question about back graduations

[Ken McKay]

Well, I kinda agree with you there Ken. But a flat back is a viol and a roundback is violin. Each type has a characteristic timbre regardless of the shape of the instrument. Psychoacoustics and playing style also have an effect on the sound of a given instrument but the mental exercises transfer to reality. For example ask yourself what if this bass had that back or what if this roundback bass had a flat back? Armed with all of the available knowledge we have, as well as tradition and a good ear, the puzzle comes together.

In other words expected results are born from understanding.

Attached is Andrew Brown's double bass dissertation in pdf.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Ken McKay

Well, I kinda agree with you there Ken. But a flat back is a viol and a roundback is violin. Each type has a characteristic timbre regardless of the shape of the instrument. Psychoacoustics and playing style also have an effect on the sound of a given instrument but the mental exercises transfer to reality. For example ask yourself what if this bass had that back or what if this roundback bass had a flat back? Armed with all of the available knowledge we have, as well as tradition and a good ear, the puzzle comes together.

In other words expected results are born from understanding.

Attached is William Browns double bass dissertation in pdf.

Ok, you expect me or someone to read this 136 page study and make something out of it? From this study, what advancement on the making or repairing the DB has come about?

I think the Wood and The Varnish has a lot to do with the sound of a bass as well. The Player not so much. Maybe a good player can get a better sound than the Plummer can but even if my wife pulls the stings on my Storioni it will sound like the Storioni.

[Ken McKay]

Oh common! A little light reading...Paul reads it in the bathroom.

Truthfully, I don't expect anyone to read it or be interested in this unless they are a geek like me. But there is a lot of good stuff in there with some very careful and thorough research and investigation. I see you read some of it by your comments...

There is a lot of stuff to talk about if anyone is interested. This might be a good topic of its own.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Ken McKay

Oh common! A little light reading...Paul reads it in the bathroom.

Truthfully, I don't expect anyone to read it or be interested in this unless they are a geek like me. But there is a lot of good stuff in there with some very careful and thorough research and investigation. I see you read some of it by your comments...

There is a lot of stuff to talk about if anyone is interested. This might be a good topic of its own.

I posted 13 minutes after you. Giving the time to post and the time I wasn't on line a few minutes and the time scrolling thru that link after I opened it only to find there were 136 pages... I may have read a sentence or two.. not three.. I looked at a few pictures as well.. lol

No, anything I said or posted had nothing to do with that link or study other than mentioning it was 136 pages long. That much I noticed.

I have a few basses in restoration right now that will need wood added back into the top to fix the Butchery that went on in it past from other luthiers. I say this now.. It it sounds good, leave it alone unless you know fairly sure that it still has a ways to go and also do so without weakening the plates.

With basses being so different from one another in every which way, unless you are using some controlled materials, that study does very little to contribute to the improvement of the making or repairing of a double bass.

[Rob Menapace]

This has turned into a pretty good thread! I just wanted to clarify...if anybody is still following from the original post, that the bass in question is just a shop bass with interesting wood and a comfortable size/shape for me to play. I would certainly never re-graduate a real makers bass. When I bought the bass, it had had a bunch of work done to it, including the re-graduation of the back (with back on), and re-graduation of top, graduated around the bass bar, and not all the way through to the edges. The current work being done is to graduate the whole top and fit a new bass bar. I've decided to leave the back alone, partially based on some of your responses, mostly based on the suggestion of the luthier doing the work...just wanted to say thanks for opinions/info, also I did read some of the 136 page paper, I'm into it, thanks for posting the link.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Rob Menapace

This has turned into a pretty good thread! I just wanted to clarify...if anybody is still following from the original post, that the bass in question is just a shop bass with interesting wood and a comfortable size/shape for me to play. I would certainly never re-graduate a real makers bass. When I bought the bass, it had had a bunch of work done to it, including the re-graduation of the back (with back on), and re-graduation of top, graduated around the bass bar, and not all the way through to the edges. The current work being done is to graduate the whole top and fit a new bass bar. I've decided to leave the back alone, partially based on some of your responses, mostly based on the suggestion of the luthier doing the work...just wanted to say thanks for opinions/info, also I did read some of the 136 page paper, I'm into it, thanks for posting the link.

I have heard of some fairly high end basses being re-graduated to correct what they though was made wrong. I have heard that many Strads and the like have also been altered internally to make them perform up to current standards. This is not always successful.

Like I mentioned, I have had basses go both ways in restoration, wood in and wood out. So far, every bass was improved.

On your bass that was worked around the bassbar, let me give you some information that might help. 30 or so years ago I heard about a full sized Maggini in a big shop for restoration. Along the entire bassbar area the top was built up under the bar. The Luthier thought that this famous maker was wrong and he was more knowledgeable. He removed the excess wood under the bar and 'sprung in' a new bar and closed up the bass when all the work was done. Guess what? The Top collapsed!.. This Luthier thought he knew more than Maggini.. Go figure..

When my Gilkes (Jilkes) was opened up for restoration and a new bassbar, I felt along the Bar area inside the Top and guess what? A similar platform as was described to me that was in the Maggini. That Bar platform-Top relationship was left intact and the Bar place in the Bass without any spring at all. This Bass dated 1814 on the Label has never cracked and has never sounded better in the 5 years I've had it.

Maybe in your Bass, leave a platform built up under the Bar like Maggini and Gilkes did. I would try that if it were my bass if possible just to see what it does.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

I read some of the dissertation Ken M linked. What I found most interesting was the response of players to the round vs. flat back comparison. Comments were all over the place and contradictory. The author pointed out how subjective the whole subject is. I personally think there is something to having a "spring" of brace wood under the soundpost, regardless of whether the bass has a round or flat back. I have had the opportunity to add a back brace to a round backed bass on several occasions, and felt the bass responded quicker afterward. Ken S. has some experience with this as well. Your comments, Maestro?