Guitar and Pear-Shaped

[Ken McKay]

I am accepting opinions on this question of what shape you prefer. http://www.upnorthstrings.com/cornerlessbasspage4.html

Thanks in advance, and please respond here in Ken's corner.

[Brian Gencarelli]

I dunno Ken... I prefer the first over the second, but- I think the first would look better with the "waist" a little higher, to balance out the bottom. Does that make any sense?!?

I am not sure I know how to explain it. Maybe I will try to draw on a photo later.

But in general- I think the first is better defined.

IMHO
Brian

[David Powell]

I like the first one best. What kind of f-holes are you favoring?

[Ken Smith]

Be careful with the center bout. If it is too wide, the Bow may not clear the 'wood'. On mine, the Bridge is quite high (7") but it seems to clear just fine. Also, is this an Orchestra only Bass, Solo only or Orchestra/Solo as far as its intended use? Smaller upper bouts from what I have seen seems to make the Bass sound thin on top while wider upper bouts usually have a sweet midrange like a 'wet' or moist kind of sound.

What will your Rib depth be? Mine just barely reached 7 3/4" at the widest point but is mostly 7 5/8" around the bottom portion. My Dodd was only 7 1/2" at the widest point as was the loudest Bass to date I have played.

Harmony in all the dimensions and with the wood chosen is not really a science. I think the Cornerless Bass may have a new revival on the horizon.

[Ken McKay]

Thanks David, I am leaning towards the first also now and I think the proportions are good that way.

It will have a narrow enough UB to help reach around yet be wide enough to get some vibrations happening there. It could get really hard to get good arching with the real narrow UB as seen on the Lemer bass. But I am working that out now.

Ken, thanks. It is planned as a solo/orchestra bass with a real thunderous low end yet a good amount of "buzz" in the the higher positions, but who knows???. The bridge in the plan is about 6 1/2 inch but will depend on the final arching of course. As for the ribs, they are going to be 9 1/2 inches at the tail block and taper to less than 6 at the neck ( exact number to follow when I can measure it).

[Ken McKay]

Originally Posted by David Powell

I like the first one best. What kind of f-holes are you favoring?

Not sure yet, I am thinking something original but Italian looking. Certainly not a copy of any of those shown.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Ken McKay

Not sure yet, I am thinking something original but Italian looking. Certainly not a copy of any of those shown.

On the Ribs, if you make them that deep, it may slow down the response and punch. My two Best Basses to date had LESS than 8" ribs. That being my Dodd at 7 1/2" and my Cornerless at 7 5/8" mainly. The taper is needed but mainly in the upper bout and at the Neck. That's the right idea. If you can, make two rib shells and fit the same Top and Back to both. Then see which sounds better.

On the FFs, make them spaced far enough at the upper eyes for the Bridge feet so that the bridge width matches the Bass size re:3/4, 7/8, 4/4, 5/4 .. etc. If spaced too close like on my Bass, you will need a 5/8 to 3/4 sized bridge for a 4/4 Bass. Mine has been damaged with the Top pushed down on the G-string side from being too wide with a 170mm wide bridge instead of a 150mm or smaller size which the FFs dictate be used in order to sit properly over the Bass bar.

[Brian Gencarelli]

Ken (McKay)-

I played with the shape. It isn't exact, but you get the idea. I also think this would help with the bow clearance issue.

I agree with Ken (Smith) about the rib depth. My bass isn't particularly deep, but has a very deep fundamental. I think very deep basses have a lot of "spread" but not too much core. However, if you are going to 5.5" or 6" taper at the block then having her "fat on the bottom" wouldn't be such a bad idea.


Brian

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Brian Gencarelli

Ken (McKay)-

I played with the shape. It isn't exact, but you get the idea. I also think this would help with the bow clearance issue.

I agree with Ken (Smith) about the rib depth. My bass isn't particularly deep, but has a very deep fundamental. I think very deep basses have a lot of "spread" but not too much core. However, if you are going to 5.5" or 6" taper at the block then having her "fat on the bottom" wouldn't be such a bad idea.


Brian

First off, fat on the bottom should not mean it needs deep ribs at all. Deep ribs are often used on smaller Bass to add air space. Too much space on the bottom and it may be slow moving the air out of the Bass.

Second, if the width is too narrow, the FF's eyes at the top will be very close causing it to need a very narrow bridge. You don't want a 1/4 sized Bridge on a 3/4-7/8's Bass. That will kill the whole Idea having the Bass bar so close to the sound post with wide lower bouts.

Guitar shape or not, the upper and lower bouts should have harmony with the center curved as needed. Ask Arnold and Jeff about this. Also, take a regular Bass you know and like the sound of and convert the shape to cornerless by just shaving off the corners and maybe with some slight modifications to get the desired look artistically. Less is more when altering shapes and designs from a proven model. Also, note on that proven model how deep the Ribs actually are. The deeper the Ribs, the more room for them to flex or maybe crack. Since the Cornerless Bass can flex more than one with corners, I would only assume that slightly 'less' Rib depth would be better.

[Ken McKay]

Originally Posted by Brian Gencarelli

Ken (McKay)-

I played with the shape. It isn't exact, but you get the idea. I also think this would help with the bow clearance issue.

I agree with Ken (Smith) about the rib depth. My bass isn't particularly deep, but has a very deep fundamental. I think very deep basses have a lot of "spread" but not too much core. However, if you are going to 5.5" or 6" taper at the block then having her "fat on the bottom" wouldn't be such a bad idea.


Brian

Brian, I get your point clearly. It does look rather harmoneous with the drawn in lines. I am playing with the plan and looking at the important points that Ken Smith brought up about the bass bar and bridge positions. I am leaning towards an ff like the Lemar bass as that is closer to my shape and it may fit better. Thanks again.

[Ken McKay]

Originally Posted by Brian Gencarelli

I dunno Ken... I prefer the first over the second, but- I think the first would look better with the "waist" a little higher, to balance out the bottom. Does that make any sense?!?

I am not sure I know how to explain it. Maybe I will try to draw on a photo later.

But in general- I think the first is better defined.

IMHO
Brian

Thanks Brian, I think after the plate goes on it will be easier to decide. These things never translate from paper to wood as one would think.

[Ken McKay]

Originally Posted by Ken McKay

I am accepting opinions on this question of what shape you prefer. http://www.upnorthstrings.com/cornerlessbasspage4.html

Thanks in advance, and please respond here in Ken's corner.

Brian and all,

Click on the link above and have a look at my new shape, although subtle, I think it did make a considerable difference. I think it is very close to the Testore bass which unfortunately I only have the small photo.

[David Powell]

Originally Posted by Ken McKay

Brian and all,

Click on the link above and have a look at my new shape, although subtle, I think it did make a considerable difference. I think it is very close to the Testore bass which unfortunately I only have the small photo.

Yes! that is definitely sweet looking. It kind of has the proportion of one of those Alexandria basses, without the corners. I think Pollmann makes them. I always liked the big difference in the upper and lower bouts. Testore would approve!

[Ken Smith]

Testore or not, small upper bouts make for a smaller sound. It would be good if you came here and played and then measured my Bass. Sue Lipkins mentioned that David Wiebe was very impressed with the Riccardi Bass and soon after made a copy of it.

The bottom end of my Bass is like I have never in my life heard, never. You know some of the Basses I have played and owned and nothing has ever matched this Bass. Take a closer look at the measurements if you can. There is something to learn from this Bass.

[Brian Gencarelli]

Originally Posted by Ken McKay

Brian and all,

Click on the link above and have a look at my new shape, although subtle, I think it did make a considerable difference. I think it is very close to the Testore bass which unfortunately I only have the small photo.

Ken,

I really like the shape. I say go ahead and make this one. Then, when you make #2, you can pattern it after KS's Bass.

I understand the need to "experiment" with the shape and have your own pattern. Go for it!

Brian

[Ken McKay]

Ken, thanks for the invite to measure the Reccardi bass I may take you up on that someday. I also do want to play and hear it!

We are going to have to see how this one turns out and it will be a lesson to us all I think. Keep in mind that my lower bout is very wide at 28+ inches making the upper bout look small. It will be 18 inches, which is still smaller than the Storioni by about 2 inches, but not as much as the Lemur bass which is 15 1/2 (anyone know how that one sounds?) and the Bass attributed to Ruggeri (Sciachia's), is also 18.

The way I arch and graduate the stiffness of the top, along with the bridge height (downward pressure) is going to have a big effect. I also think that your string length (mensure) goes a long way in defining the huge sound! I have heard this from other experts.

So keep the comments coming, every morsel is gold and a learning experience for me.

[Matthew Tucker]

Its a better shape, but to my taste, the lower bout still looks odd, I'd let the bottom block spring out a bit so the bottom isn't so flat. otherwise it gives the impression of weight squashing down. I don't mind the small upper bout but the lower bout looks too squished. A little more curve in that area will give that lower lower bout area a bit more structural strength too.

I agree with your opinion that the 44" string length of Kens bass is likely to be a BIG factor in its great sound as well. That does not diminish its other qualities, of course.

[Ken McKay]

Okay Matthew I am going to play with that a bit and see what I come up with.

[Ken Smith]

I have put wood under the string and experimented with 42" and there was not much loss of sound. It tightened up a bit but this has so much bottom, no one will miss the difference.

I don't think Ruggeri or Roggeri would make a Bass that looks so primitive. These guys were some of the neatest makers ever. i think sometimes people pull names out of a hat to make the Bass something it is not. On mine being a Storioni, it is only attributed to that name and I am equally doubtful it is his work.

The upper bout is crucial in the tone and depth of the Bass as is the middle bout. The middle bout has to reach the limit to where bowing is comfortable but the more you give it, the wider and deeper the sound will be.