How does playing a DB improve the sound?

[400$Bass]

I have heard it say that when an instrument in the violin family is played, in time it makes the instrument sound better. Will someone explain to me what takes place with the instrument that allows this to happen? I would like to know the theory behind this premis.

Please respond.

aka "Foaty"

[wildhorse]

This is from the an Acoustic Guitar websight. I imagine it's the same for violins or any solid top stringed instrument:
Aging
How about this? You buy a new TV and it's great but it keeps getting better the more you watch it! Okay, that's not likely to happen with your TV but it will happen with your solid top guitar. A solid top vibrates much more freely than a laminated (plywood) top. This results in richer tone, better dynamic range and better balance of tone. Not only does a solid top sound better initially, over time the vibrations from playing the guitar result in the top vibrating more and more freely. This phenomenon is called 'aging' which means that the more the guitar is played, the better the guitar will sound. It is important to remember in order for a guitar to age it must be played. A guitar left in its case for 5 years will get older, but it will not 'age'.

[D McCartney]

I'm curious about this too. I think it is likely that instruments get better with age but I wonder...
Have there been objective studies, say, record two new basses in a studio, and then play only one for 20 years, then rerecord both using the same recording equipment, and then compare results?

over time the vibrations from playing the guitar result in the top vibrating more and more freely.

Something about the way the cells of wood connect to each other?

[Gary Lynch]

I do not know the science. But I have played to identical model basses, one was new and not played much yet, still for sale. The other was played 5 nights a week for 8 months. I was astonished to hear the difference in tone! The one that was played nightly sounded much different. It certainly had opened up and was obviously more tuneful.

I do not know if this is B.S. but I have read that if you keep you bass or guitar close to your stereo, radio or CD speakers, that small amount of vibration will act on the top as well. The idea is that it will help break it in, open it up.

[Nagrom]

Gee, I don't know about this guys. I've certainly heard a lot of guitars & basses that sounded much better when they weren't being played.

[jsbarber]

Originally Posted by D McCartney

... Something about the way the cells of wood connect to each other?

My theory is that: since wood is made of fibers, as the wood vibrates the fibers rub against each other. The abrasive action of the fibers rubbing on each other smooths out the fibers, so over time they generate less friction as they rub enabling the wood to vibrate more freely/clearly generating a nicer tone. I suspect that there may also be something going on with the sap, or whatever you call the liquid in the wood. It may change chemically, and may also pick up little pieces of material from the fibers as they vibrate. I have heard it said that older wood has less moisture in it. I'm not sure I understand this as I would think the internal humidity would equilibrate with the air surrounding it as the external humidiy fluctuates. But maybe there is a change in how the moisture is stored in the wood.

Some thoughts,

Jim

[ole Jason]

I don't recall who came up with the idea but I've read about people putting a solid top instrument in front of a subwoofer and playing tones that will vibrate the top to artificially 'age' the instrument.

I guess scientifically it makes sense but it's not as romantic as playing an instrument every day for years

[Jazzdogg]

Originally Posted by jsbarber

My theory is that: since wood is made of fibers, as the wood vibrates the fibers rub against each other. The abrasive action of the fibers rubbing on each other smooths out the fibers, so over time they generate less friction as they rub enabling the wood to vibrate more freely/clearly generating a nicer tone. I suspect that there may also be something going on with the sap, or whatever you call the liquid in the wood. It may change chemically, and may also pick up little pieces of material from the fibers as they vibrate. I have heard it said that older wood has less moisture in it. I'm not sure I understand this as I would think the internal humidity would equilibrate with the air surrounding it as the external humidiy fluctuates. But maybe there is a change in how the moisture is stored in the wood.

Some thoughts,

Jim

There you have it - a completely scientific explanation! Look no further!

[kaybass1952]

Check this article out (by Rick Turner)
http://www.acousticguitar.com/gear/a...ibration.shtml

[casanova2416]

http://liutaiomottola.com/myth/played.htm

Correlation does not represent causation. This article essentially says that not enough research has been performed to say yes or no, though so for it the evidence points to other factors, such as good instruments being played more. Then it's a case of the chicken and the egg.

[M Ramsey]

Well, there it is. In printed form on the internet. So, I suppose we can put this puppy to bed and never again expect to see it discussed or written about, except if they decide to included it in a new edition of Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Now, where do I find Fitzgerald's sarcasm meter?

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by M Ramsey

Well, there it is. In printed form on the internet. So, I suppose we can put this puppy to bed and never again expect to see it discussed or written about, except if they decide to included it in a new edition of Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Now, where do I find Fitzgerald's sarcasm meter?

Ask and ye shall receive.

Here's and old thread that might prove useful to the topic at hand.

[Paul Warburton]

Most info here sounds sensible. Here's a take on this I saw on an old PBS Nova show many years back. They had a good violinist play on a new high quality fiddle. Sounded good. Then they had him play the same stuff on a Strad. The sound was warmer, richer and darker. VERY much so. They asked the player about the "feel". The obvious was stated. He said the new fiddle felt restrained and tight, and that it "fought" what he was doing. The Strad stepped up in every category, to let his playing flow. Conclusion? Loose vs tight. In sound and execution.
Scientific experiment to follow.....they rigged up a hgh tech camera with some kind of pick-up on the fiddle to translate the sound into a visual picture of what was going on inside the wood(s). The player played the new fiddle first. In a small area, right under the treble side bridge area, was a bunch of squiggley things that reminded me of sperm shots I'd seen. (no smart-ass comments, thank you very much.) They were huddled together and wiggled around with greater intensity under the sound of the bow.
They, then, handed our guy the Strad. The shot said it all....the "sperm" were molecules. They traveled freely all through the top plate(s). They had carved paths, like living rivers through the wood of the top, from the center to the edges, all the way, up, down and sideways. Reminded me of blood traveling through veins. They were free to travel. Not so much that the Strad was old, but because it had been played alot, allowing the molecules to carve their pathways.
Pretty damn cool huh, foaty sent? (Edism for 400$.)
Anyways, the "moisture" aspect that Jim alludes to in his post is important to me. Seems players are always trying to avoid cracking issues by over moisturizing their basses with gizmos. The DRYER the wood....the more open the sound. Just remember the "acclimation" rule. Slow and careful to your local weather. I think I'd live in Colorado just because my bass sounds so geat here.

[Sam Sherry]

Man, I keep hoping that somebody who's built a lot will chime in. In the meantime here's more ignorant unscientific internet malarkey.

Scant Qualifications To Opine: Over the years I've been privileged to be the first owner of two brand-new basses and another sporting a brand-new top. I played zillions of out-of-the-box acoustic guitars when I was a store "luthier" -- mostly crap, but some rawther nice.

Kernels of Fact: All DB and guitars are made of multiple pieces of wood, glued together. All are covered in chemical finishes, whether oil varnish, alcohol / "spirit" varnish, lacquer, or other crap.

First-Hand Observation: The changes when a string instrument is strung and played for the first time are dramatic in the first few hours, substantial in the first few days, noticeable in the first few weeks and perceptible over the first half-year.

Controversial Personal Conclusion: After six months your new bass sounds about like it's going to sound for the next ten to xxx years, not accounting for sonic changes resulting from damage, repair, setup, modification, or personal sound and style.

Utterly Unscientific Speculation:
1) As a new string instrument gets played the adhesives holding the parts together loosen a bit -- not so much that things fall apart, but enough that the pieces can vibrate differently.

2) Most finishes have bases which evaporate. 99.99% of the base may evaporate quickly but that still leaves a tiny amount which evaporates less-quickly, leaving a substance which is minutely or marginally less-flexible absent any other factor.

3) Speculation Alert: Perhaps the factor is that as a proper string-family finish vibrates over time with the wood it covers, the finish moves more like the wood moves, and becomes less of a damper on the wood's vibration. (As the plastic coating on an 80s Takamine goes through the years it remains suitable for serving drinks in a bar.)

4) People get very emotionally-involved in their string instrument and hear things that are not apparent to those who are not quite as emotionally-involved in that particular instrument.

OK, go ahead. Hit me.

[bobalew]

Originally Posted by Nagrom

Gee, I don't know about this guys. I've certainly heard a lot of guitars & basses that sounded much better when they weren't being played.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Sam Sherry

Man, I keep hoping that somebody who's built a lot will chime in. In the meantime here's more ignorant unscientific internet malarkey.

Scant Qualifications To Opine: Over the years I've been privileged to be the first owner of two brand-new basses and another sporting a brand-new top. I played zillions of out-of-the-box acoustic guitars when I was a store "luthier" -- mostly crap, but some rawther nice.

Kernels of Fact: All DB and guitars are made of multiple pieces of wood, glued together. All are covered in chemical finishes, whether oil varnish, alcohol / "spirit" varnish, lacquer, or other crap.

First-Hand Observation: The changes when a string instrument is strung and played for the first time are dramatic in the first few hours, substantial in the first few days, noticeable in the first few weeks and perceptible over the first half-year.

Controversial Personal Conclusion: After six months your new bass sounds about like it's going to sound for the next ten to xxx years, not accounting for sonic changes resulting from damage, repair, setup, modification, or personal sound and style.

Utterly Unscientific Speculation:
1) As a new string instrument gets played the adhesives holding the parts together loosen a bit -- not so much that things fall apart, but enough that the pieces can vibrate differently.

2) Most finishes have bases which evaporate. 99.99% of the base may evaporate quickly but that still leaves a tiny amount which evaporates less-quickly, leaving a substance which is minutely or marginally less-flexible absent any other factor.

3) Speculation Alert: Perhaps the factor is that as a proper string-family finish vibrates over time with the wood it covers, the finish moves more like the wood moves, and becomes less of a damper on the wood's vibration. (As the plastic coating on an 80s Takamine goes through the years it remains suitable for serving drinks in a bar.)

4) People get very emotionally-involved in their string instrument and hear things that are not apparent to those who are not quite as emotionally-involved in that particular instrument.

OK, go ahead. Hit me.

Excellent post. I'm gonna quote it so that if you get all self deprecating and decide that it was worthless, people will still be able to see it. If you do that, I'll remove your name from the quote.

What's described above is exactly what my intuition says is going on. I like new basses. I like the bonding/exploring/learning experience. It's like a honeymoon. With enough care, attention, and yes, practice, that can turn into a relationship. You can't "walk into" a relationship that has the depth of one that's been going for years. By the same token, I don't believe for a minute that buying an expensive old bass with tons of "mojo" will help you do that either. It may be a great bass, and you may love the feel and sound, but you still have to develop your own relationship with it, and you still have to put in the time and work. When you start counting your friendships in decades, that's when you know you've got some real friends.

[Paul Warburton]

Originally Posted by Chris Fitzgerald

Excellent post. I'm gonna quote it so that if you get all self deprecating and decide that it was worthless, people will still be able to see it. If you do that, I'll remove your name from the quote.

Jeez, I hate people who throw their weight around. Damn. I thought Hitler was bad.

[Gimongous]

Ask and ye shall receive.

Here's and old thread that might prove useful to the topic at hand.

LOL Chris, didn't expect to see the 4+ pages of economics debate with this thread.

Check this article out (by Rick Turner)
http://www.acousticguitar.com/gear/a...ibration.shtml

I found this article interesting (discussion about the ability of a vibration machine to impart a "vintage" sound to a new guitar).

What seems apparent to me is that we are long on subjective opinion and short on objective observations. Nobody's fault, just a limitation that is inherent to this topic. There is unavoidable bias in many of the examples described where someone plays a new instrument and then plays an antique instrument and a comparison is made and conclusions drawn. There is observer bias - both the musician and listeners have an (assumed) presumption that the older instrument will sound better, so how does this color their perception? Also, there are many uncontrolled variables at work, such as how do we guarantee that the performance on both instruments is identical? How do we know if any difference in quality of tone we observe is due to the time that the instrument was played vs aging of the wood or varnish over time irrespective of how much the instrument was played? How much difference will be attributable to differences in construction new vs old, or materials, or workmanship?

An interesting experiment IMO would be- find three instruments of similar vintage age made by the same builder, so presumably near identical in construction, materials, workmanship, etc. One was owned by an accomplished musician of world renown who played the instrument daily, one was owned by an amatuer player who played the instrument daily but was a really sorry player , and one that sat in a closet untouched for the same period of years. Then have several musicians play each instrument and do the same objective recording re: the measurable physical properties of the vibration, sound spectrum produced, etc. Do the testing in a blinded manner so no-one knows which instrument is which. Then see what conclusions can be drawn about both the objectively measured properties and the subjective differences in tone and playability.

The same experiment could be done with the guitar shaking machine using some guitars that were not treated with the device - compare these to the shaken instruments again in a double blinded test to see what is different (sorry, showing my scientific background here).

Does a vintage instrument have mojo because we know it should have mojo, or is there some definite physical change that occurs?

This may be a question that we are better off not knowing the answer to.



Very interesting topic

Kent M

[Jazzdogg]

Originally Posted by Sam Sherry

<SNIP>
Kernels of Fact: All DB and guitars are made of multiple pieces of wood, glued together.
<SNIP>
Utterly Unscientific Speculation:
1) As a new string instrument gets played the adhesives holding the parts together loosen a bit -- not so much that things fall apart, but enough that the pieces can vibrate differently.

<SNIP>

I suspect that adhesive selection plays a significant role. The hide glue used in traditional fiddle making does not "creep;" i.e., the cured glue-line is not elastic, and transmits vibrations among glued components more readily than modern white and yellow glues that remain elastic when cured.

In my furniture, cabinet, and instrument making I've noticed significant differences in the effect different glues have on the sounds (both resonance frequency and amplitude) emitted by otherwise identical boxes.

I've never attempted to measure the effects or investigate them scientifically, but I have talked to buddies who make guitars and fiddles - folks who, like me, are alert to the tonal characteristics of wood - and they've noticed the same thing.

[Martin Sheridan]

An opinion as a maker: Instruments do seem to loosen up and sound better by being played. I think they mature faster even when they are just put in front of speakers where they can vibrate.
Some basses seem to tighten back up and become more restrictive in sound when they haven't been played for awhile.

Interesting observation number one: I had a violin teacher tell me once that he had stopped loaning his good violin to students because he thought their poorer playing skills resulted in his violin coming back to him out of sorts and not sounding right. Makes some sense if you think about it.

Observation two: New well made instruments do as well or better in blind fold tests than the old ones.

Final observe for now: Gary Karr might not agree with observation number two.

None of the above has been proven or disproven by dubious scientific experiments.