A0-B0...Bob Branstetter to the information desk

[Mark Mazurek]

PLEASE Bob!?!?

Everyone is nice here. Even the one's who know the most aren't 'know-it-all's'.


What, where, & how is it used???

[Ken Smith]

Ok, let's see what pops up here. I don't think Bob want's to get into arguments about this so it might be best that others try this stuff out and report back. The Traeger Book has this stuff in it mentioned in several places. He says that even an old Italian Bass can benefit for it so I have to take that as a real possibility.

For me, I don't know really how this is done but I did read thru some basics about it in his book. The problem is that I like my Scrolls/Gears as they are and also a good healthy fingerboard.

Hey, if the Bass don't sound so good I pick a different one out of the rack..

[Greg Clinkingbeard]

I've played two basses that Bob has done this to and they both played well and were very responsive. One being his own and the other, a big Rodier now in the hands of my former teacher. The Rodier is the one mentioned in the article he has made available.
Thankfully, the bow wasn't used but both basses have a very even pizz tone from top to bottom.

The fingerboards don't seem to have been sacrificed on either bass.
My Romanian Hybrid (Upton) has a full thickness fingerboard below the neck (not concave). Bob mentioned that removing the material would be necessary to match A0 and B0. I may just let him go to work on it and report back.

Certainly, for those of us without luxury of just picking another bass a couple of hundred bucks seems like a reasonable expense if it can improve the one we have.

And no, I doubt Bob will further involve himself in this discussion.

[David Powell]

The concept is quite simple, but the process of matching is not so simple in that it involves carefully carving out the backside of the FB, removing wood from the neck or scroll, or adding weight somehow. The idea is to get vibrating parts of the instrument to create constructive interference wave patterns instead of destructive or cancelling ones. That way the parts of the instrument are reinforcing the vibrations. The zero modes should be the lowest frequencies so that as many partials as possible are reinforced. By the time one gets into the upper range, most of the notes are a partial of the zero mode frequencies. From a purely physical standpoint, this is intuitive. In practice it is not so simple. The whole instrument has other modes and other parts that also contribute or react constructively or destructively. Even the bow has something to do with resonance.

On my instrument, straight from the maker, the A zero is a "C" resulting in such strong C's everywhere on the instrument that it is possible to get close to a reasonable tuning without a tuner. The tap tone of the fingerboard beyond the overstand sounds like it is also a "C", but a bit above the A zero mode frequency, perhaps two octaves or maybe just one depending on where you strike it with a mallet. This is not matching the B zero, but apparently some makers are tuning parts of the instrument in the building process. Clearly, all the harmonics of the low C, the G's, F's, etc. also are easy to find because they are louder when in tune. On my instrument, this was one of the first things I noticed about it even with the factory set-up, which I improved upon in several ways to fit my playing style. When I dressed the FB, I was careful to take off as little wood as possible to get the job done, and I removed nothing beyond the overstand. I really didn't want to change what the maker had intended. I kept the shavings and these together were very light in weight;- certainly far less than a gram. I don't know if this helped, but the dressing of the board really surprised me in that all the notes everywhere sounded better afterwards. These details gave me a good deal of respect for the makers at Kremona, even if the wood they use for the DB's is not the fanciest, the instrument's characteristics overall suggest a good bit of care went into the dimensioning and design, which is Rubner influenced. As the instrument has opened up, it just gets more and more responsive, to the extent that band mates that remember when it was new comment from time to time. I don't think that resonance matching alone makes or breaks the performance of an instrument, but a great set-up is the combination of a lot of small details adding up, and this can be a boost for some instruments. It didn't surprise me much that small production shops working in the ancient guild tradition pay close attention to the cavity resonance. Like I said, tuning the wood is intuitive, even if one just does it out of instinct and not out of scientific study. It is plausible that the practice predates Hutchins' findings by a couple of centuries or more.

I would go further to point out the partial series of the low BB string resonate in a complementary way to the "C" and tend to balance the response of the instrument as does the E string and A string and other open strings. An instrument built on the foundation of a low C cavity resonance makes sense intuitively.

Balance is the tricky part. Getting an instrument to sound good throughout the range is indeed an art that goes well beyond the science that describes the process. Those that did this without technology that we currently have are the equivalent of Einsteins in my view. Today, I don't think luthierie is what is was in Stradivari's day. The Renaissance makers were breaking new ground. Mersenne had just uncovered the relationships underlying string behavior by studying visible waves in strings (ropes if you please) that were tens of meters in length. By studying in the macroscopic end of the spectrum he was able to establish a foundation for wave behavior that is observed throughout the sound spectrum. Recently it has been observed that harmonic resonance is also involved in the stability of atomic structure. Indeed, it may be the glue of the universe. It is not surprising to note that Mersenne was a contemporary of Amati, and that soon afterwards Stradivari was able to build the quintessential violin. These men were definitely paying attention to the math, though they may not have recognized it as either math or science in the way the modern world views these disciplines. While the word science derives from the ancient latin word for knowledge, Renaissance "scientists" were regarded as "Natural philosophers". They were concerned with the relations of natural phenomena.

Hutchins' work and that of other investigators tends to quantify what was done by these makers and apply it to modern instrument making. Hers was careful detective work over a lifetime of dedication to the concept that there are specific measurable physical relations underlying the making of fine acoustic stringed instruments.

[Matthew Tucker]

Oh.

Have you still got the fingerboard shavings?

[David Powell]

......Yes.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Originally Posted by David Powell

Today, I don't think luthierie is what is was in Stradivari's day.

Agreed. Today there is a higher level of workmanship, on average, than in Strad's day. There is a better understanding of how violin-family instruments work. There is a more open relationship between master luthiers and those with aspirations to become masters themselves. There is a better understanding of wood and wood movement. There is better training and an explosion of useful information-sharing that is propelling luthiery forward.

There is also an explosion of pomposity amongst self-appointed experts who have little if any experience in the field but like to publish huge tomes of self-aggrandizing information on the internet for their own ego gratification.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

Agreed. Today there is a higher level of workmanship, on average, than in Strad's day. There is a better understanding of how violin-family instruments work. There is a more open relationship between master luthiers and those with aspirations to become masters themselves. There is a better understanding of wood and wood movement. There is better training and an explosion of useful information-sharing that is propelling luthiery forward.

There is also an explosion of pomposity amongst self-appointed experts who have little if any experience in the field but like to publish huge tomes of self-aggrandizing information on the internet for their own ego gratification.

Arnold, I know you don't use any type of machines to get the results you do. How do you explain your success in restoring old Basses and improving their tones as well as the beautiful mature sound I have heard on no less than 6 of your handmade Basses that I have had the pleasure of playing?

On the great old makers like Strad as mentioned, how do we explain why some of them were more consistent in results while others were less than consistent? I have played two similar Gagliano Basses back to back. Both sweet and even sounding and one of them had been cut down. I have also played two Martini Basses back to back. The first was mine, possible the earliest known (1919) and the other one of his latest (1946). These varied more model wise than with the Gaglianos and only have the FFs and Scroll in common. Mine was much deeper with a sweet low end spread type sound and the newer one was more of a punchy brighter sounding Bass. I also compared my Martini to a G.Gemunder Villuame model. The Gumender sounded more like the later Martini than mine and this was back to back in the same room with my Martini. The Gemunder being about 90 years older was better than the later Martini as expected. Also, I have played two Dodd Basses (not back to back) and they both sounded completely different. One was soft, smooth and deep sounding but not so powerful while the other was in your face, sounding an octave lower than that average Bass and shook the walls when played.

Sorry for the slight rant above but all the Basses mentioned above including Arnold's work were made without any machines to test or alter the sound. All of the Basses mentioned above are great Basses individually. I don't think much could be done to improve them in their current conditions as all of them seemed optimum for the condition they were in fully repaired and the model they were made within.

On the other hand, I have seen some Basses that have been made with at least 20-30% too much wood within the graduation, ribs or linings. Correcting a few of them that I was involved in greatly improved them. Could AO-BO matching have gotten these same improved results or does going to the 'knife' make the only sense in getting the job done?

[Greg Clinkingbeard]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

There is also an explosion of pomposity amongst self-appointed experts who have little if any experience in the field but like to publish huge tomes of self-aggrandizing information on the internet for their own ego gratification.