What happens as a bass ages?

[drurb]

Ken Smith has noted several times that, with very few exceptions, a bass always "sounds its age." Older basses just seem to have desirable tonal characteristics that are acquired by the aging process itself. I suspect most of us have experienced this first hand. So, what is it that actually occurs during this aging process? I could probably identify several of the factors, but I'll leave this question open.

I hope the "wood experts" will chime in. Ken? Arnold? Gary? Bob?...

[Bob Branstetter]

First, I am not a "wood expert" and in a scientific sense, I doubt if any of the names you mentioned truely qualifies for that title. There have been hundreds of books and articles written by those with scientific credentials. I've read a few of those and most are over my head. There are a few facts that must be considered. First, we have to realize that even the Cremona masters were not perfect and that they made their share of "bad" instruments. Most of these have disappeared along with those damaged beyond repair. Those that remain today are for the most part the result of "survival of the fitest". One thing we do know is that time does not make a bad instrument become a good instrument. There have been studies of the varnish mostly from tiny varnish samples that were recovered during repairs. As a result, we know what is in it from a chemical standpoint, but still don't know how to duplicate it (although there are plenty of makers who claim to know the "secret"). The same applies to the mineral ground found in instruments from the classic period. Some wood species that were used 200 years ago may not even exist today. Examining the wood's cellular structure with modern tools like the electron microscope tells us what the structure looks like today. What we really need is a time travel machine so some interested scientist could take his electron microscope and other toys back in time to see what the stucture was right after it was made and at regular intervals up to the present. So... we really don't know what happens with age other than the inside wood color gets darker and it looks "old". That's about all I know about it.

[JimmyM]

I have heard two theories...one I buy, one I don't. The one I buy is that wood dries out over time and becomes more "live" because there's no appreciable moisture left. The one I don't buy is after being played for years, the molecules of the wood line up in a more musical fashion because of the vibrations being fed through it. Though there are people who claim to have proof of this, it still sounds to me like a bunch of BS, as many of these ancient basses have been modified with new parts and still sound great.

I have not played enough basses to know much about the subject of old vs new, but I can say the best sounding bass I've ever played was 250 years old.

[hdiddy]

And what if it's simply psychoacoustic? You think it sounds great cuz you know it's old!





* This is probably as close as I can get to throwing a bomb and running away on TB.

[westland]

Originally Posted by Bob Branstetter

First, I am not a "wood expert" and in a scientific sense, I doubt if any of the names you mentioned truely qualifies for that title. There have been hundreds of books and articles written by those with scientific credentials. I've read a few of those and most are over my head. There are a few facts that must be considered. First, we have to realize that even the Cremona masters were not perfect and that they made their share of "bad" instruments. Most of these have disappeared along with those damaged beyond repair. Those that remain today are for the most part the result of "survival of the fitest". One thing we do know is that time does not make a bad instrument become a good instrument. There have been studies of the varnish mostly from tiny varnish samples that were recovered during repairs. As a result, we know what is in it from a chemical standpoint, but still don't know how to duplicate it (although there are plenty of makers who claim to know the "secret"). The same applies to the mineral ground found in instruments from the classic period. Some wood species that were used 200 years ago may not even exist today. Examining the wood's cellular structure with modern tools like the electron microscope tells us what the structure looks like today. What we really need is a time travel machine so some interested scientist could take his electron microscope and other toys back in time to see what the stucture was right after it was made and at regular intervals up to the present. So... we really don't know what happens with age other than the inside wood color gets darker and it looks "old". That's about all I know about it.

I had two friends who were violin makers in Ann Arbor (who moved there from a studio in Cremona). They were very interested in recreating the old violin would with modern stock, so engaged the U of Michigan chemists and physicists to help figure out what made the old would so special. They didn't reveal all their secrets, but two important ones I learned were:

(1) Cremona wood was cut in Germany, and was in general better wood that can easily be obtained today.

(2) It floated down the river after being cut where 3-6months later it wound up in Cremona. The soaking in river water replaced some natural compounds with silicates and other minerals.

(3) The aging process (20 years or so as I remember) evenly dried out the wood, which was already changed because of the mineral deposits.

[fydda]

Originally Posted by westland

(2) It floated down the river after being cut where 3-6months later it wound up in Cremona. The soaking in river water replaced some natural compounds with silicates and other minerals.

Interesting...
The only question is then; Was this an important factor? Or maybe it didn't affect the sound at all...

[westland]

Originally Posted by fydda

Interesting...
The only question is then; Was this an important factor? Or maybe it didn't affect the sound at all...

$)

They didn't reveal their secrets, but I did learn that some luthiers do treat their wood with some sort of polyethalyne glycol (sp?) and silicon dioxide, or maybe silicate dessicant.

Another thing I learned was the the UofM acoustic experiments indicated that professional violinists could distinguish violin quality up to about an $11000 (1987 $) instrument, and after that, they couldn't distinguish quality, though they still often had strong preferences. Since violins go into the millions (and one of the violins was a Guarneri del Jesu) this suggests a high 'snob' factor in instrument choice.

[drurb]

Originally Posted by Bob Branstetter

First, I am not a "wood expert" and in a scientific sense, I doubt if any of the names you mentioned truely qualifies for that title. There have been hundreds of books and articles written by those with scientific credentials. I've read a few of those and most are over my head. There are a few facts that must be considered. First, we have to realize that even the Cremona masters were not perfect and that they made their share of "bad" instruments. Most of these have disappeared along with those damaged beyond repair. Those that remain today are for the most part the result of "survival of the fitest". One thing we do know is that time does not make a bad instrument become a good instrument. There have been studies of the varnish mostly from tiny varnish samples that were recovered during repairs. As a result, we know what is in it from a chemical standpoint, but still don't know how to duplicate it (although there are plenty of makers who claim to know the "secret"). The same applies to the mineral ground found in instruments from the classic period. Some wood species that were used 200 years ago may not even exist today. Examining the wood's cellular structure with modern tools like the electron microscope tells us what the structure looks like today. What we really need is a time travel machine so some interested scientist could take his electron microscope and other toys back in time to see what the stucture was right after it was made and at regular intervals up to the present. So... we really don't know what happens with age other than the inside wood color gets darker and it looks "old". That's about all I know about it.

As a matter of fact, I considered the "survival of the fittest" theory. Unless some secrets have been lost, such a theory would seem to imply that one ought to find newer basses today that sound like old ones. I just don't know.

With regard to "wood experts," I put that in quotes. I know there is a scientific literature. After all, I often lead people to it!

[drurb]

Originally Posted by hdiddy

And what if it's simply psychoacoustic? You think it sounds great cuz you know it's old!





* This is probably as close as I can get to throwing a bomb and running away on TB.

Especially when you reply that way to a psychoacoustician! Biases in auditory perception are not "psychoacoustic." Psychoacoustics is a field that certainly addresses those phenomena, usually in designing objective psychophysical procedures that very effectively eschew bias. That's a large factor in what I get paid to do every day.

[Bob Branstetter]

Originally Posted by westland

I had two friends who were violin makers in Ann Arbor (who moved there from a studio in Cremona). They were very interested in recreating the old violin would with modern stock, so engaged the U of Michigan chemists and physicists to help figure out what made the old would so special. They didn't reveal all their secrets, but two important ones I learned were:

(1) Cremona wood was cut in Germany, and was in general better wood that can easily be obtained today.

(2) It floated down the river after being cut where 3-6months later it wound up in Cremona. The soaking in river water replaced some natural compounds with silicates and other minerals.

(3) The aging process (20 years or so as I remember) evenly dried out the wood, which was already changed because of the mineral deposits.

I assume that you are refrerring to Greg Alf and Joseph Curtin. I have great respect for both of them for their accurate reproductions and their research and I have attended siminars by both. However, the wood soaking theory in different versions has be floated around for many, many decades and no proof of this has been found by historians. One of the first of these versions of this theory was that the makers used old oars from ships. Countless makers have resorted to "ponding" and none to my knowledge have equaled the makers of old Cremona. My mentor, who won several awards in International violin making competition, many years ago obtained some certified 200 year old wood and told me that the end result was no better than instruments he had made from wood aged 10-20 years. There have been tons of theories, but for the most absurd, I prefer the one by the Texas professor who proclaimed to the world on NPR and to anyone else who would listen that the secret of Stadivarius was that he urinated on his wood.

[Bob Branstetter]

Originally Posted by drurb

As a matter of fact, I considered the "survival of the fittest" theory. Unless some secrets have been lost, such a theory would seem to imply that one ought to find newer basses today that sound like old ones. I just don't know.!

I didn't consider that to be a theory. Just a fact of life. Society generally keeps only the best and discards the rest. This, to me, only implies that the best sounding instruments made today are more likely to survive the test of time. Will those instruments sound like those we now consider old when they are 100-200 years old? Only time will tell. And.... what will the old ones sound like when they are 400-500 years old?

[bassame]

Originally Posted by westland

$)
this suggests a high 'snob' factor in instrument choice.

Gee, I noticed this a long time ago on TB...also in the Amps, Mics, & Pickups section.

[bassist14]

Originally Posted by bassame

Gee, I noticed this a long time ago on TB...also in the Amps, Mics, & Pickups section.

snob factor? what i notice is 90% talk about plywood basses...

[Silversorcerer]

Originally Posted by westland

I had two friends who were violin makers in Ann Arbor (who moved there from a studio in Cremona). They were very interested in recreating the old violin would with modern stock, so engaged the U of Michigan chemists and physicists to help figure out what made the old would so special. They didn't reveal all their secrets, but two important ones I learned were:

(1) Cremona wood was cut in Germany, and was in general better wood that can easily be obtained today.

(2) It floated down the river after being cut where 3-6months later it wound up in Cremona. The soaking in river water replaced some natural compounds with silicates and other minerals.

(3) The aging process (20 years or so as I remember) evenly dried out the wood, which was already changed because of the mineral deposits.

Yesterday I had the pleasure to discuss just this issue with Chicago instrument maker Martin Brunkalla, who related to me that certain minute pieces of wood from various Stradivaris repaired by the Hill brothers of London had been analyzed and the metabolites from certain anerobic bacteria were found, suggesting the wood had been deeply submerged in water for some time. He did not give me a bibliographical reference so we can regard this story as informed hearsay at best, but it matches with other information. Also of interest is that Martin has obtained wood from a tree that was 2000 years old when it fell and has been preserved for 50,000 years in a peat bog. The tree was a Kauri pine or relative of that modern species. The tree was over 24 feet in diameter, more than 200 feet tall, and preserved so well it still had leaves intact. He is making an instrument from that so we can wait for his reports on that versus relatively newer wood.

I found a link that gives a pretty good idea chemically of how cellulose bonding works and since cellulose is the primary substance of wood, I think it is worth referencing:http://www.conservationresources.com.../Cellulose.htm

Check out the other technical links (http://www.conservationresources.com...erioration.htm) and you will find explanations of the acid degredation that I have referenced in other threads recently.
This paper making example doesn't tell you how aging of wood affects the valence and hydrogen bonds, but that is where the changes occur as the wood ages, assuming it is protected from biological damage and other chemical exposure and ages in normal humidity above ground in a relatively normal pH air environment (So many conditions that little commercially harvested wood will be free from other effects). Since there is acid in the wood, and cellulose, and hemi-cellulose, and moisture by which the two are eventually associated, new wood is chemically unstable. The cellulose and to a larger extent hemi-cellulose, in the wood is attacked by the acid in the wood, and partially breaks down over time until it reaches equilibrium. This is a better link about wood with some emphasis on bending but doesn't show the molecular structures or get into the specific physics: http://www.nrinstruments.demon.co.uk/wood.html

The interesting thing about hydrogen bonds is that they can break and be re-established, suggesting that molecular re-alignment of cellulose microfibrils is plausible, while not proven to be caused by vibration. This is how the ammonia bending works, by temporarily breaking the H bonds and then these "reform" as the ammonia dissipates, with the cellulose microfibrils in new positions.

The earliest ammonia (you might ask where did the stone age people get this stuff) was obtained from fermented urine.

[toman]

Some guys claim their old basses to have "souls" or some such, as they seem to "know" ancient music from around the time they were built. And I'm not talking about some small time guy who plays clubs on the weekend... ;-)

[Silversorcerer]

Originally Posted by toman

Some guys claim their old basses to have "souls" or some such, as they seem to "know" ancient music from around the time they were built. And I'm not talking about some small time guy who plays clubs on the weekend... ;-)

So we have a bona fide nut case with better playing credentials than me? Not surprising!

[tsolo]

Originally Posted by Bob Branstetter

There have been tons of theories, but for the most absurd, I prefer the one by the Texas professor who proclaimed to the world on NPR and to anyone else who would listen that the secret of Stadivarius was that he urinated on his wood.

I think this was just coincidence.

[Silversorcerer]

In any case you could understand why he kept it a secret.

[Bob Branstetter]

Originally Posted by Silversorcerer

Yesterday I had the pleasure to discuss just this issue with Chicago instrument maker Martin Brunkalla, who related to me that certain minute pieces of wood from various Stradivaris repaired by the Hill brothers of London had been analyzed and the metabolites from certain anerobic bacteria were found, suggesting the wood had been deeply submerged in water for some time. He did not give me a bibliographical reference so we can regard this story as informed hearsay at best, but it matches with other information.

As I recall, only a few of the (extremely small) samples from W.E. Hill & Sons contained the bacteria you mention. It was also stated that all of those samples could have come from one violin.

[Silversorcerer]

Originally Posted by Bob Branstetter

As I recall, only a few of the (extremely small) samples from W.E. Hill & Sons contained the bacteria you mention. It was also stated that all of those samples could have come from one violin.

Such is my informed hearsay. And upon that rock (or pebble as it were) will be a mountain of superstition and hopefully less discussion. Pardon me while I go visit my woodpile ....

Ahh, much better. I'm not hanging my hat on any uncertainties about Stradivari's secrets, but floating wood down the Po from the mountains makes sense and it is plausible that the denser stuff sank and was later recovered. I suppose there is a great distance between what is known and what is plausible and hopefully we don't digress into that.

If one did look at guitars built by Hauser and not violins by Stradivari, there is informed heresay (only one a from heresy) that after an early point in his career, all of his instruments were made from the same tree and in fact his son was still making guitars from that tree years after the Sr. Hauser's death.

Whatever the secrets or unknowns of the past are, it is generally acknowledged that aged wood is more stable if not more resonant, and for whatever reason that idea has been formed and for whatever reason it persists, old is the wood that instrument makers will seek and old are the instruments that the players will seek.

Everyone has a story about an old one. Mine is a 1965 Harmony 117 student classical guitar bought new by my father and it started sounding really good about 1986 or so. The balance of the guitar is solid mahogany, top is solid spruce, probably not the best grade because this is a factory guitar, but the tone is so sweet now, all psychoacoustics aside;- it certainly didn't sound like that new.