place f-holes all the way to the edges, because your tonal balance will suffer. The f-hole upper holes should be spaced the same distance apart as the size of bridge you wish to use. What, design the instrument from the set-up backwards? Exactly.

keep 'em coming
 

Thanks to all for input. Keep 'em coming.
martin

Exactly what I did when designing our bass!

So ... can you elaborate on exactly what you believe matters?

Can I?
 

Well, it is impossible to compare anything unless the exact same Bass is altered. I recently had one of my Basses slightly altered as Arnold mentioned and there was a slight noticeable difference. The Bass also got a Neck graft with a longer neck, string length 1" longer, the neck block converted from a dovetail to a mortise with a tighter fit from neck to block, new Fingerboard, the Back re-repaired, some other internal work tightened up and a partial center back Brace.

So, what exactly made the bass sound better? Hard to tell..

Oh. As you put on the record that you did think that F hole size mattered, I thought you might have some empirical evidence or observation of your own from the many fine basses you own, that you might be able to share. But what you're saying is that from your experience you can't actually say for sure that altering the F hole size matters much at all?

I agree with your last point that there are just too many variables in DB luthiery to be able to make any reliable rule of thumb.

For the record, *I* don't know what the effect of changing F hole size does, as a generalization. Nor F hole placement, angle, edge shape, length, area etc. It would be nice to have a formula to work with, but I don't think there's going to be one. My own hunch is that it is not so much the size or shape of the F holes that matters for sound, so much as the size and shape of the space left between them. So it's the INSIDE edge of the FFs that is most important; the outside edge has a marginal effect. But I don't have any evidence to back that up. Arnold's observations are valuable but I don't think anyone would care to predict the outcome on a bass's sound based on those alone.

well..
 

The air does come out of the holes as if it's the 'sound window'. The size of the window can be too small or to big to handle the air pressure or lack of it. What is better or worse, who knows? Softer woods might have different formulas than harder woods, etc. Placement of the Fs is another issue as far as the bass itself goes. Too exact basses with different wood might differ as well.

I am a firm believer that the wood matters. A LOT.

Actually, everything matters. If there was a formula, there wouldn't be as many models around as there are now.

I know a good bass when I hear it or play it. I speculate quite a bit with basses that are barely playable or totally unplayable and usually come out ok after restoration. It's the 'package' and not just one factor that makes or breaks a bass design wise.

Italian f holes
 

Stradivari and before him, the Amati, had definite ideas about F hole placement. Stradivari's original designs still exist showing how and where he marked the fs. In fact these marking are still visible inside, on the top inside, of the Servais cello. Personally, I'm unclear about how he arrived at the exact placing, but the top holes appear to be in the center of the Cs and top curve of the bottom hole is in line with the bottom of the purfling as it curves into the bottom C corner. In fact this is one thing that experts look for when identifying classic Italian instruments. This was almost always ahered to, but Guarneri del Gesu made a few exceptions where you will see the bottom hole somewhat higher although the top holes follow the Amati/Stradivari principle.

Now when it comes to basses,there are so few from the classical period extant that I don't know if applies. If anyone has a good picture of the
1690 J. B. Rogeri take a look at it and report back as it's believed that he studied with Nicolo Amati and so he probably would have incorporated this into his basses (bass?). I've seen that bass and right now I can't remember.

I had a very old Italian bass in my shop once that had the longest F holes I've ever seen, not particularly wide, but very long. You would have thought that the top wouldn't have stood the strain, but it was in fine condition and the sound was quite good.

But do we know whether his ideas were based on an aesthetic design principle that happened to work OK, so he stuck with it ... or whether he tried dozens of different sizes and placements (keeping all other things equal, of course) until he found the BEST one? I tend to think the former is more likely. We don't have any evidence of strads with experimental FF hole placement, do we?

In relation to basses, there are SO MANY variations in corpus volume, plate shape, string length, top graduation, internal bracing, rib depth, wood choice etc that I can't see how any of the placement rules Strad used could apply just like that.

In fact if there was an optimum FF placing and size for a bass, you'd think that someone would have found it by now!

Actually that's what I love about basses. The lack of a formula.

more placement
 

I don't know that anyone knows for sure if this was aesthetics or acoustics, but they do arrive at the the acoustic center of the instrument more or less.

I've always loved basses partly because of the variations in size and design. I'm glad we don't all have to make the same one over and over again, yet it is sometimes a source of frustration that the bass you just spent six months on is too big or too small for someone, but they always fit somebody! This is true also with violas which vary a lot in size and shape. Violins and cellos are almost completely standardized.

What's the "acoustic centre"?

Matthew do you have Sacconi's book?

Should I post my f-hole taping experiment here, it is kinda anti-climatic?

No i don't have Sacconi's book. Is it a bible I should have?

I'd love to see/hear your experiment. But I fear we're derailing the thread a bit...

Other than aesthetics, is there a reason that we don't see more open peg boxes? It seems like the ease of string changes and reduced scroll-weight would be particularly nice for basses with extensions. In any case, I'd add that to my list of "features" that I'd want in a bass (for whatever that's worth).

It makes the scroll really weak and prone to breakage. That's why you don't see that feature more often.

Fair enough. Thanks.

From the Sacconi book, " The position of the ff holes is as fundamental to the quality and power of the sound of the instrument as the archings are. For this reason in order to position the ff holes correctly, Stradivari used to study their dimensions and exact position for every single model by means of a series of trials and experiments until he reached a definitive solution. He would then establish this by a special drawing on paper which reproduced the centre (bridge area) of the instrument with its ff holes correctly positioned. This positioning was also determined by finding the point of balance of the finished belly without the bass-bar having been atached. In fact in my experience, the notches of the ff holes always occur in the ideal transverse line which divides the upper and lower surfaces into two areas of equal weight." This is what Sacconi called the acoustic center which is which is south of the measurement center.

Sounds like a reasonable theory, and easy to test. So do we suppose Sacconi removed the bass bars of dozens of strads to develop this experience? But why with no bass bar? And so if Strad chose to put his notches at the N-S balance point, how did he come up with length, width, shape, angle? Is the balance point observation a convenient rule of thumb or is there an underlying functional factor?

Or did Strad cut his FFs the way he liked them to look, then graduate his tops so that they balance across the FF notches?

Well it still sounds neat, so maybe I'll do that measurement on a top next time I have one off. How does your cornerless bass rate in that dimension, Ken? Is the top still off? Can you measure it?

me? my top?
 

You mean MY Cornerless old Bass of Ken McKay's new one? Mine is off at the moment for restoration. This bass is fantastic and hundreds of years old so there is no speculation on how it 'WILL' sound when it breaks in or matures. It is 'well' broken in already.

On your Strad question (how did he come up with length, width, shape, angle?), we must remember that he was able to learn from the 3rd generation of the Amati's. He didn't have to invent the Violin, just 'tweak' it some! ;)

One problem here that was not mentioned about Strad is that 'most' Strads have been altered in many ways including graduations by previous repair persons believing that they needed correction. I saw one Strad not long ago that was from 1694 and considered the smaller/early pattern. The Top had already been replaced but by Strad in 1725. Somehow this was either documented or appraised at some point. The workmanship and tone was there even though the Top was from his 'Golden Period'.

If you were asking the other Ken, then ignore all I just said.. Sorry..:cool:

well..
 

The Storioni itself is as unusual inside as it is outside. Actually, the inside is even more unusual by the specs we have come to know.

1-The current Bass Bar is actually 'along' the grain lines of the Top rather than at a slight angle yet the sound is to die for and the low end volume is actually dangerous if you are too close.:eek:

2-The Ribs are 'Laminated' or 'doubled' and look to be original to the Bass judging by the oldest oxidation inside. The outer layer of the Ribs (2 of them only, one per side) are 'flat cut' Burled Veneer. The inner layer is cross grain (from Top to Back) Spruce. The Tone from the Ribs either tapping them or when playing the bass is sweet. The Sound is evident even from the sides of the bass.

3-The current graduations of the Top whether original or altered are strange as well. The outer areas of the Top are actually thicker at the edges than at the center. This is as Arnold mentioned 'reverse graduations'.

4-The old Repairer/s put a large cross grain patch on the treble side of the lower bout Top. This is totally against all the rules in good tone making as are all of the above mentioned items.

When discussing the restoration with Arnold a few days ago we agreed that this Bass sounds too good to mess with some of the unorthodox work inside the bass. We agreed that what is intact and 'sound' should be left alone. What is broken, should be fixed. The area around that cross grain patch has some sinkage up to the G-foot of the Bridge. That patch will come out and some partial mold made to restore it back to its original form or as close as possible. A idea of a total 'gutting' of the old inside work is off the table on this one. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

So, what makes a great Bass sound great? I haven't a clue..:confused:

Oh, and as far as F-Hole placement or centering, forget it. This bass was made to be LONGGGG, 44 1/2" string Length with the current neck. Maybe back in the old days it was less with a shorter neck. On this Bass, I have moved the Bridge around quite a bit as far as the length goes. The sound however slightly changed with each Bridge move lost zero quality regardless.

Oh and #5, the Bridge for this Bass is extra wide, maybe 170+mm or so but only requires a 150mm bridge by the spacing of the upper F-Eyes. On the pics of the Fs on this Bass you can see I trimmed off the outer feet of the Bridge on each side. Maybe about 5mm per side. Still, it's too big for this bass as it's made.

Nothing is normal with this bass other than the tuning. oops, no.. it was a 3-string originally and who knows what they used back then for notes.

Matthew, my top is glued to the ribs so can't do the experiment. Also keep in mind that the shape of a doulble bass is a little different than a violin with narrower upper bout, so this might not have been applicable to gamba instruments. Strad did make gamba shaped instruments and lots of different types and shapes including cornerless. The sons did not understand Antonio's methods completely according to Sacconi. They miss-interpreted the ff placement when they finished some of the fathers work and placed them in the wrong place according to the fathers method.

The classic cremonese and Brescian methods are probably more related to esthetics than acousitics of the instrument although harmony is harmony. I think that is why Arnold's - knows it when he sees it - statement makes sense to me.

Another interesting comment from Sacconi is that ff holes too far apart are not as bad acoustically as too close together. But keep in mind this is in context of Antonio's system of arching and proportion.

In modern acoustics, which may lead us down the wrong path or not, there is not many body modes that are not effected by ff hole placement or size. The air modes are a part of the acoustic footprint of the sound and also effect the plate modes by coupling with them, but it is extremely complex because of the way the body vibrates. The flexibility of the whole corpus helps lower the main air resonance by its "breathing" or bellows motion. The top and back plates, but mostly the top vibrate like a big piston and also with more complex "islands" creating distinct resonaces along the spectrum that give the bass it's voice or signature.

My opinion is that a combination of esthetics from geometrical harmony and modern acoustics will be able to speed the quest for a newly made bass with old sound. I could be wrong though and might be wasting a great deal of time studying modern acoustics.

I knew that bass had laminated ribs, I could tell by the cracking. It is very interesting to see it in that old of an isntrument.

If you are curious about this and other questions I whould recomend the book highly. Get the original Italian version since you read Italiano.

Thanks for sharing the information about the Storioni. Very interesting. I guess then, that with the reverse graduations, the centre arch must be quite high to support th pressure from the bridge? Unless the thicknesses are just quite thick all over and thicker at the edges.

Do you think the bass bar is original?

Can you describe the linings in the Storioni? are they continuous? Kerfed? Does the spruce lining run the full width of the rib, or stop at the linings? If it was original, I would have though that it would have been full width. What sort of rib thickness did he end up with?

humm..
 

The Bass bar does not look original. I suspect the graduations are not either, just my opinion. The Arching is medium I would say, not high. The wood grade however is superb. One authority called it 'Violin Grade'. I don't know the exact species either. I have it listed as just Italian Fir, 4-pc top. I think Arnold measured the Ribs and the outer burled maple is only about 1mm but from the neck block area looks like it varies in thickness a bit. The Spruce is about 2mm so it's 3mm total. I do not remember what the linings are like. I was too involved with the Top work to be planned out. The Rib construction had prevented long cracks which I heard are common with Guitar shaped single ribbed basses. Nothing is kerfed. This is no Guitar maker in here I can see. Another cornerless bass, or rather single ribbed bass I have does look like the maker or restorer was a guitar maker. Many of the old Italians were trained in making Violin types as well as fretted and possibly the Viols as well.

I will possibly be up at Arnold's within a week or so to bring another Bass up for some work. I can answer the lining question and others if Arnold doesn't beat me to the punch. There has been speculation by some that this Bass is Spanish rather than Italian. The only conflict there is, 'by who'? The grade of wood used and the workmanship doesn't ring any Spanish bells to anyone. Those speculations were made by other dealers that had a chance to buy the bass before me but didn't come up with the $$. The sound is as Italian to me as can be. If this is Spanish then where are the rest of them?

it is interesting to me to speculate whether the doubling was added from the get go as a design feature. 2mm crossgrain doubling is a lot of work and careful joining of the edge seams. Perhaps the spruce was built onto the mould as a support first, and the thin veneer ribs bent onto that? That would make sense to me if the idea was to use a very thin veneer from the outset.

Otherwise if the doubling is not the full width of the rib, that would imply that the doubling was added after the thin ribs were bent and fixed into a mould, possibly as an afterthought.