View Single Post
  #19  
Old 01-15-2009, 03:47 PM
Matthew Tucker's Avatar
Matthew Tucker Matthew Tucker is offline
Senior Posting Member
 
Join Date: 02-19-2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 427
Matthew Tucker is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to Matthew Tucker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Smith View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote