Smith Bass Design and its History (The on-line Book in the making)

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Bob Faulkner

Can you expand on the concepts and techniques from the building of traditional acoustic string instruments that you incorporated in your bass designs, and what made you lean specifically in those directions?

Well, what exactly do you mean by "traditional acoustic string instruments"?

[Bob Faulkner]

you mentioned double bass and violin as part of your inspiration in one of the posts above. I was wanting some expansion on the building techniques of those instruments that you found attractive, and how you used them to improve the bass guitar.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Bob Faulkner

you mentioned double bass and violin as part of your inspiration in one of the posts above. I was wanting some expansion on the building techniques of those instruments that you found attractive, and how you used them to improve the bass guitar.

Oh, ok. I'll do my best to explain my original dream and theory as well as application.

The Smith Basses were designed for feel and tone first. The hardware and electronics came later. My goal was to try and archive a smooth even vibrating string on every string, every note. I felt that the current slew or basses on the market were produced for a price point and not for the quality or rather acoustical level that I was searching for. By luck, you could pick up a fender on occasion and the notes (most of them) might ring well for some things but playing a slow ballad melody with some upper long notes, the sustain would fail and the tone was not the best, It was still a fender. I am not trying to knock Fender here at all. I am just using it as a comparison based on my personal experience.

Often in a recording, the standard Fender is just what people are used to hearing. For me, I was looking to get as close to the comparable quality to my Italian DB as compared to a factory made German imported Juzek bass. The Juzek might be ok in a School orchestra or on a jazz gig with an amp but in a professional Orchestra, it is just not on par with the great old English and Italian master grade basses. I was looking to make THE Master Grade Electric bass.

Things I looked into changing at first was the actual neck construction and wood grain orientation. Exotic wood feature strips were added for looks and stability. The theory was that a bad piece of wood may want to bend away from the others but in itself would not be strong enough to pull the others with it. Some other companies were already doing this but I cannot mention their names, sorry. I also know that these other companies were not known for their great necks as some of them incorporated 2 truss rods for better adjustability. My theory is to keep it simple but build it so it wont fail. Bass player wanna play, not fix. Giving them 2 truss rods to adjust might be more harm then help knowing that often its a do-it-yourself mindset.

On the body, I was not convinced that what companied did up until the time I started were thinking about tone and vibration as far as mixing with the neck. Soft bodies and hard necks might have frequencies that cancel each other out. Bold-on product on the market at that time was mainly high volume production. The neck and body parts were not specifically made to perfectly fit one another so there was some lever of acceptable 'slop' in the fit.

These are just a few things that made up the 'average' mindset of a high volume guitar production. Also, I believe that the 'built it from the price backwards' mentality although wise in general marketing, does not make a Stradivarius.

Trial and well.. more trial (don't think I had many errors) was the method of operation for me. This by the way is still going on after 400+ years of double Bass making.

So, open mind, open ears, open wallet. Yes.. it does get expensive trying to be inventive and/or creative.

Please feel free to nit-pick any of my answers if they do not fully quench your thirst. Also, if I've left something out, please remind me.

One more explanation to the question of 'building techniques'. I tried in the beginning to move away from what was being done already if it didn't look right as far as the 'right' or 'better' way so to speak. Each individual component must be made to it's fullest potential in order to work as a 'marriage' on a musical instrument. Price was never am initial concern as I didn't come from a business type or financial background. It was a consideration but not that the expense of the quality of the bass.

Remember now, I started tinkering in 1976 or so with this idea in my head when I was a full time professional Bassist in NYC. This was a personal goal of mine, not a business plan. It turned out that way and very very gradually. Nothing came fast with the exception of a good feel which was on Bass #1 and so on...

[Mike Braun]

Hey Ken,

Can you please give us some information on the development of the pickups, electronics, and pickup placement?

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Mike Braun

Hey Ken,

Can you please give us some information on the development of the pickups, electronics, and pickup placement?

This is actually 3 separate answers as far as how things happened. I will be relatively brief for now and go deeper into it later if asked.

The Electronics in the Basses now are not at all what I originally intended. It was suggested to me in the beginning to go simpler like a Bass/Treble circuit other than the original big circuit like on 3 of the Basses we made for Stanley Clarke but I wanted what was in my head at the time.

The first BTs were started in 1981 with 4 knobs and some switches. These wend thru a few changes. In 1986 we did the concentric BT and made it for sale as a replacement for Fender type basses with some modifications needed but it would fit most. Then in 1993 we did the 4k-knob again but with an addable mid 5th knob. A few years ago we modified that and re-designed it to the current unit we have now.

On all the circuits from the first BT 4-knob to the Concentric and onwards I had played around with the Treble frequency center point as well as the shelf of the bass control. Mind you, the Amps we have today were not around in 1981 so the studio was about as close as you could get to hear the full range of the bass with they full range playback speakers.

The Pickups were also an idea in my head that took 3 years to get to and stayed there ever since the first Soapbars were completed in 1981. I personally made the first wooden casting molds out of Curly/Tiger Maple in my Brooklyn shop. The pickups we have now and since then is the sound in my head.

Placement... ok.. this was not as planned but it did come about unintentionally.

The first 20 pickups after a proto-type were all made by Bill Lawrence. Bill made a wooden cover for the first one and we made the other 20 in the shop. Then I ordered 60 more pickups and had some covers waiting. These were different. Bill had changed his tooling and didn't tell me. These used plastic mounting rings like a guitar pickup.

On one BT we made in 1981 the customer asked that we put the pickups as far back as possible towards the bridge. We did so and the mounting rings were almost touching each other. In a year of so he traded up and I took that bass back. Now though I had the new Soapbar and wanted to upgrade this earlier bass. We were able to re-route a slightly larger cur for the new pickup to fit and just barely routed away all the screw holes from the mounting rings. Now the pickups were further back towards the bridge with about 2 fingers of space between them, like they are now.

Maybe it was that bass, or that bass with there pickups or the placement or the re-build and re-firb of an older broken in bass.. something.. BUT, that bass was smoking.. I made the decision then that this would be the new pickup spacing.. Why? Because I liked it. No R&D.. just my gut feeling and some R&B actually..

That's in in a nutshell..

[Tim Bishop]

Ken, how did you come about determining string choice for your basses?

I ask this because I have tried other strings on your basses , however, my ear always takes me back to Smith Medium Taper Cores .

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Tim Bishop

Ken, how did you come about determining string choice for your basses?

I ask this because I have tried other strings on your basses , however, my ear always takes me back to Smith Medium Taper Cores .

Well, prior to the Taper Core which came out in 1983 I had used the same gauges that came about with some trial and error or rather by choosing what worked best for my ear and also the same gauges in a Bare Core. Just before, during or right after (not 100% clear on the timing) we made our first 6-string by order for Anthony Jackson we were asked by him to make a Piano style Core for the Bridge area similar to what Rotosound had been making but without the adjustable Ball length which required a tool and some work to fit and tighten each Bass to the Core for every string. So, we made the same Gauges but used different Core wire and slightly different construction than did Rotosound and made a fixed Bass Bare Core String. These were called 'Bare Core' which we sold mainly to Anthony and maybe 10-20% to others after market. We continued to use our RWM (Round Wound Medium) Custom Balanced Gauges.

About a year in to this while at a Namm Show in 1982 Martyn Howe from Rotosound came into my display Booth during the Show and told me that they had a Design Patent Registered for that String and if I wanted to use them, I would HAVE TO buy it from them, not my supplier here in the USA. When I consulted a Lawyer shortly after the Show and looked up their Patent we discovered that our String was made differently but intended for the same exact usage. I was told that Patents are mainly for Design and not Usage. Then I was asked by the Layer about Income for this string and how much it was worth to me. I explained that gross sales (or gross profit, can't recall exactly this far back) was only about $2,000 a year on that particular string which by then we had in 4 gauges (L,M,ML,LM.) It was then that we were told that right or wrong, we could not afford to fight this in Court if $2,000 annually was the amount we were trying to protect. Then, my main contact at the String factory suggested that we run the last cover wire over that Bare Core and be done with it! This design was already in use with the Double Ball Strings but with 'Bare Core' on my mind, the thought just never came to me.

So, just like the Pickup placement coming about by chance, so did the Taper Core idea. Funny huh? To this date, I think I have sold more Taper Core than RS has probably sold in their design that they called 'Superwound'. I never hear of them nor do I know if they still make them.

One think of note here is that there was a small problem with the BC strings with some players. They had to raise up their Bridge saddles pretty high to get the Bare Core up high enough so that they didn't hit the Pickups when playing due to them sitting lower on the saddle on the Core and not higher up on the total thicker winding diameter. Some players also reported some overtone problems due to the raw exposure and accuracy brought about by a string with a truer tone than the sometimes muffled sound with some round wounds on the thicker gauges. The Taper Core was right in the middle between the BC and the Regular wound sting and fixed the overtone problem as well.

After developing the TC Strings in the same 4 gauges we made the regular Custom Balanced and BCs in, we started using the TCRM as our standard string for the Smith Basses. This happened around 1983 or so.