Can some one explain something about Prescott's to me?

[Eli_Upright12]

I was wondering, and please dont take any of this as offense, why are Prescotts so great sounding? They at least from my perspective seem sort of crudely made in relation to other basses of the same era, I havent seen any that were really all that symmetric. It just confuses me a little, is there something internal about them that is well done? it justt seems to me like the most sharply, neatly made bass would be the best.

[Matthew Tucker]

Originally Posted by Eli_Upright12

it just seems to me like the most sharply, neatly made bass would be the best.

Why?

[Barron]

Originally Posted by Eli_Upright12

They at least from my perspective seem sort of crudely made in relation to other basses of the same era, I havent seen any that were really all that symmetric. It just confuses me a little, is there something internal about them that is well done? it justt seems to me like the most sharply, neatly made bass would be the best.

The same exact thing is said about the best of the Stradivari.


Mark of the maker is rarely perfect, and hard to duplicate. Especially with machines.

[Uncletoad]

I've played a couple Prescott basses and found the tone very compelling. Deep, rich and powerful. When set up properly they are formidable instruments in any context.

There are many instruments reported to be Prescott's that are actually made by other Yankee builders. Many of those are not as good sounding and as such dilute the "brand" Prescott. In addition these are basses that have seen a great deal of repair and modification over the years, some work better than others. Perhaps this is some of what you have seen.

Compared to the better Italian and French and English basses from the same time they can appear not as refined from a pure construction point of view. They do have a signature tone that distinguishes them from the Italian, English, French makers. Until lately they haven't commanded near the same prices either.

Most of the basses I've seen made prior to the 20th century are all a good distance away from straight and symmetrical, even if they started that way they don't end up that way over time. My bass doesn't come close to symmetrical, it doesn't lay flat on it's side and one side is clearly different than the other. Doesn't stop it from sounding like a cannon.

[Eli_Upright12]

Thanks Toad, so how do they compare structurally with the english and french basses. Is there a feature that gives them there tone? I know some times people point to the wood of an era and area as one reason. Or could a specific style of carving the top, ribs and back create this effect?

[Eli_Upright12]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

Why?

I dont know, it seems sort of intuitive. Like if you spent your whole life make incredible instruments you would figure out tricks to make them look very refined. The same way we as bassist mature as players over time and become better bassists over time.

[Uncletoad]

Originally Posted by Eli_Upright12

Thanks Toad, so how do they compare structurally with the english and french basses. Is there a feature that gives them there tone? I know some times people point to the wood of an era and area as one reason. Or could a specific style of carving the top, ribs and back create this effect?

I dunno.

[Eli_Upright12]

Originally Posted by Uncletoad

I dunno.

thanks anyways, I figure its the reason why people study the stradivarius instruments so much. There is something a little bit intangible, that if everyone was able to reproduce, it would take all the fun out of instrument making.

[Uncletoad]

Originally Posted by Eli_Upright12

thanks anyways, I figure its the reason why people study the stradivarius instruments so much. There is something a little bit intangible, that if everyone was able to reproduce, it would take all the fun out of instrument making.

Could be.

Ask Ken Smith. He's never short on opinions.

[Eli_Upright12]

haha very true, though its getting hard to find him anywhere these days, let alone here.

[Matthew Tucker]

Originally Posted by Eli_Upright12

if you spent your whole life make incredible instruments you would figure out tricks to make them look very refined.

What I don't get is that you seem to relate the sound of the instrument to the way it looks. But there isn't anything that says the way an instrument looks will have any bearing at all on what it sounds like.

Personally, I don't find symmetry attractive at all. Balance and proportion, yes, but not symmetry. And I'm not convinced that perfect symmetry is at all important in making good tone. Quite the opposite.

As far as Prescotts go, I would guess that his secret was knowing how to choose his wood and how to carve the plates just right. That's an art, not a science. And if it could be identified and duplicated, everyone would be doing it ...

[arnoldschnitzer]

I have seen, heard and worked on several Prescott basses, though I am certainly not a Prescott scholar. To my eye, there are as many differences as similarities between them. Some sounded great, some mediocre. I believe the Prescott shop did a lot of experimenting with models, archings, wood, etc. These experiments resulted in some excellent, some fair instruments, IMHO. Just because a bass is attributed to a certain maker does not make it great. I read above that Prescott's work was crude. Not true. The detail work has a certain New England simplicity, but it is very well done, especially the scroll carving and top plate carving. By the way, some of you may have seen Prescotts and other Yankee basses with attached f-holes. It is commonly thought that this was done to prevent tops from collapsing. I have a different opinion. I think this was done as a way of preventing wolf tones, because most basses I've played that still have the f's attached had little or no wolfiness. Unfortunately, this technique also tends to squash the bottom end some. I restored a Woodbury bass several years ago, and it sounded thin. I made the decision to open up the f-hole attachments, and the difference was night and day. I hope I have not derailed this good thread...

[drurb]

Thanks for all the expert insights, Arnold. Included in your list of what makes a Prescott a Prescott and not highlighted very much here as a factor is the shape/size of the body, i.e., the physical dimensions of the resonating cavity. My understanding is that that is, perhaps, the most important factor determining the sonic character of a bass.

[Dr Rod]

Originally Posted by Uncletoad

Compared to the better Italian and French and English basses from the same time they can appear not as refined from a pure construction point of view.

I agree with the Toad on the French and English. However, some of the best Italian basses I have played were pretty crudely constructed: Mutli-piece tops, the grain going every which way, knots in the back, asymmetrical etc..

I will not say "ugly" because I actually found their imperfections beautiful. But I could see how some people might not like the way they look.

[arnoldschnitzer]

Originally Posted by drurb

Thanks for all the expert insights, Arnold. Included in your list of what makes a Prescott a Prescott and not highlighted very much here as a factor is the shape/size of the body, i.e., the physical dimensions of the resonating cavity. My understanding is that that is, perhaps, the most important factor determining the sonic character of a bass.

I would rate the body cavity volume as important. Just as important are the instrument's body design and the characteristics of the resonating plates, not to mention neck stiffness and set, weight, flexibility, bass bar, string length, strings, set-up and of course, the player. I don't believe there is a single characteristic that determines how an instrument will sound and respond, but instead that the multiple parts and the way they are assembled works in a sort of "gestalt" manner to give each instrument a unique tone and response.

[Eli_Upright12]

Originally Posted by Matthew Tucker

What I don't get is that you seem to relate the sound of the instrument to the way it looks. But there isn't anything that says the way an instrument looks will have any bearing at all on what it sounds like.

Personally, I don't find symmetry attractive at all. Balance and proportion, yes, but not symmetry. And I'm not convinced that perfect symmetry is at all important in making good tone. Quite the opposite.

As far as Prescotts go, I would guess that his secret was knowing how to choose his wood and how to carve the plates just right. That's an art, not a science. And if it could be identified and duplicated, everyone would be doing it ...

I'm not saying that what it looks like creates the sound, but frankly if I was going to make a design for a bass that I thought would create the best sound, it would probably be something that has symmetry, this just seems intuitive to me. I'm not saying that the workmanship is shoddy, but when I see the prescotts, I often think, "well it looks like he made a model of what he wanted to do out of clay, then smooshed it a bit on each side."

[drurb]

Originally Posted by arnoldschnitzer

I would rate the body cavity volume as important. Just as important are the instrument's body design and the characteristics of the resonating plates, not to mention neck stiffness and set, weight, flexibility, bass bar, string length, strings, set-up and of course, the player. I don't believe there is a single characteristic that determines how an instrument will sound and respond, but instead that the multiple parts and the way they are assembled works in a sort of "gestalt" manner to give each instrument a unique tone and response.

Well, of course there are many factors that combine to produce the sound of a particular bass. I was suggesting a weighting as I've heard it said that the design and shape of the body is a primary determinant, perhaps moreso than other single factors. Please note that I did not refer to the cavity volume, per se, but rather to the whole of physical dimensions of the body.

[Barron]

Originally Posted by Eli_Upright12

I'm not saying that what it looks like creates the sound, but frankly if I was going to make a design for a bass that I thought would create the best sound, it would probably be something that has symmetry, this just seems intuitive to me.

I disagree. I'm no luthier, but it seems to be counterintuitive to aim for perfect symmetry in an instrument that aims for sweet highs and deep bass, and has different string tension across the soundboard like the violin family does. Ideally you want wider grain on the bass side, a little more rib depth, and thicker plates /bass bar construction.

Seems like asymmetry is the way to go with these things. If you can do that work with wood selection and interior construction while making the exterior symmetrical to the layman's eye, then I guess you have yourself a masterpiece. My guess if most benchmade instruments go for sound and playability first, looks last.

Just a conjecture, but I've never seen a symmetrical grand piano before either.

[drurb]

It's not as if there are not centuries of experience and even real science that has been conducted about this. No need to speculate.

[Matthew Tucker]

It's not as if there are not centuries of experience and even real science that has been conducted about this. No need to speculate.

I'm interested in what science has given you the understanding that the dimensions of a bass's body is the most important factor in the sonic character of a bass? That sounds like speculation to me but I'm very willing to consider scientific findings.