The effect of the shape of the bass on the sound.

[ZH_Driver]

Morning all. I have had a quick search and have not found much talking about how different shaped basses sound. I am saving up for my first bass after being an electric basses for a while now, and I am trying to determine exactly what I want.
I see talk about the shoulders being a certain shape, and the bottom being a certain shape etc. I'd love to know what the effect of these different shapes are.
For instance, do some features on the bodies give a smoother sound and some give a punchier sound?
I am a complete novice in this regard so any info people have, or any links would be a great help.
Thanks

[mjt0229]

It would be tempting to say that instruments with large bodies or long string lengths sound better than smaller instruments or instruments with shorter string lengths.

But that wouldn't be true.

Basically, what you're looking for is the ability to "see" what a bass would sound like from looking at a photograph, which is ultimately futile. The problem is that there are so many factors that go into the sound of an instrument, and virtually none of them are visible. For example, the woods, the quality of the construction, the the thickness of the top, the quality of the setup, the strings, the bracing, etc, etc.

Some people claim that roundbacks and flatbacks sound different, but I don't think that the difference is distinguishable when you consider the fact that no two basses of the same design will necessarily sound alike.

(ed. grammar)

[Bass]

Basses with violin corners sound better.

[toman]

Originally Posted by Bass

Basses with violin corners sound better.

+1

lol...

But seriously, I don't think the actual shape is going to affect the sound nearly as much as any number of other variables like volume, plate size, graduations, arching, materials used, strings, mensure/angles/tension and on and on. Not to mention the player himself; I've seen plenty of guys with nice basses who sound awful and the great players I know can pull a monster tone out of about anything.

[ZH_Driver]

I should probably clarify that I'm not really up to speed with the terminology, for instance "Violin Corners". That said I think my question has been answered though.

I've heard of 'French-style' shoulders. I'm guess those are the basses without any…

[Dogbertday]

ba-zing...

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Well first of all are you looking to buy your first 'new' Bass, build a Bass or shop for an old Orchestra Bass to play in the Symphony?

I have heard great Basses in most shapes with or without Violin Corners. On the 'French shoulders' that refers to smaller sloped upper bouts.

I will show some pictures below showing;
1]French shoulders (with Violin corners, the points), 2]Cello shoulders,
3]Maggini/d'Salo shoulders as copied by the English, some other Italians and the Italian/London converted Panormo, 4]Violin shoulders,
5]Sloped Gamba shoulders, 6]Broad Gamba shoulders,
7]Small/short lower Bouts and 8]long/huge Lower bouts.

I have used the 'Back' shots only to keep it simple.






And the last, the Italian Cornerless/Guitar shape (also copied by the Spanish)


Now, at any time depending on the actual Bass all of the above can be superior in tone and volume output with maybe the exception of the French sloped model which was intended as a Solo Bass mainly.

Unless you are playing in a professional Symphony Orchestra, the shapes will not matter as far as sound goes for you as a beginner especially if you are using an Amp. What is more important is a shape you can play. Some are small and some are huge. Some are wide and some are deep. All of the Basses I've shown above except one are old Basses with the first (French) being early 20th century. The rest are 18th-19th century Basses for mainly professional Orchestras.

[mjt0229]

Ken, I keep meaning to ask this. I'm assuming that bass #7 is your Batchelder, right? It always looks in pictures like the bass is ever so slightly assymetrical. The curve of the top of the upper right bout (right when you're looking from the back) always looks like it's cut away just a little bit.

Are my eyes deceiving me?

All of those instruments are beautiful, by the way - I never get sick of seeing pictures of them.

[toman]

Looks that way to me, too. Kind of odd; usually we see the opposite, no?

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by mjt0229

Ken, I keep meaning to ask this. I'm assuming that bass #7 is your Batchelder, right? It always looks in pictures like the bass is ever so slightly asymmetrical. The curve of the top of the upper right bout (right when you're looking from the back) always looks like it's cut away just a little bit.

Are my eyes deceiving me?

All of those instruments are beautiful, by the way - I never get sick of seeing pictures of them.

Yes, it's my beloved Batchelder Bass.

The funny thing is that when I picked out the Basses to show each shape I mentioned the Prescott who is related to Batchelder by marriage ended up next to it.

I believe that the Batchelder is totally handmade without the use of any molds. The Back is double thick with a half channel cut away all around the the outer profile for the Ribs to rest on and be bent around. This style or building which is similar to Prescott allows the Back to act as a bending form. Luckily the asymmetrical shape favors the G-side Bout for 'climbing' over the shoulders. Overall size aside, the upper Bout of the Batchelder is 21" wide which is 1/4" wider than my large 7/8ths Morelli and is larger across than most Basses of any size.

The Lower Bout is on the short side as mentioned but I believe that the larger upper Bout is what's helping this Bass sound so good. With an Eb-Neck it's such a fun Bass to play even with all the other greats I have around.

[Bass]

Originally Posted by toman

...I've seen plenty of guys with nice basses who sound awful...

No doubt I sound awful, I've only been playing a couple years, and have trouble with tone especially on the D / G strings.

Ken, thanks for the very interesting photos. Maybe I'm a dummy - I don't really see the difference between 2, 3 & 4.

Yeah, cutaway and assymetrical on bass 7 for sure.

[mjt0229]

Originally Posted by Bass

No doubt I sound awful, I've only been playing a couple years, and have trouble with tone especially on the D / G strings.

Ken, thanks for the very interesting photos. Maybe I'm a dummy - I don't really see the difference between 2, 3 & 4.

Yeah, cutaway and assymetrical on bass 7 for sure.

The Panormo shape (#3) is really distinctive. Look at how the bouts flatten out at the top, and the heel projects vertically above them. The difference between 2 & 4 also lies in the heel shape, although they're more similar to each other than to the Panormo.

My teacher plays on a Panormo copy and I'm always amazed when I see it just how large it is, but my teacher (who's barely taller than I am) has great access to the upper registers because it narrows so much at the top.

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Bass

No doubt I sound awful, I've only been playing a couple years, and have trouble with tone especially on the D / G strings.

Ken, thanks for the very interesting photos. Maybe I'm a dummy - I don't really see the difference between 2, 3 & 4.

Yeah, cutaway and assymetrical on bass 7 for sure.

Ok, I will try and explain and show them side by side;


Also, look at the profiles as well;


The first is the Gilkes with almost no taper on the Rib depths(tapers from 8" to 7 1/2" at the Neck).
The Second is the Hart with an extreme angle break(tapers from 7 7/8" to 5 1/4" at the Neck).
Third is the Dodd with an angle break but not as much as the Hart(tapers from 7 1/2" to 6 1/4" at the Neck).

The Gilkes made in 1814 was slightly Cut at the shoulders about 60 years later but still looks close to a full Cello shape along with a Cello shaped roundback which is quite rare for an English Bass. This however is the only known Bass by Gilkes and is labeled and branded as well. The Hart was a Maggini copy or forgery c.1830. The Dodd c.1800 is more of a Violin Shape than a Cello to my eye on the upper Bouts but more so the relations of all bouts. Just imaging that body with a Violin neck and bridge. It fits in my mind.

All three of the Basses above are from the London School made within each others lifetime. Although the Dodd is older, most of his Basses were made by Fendt and Lott Snrs. I was originally told it was a Betts Bass but that was strongly contradicted. If it was Betts, then it still could have been made by Fendt Snr. or even Panormo as they both worked for Betts. All in all, these are three master grade London Basses each with a slightly different idea as to what shape a Bass should be.

The Dodd had the thickest low end but slightly woody on the top which is not uncommon for the English. The Gilkes has an amazing low/clear spread with a wide color range. The Hart has a little of both the lows and clarity but with an unbelievable sweetness to the tone. More Italian sounding that any English Bass I have played. Hart by the way was the apprentice of Gilkes but made just after his death.

The Varnishes on all three are to die for. The Dodd, a true Italian formula but more durable. The Gilkes as well with more of a Strad flavor to it and the Hart made to look as if it was an older Brescian Bass. Maybe it was ordered antiqued as the outer red is crackled over the London gold undercoat.

Each Scroll is a work of art in itself as well as the FFs cut in each Top. Totally individual, all three Basses.

[ZH_Driver]

Wow! Thanks for all the info Ken. The education begins!

[Bass]

Originally Posted by ZH_Driver

Wow! Thanks for all the info Ken...

+1 Many thanks!

I see it now, taper and the heel.

[KSB - Ken Smith]

To make things a bit more clear even let me give you some measurements because the pictures don't show them side by side in the same shot.

The biggest of those 3 is the Hart with a Top length (end to end) of 44 3/8". The Dodd is next at 43 3/4" for the Top and the Gilkes is the baby..lol.. at 43 3/4 as well but not as wide as the Dodd. The Dodd is the widest at the bottom with the Hart the widest at the Top and the Gilkes has the deepest Ribs. The angle break on the Hart is much higher up (like Maggini/d'Salo) than the Dodd is and that too affects the cubic air space inside as well as the feel and playability.

I would have liked to play them side by side but the Dodd was sold before the Gilkes came out of restoration and before the Hart was even o the bench. I did play them before the Gilkes was restored but the Bass is so different now. I have played the Hart and Gilkes after both restorations side by side and they are quite different in many ways. The String lengths are all different as well. The Gilkes 41", Dodd 41 1/2" and Hart at 41 3/4" but with an Eb Neck, the others with a D.

Many many factors go into Basses other than just what the eye meets at a glance. These include the Arching of the top, species of the woods and their variations, the relationship of the Bouts to each other. The Thicknesses of the Plates with their Graduations. The Rib depth and thickness of them as well and also an overlooked part is the C-bouts. The internal blocks and linings also play a role in the tone, trust me on that one. The C-Bouts can be long or short and cut shallow or deep. The Corners being Viol/Gamba or Violin/points are less important than the shape, size and Cut of the C-bouts in my opinion.

The Dodd defies many theories concerning size and shape. The Dodd has the shallowest Ribs of the 3 Basses and the longest C-bouts. It has been reported that longer C-bouts slow longitudinal vibrations down or rather interrupt them on the Top and Back plates. Also, deeper Ribs produce more depth of tone.. Right? You think?

Well of the Basses I have owned only the Storioni (Guitar shaped Bass above) competes in depth and power of sound within my collection past and present of the Dodd. The Storioni has a very wide center bout of 16 3/8" at its narrowest point as compared to the Dodd at 14 7/17", the Hart at 14 1/2" and the Gilkes at 15 1/4".

The narrowest and widest have the best depth of tone with the Dodd in 2nd place there but 1st place in punch with depth. The hart is smoother on the Bottom than the Gilkes with the Gilkes being the punchiest of all. (oops.. did I mention the Prescott? All bets are off.. lol)

With 4 great old Basses to study here at a combined estimated age of 808 years (202 yrs old each on average) we still can't say exactly what makes it sound like it does. The wood, the shape, the size, the graduation, the varnish, the condition?.. etc, etc.. etcccc

So.. A Thread Topic like this can never ever have an exact scientific learned answer other than, these is no answer!

One can speculate from reading about, playing a Bass here and there etc. but I happed to have owned and played theses (often side by side) as well as many many other Basses from crap to Godly and can say only this to the original question..

I just don't know?

[Paul Warburton]

You are a prince Kenny Boy.

[mheintz]

Can huge lower bouts compensate for smaller shoulders? If so, is there a reason that we don't see more such basses?

Pöllmann Alexandria


Arnold's Ergonomic Contrabass

[KSB - Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Paul Warburton

You are a prince Kenny Boy.

Crown me!

[arnoldschnitzer]

Originally Posted by mheintz

Can huge lower bouts compensate for smaller shoulders? If so, is there a reason that we don't see more such basses?

Pöllmann Alexandria


Arnold's Ergonomic Contrabass

My "Ergonomic" bass does not have small shoulders. It has offset shoulders, which are about 20" wide. Nor does it have a huge lower bout. It's about 27". The top is also a bit wider than the back in the upper bouts because the ribs taper in toward the back. I personally do not usually like the tone of basses which are small on top and large on the bottom. My design was intended to avoid that configuration.