re- graduations explained ?

[Adrian Levi]

Is the main reason to re-graduate a bass to 'free it up' in order to aid vibration of the plates. Also does anyone know of a situation where re-graduating has not helped an instrument at all ? And can a re-graduation ever actually make such a HUGE difference in sound ?

[Ken Smith]

I believe you have to weigh in the graduations with the density of the wood and the arching of the plates. Too strong or too weak in all 3 areas is no good. In the strength areas, pick 2 of the 3 at most. In the weak areas, be careful. You can't change the wood or arching so re-graduate it down to where it is still strong and wont cave in.

Only 4 of the basses I have had needed the graduations re-done. Of the four, 3 of them top and back to various degrees and one the Top only. Also, several of the basses that I have or have passed thru my hands were already re-graduated when I got them. Some needed wood put back in as breast patches during restoration. Some were fine as-is and correctly corrected beforehand.

Tone results? All of the 4 that were done under my watch were improved.

I mention only 4 needed the work done. That is because these are mostly higher grade basses rather than factory German Shop basses for the most part. If you deal in French and German factory basses, your percentages will be higher in overly thick plates. It's quite common.

I have never had to thin down the Ribs of a bass. They all seemed just fine. Some had overly thick linings and correcting that was just enough. I have heard of Ribs up to 5mm that were taken down.

Sound results in most cases resulted in a deeper more even and musical sound. In one bass which was French it helps only a little as the sound of the wood and its design were pretty much unchangeable.

Think very carefully before taking wood out of a bass. You can never put it back in. Building the graduations back up from a bass that was overly thinned in areas is much harder to do than take wood away. The new wood will never age to sound exactly like the original missing wood.

[Thomas Erickson]

With the exception of the grossly thick bass, I tend to feel that the responsible path is to never remove wood from the plates just in an attempt to improve the bass. To assume that one has the knowledge and skill to make a poor sounding bass into a good one by irreversibly modifying it is immature at best; better to put the effort into repairing unserviceable basses or creating one of your own, and let time do what it will with the bass that doesn't sound so great by its nature. I'd rather generations of students abuse and ruin a lackluster bass in the course of learning than see the instrument butchered in search of a short-term "tone high".

And it's not just hungry luthiers who are to blame for this kind of butchery; I think way too many players are blaming the instrument for their own shortcomings, and that the majority should ask for little more than a bass with a proper setup. How many of us can honestly say that we get the most out of the instruments we have, anyway...

[Ken Smith]

A lot said here but let me take this apart somewhat..

Take two doors, make a set of ribs and shape the doors and glue them to teh ribs.. Barbaric as far as making a bass, right?

Well, many factory basses made and even some by hand were poorly graduated if at all. In this case, re-graduating is more a case of 'completing' the build of the bass since whatever shop, factory or person that tuend out this bass shaped doghouse didn't. So, you are just finishing the bass as if you bought an incomplete 'kit' that you finish at home.

That's one scenario..

Another is a full handmade bass that is left thick or un-even in some areas. In this case, the 'skilled Bass maker' (please, not just someone who fits bridges) careful does 'spot' re-graduations to correct a few areas that were left thick and might be dampening the sound of the plates.

I had one bass that was a masterpiece but made by a Violin/Cello maker. The plates were about twice the normal thickness. The arching was fairly high especially the back and the wood strong, dense, beautiful and just too darn thick. In this case we opted (the maker and me) to re-graduate the bass to about 20% over normal thickness just to be safe. The result was more depth than before, the bass was still ultra strong and the cutting power as good as before or better. This was an old bass with no cracks on the top and a mint condition round back.

The feared and last situation is when some wannabe or some real luthier thinks he knows more and takes a good bass and butchers it thinking he can improve a masters work. About 40 years ago I was talking to an old time pro from a top pro orchestra. He had an attributed 4/4 Maggini. It went in for repairs and the luthier notice that the top had a raised platform under the bassbar and around it like a deliberate support graduation. The luther at this point decided he knew more than Maggini according to the owner of the bass and shaved this support area away, gone. Made a bassbar (probably hugely sprung in as well) and delivered it to the owner. Soon after, the Top sunk from the alteration. The sprung bar (which this shop is infamous for) surely helped this sinkage to occur even faster. Butchery at its peak!

Now, as far as players go or whatever, I will leave that out of my response here. I just wanted to clarify that the graduations of a bass can be corrected at times and ruined as well at other times. When carved out too thin, new wood must be added back in and then hope for the best. I have owned basses that were restored for the better both ways from too much or too little. I avoid the big shops that might do the wrong thing or not give enough personal care or attention to detail.

[Adrian Levi]

I'm sure that there must be the exception ,for example a bass with an overly thick plate that sounds fantastic . Does anyone over here have such an instrument ? Also actual density of the top wood must be taken into account and may have been a valid reason for a luthier to keep a top a little thicker than usual.
I guess that the only reason to thin a top down must be in a last ditch attempt to improve on the sound of a poor sounding instrument after all else fails. And then what if (note I said 'if') a re-graduation actually makes an instrument sound worse , or introduces some other undesirable artifact to the sound

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Adrian Levi

I'm sure that there must be the exception ,for example a bass with an overly thick plate that sounds fantastic . Does anyone over here have such an instrument ? Also actual density of the top wood must be taken into account and may have been a valid reason for a luthier to keep a top a little thicker than usual.
I guess that the only reason to thin a top down must be in a last ditch attempt to improve on the sound of a poor sounding instrument after all else fails. And then what if (note I said 'if') a re-graduation actually makes an instrument sound worse , or introduces some other undesirable artifact to the sound

Things do not always work out for the best but to have a better chance of successful results a few things should be carefully considered first. You should know the sound of the bass as it is, know the species of wood, its strength and have experience with other similar type basses and/or woods in similar circumstances. Of two that I can recall that I knew the sound before I have seen one bass done (I didn't do them but owned them at one time or another) that had only slight but positive results and one that was improved quite a bit and continued to improve as other work was done as well. One of the problems in measuring this is all the other work you do within the same restoration.

The other factor is 'what is a good sounding bass to your ears' and how many great old classic basses have you heard in good or better condition that you compare a bass's sound to? A person's ears must be educated in my opinion in order to have a clue what he is shooting for at least.

I have seen people drool over plywood basses that to me sounded like a cardboard box. These same people might not know the difference in the quality of sound between a factory French bass and a master Italian Bass. It doesn't have that boom of a sound when slapped like that cardboard ply bass does.. So, you must be very familiar in the field in which you wish to improve the products of. If not, you may not be able to tell better from worse. Most people in life don't.

A few years ago before the laws changed here I walked into a Diner for breakfast and the teenage hostess said "smoking or non-smoking?".. I said "ask my kids, choking or no choking?". Then I lashed out and said "how can you even ask someone with two small children if they wanna kill their kids at the table with Smoke or not?... She had no clue and just didn't know the difference. It's not like the choice of juice is it?.. sorry for the off topic but from what I have seen, some Luthiers are no smarter or just don't care..

[Thomas Erickson]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

A lot said here but let me take this apart somewhat..

Take two doors, make a set of ribs and shape the doors and glue them to teh ribs.. Barbaric as far as making a bass, right?

Well, many factory basses made and even some by hand were poorly graduated if at all. In this case, re-graduating is more a case of 'completing' the build of the bass since whatever shop, factory or person that tuend out this bass shaped doghouse didn't. So, you are just finishing the bass as if you bought an incomplete 'kit' that you finish at home.

That's one scenario..

Another is a full handmade bass that is left thick or un-even in some areas. In this case, the 'skilled Bass maker' (please, not just someone who fits bridges) careful does 'spot' re-graduations to correct a few areas that were left thick and might be dampening the sound of the plates.

I had one bass that was a masterpiece but made by a Violin/Cello maker. The plates were about twice the normal thickness. The arching was fairly high especially the back and the wood strong, dense, beautiful and just too darn thick. In this case we opted (the maker and me) to re-graduate the bass to about 20% over normal thickness just to be safe. The result was more depth than before, the bass was still ultra strong and the cutting power as good as before or better. This was an old bass with no cracks on the top and a mint condition round back.

The feared and last situation is when some wannabe or some real luthier thinks he knows more and takes a good bass and butchers it thinking he can improve a masters work. About 40 years ago I was talking to an old time pro from a top pro orchestra. He had an attributed 4/4 Maggini. It went in for repairs and the luthier notice that the top had a raised platform under the bassbar and around it like a deliberate support graduation. The luther at this point decided he knew more than Maggini according to the owner of the bass and shaved this support area away, gone. Made a bassbar (probably hugely sprung in as well) and delivered it to the owner. Soon after, the Top sunk from the alteration. The sprung bar (which this shop is infamous for) surely helped this sinkage to occur even faster. Butchery at its peak!

Now, as far as players go or whatever, I will leave that out of my response here. I just wanted to clarify that the graduations of a bass can be corrected at times and ruined as well at other times. When carved out too thin, new wood must be added back in and then hope for the best. I have owned basses that were restored for the better both ways from too much or too little. I avoid the big shops that might do the wrong thing or not give enough personal care or attention to detail.

I think a lot of what is described here falls into what I would term "grossly thick" and thus, in skilled responsible hands, deserving of some alteration.

I probably get a little excited about the issue, but my main objection is to the regraduation of basses that are decent, average instruments in an attempt to get something extraordinary. Which, I think, happens more often than we might like to imagine as players look to improve instruments they already own, and shops look to make an easy sell of a bass that otherwise might sit around.

[Arnold Schnitzer]

Originally Posted by Thomas Erickson

I think a lot of what is described here falls into what I would term "grossly thick" and thus, in skilled responsible hands, deserving of some alteration.

I probably get a little excited about the issue, but my main objection is to the regraduation of basses that are decent, average instruments in an attempt to get something extraordinary. Which, I think, happens more often than we might like to imagine as players look to improve instruments they already own, and shops look to make an easy sell of a bass that otherwise might sit around.

And why is it wrong to take an average bass, likely graduated in a haphazard manner, and improve upon what's there? Is the player damaged by better tone? Is the instrument damaged by being better made? Granted, there do exist "luthiers" who would do the world a favor by having their digits surgically removed. But I don't see the harm in trying to improve on a mediocre sound, providing the practitioner knows what he/she is doing.