" Name That Bass " aka "This OLD Bass"

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Craig Regan

The body length of 47" seems much longer than a "normal" size bass. I was curious, how does the extra body length effect how the bass sounds (in general terms) and its playability.

Glad to see the Bass is moving along!

Craig, there is nothing 'normal' about the size or rather the overall dimensions of this Bass. It is a 'full sized' Bass. Not a 7/8 and no where near a 3/4 either. Full sized Basses were made to have I suppose a full sized sound as far as the fundamental notes go. Also, it lived most of its life as a 3-stringer.

I have had many good sounding old Basses but it is always the bigger ones with more air to move that sound the biggest and deepest when they are in good repair.

How does this one sound? I have no idea. It has never seen Steel strings from what I can tell and I would also venture to say that it has not been strung up in out lifetime. The Bridge that came with the Bass was cut for Gut Strings. The Tailpiece is a 3-stringer as well with 2 extra holes drilled to use as a 4-string. This is also the size Bass that some Europeans would convert to a 5-string as it has the mass to produce the lows. It did however have an early type C-extension fitted as I did fill some holes from it. The short Scroll/pegbox however barely fits 4-strings let alone 5.

I am hoping that this Bass fits me well and has the sound I want for Orchestra. It is huge but fairly light weight. The Back and Ribs are almost thin to medium as well as the Top. Nothing overdone here as well as the internal work. All of the Blocks are small as well as the Back bracing system and Bassbar. Internally streamlined for this 'soft shoe' giant..

Playability wise we have to remember that when this Bass was made, there was not even a written method of how to play the Bass. This was a 3-string that might have been used in Theater, Opera, Church, on the great Ships of the 19th century possibly and probably some Symphony stuff after about 1850 from the later 4 Gears that were on the Bass and the Extension which is probably early 20th century. The demand for Orchestra playing today is far different than it was then. Also, even with all that we know about the difficulty of large Basses, we still see new ones being made with big upper bouts, high shoulders and long lengths. It is so expensive to modify and make a big Bass playable for modern standards. Why then are new Basses still being made that might not be cost effective to modify for easier playability?

This Bass will play at just under 42" string length. The Block lowered, the Shoulder tips cut down about one inch to shorten the upper bout reach and the Bridge sitting just on top of the F-notches to compensate. The Neck is pitched nicely for the bridge height so the bow will clear the Bouts and the the Neckstand is out at about 40mm or so. It was planned a bit more at closer to 50mm but I suggested to Biase to bring that down a bit for Neck strength closer to 40mm and pitch the Neck in the Block back a tad more to make up for the difference to achieve the Bridge height which was about 7" before as well on the old Bridge.

For playability you have to measure your octave reach so it's not too far over the shoulders. Also, the area where your arm goes over the Shoulder should be marked and measured to the top of the Bridge foot. This is a play-factor measurement. Check on a few Basses that play better or worse in that area and take that measurement. This is as important as any to be able to reach over the shoulders and hit the note where you think they should be, 'for you'. Some Basses regardless of how great the may be might just not fit a particular player due to dimensions alone. You are trying to match up two bodies here, yours and the Basses'. What good is a great Bass if you can't play it?