• 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 free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass A message from Chuck Traeger

#21
drurb said:
It's important and valuable to write clearly.
Click to expand...

...and it's a **** of a lot easier said than done. Just like playing & improvising, you have to put in your time to hone the skill. Even when you do have good writing chops, there isn't a writer alive who can't benefit from re-writing and editing, especially at book lengths.

I think I'm with James when it comes to admiring the man. I'd take my bass to him for a set-up in a heart beat.
 
#22
Damon Rondeau said:
...and it's a **** of a lot easier said than done. Just like playing & improvising, you have to put in your time to hone the skill. Even when you do have good writing chops, there isn't a writer alive who can't benefit from re-writing and editing, especially at book lengths.

I think I'm with James when it comes to admiring the man. I'd take my bass to him for a set-up in a heart beat.
Click to expand...

No disagreement and I certainly didn't say I don't admire the man. Let's not turn this into something it's not. As for writing, what I discussed was not some secondary or tertiary point. The ambiguity was somewhat fundamental as evidenced by posts regarding the interpretation.
 
#23
drurb said:
No disagreement and I certainly didn't say I don't admire the man. Let's not turn this into something it's not.
Click to expand...

1) I didn't say you did; and,
2) I'm certainly not trying to.

I was the one who raised the subject of writing quality and I felt like I had taken a bit of a shot at the man. I felt I had to modify that. Your quote was used just to keep the continuity. Nothing at all to do with anything you said, drurb, so let's not read anything into it that isn't there, right?

Henry Strobel Publishers do us a great service by publishing materials on our obscure little area of interest. They are far, far from expensively produced publications, though. Like I said, imagine if Mr. Traeger's main book got the sort of editorial attention your average college textbook gets. There would have been a big difference, I think, in how people use and perceive his ideas.
 
#24
Damon Rondeau said:
1) I didn't say you did; and,
2) I'm certainly not trying to.

I was the one who raised the subject of writing quality and I felt like I had taken a bit of a shot at the man. I felt I had to modify that. Your quote was used just to keep the continuity. Nothing at all to do with anything you said, drurb, so let's not read anything into it that isn't there, right?

Henry Strobel Publishers do us a great service by publishing materials on our obscure little area of interest. They are far, far from expensively produced publications, though. Like I said, imagine if Mr. Traeger's main book got the sort of editorial attention your average college textbook gets. There would have been a big difference, I think, in how people use and perceive his ideas.
Click to expand...

Sorry for any misinterpretation and thanks for clarifying that.
 
#26
I teach from college textbooks every week...they could seriously use some editing, too! In fact I have been asked to do so, but the book in question is 900 pages long, and they want me to do it in my spare time, as a favor. (sigh...) Not going to happen.

I have deadlines of my own to meet, and they do not involve re-editing a textbook which someone else was already paid to do, and correct their sloppy work. (To be fair; some of it was due, I think, to the fact that the editor has no expertise in the particular discipline, and doesn't recognize errors, even huge ones.)
 
#27
Damon Rondeau said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is how I understood it also. I re-read those 3 items many times in the 1st book.

I bought the "Setup..." book after I built my bass, then went back and implemented a couple of the suggested changes, all in the spirit of allowing parts to vibrate more. Since I don't know what is "optimal", I erred on the side of less restrictive as opposed to more restrictive. I stopped short of mode matching and putting teflon inserts under bridge feet.

My bass became much louder as a result of these changes, but I am still blown away by a couple of bases that I've seen that are:

- plywood
- have a "C" shaped bridge that is nowhere near the notches, very close to snapping, and lifting off the top
- have the tail piece attached with a coat hanger, and sitting right on the top of the saddle
- have the strings buried all the way in the nut and the bridge
- have a pleather bow quiver tied to the tailpiece
- and sound loud as a canon!

George
 
#28
To me, the idea, with most things, is to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

I am not a luthier. I am, however, a professional woodworker, with an apprenticeship, professional experience, and some book-larnin', etc. under my belt (for better or worse, depending on the day...).

I have read Mr. Traeger's first book.

In my opinion and limited experience, some of his specific statements and methods, while stated emphatically, don't ALL have the strength of some of his other offerings.

For example, he insists that lighter endpins will improve any bass' sound. I have experimented and found this not to be true, for me. An endpin swap will certainly change sound, but it may not be an "improvement."

Another example is the practice of putting a massive bolt into a neck heel repair. This practice doesn't make much sense, in terms of wood movement. Knowing a bit about wood's behavior, it seems likely, to me, that it could actually lead to future failure; the steel doesn't expand and contract the same way as the wide grain on the neck's heel.

On the other hand, his AO-BO matching discussion and his promotion of that concept and research seems very interesting and practical, again, to my non-luthiery brain.

His layperson's explanation of the effects of humidity on basses is incisive and helpful. His enthusiasm for the instrument is seemingly tireless and infectious.

I guess what I am saying is, my experience in working with some truly great, venerable people in my business, many of whom are of advanced age, leads me to the belief that no single person is 100% correct about everything they say (or believe) 100% of the time.

So what? It doesn't make the other powerful, insightful things they offer any less valuable. It just puts the burden on the rest of us, to wade through the material and sort things out.
 
#29
Eric Swanson said:
For example, he insists that lighter endpins will improve any bass' sound. I have experimented and found this not to be true, for me. An endpin swap will certainly change sound, but it may not be an "improvement."

Another example is the practice of putting a massive bolt into a neck heel repair. This practice doesn't make much sense, in terms of wood movement. Knowing a bit about wood's behavior, it seems likely, to me, that it could actually lead to future failure; the steel doesn't expand and contract the same way as the wide grain on the neck's heel.
Click to expand...

I got into the endpin experimentation thing a bit after reading his book, and I came to the same conclusion you have, Eric.

I'm no luthier or woodworker, but, on the neck bolt repair, I would think that Traeger has been in the biz long enough to know if his repairs done this way have had an unacceptable failure rate. If they did, I'm sure he wouldn't continue to recommend that method. Just a thought...
 
#30
Eric Swanson said:
To me, the idea, with most things, is to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
Click to expand...

Yeah -- that's really where I'm coming from with the writing/editing thing. With Mr. Traeger, you're getting three distinct streams of content:

  1. Practical "how-to" descriptions of procedures;
  2. Theorizing about "optimum sound"; and,
  3. Polemics against how other luthiers see and do things.

These themes come all mixed together. When his book first came out I caught a little flak for saying something like "it's great but flawed" and that's the type of thing I meant. I'd like to have seen much more weight and clarity given to procedures, with a lot more photography and diagrams. I'd like to have seen the optimum sound theme dealt with separately, and perhaps given a little more scientific heft. And I'd like to have seen the polemics toned down a lot, if not completely.
 
#31
Its an interesting book to have especially when it comes to practicalities but to me a lot of questions remain ....

If a sound post has nothing to do with sound transference then why shouldn't it be rounded ? Has anyone ever tried this out ? I thought a sound post was simply for top support / then why the word 'sound' ?

I've tried the drumstick end pin on 3 basses with not much noticeable or any significant sound 'improvement' , I have however cut down all my pins as much as possible.

Chuck maintains thinning a neck down in order to aid vibration throughout the instrument , but then other notable luthiers seem to think that thinning a neck is not a good idea as it may be better to localize vibration where it 'counts' ie body/chamber / although I am no expert this makes sense to me.
 
#32
I have had the good fortune to know and work with exceptionally talented woodworkers and furniture makers, most of them have no interest in writing or publishing what they know. They learned their craft by quiet practice. Put a tool or piece of wood in their hands and they did magic. If I wanted to learn from them I too had to quietly observe and ask a question or 2. This was how craft was taught and still is to some degree. I too question some of the woodworking choices in CT's book. I respect his experience and desire to share his knowledge. I'm sure there are amazing luthier's around the world that have a wealth of info that we would all benefit from knowing, only they do not have the desire or skills to put pen to paper.
 
#33
The sound post, bridge projected height and string choice relationship has everything to do with how the tone of the instrument is balanced and projects. Of course the innate qualities of the build also has it's place but after all has been done to make a bass ready for comfortable playing manipulation of the sound post will regulate the tone.

Some positions and their influence on sound are as follow:
Tight sound post = shrill unbalanced sound
Too close to the f holes = thin sound with preference on the tops
Too far from the bridge = hollow sound
Too close = nasal sound or tight
Too thin post = weak shrill
Too thick = dulled although often I use a thicker post to dampen a top bright bass. Ie ply and dry basses that tend to scream a bit.

The list goes on and it takes a lot of testing to find the right place.

Remember the sound pos should be traditionally spruce with the quarter at right angles to the table grain so that if the post splits for some weird reason it won't go thru the top.

Of couse there are countless arguments and experiences with regard to how and what to do with the post.

It took me about 7 years of fiddling with this before I started hearing the subtle differences with the post while the bass boys and girls directed what they were lookin for.

Hope this helps. Wv
 
#35
I don't think Treager was advocating rounded ends to sound posts, rather just easing the corners. I think this is a perfectly acceptable approach, but not for the reason Traeger says. The large diameter of a bass post can make it harder to stand up and adjust with sharp edges, rounded edges can really make things easier. The problem with this approach is you cannot then see how good the fit is.

It is, in fact, very important that the sound post fits very well, 100% fit is an ideal to try to achieve, a concept to strive for. The fit of the post is important because a poorly fitted post can wander around inside the instrument when "everything vibrates", we just had this problem in the shop I work at yesterday. I have no idea what the fit of the post does to the sound, and I really don't care, it needs to be well fitted to stay in place.

I have only perused Traeger's writings so far, and as a luthier who is currently somewhere between apprentice and journey man, he is at the bottom of my list of people to read. Things like bolts in neck heels and stuffing a loose neck joint with epoxy without taking the neck out are OK when you are trying to get a worthless instrument playable for the public school for little or no money, but have no place in fine lutherie or woodworking in general, in my opinion, and really turn me off.

One last note on Traeger's claim that his approach is scientific and research based, I do not believe that his writings were peer reviewed and based on large studies with double blinds, etc, and as such would be considered poor science by the scientists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he had advanced degrees in acoustical physics or other related fields. He was a bass repairman with considerable experience and some very strong opinions who liked to write. I sure he had some very good ideas as well as some very bad ideas, and just because he tried to give himself credibility with words like research and science and liberal use of bold and italics does not mean he deserves that credibility.
 
#36
I got a PM the other day from someone we all seem to know and love. He asked why, given my scientific background, my own posts re Traeger's message didn't address the fact that he was making "scientific" claims that were not actually that at all.

Given uprightben's post, I figured I'd answer. The reason I chose not to mention this at all before was because I didn't want to get into one of those degenerating internet discussions about the nature of science. Oh well...

I respect and place great weight upon the findings of highly experienced practitioners with years of experience. For example, when (fill in name of your favorite well-known, respected luthier) tells me that moving the post this way or that will produce this or that change, I pretty much can take that to the bank. I don't ask to be shown the empirical data resulting from objective, well-designed, experimental trials. I think it's fair to say that most (if not all) of us operate this way every day.

That said, I agree completely with uprightben in this case. The reason is that, as I see it anyway, Traeger is making assertions with which other highly experienced luthiers disagree and is claiming his to be "fact," and objectively correct. That is, he asserts that his experience is somehow more valid than that of others rather than additions to the store of experiences of highly-qualified craftsmen. It doesn't help that he chose to write his message in terms of principles (axioms) and corollaries which is, of course, the language of mathematics, etc. In my view, that lends a false precision to what are his own valuable observations and beliefs.

All of this is not to deny the value of Traeger's own experience, observations, and writings. It seems to me that we're fortunate to have part of his store of knowledge and, yes, opinions, preserved. One should take other views into account for sure and not take seriously his claims that his findings constitute scientific conclusions.
 
#37
You know, if the content is valuable, it is valuable...if it isn't it isn't.

If I know that a meal is made from good, ordinary ingredients, according to a decent recipe, and I try it, and like it, it doesn't really matter if the waiter thinks it is a spiritual feast sent from nirvana, unless he tries to charge me accordingly.

On the other hand, when my own Dad tried to feed me pancakes made with alfalfa, I rejected them, not because I doubted that alfalfa is healthy (as he argued it was), but because the pancakes smelled and tasted like a bale of hay, and I have hauled all the hay I ever intend to haul, let alone eating it.

I would love it if all the bass (and other instrument) experts would take the time to write their collective, empirical, double-blind-tested, repeatable and measurable experiences in a professionally edited book. But they have not done so. Some simply are too busy, most are not writers, and some quite honestly will tell you that those "secrets" are what keeps them ahead of the competition, and it would be financial suicide to sell them. Okayyyy. Personally, I think "knowing the secret' is only a small part of what makes a luthier, and there is little risk of anyone overtaking the experts because of shared knowledge.

Meanwhile, the only decent book(s) I am aware of on bass lutherie come from Mr. Traeger. I am very thankful he took the time, and I don't care if he attempts to serve it on nirvana-logo platters, or believes it is the apex of evolution, or whatever. I'm glad to have the information.

Will I ever bolt-repair/epoxy a neck? Pshhh! NO!

Is the book worth having and reading? in my opinion, YES, without question.

Thanks, Mr. Traeger!
 
#38
Good posts. I am dubious of anyone claiming that their methods are backed by science and have been proven as fact. Particularly someone working as a luthier using opinion anywhere in his experimentation. Changing an endpin may make the bass sound more resonant and seem to make the bass louder but those don't become FACTS until detailed measurements are done. Even then, that experimentation is only relevant on that particular bass, at that humidity level, etc, etc, etc.. Also, those changes may not be improvements to that particular instrument.
I see Traeger as an experienced luthier with several good ideas that may be considered by anyone wishing to improve the sound and playability of their bass.
In my experience, some of his ideas have merit while others (neck bolts for one) are kinda scary.
Read his words with a large chunk of salt handy. Let your mind and ears guide you through the process.
 
#39
Facts are facts whether backed by some government-funded study or not. Birds, butterflies, bats, etc. all flew long before "science" figured out how it was done. The facts were there all along...observed, but not understood.

There has never before been as much money thrown at the research of acoustics, etc, as there is today, and still it is largely not understood. The facts are there, for anyone to observe. But we don't all observe them the same, nor, obviously, interpret what we observe in the same manner.

Truth is not dependent upon my approval or yours. However each of us is free to test what someone claims to be truth, and either agree or disagree. At the point when everyone agrees, we usually start calling what we agree upon a fact. The problem with that picture is that we usually, historically, tend to pool ignorance, and come up with a lot of half-truths that we build our lives around.

Knowing this, as Mr. Swanson pointed out, our job is to sort the "wheat" from the "chaff". Not to beat up the harvester.
 
#40
Chet, I completely agree with you. If anybody (me, for instance) believes that using a drumstick is the best option on a particular bass, it is. Whether or not someone cites science in attempting to disuade me is irrelevant.

My disagreement is with Traeger stating emphatically that as a fact, drumsticks are the best material for endpins. Steel, CF and various woods have strengths and weeknesses, but I don't believe it can accurately be said that any one material is superior.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back