I had a thought yesterday, and had time on my hands so I did a somewhat illustration of the idea.

http://img38.photobucket.com/albums/v116/artistanbul/basson.jpg

basic idea is a longer body to increase the tension, while having a regular scale fingerboard. the rest is mostly aesthetical. so dont mind them much (especially the soundhole :rolleyes: )

what do you think about it? would the body hold? Would it work? Does back horn seem too fragile? What? Tell me.

edited the image...

Hey! I too had the same Idea about increasing the tension by extending the body but it screws the fretting up badly, like people told me (I actually tried it with scrap wood, didn't work for me, maybe its just me. I'm still trying to work on something like it though) Have you any ideas? I'm liking your body shape! Head stock is very classy, would change the horns though.
THanks
Troy

Absoultely beautiful.

i like the design. but i think it would look better if the little "kick" on the end of the headstock was also on the top horn. and would you have a brdige just behind the rear pup? otherwise it is still longer scale and so requiring (sp?) long scale board. if the bridge was just beond the rear pup with the extented strings behind the bridge would give you the idea you seemed to have explained. from what i have read and experienced the string length behind the breaking points of the sting makes little difference. but i could be wrong.

but yeah i like the deign. not for me, but its very nice.

Yeah a bridge was supposed to be there.. just like tuners and stuff... :) so you think this may work?

i cant see any reason why it wouldnt.

Looks... different? :D Well, it looks cool. Really :)
I'd rather the treble side horn be a bit more refined though. Right now it seems rather chunky.

I think you'd be able to get more educated/experienced answers regarding the length/fret issue.
Why not a fretless? ;)

With string lengths like that, a standard sized neck wouldn't work.

The pitches would be all different.

And I like the body shape, except the end of it, if it were just rounded off like a normal double cut away bass, I'd think it would be sweet.

Nice design though.

I thought it could change the pitch... so having a bridge on regular position and strectching the rest wont do it? Oh well...

I had a thought yesterday, and had time on my hands so I did a somewhat illustration of the idea.

basic idea is a longer body to increase the tension, while having a regular scale fingerboard. the rest is mostly aesthetical. so dont mind them much (especially the soundhole :rolleyes: )

what do you think about it? would the body hold? Would it work? Does back horn seem too fragile? What? Tell me.

edited the image...

Surprisingly, I like the body. Usually, I'm not big on avant-garde shapes, but that one is smooth and well-balanced. Some bad news for you, though. Lengthening the strings behind the bridge is not going to increase the tension. It's the distance between the nut and the bridge that determines how tight the string will be. If it's a 34-inch scale, the strings will have the same tension as a bass with normal bridge placement.

With string lengths like that, a standard sized neck wouldn't work.

The pitches would be all different.

And I like the body shape, except the end of it, if it were just rounded off like a normal double cut away bass, I'd think it would be sweet.
It'll work just fine like that. It's the bridge location that determines the effective length of the string. The extra stuff behind the bridge looks cool, but won't do anything else. He may have trouble finding strings for it, though.

ok. so how about having some kind of a saddle behind the rear pup, and then setting the strings to the rail bridges at the rear?

something like this to give a little arc..
http://img38.photobucket.com/albums/v116/artistanbul/basssaddle.jpg

http://www.ritter-basses.com/ritter-basses-baesse/ritter-basses-jupiter.htm

is this the kind of idea your thinking of? i think there is no point in using the monorail bridges as all you need back there is an anchoring point. with a bridge 34" from the nut.

wow, yes thats the idea... So it helps putting tension on strings? or is it just cosmetics.. lots of guitars also have something similar to this. with much shorter length after the saddle though..

i guess you are refering the gibson style guitar bridges? these are not quite the same idea. as most bridges have a length of string behind the saddles. your idea seem to spefically be to lengthen the string behind the bridge to increase tension. i have no idea if this wpuld work, but as far as i can tell its the breaking length of the string, between the nut and bridge, which determines tension.

take a look at warrior basses. They use an extended B and E string design on some basses which go throught the body out the back of the bass.

Great Design I see Mr Ritter has got undernieth ur skin as well..

The point at where the strings make contact on the Saddles and the Nut Determin the scale lenght i.e 34" between nut and Saddle..th eextenders do nothing for the scale :)...they are simple anchore to achive good tension again Mr Ritter has a similar design as do Warwick...seperate Bridge and Saddle...I am sure the Bride can be place wherever as long as the saddles are in the right place...throw it over to the Luither's if ur unsure..

The Design is great.. I really can see it in Walnut with a Cocobola finberboard would look yummie oor maybe lotsa Maple..:)...


Keep it goin.!!!

THAT will sell....

well, the fact that its been done makes me feel good :)
I've not seen a ritter before. what a good idea eh? :D
Oh and ZenBass thanks for advice on putting this on luthier forum.

Like Munji said, lengthening the strings behind the bridge or the nut will not increase the tension on the strings.

It would be mostly cosmetic, though I imagine it will still affect the sound... either through the massive body or the fact that the tension of the strings will change differently while they're vibrating.

Geoff

well, the tension of the strings is a function of pitch and mass per unit length between the bridge and nut, so that won't change, but the perceived tightness or floppiness of the string will be changed. this is a function of how well the string is anchored in the saddle along with the actual tension of the string. ideally you'd have something very resonant, very heavy and very hard clamping down on each side of the string. like two brass anvils. heh, probably have a lot of neck dive that way, though. :)

The tension would be the same unless you changed the distance between the nut and the saddles. I think adding extra length outside that region would make the string feel floppier. For a feeling of greater tension, the trick is to change the angle the string makes after passing over the saddles and nut. Or, Like John said, clamp the strings at the bridge and nut. In my opinion, clamping at the nut would result in uneven sustain when you compared open and fretted notes, but maybe not. That's just a guess.

I did a somewhat illustration of the idea.

nice work!

f

With strings that long behind the bridge they will tend to start producing their own note and cancel out some frequencies on the main string segment which could actually make the bass sound worse. Its not necessary and you will have a hard if not impossible time finding a case for it.

Great rendering. What software did you use to create i?

Nice design as well.

I really like the design, very cool.

As to the subject of the string tension, I am not certain as to the results but numerous magazines I have read state that increasing the distance after the bridge saddle or topnut improves tension. This is why a lot of electric guitars have extended tailpieces right to the bottom edge of the guitar, it is also why a lot of heavy metal guitars have reversed headstocks, so there is more tension in the lower strings for when they are detuned. Now I know these are all 6 string examples but the principles still apply.

I looked into this myself and one warning I would give is that if you were to use strings intended for 34" scale there would not be enough wound string to fit within the scale length. I measured a couple of sets of strings and found that the fabric covering started too soon at the tuner end for the bridges tail piece to be moved too far back. You can increase the distance at the headstock end without much problem, but there are limits at the bridge end without having to get different strings.

Good luck if you do choose to build it.

H

As to the subject of the string tension, I am not certain as to the results but numerous magazines I have read state that increasing the distance after the bridge saddle or topnut improves tension.
Unfortunately, they did not do their research. It will not increase tension. It will not even seem to increase it. Increased angles after the nut and bridge will not increase it either, but they will at least seem to increase it.

As to the subject of the string tension, I am not certain as to the results but numerous magazines I have read state that increasing the distance after the bridge saddle or topnut improves tension. This is why a lot of electric guitars have extended tailpieces right to the bottom edge of the guitar, it is also why a lot of heavy metal guitars have reversed headstocks, so there is more tension in the lower strings for when they are detuned. Now I know these are all 6 string examples but the principles still apply.


Increasing tension by adding length outside the speaking length of the strings is a red herring. What it can do is change the way a string reacts as it is bent. Since the string can slide over most bridge saddles or nuts (locking nuts and saddles notwithstanding), the additional string length can come into play on huge bends, and to a lesser extent any time the string is flexed by the player. This is -- I believe (could be wrong) -- why the metal guitar people experimented with reverse headstocks.

You both could very well be correct, I am merely paraphrasing the information that I have come across from various magazines. These publications could very well be wrong, it just seemed unlikely to me that reviews from different magazines of the same instruments would give the same reasons, unless of course the manufacturers are providing incorrect information to the journalists.

As I said I geniunely am not sure on the issue of string tension, I tried checking in my Physics text books to get an idea on this but could not get a conclusive argument. I think it is unlikely to improve tension in the strings, if anything it will probably just alter the tension in the length of string after the nut or bridge saddle. Put simply if it had a major effect on the tension then all headless basses would have very floppy strings!

Look in any physics book tht includes string behavior. You will find that the four interrelated variables are tension, mass per unit length, speaking length, and vibrating frequency.