• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass A message from Chuck Traeger

Mar 9, 2002
140
11
58
Fair Oaks ,N.Y.
www.robertkopec.com
Disclosures
DR String endorsee
BASS: MYTHS. TRUTHS, and FACTS
From
40 years of RESEARCH lutherie
by
Chuck Traeger

The title tells it all. I am writing this article to set the record straight. I am doing so because I am becoming increasingly concerned with the amount of misinformation being disseminated lately.

This misinformation is based largely on what I call “old school” ideas and methods, which were based on trial and error rather than scientific research. In my first book I wrote, “I am trying to make people think in a different way…”. It is time for a change. It is time for bass setup and repairing to enter the 21st century. I have tried to write for repairers hoping they will see the light. If they won’t change you the bass players, will have to do it for them. Download this article and take it to them. Insist on the different approaches I recommend in my books. You and your bass deserve the very best. My methods guarantee you will get it.

I am going to start this article with Traeger’s Principle, and how to translate it into workable actions, because it is the foundation of everything I have discovered and everything I have written.

I was reading the Principle in my second book the other day when it suddenly dawned on me that unless you truly understand what these words mean they remain just words. How do you go about putting these word to actual use? This article will answer that question. This Principle is the Rosetta Stone which unlocks every single secret of sound, and as an additional bonus, eliminates all guesswork! Because this Principle is so important, I am going to try to make it as understandable as possible to as many people as possible. For the sake of clarity I have expanded the Principle a bit from its original writing in my books.

Traeger’s Principle

When a bass is being played, EVERYTHING is vibrating, from the top of the scroll to the tip of the endpin.

First Corollary: For Optimum Sound to occur every part of the bass must be vibrating at optimum level and in sync {in phase} with its neighbors so that if reinforces the vibrations of its neighbors rather than conflicting with them. A Mode Match, if achievable, is the ultimate optimizing adjustment, because it synchronizes the vibrations of two major elements of the instrument, both of which, hopefully, are already vibrating at optimum level

Second corollary: Maximum vibration is not necessarily Optimum vibration.

Third corollary: Anything done that mutes or inhibits these vibrations is deleterious to the sound.

This Principle is equally applicable to all the members of the string family.

The three most important words for understanding the Principle, and the three most important words for setup and repair for Optimum Sound are, EVERTHING is vibrating. Once you truly understand what these words mean when applied to the bass, all else will fall into place naturally.

Now I will show you how to thoroughly understand what this Principle means and how to go about translating it into the real world of the repairer’s shop. It is important to do this because understanding how various parts of the bass vibrate to produce sound is the cornerstone and foundation of all repair work done for sound.

In order to do this you have to do only three simple things. First, choose a part of the bass to which you want to apply this Principle., the smaller the better in order to keep things focused. So let us choose an inner lining. Second, examine it closely. Is it wide and deep as in the French style? Or is it thin and short as in the Italian style? Third, use a little common sense. Ask yourself which piece of wood will vibrate more easily? The Italian will, of course, because it has less mass and less rigidity. There now, that wasn’t so hard.

Now let’s try something larger, which has been repaired, such as a rib. Examine it closely. Has it been heavily repaired with large thick cleats, or, worse, has it been doubled with another piece of rib stock? Compare it with a rib that has not been doubled and only patched with thin widely spaced cleats and some linen. Which rib will vibrate more easily? The one with the least amount of added wood because it has less mass and less rigidity.

When a repairer is about to do a repair for sound they must first ask two questions. 1} Is there more than one way to return this piece to full functionality, and what is the best way to do this? 2} When doing this repair will it help or hinder this piece to vibrate at optimum level? In my opinion, this latter question is never asked frequently enough. And unless you truly understand Traeger’s Principle, it is my further opinion that if it is asked the chances of the correct answer emerging are considerably less than 50-50.

There are two reasons for this. Reason no. 1: The answer is based on a false assumption or premise. Reason no. 2: The answer is based on an inadequate knowledge, or no knowledge at all, of how the bass actually functions, actually moves, actually vibrates when it is being played.

A perfect example of these two errors is sound post fit. Ask just about any repairer, and you will probably get the same answer every time, “The better the fit of the post to the top and the back, the better off the bass will be.” This is a commonly held opinion, and it is a MYTH, one that has been around for centuries. It is also a prime example of the misinformation that concerns me.

Reason no. 1 for this MYTH: It was assumed that the sound post transmitted the vibrations of the top to the back. The better the fit, the better the transmission would be. In the early part of the 19th century a French researcher by the name of Felix Savart proved this assumption to be incorrect. He took a violin, removed the sound post, and placed the tips of a caliper on the outside of the top and back of the instrument exactly where the sound post had been. When played, the violin sounded exactly, if not a bit better, than it did when the post was in the correct position. Unfortunately, communication in the early 19th century was not what it is today, and this information never got very far.

Reason no. 2 for this MYTH: It wasn’t until the advent of modern electronic testing equipment that the true motion of the top and the back became known. It was found that when the instrument was being played the top and the back exerted a twisting motion on the post.

All right, we have found out that the original premise of sound post function was incorrect. The true, and most important, function of the sound post is to change the patterns of the vibrations of the top and the back by moving the post from place to place with a consequent change in sound. An ancillary function is to support the top on that side of the bass. By moving the post in an East-West direction we can balance the volume of the E string with that of the G string. By moving the post in a North-South direction we can change the type of sound from brighter to darker and vice-versa. That is a FACT. We have real information as to how the top and the back move when the bass is being played. This is a FACT. All that is left to do is to apply this knowledge.

Here we go. The more nearly perfect the fit of the post, the more wood surface of the post there is bearing against the top and the back. The more wood there is, the more it hinders this natural motion of the top and the back, with a consequent loss of sound. {Third corollary.} The less wood of the post touching the top and the back, the freer they will be to vibrate producing a consequent increase in sound! This is a FACT, and this is the difference between old school methods and my methods. That is why I round off the ends of my posts to produce a smaller bearing area. Try it.

The difference between an opinion and a FACT is this: The scientific test for a FACT is whether it can be replicated 100% of the tine. Some opinions can pass this acid test, at which time they become FACTS. Other opinions cannot, and so they remain merely opinions.

It is also a commonly held opinion that the bridge, the top, the sound post, and the back are what make the bass produce the sound it does. All the rest is just bass furniture. Endpins are there only to position the bass to the player’s comfort. Tailpieces are there only to hold one end of the strings. Necks are there only to hold aptly named fingerboards and tuning machines. They are only bass furniture.

Nothing could be further from the TRUTH. EVERYTGING is vibrating, and they all play a vital role in whether the bass sounds well or not. The repairer is usually completely unaware that the particular piece he is interested in moves {vibrates} when the bass is being played. However, if the repairer examines the piece closely and visualizes it in motion {vibrating} and fully understands “Traeger’s Principle”, the correct answer as how best to repair for sound has a good chance of presenting itself.

In repairing for sound add the least amount of wood necessary to maintain structural integrity. Anything more just adds unnecessary and unwanted mass and rigidity, the enemies of vibration and sound. This is the holy grail of repairs for sound and is summed up in the very first and last words of the Principle. “When a bass is being played,
EVERYTHING is vibrating…” “Anything done that mutes or inhibits these vibrations is deleterious to the sound.” Less is more!

Players, if you want the very best repairs for sound, take your bass to a repairer who has read my books. If they haven’t, give them a copy of this article. If they don’t want to do it this way, find another repairer who will.

Repairers, if you truly understand this Principle you will realize that less is more and your repairs will “turn out” every time. Enjoy the smiles on your customers’ faces.

I enjoyed writing this article, but I am not here to answer questions or dispute because I am 85 years old, and as much as I enjoy talking about the bass, I have neither the time nor the energy to do so. Nevertheless, my methods of setup and repair based on my research speak for themselves because they are successful. They produce a better sound. Thank you again. I hope you enjoyed reading this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scott Lynch
It's worthwhile for Chuck to print that letter here, the way a bass works is important for players to understand and not every player wants to buy his books. And actually I think most luthiers worth their salt would agree with most of the FACTS about which he wrote above.

I do think it's a bit of a stretch for him to claim it as "Traeger's Principle" though, because many others have arrived at many of the same conclusions through their own trial and error!!

Not sure what the misinformation he's referring to is all about. Anyone got any ideas?

"Optimum sound" is a rather vague descriptor, I think. Take the common case of a bass that sounds great for pizz but harsh for arco. What does "optimum" mean in this case? It's not all about "volume". Every bass is different and the setup/repair luthier does certainly need to take into account how it is built and for what and by whom it will be used. Chuck writes as if for every bass there is one and only one optimum solution. I doubt that very much.

I have his books and refer to them sometimes, but quite often there are things in there that I just don't agree with; I prefer my own approaches. I don't think there is a simple formula. What works on one bass will not necessarily work on another.

I'm certainly not going to do things "Traeger's way" just because a player comes to me waving the books in the air! That's not to say I won't take into account what he has written - but I will also take into account everything else I've read, tried, discovered in my journey. And i will often simply use my intuition and common sense.

I think that sweeping generalisation, in this game, is a bit of an enemy.
 
Matthew's approach is the best one, approaching each bass according to its own particularities. From the other hand Traeger's books contain lots of useful information and for people living in "a no luthier land" like me they are a treasure. As usually happens, some of his claims must be taken with a bit of salt (ie "Traeger's principle").
 
I'm so glad this was posted. I had mentioned in a post I made yesterday, I have just recently read Mr Traeger's 2nd book.

I just SMILED when he spoke of the fact that a soundpost with rounded edges actually sounds better in some instruments, as opposed to a "perfect fit".

Which brings me right back to something which I have said in the past: some people take the whole game of playing bass (same goes for cello, violin etc) way to serious! I mean, really, who am I to tell someone that the soundpost MUST fit 100% top and bottom, or else your bass will not sound the way it should. (Even if it does, you are supposed to have sleepless nights about the ill-fitting soundpost!) How many folks have asked about moving the soundpost because they want to experiment with it, only to be told by certain people "don't even think about it, because heaven knows, if you dont get that fit 100%, you will be committing a crime..."

Really? P-E-LEASE!! It's not Rocket Science, it's a freaking double bass. I REFUSE to believe that something which could be done by many men back in a time when people honestly believed the world was flat, cannot be done with the endless choice of tools available to modern man and the unlimited supply of information.

I say, if you're not doing any permanent damage, go ahead and try anything you like. It's YOUR bass, have fun with it.
 
Isn't a "bullet nose" surface on a soundpost going to compress the spruce under a tuned string load? By focusing the pressure in a significantly smaller area, aren't you risking a soundpost crack on the thinner tops of older instruments?

I'm sure it's a balancing act.

I rounded the edges of my soundpost, because I don't think it's a good idea for it to have crisp sharp edges, but a good 1/2 inch diameter area is still in contact with the top and bottom.
 
When a bass is being played, EVERYTHING is vibrating, from the top of the scroll to the tip of the endpin.

First Corollary: For Optimum Sound to occur every part of the bass must be vibrating at optimum level and in sync {in phase} with its neighbors so that if reinforces the vibrations of its neighbors rather than conflicting with them. A Mode Match, if achievable, is the ultimate optimizing adjustment, because it synchronizes the vibrations of two major elements of the instrument, both of which, hopefully, are already vibrating at optimum level

Second corollary: Maximum vibration is not necessarily Optimum vibration.

Third corollary: Anything done that mutes or inhibits these vibrations is deleterious to the sound.

From the point of view of science and physics, this makes great sense. What's important is the second corollary, that the amount of vibration that is optimal is not necessarily the maximum vibration that could be achieved. There's a great deal hiding inside this statement. After all, what gives a particular bass it's characteristic tone, it's "frequency response," it's resonance, it's profile of overtones is the relative amounts that different parts vibrate, how they vibrate, and their interactions.

So, maximum vibration of each part is not necessarily optimal. It appears, however, that Traeger implicitly strives for maximum vibration:

So let us choose an inner lining. Second, examine it closely. Is it wide and deep as in the French style? Or is it thin and short as in the Italian style? Third, use a little common sense. Ask yourself which piece of wood will vibrate more easily? The Italian will, of course, because it has less mass and less rigidity. There now, that wasn’t so hard.

Now let’s try something larger, which has been repaired, such as a rib. Examine it closely. Has it been heavily repaired with large thick cleats, or, worse, has it been doubled with another piece of rib stock? Compare it with a rib that has not been doubled and only patched with thin widely spaced cleats and some linen. Which rib will vibrate more easily? The one with the least amount of added wood because it has less mass and less rigidity.

...

“Anything done that mutes or inhibits these vibrations is deleterious to the sound.” Less is more!

On the other hand:
"Optimum sound" is a rather vague descriptor, I think. Take the common case of a bass that sounds great for pizz but harsh for arco. What does "optimum" mean in this case? It's not all about "volume". Every bass is different and the setup/repair luthier does certainly need to take into account how it is built and for what and by whom it will be used. Chuck writes as if for every bass there is one and only one optimum solution. I doubt that very much.

Bravo!
 
OP said:
Second corollary: Maximum vibration is not necessarily Optimum vibration.

Third corollary: Anything done that mutes or inhibits these vibrations is deleterious to the sound.

Your honor, I'm just a bass player. That said, aren't these two somewhat contradictory? I believe wholeheartedly in the second, but question the third. An example would be:

I had a great bass by my favorite maker. It came with a composite tailpiece. That bass was RESONANT, and loud as hell. But for pizz (what I do), it had some weird wolfs and uneven response on certain notes, like a sonic "halo" around some notes but not others. This "halo", which I found annoying acoustically, was a nightmare when it came to attempting to amplify. Long story short, I ended up switching out the light, resonant composite tailpiece for a heavy solid one that damped a lot of the vibration. Immediately, the sound became more even, more focused, more articulate, and all of the amplification problems were solved in one stroke.

Of course I'm not saying that this sound and response is what everyone would or should want. But in my case, it certainly makes me question whether I correctly understand the statement, "Anything done that mutes or inhibits these vibrations is deleterious to the sound." No disrespect whatsoever intended toward Mr. Traeger, especially as it's entirely possible that I didn't understand his meaning in the first place.

Matthew Tucker said:
Every bass is different and the setup/repair luthier does certainly need to take into account how it is built and for what and by whom it will be used.

Bingo. :)
 
Your honor, I'm just a bass player. That said, aren't these two somewhat contradictory? I believe wholeheartedly in the second, but question the third. An example would be:

I had a great bass by my favorite maker. It came with a composite tailpiece. That bass was RESONANT, and loud as hell. But for pizz (what I do), it had some weird wolfs and uneven response on certain notes, like a sonic "halo" around some notes but not others. This "halo", which I found annoying acoustically, was a nightmare when it came to attempting to amplify. Long story short, I ended up switching out the light, resonant composite tailpiece for a heavy solid one that damped a lot of the vibration. Immediately, the sound became more even, more focused, more articulate, and all of the amplification problems were solved in one stroke.

Of course I'm not saying that this sound and response is what everyone would or should want. But in my case, it certainly makes me question whether I correctly understand the statement, "Anything done that mutes or inhibits these vibrations is deleterious to the sound." No disrespect whatsoever intended toward Mr. Traeger, especially as it's entirely possible that I didn't understand his meaning in the first place.



Bingo. :)

Chris-- your post describes a concrete example of exactly what I was questioning. While Traeger acknowledges that optimum vibration is not maximal vibration, he seems to strive for the latter. With regard to the third corollary:

Third corollary: Anything done that mutes or inhibits these vibrations is deleterious to the sound.

I interpreted "these vibrations" to mean "these optimal vibrations," which may not be the maximal vibrations. If you think about it, under that interpretation, the corollary becomes rather trivial, stating that anything that inhibits whatever is optimal is deleterious.

If one interprets the corollary to mean that whatever inhibits vibrations, per se, is deleterious, then that conflicts with the notion that the maximum is not always optimal!

Every example Traeger gives seems to be decided in favor of achieving the maximum. Your tailpiece experience is a case in point of where that may not be desirable at all.
 
Mr. Traeger is a venerable bass luthier but not necessarily a writer. Don't forget he was making at least two points in that post:
  1. Maximum vibe isn't necessarily optimum vibe; and,
  2. EVERYTHING on the bass vibrates

When I read the post, I interpreted the "third corollary" as being in service to that second point on the list, not the first one. Maybe I'm wrong.

I thought the same thing about his post today as I thought about his first book (haven't yet seen the second): there is such a wealth of useful and provocative information, it's really too bad a first-rate editor didn't make the information conveyed "vibrate optimally".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robert Kopec
Mr. Traeger is a venerable bass luthier but not necessarily a writer. Don't forget he was making at least two points in that post:
  1. Maximum vibe isn't necessarily optimum vibe; and,
  2. EVERYTHING on the bass vibrates

When I read the post, I interpreted the "third corollary" as being in service to that second point on the list, not the first one. Maybe I'm wrong.

I thought the same thing about his post today as I thought about his first book (haven't yet seen the second): there is such a wealth of useful and provocative information, it's really too bad a first-rate editor didn't make the information conveyed "vibrate optimally".

That's it exactly Damon. Those pedants who pick apart Traeger's writing will learn less than those who strive to understand the reasoning behind it. There's a lot of very good information in that book, although it might be easier to understand if the reader has a good grasp of stringed instrument dynamics to start with.

More to the point, its the ONLY book on double bass out there! ;)
 
I switched out a heavy ebony tailpiece for a pearwood one that I further lightened by removing as much wood from the back as possible. The bass responded much better, more resonance and volume. However, it doesn't amplify as well so I now stick a small towel under it. On balance, I agree with his ideas, but you just don't know for sure until you try.
 
...Those pedants who pick apart Traeger's writing will learn less than those who strive to understand the reasoning behind it.

Actually, it's careful and thoughtful reading that reveals problems with the writing. Those who just gloss over the words are likely to understand the least. It's important and valuable to write clearly. Inconsistencies and logical conflicts lead to just the sort of difficulties that Chris noted vis a vis what Traeger stated.
 
Bass nerdiness aside, I'm just hoping (dreaming?) that I can make it close to Chuck's age, let alone have as much energy as he does to be able to write and express himself and feel confident enough to give all of you youger punks a few jabs and stir things up on a regular basis. Keep it going Chuck!!!

j.