Rabbath Method for Stringing Bass

[William Hoffman]

Originally Posted by JtheJazzMan

Not buying the physics of that....

Originally Posted by Violen

My strings dont have hollow balls so i cant try the Rabbath method.

But i did make some observations

IF, we call the string/tailpiece connection a positive angle, The strings coming thruogh the top and thus in relation to the angle of the bass, the TP is at a lesser angle,

Then if we went "balls out" the tailpiece would be at a greater angle than the strings in relation to the body and have more contact with the TP.

Now if you used the Rabbath method; they would have the most contact with the TP and a slightly different angle than the balls out method, bringing the tail piece more "in line" with the direction of the strings.

I want to order some EP Weichs, does anyone know if they have hollow balls so i can try this method?

Thanks again. Im gonna talk to a physicist about this later today.

Originally Posted by Eric Hochberg

Maybe a psychiatrist would be a better call... The EP's are solid.

Originally Posted by Uncletoad

Nobody is touching my balls with a drill bit.

Originally Posted by Eric Hochberg

Maybe a psychiatrist would be a better call... The EP's are solid.

Originally Posted by Violen

It will affect the angle the strings go over the bridge. Because of the "Weight" and "pull" of the Tailpiece it will affect the strings...

so if this "Rabbath method" has any effect (and i am not saying it does, "Rabbath" aka Slava Publications is saying that), the consensus seems to be it would be related to the angle of the set-up (strings and TP) reducing string tension somehow and taking pressure off the top. maybe it will work on some basses and not on others. do we need a physicist to figure that out? i'm going to use my ears.

Eric, i've got a set of EP Regulars and set of EP Weichs, and the balls in both sets have holes. maybe Pirastro changed balls on the Evahs, i got these about 2 years ago.

Violen, the pictured strings in look like Corelis to me. Corelis have a brass ball like that, and the 370 TX Forte set has a green stocking like that.

Toad, don't! you maybe misunderstood... sheesh owch.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by clink

Time in the practice room would be better spent. Just my opinion.

True enough. Then again, if we all followed this advice, there'd be no Talkbass. Subscribed!

[Eric Hochberg]

Originally Posted by William Hoffman

Eric, i've got a set of EP Regulars and set of EP Weichs, and the balls in both sets have holes. maybe Pirastro changed balls on the Evahs, i got these about 2 years ago.

My bad, you are correct! The EP's have holes. I knew I should have looked before posting...

[Herbie 80's]

Originally Posted by clink

My balls were drilled after my second child was born.

I've tried stringing balls out, bit it dint do much. Time in the practice room would be better spent. Just my opinion.

LOL. You guys crack me up all the time. I love this board.

[robobass]

Originally Posted by William Hoffman

...the consensus seems to be it would be related to the angle of the set-up (strings and TP) reducing string tension somehow and taking pressure off the top. maybe it will work on some basses and not on others. do we need a physicist to figure that out? i'm going to use my ears. ...

Well no, not a consensus. MJE explains it most concisely in post #6. There will be no change in break angle or tension. That is a fact, no matter what you choose to believe or hear. GEEZ!

[dmusic148]

Originally Posted by Violen

Electric Basses sometimes are drilled so the strings can pass all the way through the body to get more contact. People claim this can deepen the sound and decrease tension.

Longtime slab player here. Been there done that...it's a gimmick (on electric).

[William Hoffman]

Originally Posted by William Hoffman

so if this "Rabbath method" has any effect (and i am not saying it does, "Rabbath" aka Slava Publications is saying that), the consensus seems to be it would be related to the angle of the set-up (strings and TP) reducing string tension somehow and taking pressure off the top. maybe it will work on some basses and not on others. do we need a physicist to figure that out? i'm going to use my ears.

Originally Posted by robobass

Well no, not a consensus. MJE explains it most concisely in post #6. There will be no change in break angle or tension. That is a fact, no matter what you choose to believe or hear. GEEZ!

thanks to robobass for the conclusive opinion. sorry, if i was error there.

in my defense i would just say i was trying to bring the various views together. please notice my use of "if" and "seems". but of course no consensus, because you and MJE don't share that view.

may i summarize your view as this: "MJE's post explained concisely why the Rabbath method of stringing is rubbish because there is no change in the break angle or tension."

not sure i agree with that, because i haven't tried it yet.

btw George Vance of Slava Publications passed away and we cannot ask him what he meant when he wrote that.

[The Spanier]

I’m not an expert, but I guess that most of the “improvement sensations” experimented by doing such small operations (like this stringing method) are just due to the fact of removing the strings and putting them back again.

I’ve read here how some people say they improved their sound by changing their endpin, tailgut, bridge adjusters, etc…) I’m not saying it doesn’t bring any effect, but I’m sure that sometimes this feel of success is just a consequence of re-stringing. We all now that using new strings, or even loosing the old ones for some hours, make us think our DB is just upgraded.

I’m sure I’d experiment a better sound if I tried this method, but It wouldn’t last that long. Do you guys understand my bad English???

Ciao!

[robobass]

Originally Posted by The Spanier

I’m not an expert, but I guess that most of the “improvement sensations” experimented by doing such small operations (like this stringing method) are just due to the fact of removing the strings and putting them back again.

I’ve read here how some people say they improved their sound by changing their endpin, tailgut, bridge adjusters, etc…) I’m not saying it doesn’t bring any effect, but I’m sure that sometimes this feel of success is just a consequence of re-stringing. We all now that using new strings, or even loosing the old ones for some hours, make us think our DB is just upgraded.

I’m sure I’d experiment a better sound if I tried this method, but It wouldn’t last that long. Do you guys understand my bad English???

Ciao!

Your English is fine, and a good point. I'm someone who hates to throw things away. Sometimes I will tear down a broken power tool or houseshold appliance in the hope of fixing it. Finding nothing wrong, I put it back together, and low and behold it works! For basses, I bet that a lot of times, making any change in stringing, be it afterlength, balls direction, or simply changing strings, will create a real or perceived improvement. Some of the time it might simply be an inadvertent correction of misplaced feet or bridge tilt, or it might be that disrupting the setup changes the response temporarily. Think about this the next time you test a new set of strings!

To beat a rotting equine corpse a bit more, do we know that Rabbath actually strings his basses this way? I've only seen the Slava website describe it and no corroborating evidence. Even if he does, how do we know that he isn't simply having some fun? He did, after all, throw a double bass out the window of a high floor apartment. He obviously has a sense of humour. I'd want to hear it from him that there is something to this before I accepted it as fact, and even then...

[robobass]

Originally Posted by William Hoffman

...
may i summarize your view as this: "MJE's post explained concisely why the Rabbath method of stringing is rubbish because there is no change in the break angle or tension."

not sure i agree with that, because i haven't tried it yet.

...

Let's not generalize. What I and others say is that this alternate stringing method (I say that because I still don't see any evidentiary connection to Rabbath) does not affect tension or break angle. You don't need to try it. It is high school physics. There may be other factors which could affect tone and response, particularly the change in effective afterlength, which I mentioned in my first post. This issue is normally dealt with by adjusting the tail gut. Still, I won't throw out the word "rubbish". I'm a little ashamed to be even writing this post, come to think of it

[PaulCannon]

Originally Posted by robobass

To beat a rotting equine corpse a bit more, do we know that Rabbath actually strings his basses this way? I've only seen the Slava website describe it and no corroborating evidence. Even if he does, how do we know that he isn't simply having some fun? He did, after all, throw a double bass out the window of a high floor apartment. He obviously has a sense of humour. I'd want to hear it from him that there is something to this before I accepted it as fact, and even then...

François doesn't use Corellis any more. His basses all have specially made strings by Gerold Genßler, which are designed to be strung in this manner.

He has re-strung other basses with Corellis as in the picture and seems to like the effect it has. Still, I think it's a bit silly to refer to it as "Rabbath Stringing Technique." He didn't invent this concept.

[William Hoffman]

Originally Posted by robobass

Let's not generalize. What I and others say is that this alternate stringing method (I say that because I still don't see any evidentiary connection to Rabbath) does not affect tension or break angle. You don't need to try it. It is high school physics. There may be other factors which could affect tone and response, particularly the change in effective afterlength, which I mentioned in my first post. This issue is normally dealt with by adjusting the tail gut. Still, I won't throw out the word "rubbish". I'm a little ashamed to be even writing this post, come to think of it

my goodness, robot, i had no idea that you are so rude.

for the rest of you, i would post here what i heard back from Christian Laborie (who was kind enough to respond to my inquiry sent to the late George Vance). I asked why Rabbath was suggesting that this method of stringing creates more resonance. Christian wrote back saying:

"Hi Bill,
That's the way Gerold Genssler suggests to install his own handmade strings (string maker in Germany: geroldgenssler@gmx.de). It increases the resonance of the basse. This method must be tried: some people like it and some don't because they get too much resonance!!...
And I can't explain this change in sound, probably the tailpiece vibrates more because the strings don't make an angle on it.
All the best,

Christian LABORIE
770 La Grange du Moulin
38470 VARACIEUX
France
tel: 33 (0)4 76 64 20 79
website: http://www.christianlaborie.com/"

[William Hoffman]

Originally Posted by PaulCannon

François doesn't use Corellis any more. His basses all have specially made strings by Gerold Genßler, which are designed to be strung in this manner.

He has re-strung other basses with Corellis as in the picture and seems to like the effect it has. Still, I think it's a bit silly to refer to it as "Rabbath Stringing Technique." He didn't invent this concept.

thanks Paul. Christian Laborie's remarks square perfectly with your comments as to use of this method.

and right, Rabbath's name has been used here perhaps not quite accurately.

[crowsmengegus]

Originally Posted by robobass

Well no, not a consensus. MJE explains it most concisely in post #6. There will be no change in break angle or tension. That is a fact, no matter what you choose to believe or hear. GEEZ!

You seem so sure of this...

I still think there will be a change in the angle. How about this: imagine that I used a very thick piece of wood for a tailpiece (as an exaggerated example). Do you still think there would be no change in the angle?

[robobass]

Originally Posted by crowsmengegus

You seem so sure of this...

I still think there will be a change in the angle. How about this: imagine that I used a very thick piece of wood for a tailpiece (as an exaggerated example). Do you still think there would be no change in the angle?

No

[robobass]

Originally Posted by William Hoffman

my goodness, robot, i had no idea that you are so rude....

Sorry, I was getting kinda frustrated and let my manners slip. It seems that many here don't accept my or MJE's premise about break angle. I find it baffling, because it is so straightforward. However, I've decided that to live in our modern world it is better to change ones personal opinions to fit the majority, even if that means saying that 2+2=5. OK. You win. The stringing method very much affects break angle and tension

[bigolbassguy]

Originally Posted by crowsmengegus

You seem so sure of this...

I still think there will be a change in the angle. How about this: imagine that I used a very thick piece of wood for a tailpiece (as an exaggerated example). Do you still think there would be no change in the angle?

Only the angle of the tailpiece would change. If you draw a straight line from the top of the bridge to the saddle, that is going to be the break angle, period. The tailpiece will compensate in order for the force of the tension to follow that line.

Originally Posted by mje

It occurs to me that the angle wouldn't change at all, as the string is going to trace a line that intersects the saddled no matter how you attach it. The tailpiece will be displaced up or down so that the string will trace that line.

dee-d-dee - I should really get into the habit of reading a thread BEFORE I start posting - der.

amazing how much controversy this has stirred up, isn't it?

[William Hoffman]

Originally Posted by bigolbassguy

Only the angle of the tailpiece would change. If you draw a straight line from the top of the bridge to the saddle, that is going to be the break angle, period. The tailpiece will compensate in order for the force of the tension to follow that line.

okay, and let me follow up on that. if "the tailpiece will compensate in order for the force of the tension to follow that line," the line of tension, if you can draw it, will stay the same and runs from the tip if the bridge to the saddle, while the TP itself might be on either side of that line. doesn't that difference affect the sound/resonance?

it seems with the "Rabbath method" of stringing, the TP is going to me more aligned with the line of tension...

[bigolbassguy]

Originally Posted by William Hoffman

okay, and let me follow up on that. if "the tailpiece will compensate in order for the force of the tension to follow that line," the line of tension, if you can draw it, will stay the same and runs from the tip if the bridge to the saddle, while the TP itself might be on either side of that line. doesn't that difference affect the sound/resonance?

I'd think it would have to.

[Uncletoad]

Perhaps if there is a change in sound it could be attributed to a change in the rotation or overall movement of the tailpiece via string vibration rather than a change in break angle. The strings cradling the TP rather than exited just off it's top side might make it move differently and change the sound in some basses.

Subtle thing for sure.