Slab vs. Quarter, wide vs. fine

[Thomas Erickson]

I thought I'd start this thread, after reading the one about member Samuel's new Kolstein bass.

Of course fine grained quarter sawn wood has been considered the thing to make instruments (tops, at least) from; yet, many of our great old basses are made from slab cut wood and even many odd segments of it! Also, I hear that some modern makers, while maybe still preferring quartered wood, actually like to see a wider grain...

[Arnold Schnitzer]

The main reason slab-cut wood has been used for basses over the centuries is that it is cheaper. A log will yield lots of slab wood, and it's also easier to cut. Slab-cut wood will contract and expand twice as much as quarter-sawn wood across its grain. That means a bass with slab-cut plates will be more likely to develop bulges and open seams. Slab-cut wood is also weaker in withstanding the pressure of strings on a bridge, so over time it will tend to sink and distort. On the plus side, this weakness makes it vibrate more in the lower frequencies, generally resulting in a strong, boomy bottom end tonally. Many old Italian basses have slab-cut plates; nearly all of these have sunken and required re-arching and reinforcement. But of course the tone can be fabulous. Nowadays, makers like myself are expected to produce handmade instruments that will last centuries (not decades) with proper care. Utilizing high-quality quarter-sawn wood makes the most sense with that in mind. Having said that, I'll admit to having a nice stash of slab-cut wood for tops and backs. Letting it age for as long as possible helps it to be more stable.

[Ken Smith]

Most basses bought are made already and you buy the bass, not the wood. Most new basses made to order are made from traditional woods that are quarter sawn, spruce and maple.

The strength of flatsawn in a Top is less than that of quartered wood. Just ask a luthier than works on these old Italian basses (where you find most of these non-quartered tops) and ask how many of them were sunken in? As far as wide grain goes, again, it's weaker than medium or fine grain. The finer the grain, the stronger the wood in general. The graduations play a huge role here because you need to carve the wood to it's strength within and not just to a set of numbers to be used in general. Again, ask a luther that works on old fine pedigree basses and see how many tops were sunken in with wide grain as the culprit. A thin or overly thinned top of any grain sill sink as well.

Also, the arch of the Top is also a strength factor. The more the arch, the stronger the top. A low/flat arch with wide or medium or even fine grain will sink. The wider the grain, the weaker the top. The problem is mainly the arch to begin with and the wood choice is secondary but equally important. Start with a good arch though and then choose the wood. If stuck with a wide grain piece to begin with, more arch will add strength to it.

Here are a few examples from basses I have or have had. I wont mention pedigree, origin or names here;

One bass was graduated ok for normal grain and arch but was slightly flatter and with very wide quartered grain. It was sunk in the middle which I call settlement.

Another bass with medium-high arch had some very strong quartered pine for the top but was graduated thin. The strength of the pine allowed for the top to be thinner. So far, so good as this bass is fairly new.

One other very large bass with a medium arch had extremely fine grain and a small, thin and short bass bar. This was an old bass that has never sunken in. This was also a big bass as well. Graduations were fine. The tight grain coupled with its medium arch kept it in near-original shape for well over 200 years.

On another big bass of mine the grain is tight and strong, the arch high but the graduations fairly thin. Actually, there are no real graduations to speak of as it's 6mm all around the entire top. That coupled with its huge size allowed the top to sink slightly over time. This was easily remedied in its last restoration and good for the next 100 years or more. The problem here I think was its extra large size coupled with the 6mm top. The sinkage was minimal but was there slightly and seemed as if it was gradual over the life of the bass.

Now, with all this talk and we are still just on Tops mainly, why would anyone use less than the best wood available or at least a matching arch to the strength of the wood? Availability? Cost? Laziness? Ignorance?

Ok, to the Back now. This includes the Ribs and Neck/scroll wood as well were applicable.

Most basses are made with maple of one kind or another anywhere around the world you go but with a few exceptions on a smaller scale.

All production/'production type' basses I have seen from Germany (include Schoenbach aka western Bohemia) and France (the two countries producing the most of these commercial basses) have maple used for all the main parts but the Top. The wood seems to be local to them which was very convenient.

The main countries producing basses that we usually see here in USA in order of most to least I think (older basses) are Germanic (Bohemian & Austrian borders), French, English, Italian, American/Yankee and the eastern basses which are rarely seen here come from Vienna, Prague (true Czech basses) and Pest(Budapest now). Occasionally we see a Dutch bass or Spanish bass but these are hard to identify as they easily squeeze into the style from which they were copied. Mis-identification is very common. Some by accident and some or rather many for profit!

In the Violins, no matter where you go, the makers when they had the choice used maple for the backs and related parts. I have rarely if ever seen a Violin without Maple. Much of the Violins are made with imported woods if not grown locally. Strad for example I am told used maple from Bosnia.

Other woods than maple seen on old Basses include Peartree wood, Walnut, Poplar, Willow and in some Yankee basses, Pine as used on the top. This again I believe was done for cost and availability. Back then 200 years or more the bass was not as important musically and was treated accordingly.

I would have to say that in the old basses, IF they could afford Maple, they probably would have if the knew better. Also, many of these if not most of the non-Maple backed basses are FLAT Backs.. NOT carved. There are several carved Backs around but most old Italians were made Flat (not all, but most). Most Viennese basses (when you find one) are Flat on the Viol model. I have never seen or heard of a Viennese Bass with a round back or with violin corners. Most Prague Basses are the same, neighbors to the Viennese as were the makers in Pest.

Now condition wise we all know that old basses with flatbacks have more cracks than those with roundbacks. If when the bass moves (mainly the back) and something in the Back doesn't crack when it shrinks or a cross bar come loose or a seam pops opens to relive the stress or the Rib doesn't split, something has to give! "The TOP"!! The Top wood is less flexible across its width so it splits. Many splits in the Top is not because of a Top problem but because of a Back problem.

So, after seeing these old basses with flatbacks as opposed to similar ones with roundbacks, why would anyone today make a Flatback knowing what the history is with them?

I am currently having a new Bass made based on my old Cornerless bass formerly attributed to Storioni. I would be crazy NOT to take in account all that I have seen in regards to damage with old basses. I did own one old bass with perfect wood used for all of its parts with high arches and 'healthy' graduations. After almost 200 years, both the Top and Back were still crack free. All of the movement of the bass over time expressed itself either by popping a Seam or splitting its Rib. THIS is the example I would follow. Why copy a looser when you can copy a winner as far as survival goes.

I do have to admit that I have seen more basses than most but today, especially with the internet, if you read what's out there you can learn about what you can't see and make wiser choices from it.

Back to the bass I am having made which is relevant to the coversation, I have the choice of choosing any wood I want. Cost is no object nor is wood source or geography. I chose matching flamed Eastern Maple Bosnia/Carpathian? (Arnold?), and some fine grained Spruce (Arnold?).

On the model, we have a few factors and designs to evaluate. Below I will list them in bullet *points with the original on the left and the 'inspired' copy on the right. I will explain as much as you like answering all questions as best I can.
--------------------------
*Cornerless - Violin Corners
*FlatBack with traditional bracing - Roundback with a center brace
*High flamed Maple Back - ditto, Same
*burled Maple laminated/Spruce Ribs - Solid matching Flame Maple
*long body with low placed F-holes (length modified at the block in the current restoration) - Matching modified length with F-holes moved up to desired string length.
*F-holes close together with small 3/4 145mm bridge needed - Identical copied F-holes moved apart (and up) to match length for 7/8-4/4 165mm bridge. (the original bass had a 5/4 width bridge before which helped to self-sink its own top)
*center waist is very wide with a Tall bridge and angled neck to bow clear of the center bouts - modified slightly narrower center bouts with a normal neck-body angle, more overstand with shallower pitch to body and normal bridge height to relieve extra tension that was on the original bass.
*sloped shoulders like an old Viol d'gamba from which this was modeled after but no two shoulders within the bass match 100% - Sloped shoulders copying 'one' of the 4 variations within the bass that match the new bass and center bout design. The lower bout to the new designed lower corner is traced from the original.
*3-string short scroll with 4 gears now, raised center vein around Scroll and rear pegbox and rounded button - elongated matching scroll for 4-gears, veined like the original BUT with a traditional button artistically matched to the scroll. We have to 'crystal ball' imagine what the maker would have made or what he may have made as we are not 100% sure this shape is original as it is part of the last graft. We don't have the original button to copy!
*Ribs gradually taper from the lower block to the neck with a gentle bend in the center of the back - Same Rib style taper as the original.

Now, it is important to remember that the damage we see on a bass over 200 years old happened along the way and not in a single day. Some of what has happened was due to the design of the bass. It is the responsibility of the new makers/designers to 'correct' the design errors of the makers of the past. If not, why bother?

Since this original is one of the best basses I have ever played (and I have played a lot) and is the only one with sloped shoulders to have the depth and power matching the bigger broader Italians that I have played I thought this would be the best Bass to base a model off of and copy it as close as possible. The modifications are features that will either keep the bass healthier overtime or make it look more traditional as far as the corners go and a few other minor changes.

Questions on anything here?

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

The main reason slab-cut wood has been used for basses over the centuries is that it is cheaper. A log will yield lots of slab wood, and it's also easier to cut. Slab-cut wood will contract and expand twice as much as quarter-sawn wood across its grain. That means a bass with slab-cut plates will be more likely to develop bulges and open seams. Slab-cut wood is also weaker in withstanding the pressure of strings on a bridge, so over time it will tend to sink and distort. On the plus side, this weakness makes it vibrate more in the lower frequencies, generally resulting in a strong, boomy bottom end tonally. Many old Italian basses have slab-cut plates; nearly all of these have sunken and required re-arching and reinforcement. But of course the tone can be fabulous. Nowadays, makers like myself are expected to produce handmade instruments that will last centuries (not decades) with proper care. Utilizing high-quality quarter-sawn wood makes the most sense with that in mind. Having said that, I'll admit to having a nice stash of slab-cut wood for tops and backs. Letting it age for as long as possible helps it to be more stable.

My post took longer to write and you beat me to the board.

Please define a few things where I mentioned your Name with a ?.

Also, elaborate as much as you like if any on the copy bass in progress. I am not sure which excites me more, the restoring of the original or waiting for the copy to be completed.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

My post took longer to write and you beat me to the board.

Ken, I wrote a post. You wrote a book.

[Thomas Erickson]

Wow! Nice posts!

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

Ken, I wrote a post. You wrote a book.

Back to the bass I am having made which is relevant to the conversation, I have the choice of choosing any wood I want. Cost is no object nor is wood source or geography. I chose matching flamed Eastern Maple Bosnia/Carpathian? (Arnold?), and some fine grained Spruce (Arnold?).

Would you mind confirming the species of the Top and Back woods being used to the new 'inspired' copy bass?

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

Would you mind confirming the species of the Top and Back woods being used to the new 'inspired' copy bass?

The top is tight-grained Engelmann Spruce. The back is maple (Pseudoplatanus) that I bought from a wood dealer in Slovakia, so I assume it came from that general area.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Arnold Schnitzer

The top is tight-grained Engelmann Spruce. The back is maple (Pseudoplatanus) that I bought from a wood dealer in Slovakia, so I assume it came from that general area.

So Arnold, if this maple from Slovakia happens to 'check' (aka crack) then you would call it Check-Slovakia?

Off of the jokes now and for the readers, so this is the same or similar regional wood as Bosnian Maple and that sort that was considered to be the choice of maple used by Strad' then, correct?

[John Delventhal]

Arnold, you mentioned that a slap-cut top would makes the bass vibrate more in the lower frequencies, generally resulting in a strong, boomy bottom end tonally.

What about combining the two types of cuts? Keep the quarter-sawn wood in the center of the top table for the bridge, neck block, and heel block. But, have the outer sides of the table be slap-cut. Would this help create a strong instrument that could still produce those incredible lows.

I am sure this has been done somewhere. Has anyone ever seen/played a bass like this. How was it structurally, and how was the sound?

[John Delventhal]

Found one! Ken's Martini. I have played this bass, its great! As Ken puts it "It's a Canon." Ken, have you seen others like this? Were they similar at all?

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by John Delventhal

Found one! Ken's Martini. I have played this bass, its great! As Ken puts it "It's a Canon." Ken, have you seen others like this? Were they similar at all?

The Martini top is a result of a small tree from what I can see. The grain is tight in the middle and fanning out to flat grain at the outer wings. The back and ribs are Oppio which is a local Italian soft maple. If the back and rib woods were the harder Bosnian type then it might be a brighter sound with the same top. Also, the deep arching of both the top and back has something to do with it as well. Also, Martini was a bass player first and then a violin-bass maker producing over 400 instruments in his lifetime with over 40 of them being basses. My Martini is the earliest known example of a bass from him made right after the 1st war. It's a real bass by a good maker. It deserves the sound it has.

I have played some very very deep sounding basses with quartered tops and backs and that had fairly hard maple in the backs and ribs. Why is that? Maybe it was just a good bass, made right, aged well, repaired well and luck was on its side.

A bass is the sound of the sum of its parts and how its designed, made and put together coupled with how it aged and how it's been played. I think!

[John Delventhal]

Slab-cut is on the left in the drawing. Quarter-sawn is on the right. Notice the four quarters in the log, hence the name quarter-sawn.

[Thomas Erickson]

The way I tend to think of it is that quartered wood is like what you get when you split firewood, whereas flat or slab-cut is what you get if you take a log and just saw it into boards. If that makes sense.

[Ken Smith]

[quote=Thomas Erickson;19642]The way I tend to think of it is that quartered wood is like what you get when you split firewood, whereas flat or slab-cut is what you get if you take a log and just saw it into boards. If that makes sense. [/quote

Do you mean commercial 'grade cutting' when you say "just saw it into boards"?

I have some experience with sawn logs. There is more than one way to cut a log. Here is some results from 'flitch cutting' walnut logs. I have a maple log or two that was cut the same way.

In commercial flat sawn lumber they cut a couple slices (or more depending on the log) off of one side and then turn the log a quarter of they way and continue as they cut most of the first grade all around it. This is called FAS meaning First and Seconds. This yeilds flatsawn lumber/boards. I have some experience watching some of my wood coming off the chain this way as well. I have probably bought more wood personally than most people in the wood business that is also hands on in the making process, not just the lumber buyer. This is in my KSB business but some of my wood has been used to make double basses as well, just not by me.

[Thomas Erickson]

Ken - yes, of course there is a lot more to "sawing boards" than how it sounds, I just posted the "firewood vs. sawn boards" thing because it's a crude little way of remembering it. Sometimes I get a little confused looking at lumber or discussing how to cut some wood, and that just helps me keep it simple.

[Ken McKay]

I have a stock of quartersawn Big Leaf maple that I have made bass backs from. It is fairly plain looking but is very stable and moderately dense (about 45 lbs/bd ft iirc). These are big wedges that are suitable for a fully carved back with a center arch height of 1.75 inches. Once carved and graduated these backs are very stable and no worry. Good stuff.


I have some very fancy looking eastern red maple that is slab cut but is beautifully flamed all the way across the 15 inch board. I sawed the plank into slices a little over 1/4 inches thick to make two two-piece backs. This is very tricky to work with. Once the book set was glued together it started to potato chip when sitting on a flat bench. I recongized this movement and compensated in the construction of the back by letting air get to both sides at all time. This let moisture escape equally from both sides. I also kept the shop humidity at around 40 to 50% RH. I worked very slowly and let the back wood acclimate over two seasons before I glued the braces in the flat back. I also made an X pattern brace so as not to confine the natural wood movement that I recognized over the seasons of watching the wood. I also curved the braces so the back would be domed. This dome is around 5\8 inch and serves to allow the back to gain a little structural strength as well as move and vibrate the way I wanted.

I am in the process of sawing two large logs of white pine into top wood for double bass. Michigan grown, standing dead for over a year as I watched it turn gold and now ready to be sawn. Most will be quartered.

[Matthew Tucker]

Originally Posted by John Delventhal

What about combining the two types of cuts? Keep the quarter-sawn wood in the center of the top table for the bridge, neck block, and heel block. But, have the outer sides of the table be slap-cut.

This is, in fact, what happens naturally with quartersawn tops; the tightest grain is in the middle, at the seam, and the grain tends to go wider at the flanks. Also, if the board is not EXACTLY quartersawn, the grain will run almost slab-like at the flanks. I'm not shy to use wood that is not exactly quartersawn for this reason; the way i see it, the most vertical grain in the middle will strengthen the arch and resist splitting, and the slabbier wood at the flanks adds flexibility at the edges where it is needed.

[Thomas Erickson]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

the way i see it, the most vertical grain in the middle will strengthen the arch and resist splitting, and the slabbier wood at the flanks adds flexibility at the edges where it is needed.

I'm not so smart when it comes to the physics so I wonder if it's the center/top of the arch that contributes the most to stiffness, as opposed to the whole arch? Seems to me (the layman) like if the bottom of the arch is flexy, then making the top stiff isn't going to do so much good. And then the amount of top-plate area attached to the ribs/blocks inhibiting vibration, in terms of the number of grains... Like I say, I don't know...

[Arnold Schnitzer]

The recurve, an area of the vibrating plates just inside the perimeter, is carved thinner than the rest of the plate, in order to allow the plate to "uncouple" from the rib assembly and vibrate more freely. Some makers carve this area deep and wide, others make it barely noticeable. This has a noticeable affect on the depth and power of the bass, but when overdone can lead to sinkage and cracking.