Double Bass A message from Chuck Traeger

[drurb]

...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.

This is absolutely not true.

 

[Matthew Tucker]

This is absolutely not true.

Which part? The money part or the not understood part?

(BTW, I don't think you got what Chet meant.)

 

[Huy Nguyen]

I dunno... something fishy about the rounded soudnpost corner idea. How is it any different than a narrower soundpost with more density? Soundposts don't all have to be the same thicknesses.

The frequency of how often something is observed subjectively doesn't make it fact. Performing an objective scientific study that tries to prove a theory gets you closer to making a new fact - still it's not a fact or law until multiple impartial others can repeat your findings. Using the words "Corollary" or "Principle" doesn't make it scientific either. It's psuedo-science. He can't even give any statistics, just qualitative (albeit still valuable) obseravtions.

I'm sure his books are peer-reviewed by now, and there seems to be a significant amount of disagreement with his hypotheses.

 

[notabene]

Is it possible he just meant a slight bevel at the end(s)? No more than a 16th or even 32th of an inch. This lessens the chance of splitting off pieces of the soundpostwhile moving it, or making dents in the top or back if it slips while tightening strings? Works for me. minimal reduction of surface area.

Also, since I'm here, my limited experience (rebuilding 4 wrecks) tells me that intuition, gut (feeling not strings) instinct is more important than pseudo science, which to me sounds like after the fact rationalization. Each bass is different, each adjustment affects every other part of the bass. It has seemed to me complicated enough that rules are less important than touch, ear, and senses.

Steven

 

[Huy Nguyen]

Sorry, I was thinking of rounded soundpost ends as a sound improvement, not as a precaution against scuffing the inside of the bass.

But yeah... IMO, luthiery has too many variables and should be relegated to an art, not really a science. Chladni patterns are interesting to look at and good for making certain generalizations - but I would hesitate to call them a fact that it would improve every piece of wood in the same exact way.

 

[Matthew Tucker]

I think everyone should give him a break. In his books he is very clear to point out that he is writing about HIS way of doing things. They are full of "I think" and "i believe" and "I do this ... " and he gives reasons for why he thinks so. By all means disagree with him or his reasons, but I don't think he is making any outlandish claims, any more than purveyors of say resonating devices you put in your pocket that are scientifically proven to enhance your sound.

Chuck does often quote the scientific work of Carleen Hutchins and I think there's pretty fair evidence that her work WAS based on pretty sound scientific methods and research. You're allowed to do that. Mode matching is an attempt to apply the results of her research, thats all.

He only mentions science ONCE in his post above, and it was in relation to what is a "fact". Why is everybody attacking him for claiming all his observations are scientifically based?

90% of his repair methods I think are quite traditional. But in the opening paragraph of his section on neck repair (and many seem only to have read that paragraph) he points out that HE thinks the prejudice against metalwork in neck repairs is not based in reality. In the chapter he mentions that the best way of fitting a neck is to get a good mortise fit and good glue joint. But I read his bolted/screwed repair methods as methods that can be used if needed. I have never needed to use them though, except for a CHEAP chinese student bass with a broken scroll. Yes, I used a bolt repair, it was affordable for the parents and the bass is still going strong two years later. I also use a single bolt to attach the neck in all my handbuilt basses. This is a feature not a repair. There certainly appears to be no detriment to sound, but I am not going to test this by gluing in the necks for comparison! Metalwork has its place.

Likewise I removed a bunch of metalwork from the heel of an old bass I am restoring. This metalwork was added after reglues and several more traditional dowelled repairs had failed. Actually, the threaded rod repair to fix a crack in the heel was still intact, it held up very well over time. And a screw through the end of the heel was still holding the heel in place. The joint failed for other reasons - a badly chosen piece of wood for the top block, shrank and cracked. But the metal repairs appeared to be fine. I'm assuming they were done as a last resort, when everything else had failed, as Chuck seems to indicated. The only way of identifying the real problem was to take the bass apart, as I eventually did.

Empirically, in this case, the metalwork repairs seem to have held up, the other parts of the bass failed. I suppose you could infer that the metalwork was too strong a repair, and CAUSED the block to fail. But there's no proof of that either.

So, I'm keeping an open mind.

 

[Damon Rondeau]

Thanks, Matthew. Fair and authoritative. Grounded in reality. That post was needed.

 

[drurb]

Which part? The money part or the not understood part?

The line was this one:

...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.

I just knew someone would ask whether I was questioning the money part or the understanding part! First, I have no figures on the amount of research funds spent on acoustic research over the years but I suspect Chet is quite correct about that. To suggest that acoustics in general is not well understood is not a fair statement at all. Sure, there is still research to be done but, my goodness, our understanding has expanded enormously over the years (centuries)! I'd say it is very well understood and that goes for musical instrument acoustics as well. If Chet was referring to the specifics of double-bass acoustics and effects of setup parameters, then I could understand concluding that much greater understanding would be useful but I also don't think that all that much research funding and experimentation is devoted to that. I did agree with Chet's post, save for that one line.

 

[1st Bass]

Well, that's a relief!

Actually, I was referring to the specific understanding of violin-family acoustics, and including basses as giant cousins. I belong to several violinmaking forums, and the arguments between the experts (I do not include the wannabe experts...I only mean the real ones) regarding how sound is produced, radiated, modulated, simonized and homogenized are literally endless. There is no surer way to start an argument that to make some declaration about the effect of A0/B0 matching, or tailpiece modes or what have you.

I stay out of it. But my observation is that there must still be a HUGE amount that is not understood, simply because of the innate complexity of the instrument, and that observation is born out by the endless arguments. People don't argue much about how long it takes concrete to cure, or the melting point of aluminum...

I didn't say nobody understands it at all, just that it is still largely not understood. I don't think that was an unreasonable statement.

 

[George700DL]

I think everyone should give him a break. In his books he is very clear to point out that he is writing about HIS way of doing things. They are full of "I think" and "i believe" and "I do this ... " and he gives reasons for why he thinks so. By all means disagree with him or his reasons, but I don't think he is making any outlandish claims

THANK YOU!

 

[uprightben]

Mathew, you are right, I haven't read any of Treager's books, but I did read the article that this tread is based upon. In the opening paragraph he does claim that his methods are based on science and that bassist should insist that all luthiers use them or be boycotted. He then ends the paragraph with a garauntee of his method. We then have people thinking that he is advocating hemi-spherical ends to sound posts because his writing is unclear. I don't want to trash anyone, but I do believe it to be a service to this community to point out that one should really be cautious of Mr Traeger's writings, not because he doesn't know what he is talking about, but because he is guilty of hubris, of thinking his opinions are more valuable than the opinions of others. He is not the only person to have ever worked on bases, just the only one to write a book about it in English.

 

[Eric Hochberg]

Upright, I suggest reading the books before expressing such a negative view of Traeger. No hubris there, IMO. He had a successful career in NYC, is Ron Carter's guy, trained Bill Merchant, who from my own experience, is a fine luthier, and he cares enough to put out a book on the subject. In his practice, he has seen the work of many other luthiers, fixed and corrected some of that work, which has informed much of his viewpoint. He is careful to point out that there is not only one way to correct a problem. He has Merchant and another luthier discuss their own methods in his book.

Fine resident luthier Matthew confirms in his post that 95% of his methods are traditional. CT has enough experience to have earned the right to his strong opinions even though we may not agree with all of his conclusions. I think more respect for the man and his achievements is warranted without the harsh bashing.

 

[bassedsouth]

Upright, I suggest reading the books before expressing such a negative view of Traeger. No hubris there, IMO. He had a successful career in NYC, is Ron Carter's guy, trained Bill Merchant, who from my own experience, is a fine luthier, and he cares enough to put out a book on the subject. In his practice, he has seen the work of many other luthiers, fixed and corrected some of that work, which has informed much of his viewpoint. He is careful to point out that there is not only one way to correct a problem. He has Merchant and another luthier discuss their own methods in his book.

Fine resident luthier Matthew confirms in his post that 95% of his methods are traditional. CT has enough experience to have earned the right to his strong opinions even though we may not agree with all of his conclusions. I think more respect for the man and his achievements is warranted without the harsh bashing.

Yes I agree - BUT what would be constructive to this thread is are there any luthiers out there that have tried some of Traegers more controversial methods and if so what is the consensus.I have repaired a bass with broken scroll by following Traegers method of a METAL bolt through the neck under the board going through the scroll butt. It worked very well is pretty near invisible and pretty damn strong.The bass that I did this to was an inexpensive Eastern European bass and the player could simply not afford a neck replacement or scroll graft / she was also going on tour and needed her bass asap.Would I have done this to a Gagliano or a fine instrument , of course not but I am pretty sure neither would Traeger.
I see that in his book he has a pic of 2 sound posts , one quite rounded at the ends and another that is carved out into an hourglass shape.I am going to replace a sound post on one of my basses in the next day or so and am going to experiment with rounding off a post just like in Traegers book , somehow it makes sense to me that the less post coverage the better the instrument will vibrate but from experience it is pretty rare to obtain 'night and day' results especially on a well set up quality bass.

 

[MollyKay]

At 85 years old, a wealth of experience, known students, well known luthier of his apprenticeship, a book written and published on a small niche subject of Bass repair and set up…Geesh…give the guy a break. I respect anyone who takes their life’s work and commits it to the printed page. With out his documented writings there remains a void on for folks like us “Bass Hobbyist” to find a starting foundation.

Coming from 30 years of publishing and print, I can say it takes years of drafts, re-writes and editing to produce a book like Chuck’s much less the personal time and expense. You can self publish just about anything today with no peer review. If you want peer review and be picked up by a publisher you need respect and money to get a project like this into print.

The print market is shrinking everyday to content management with to online reading…GULP…this printed manual will last for a long time because it is the only one out there for now. As far as his methods you can take them or leave them, but at least they are there to dispute or use as a reference. I think any bass repairman whether a journeyman or a hack can always learn something with and open mind. To pick apart certain suggested techniques without looking at then entire book is unfair. For the record, we own the book, read it from cover to cover (more then one time) and still use it for reference.

One thing I found out quickly, luthier is steeped in hundreds of years of tradition; new ideas are quickly torn to shreds. With new glues, woods, manufacturing techniques, amplification devices and technology in general there is bound to be some new ideas in bass building and set up worthy of trying in the next 100 years. I look forward to the next person who steps forward and puts fourth their efforts backed by years of experience like Chucks. It could be a good long time until a similar publication is written. Dollars to donuts we will buy it online, down load it to an e-reader or permanent storage device that will have a keyword search with video and sound clips…and can be shared on facebook or in iTunes.

There is not tons of money to be made by the author or the publisher, one would only under take such a project because they believe in their content or they are writing for legacy.

 

[drurb]

...Actually, I was referring to the specific understanding of violin-family acoustics, and including basses as giant cousins. I belong to several violinmaking forums, and the arguments between the experts (I do not include the wannabe experts...I only mean the real ones) regarding how sound is produced, radiated, modulated, simonized and homogenized are literally endless.

I think we disagree concerning who are the real experts. To me, they are the ones publishing in the premiere journals concerning acoustics.

...But my observation is that there must still be a HUGE amount that is not understood, simply because of the innate complexity of the instrument, and that observation is born out by the endless arguments.

That there are endless arguments among those who are not the primary researchers is no surprise. I'm sure there are esoteric arguments among the experts as well. If you go into a gas station and ask a mechanic how a car battery works, he/she will explain it to you. Ask a physicist, and he/she will tell you that he/she has no idea!

I wouldn't say car batteries are not largely understood.

Here's the deal with stringed instruments. Like many other things, complex ideas take years to find their way into the "public domain" of practice. I know few luthiers who, on a regular basis, read and assimilate the primary literature on musical instrument acoustics. I don't blame most luthiers!

While I can't claim to have a working knowledge of the primary writings, I sure am aware of their general scope. Based on that, I think it is unfair to say:

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.

IMO, it's unfair regarding "acoustics" in general and regarding stringed instruments specifically.

 

[notabene]

I bought the Traeger book years ago, and at $80, I've never regretted it. Lots of valuable information. I don't ever remember having any reference book in any field where it was possible to shut down my own critical analysis of what was being stated. There will always be wheat and chaff, and it is up to us to glean the grain. There don't seem to be many other one-stop sources for bass repair information.

 

[Greg Clinkingbeard]

I bought the Traeger book years ago, and at $80, I've never regretted it. Lots of valuable information. I don't ever remember having any reference book in any field where it was possible to shut down my own critical analysis of what was being stated. There will always be wheat and chaff, and it is up to us to glean the grain. There don't seem to be many other one-stop sources for bass repair information.

'Like' button on caffeine:

 

[1st Bass]

DRURB "While I can't claim to have a working knowledge of the primary writings, I sure am aware of their general scope. Based on that, I think it is unfair to say:

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.

IMO, it's unfair regarding "acoustics" in general and regarding stringed instruments specifically."


OK. You win.

 

[Eric Swanson]

Upright, I suggest reading the books before expressing such a negative view of Traeger. No hubris there, IMO. He had a successful career in NYC, is Ron Carter's guy, trained Bill Merchant, who from my own experience, is a fine luthier, and he cares enough to put out a book on the subject. In his practice, he has seen the work of many other luthiers, fixed and corrected some of that work, which has informed much of his viewpoint. He is careful to point out that there is not only one way to correct a problem. He has Merchant and another luthier discuss their own methods in his book.

Fine resident luthier Matthew confirms in his post that 95% of his methods are traditional. CT has enough experience to have earned the right to his strong opinions even though we may not agree with all of his conclusions. I think more respect for the man and his achievements is warranted without the harsh bashing.

+1.

 

[PaulCannon]

Is it possible he just meant a slight bevel at the end(s)? No more than a 16th or even 32th of an inch. This lessens the chance of splitting off pieces of the soundpostwhile moving it, or making dents in the top or back if it slips while tightening strings? Works for me. minimal reduction of surface area.

I'd assume that's what is meant. One of the recent issues of Bass World had a Q&A with David Gage, Arnold Schnitzer, and Jim Ham regarding sound posts. All three said they put a "micro bevel" on the ends of the sound post to prevent tearing. None said this had any effect on the sound.

The Traeger book might be the only volume of its kind that deals specifically with basses. However, most common repairs have the same basic procedure on violins as they do on bass, just with bigger tools. The industry standard manual on stringed instrument repair seems to be the Invalid Link Removed. It's a much more traditional look at repairs and restoration. Very clearly written (though often extremely technical), lots of pictures and diagrams, and surprisingly comprehensive. It's expensive, but if you're serious about repairs you need to own this book.