• 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 Alternative Tonewood

#41
Rod, have you read the initial post? Different sounds wasn't the original question.

Hemlock trees seem to have more twist in them than other large conifers out here and more sap pockets too. They are making trim out of it now and its not very nice.

All the old houses I've worked on in coastal BC have had spruce or fir for structural members, spruce or fir for interior trim and cedar on the outside and I think they did it for a reason. God knows there's enough big hemlock around..........
 
#44
I notice that most of the responces about hemlock as by people on the west coast. My limited experience working with hemlock lumber is that it is not any more twisty, warped or full of sap than any other connifer in the lumber yards around here. Perhaps this is a difference between eastern and western hemlock?
 
#45
e.hemlock different from w.hemlock..workability,drying,grain,etc. and as for availibility..better act fast if you want eastern canadian...as the picture will attest... we are losing hundreds of thousands to an unwelcome guest..woolly adelgid..things don't look better for the upcoming season...:eyebrow:
now with that said..any thoughts on..catalpa,paulownia,american chestnut(no worm holes).. two natives one import
 
#47
The original poster asked specifically about alternate Tonewoods, because of increased cost and scarcity of the traditional woods. Depending on where one is, that can be a real problem, as Mr. Tucker has stated.

Here in Oregon, where Big Leaf Maple and both Sitka and Englemann Spruces abound, it still is expensive to get them--I just paid $1500 each for two full bass sets, including ONLY the wood, and not even bassbar, block and lining wood included. Fittings, fingerboards, strings, and varnish etc. are all on top of that. Pushing $2500, say, for materials, and maybe a decent bag, before the labor begins. So it IS an issue, if one can find other, less traditional woods for, say, half that cost...you'd save $750, even here at the source.

BUT, and this is a bigger issue, if you are going to spend 500 hours building the bass, and the wood you use will either make it unsalable, unplayable, or in some other way a total waste of time, the money saved on the wood, even if it was free, is small compared to the money lost in labor on a bass that is no good.

So, all the discussion about the relative merits in terms of sound are spot-on topic. That is exactly the issue.

While we are at it, I have tried Ipé as fingerboard, saddle, nut and tailpiece material, and it seems OK, but it does not look the same, and, of course is not quite as hard. Has anyone else experimented with it? It is way cheaper, and plentiful, but again, if it turns out to simply not be hard enough, or make it sound funny, it is pointless.

Chet
 
#48
"Am I missing something?"

Maybe you are, if you drop in in the middle of a thread and only have sarcastic comments to add to the discussion.

If you want to understand my remark, or the thread as a whole, you'll need to read from the beginning. The OP asked about alternative tonewoods for DB and suggested several woods that are actually endangered and not used/suitable for DB.

Since neither Maple nor Spruce are in short supply, I really don't see the need for replacements except, as Rod pointed out, if you wanted to alter the sound.
 
#49
Every time someone says you can't use X for a bass tonewood, you find an exception to the rule. The thing about maple and spruce is that they are known quantities and proven to last centuries. That's where "saleable" is a factor. But that doesn't mean there aren't many fine functional alternatives. Look at what guitar makers are using, and selling!

I think it's also as much the way the wood is worked which has a huge bearing on the effect on sound. Its often hard to predict what any organic raw material will do before you start working with it. As the instrument grows in front of you, you discover what the wood wants to give you.

My hunch is that, grosso modo, a rigid instrument would tend to be naturally bright and a flexible instrument dark. But how you achieve the flexibility or lack of is very variable. an inherently flexible wood such as willow might bring something to a bass compared with a maple bass, all other things being equal. But then I think maple carved thinner and braced differently could be equally flexible.

I don't think its as simple as X wood sounds like THIS and Y wood sounds like THAT.

I'm prepared to try anything that looks good and is big enough.

So many variables ... so little time.
 
#50
Matthew Tucker said:
My hunch is that, grosso modo, a rigid instrument would tend to be naturally bright and a flexible instrument dark.
Click to expand...

Matthew, I am no professional luthier, so take my comment with a grain of salt.

More flexibility and especially less weight are usually sought after by luthiers at all cost. But I have seen so many basses made with rigid and heavy materials that sound great and dark !

As a matter of fact, my experience with heavy/rigid necks for example is fantastic, as far as darkness and fullness of sound.

Al Laszlo in Cincinnati has a magnificent Ruggeri with a poplar back that is so incredibly thick that I can't think you could get any flexibility from it. And somehow that bass is so deep and dark you don't actually know where the sound comes from because it just envelops you. It's also incredibly loud.

I have never heard a good bass with a heavy top though. Or with a top that was thick around the edges which is where it needs to flex.

Perhaps heavy and stiff woods can work in certain areas or with the right treatment (graduations, etc...).

For tops there seems to be very little room to play, but I know someone might have evidence to the contrary.
 
#51
I am not (yet) a professional luthier either. My hunches may be correct or they may be way off the mark. (So far - I think - I'm fairly close to the mark.)

I was talking only about rigidity/flexibility. That's only one parameter. Other parameters are weight and density and i agree, a heavy softwood back you would think would be darker (absorb HF??). And it would of course be more rigid, everything else being equal. But a heavy hardwood back might be brighter (reflect HF??)

In the world of guitars, they say a rigid, heavy instrument will often project sound better in a large venue. But a light and flexible instrument will envelop the player in the sound ...

But what about a lightly built but rigid instrument? Or a heavy but flexible instrument? what are the limits of what wood will do?

So many variables ...
 
#52
I know this could take this thread in a completely different direction... but I was wondering if anyone has ever used recycled wood, for instance from an old church that is being demolished or from a soundboard from a no longer/unrepairable piano?
This solves both problems, 1. Cheap, the stuff is going to get thrown away anyways, 2. doesn't cut any new wood, 3. Sounds good its old well aged wood (this might not necessarily be true, but it seems like it would at least help the sound).
 
#53
Well i have some nicely flamed drawer sides taken from junked office desks and some WRC shelving that i intend one day to make into a cello or small bass. But so far, its just planks in my woodstack!

The problem for basses is getting the wood big enough. Yeah you can make up multi-piece tops and backs and they can work fine, but it's extra work.
 
#54
The problem with grand piano soundboards is that they are only 1/4" or so thick. I hang out at the local piano restorers once in a while, but they send their frames to Seattle to have the soundboards replaced. Yes, I'd like some of that 100 year old wood for guitar tops!

Michael Heiden ( http://www.heideninstruments.ca/ ) has been building terrific mandolins from 100 year old Red Spruce beams from a grain mill in Ohio. The sound is breathtaking from Day One, with a depth and maturity not usual in a new instrument.

I bet the beams are big enough for bass tops but would be fiercely expensive.
 
#55
Jake deVilliers said:
I have read the entire thread from the beginning. You are the only poster suggesting that one should not investigate alternative woods because there is plenty of spruce and maple around. First of all, as I am constantly seeking out and buying bass wood, I find that statement erroneous. I personally don't care for big leaf maple (neither does Dan Hachez), so I concentrate on Eastern maples, European and English Sycamore-maple. These woods are very expensive, quality has deteriorated and size can be a problem. Spruces are available though expensive, and quality has also deteriorated.

Secondly, spruce/maple construction is not the only, nor clearly the best, way to go with double bass construction. Of the last 10 Italian basses in my shop, perhaps two or three were built this way. Others had backs and ribs of walnut, poplar, pear, chestnut and willow. Tops were pine, spruce and fir. Most of these instruments have fabulous tone.

The idea that one should stick to the traditional violin-family woods was rejected hundreds of years ago. I personally have built basses with sycamore, poplar, cottonwood, aspen and walnut, (as well as maple) with excellent results. There are certain woods I don't think are suitable, such as the heavy, stringy woods like hickory, elm and oak. And I agree that heavy tropical woods like cocobolo are also unsuitable.

I applaud those aspiring and active luthiers who are exploring the non-traditional wood choices. They are walking a path the great Italian bass-makers have taken for centuries.
Click to expand...
 
#56
e.hemlock different from w.hemlock..workability,drying,grain,etc.

Now that we've established the difference between eastern and western hemlock, does anyone know if e. hemlock is suitable for basses? The wooly adelgid has pretty much wiped them out in the southern appalachians as well, so what ever is harvested right now will be the last of these giant straight connifers.:crying: Since there are so many ancient trees dying, it seems like you could cut down an old tree that you would never think of cutting if it were healthy, therefore creating the opprotunity for some truely huge billets.
 
#57
e.hemlock although long lived tends to be weaker and succumbs to defect earlier than most conifers. when you find the tree your looking for: healthy crown, 50-80yrs, clear bole,etc,etc..you have a 70% chance of getting what you want...very old and there is little chance..standing dead=cull..dry rot,heart rot, stain, the list goes on...but TRY

luthiers/luthiers to be: if you are in this for the long run you have to be creative in how you get your materials Recycled wood or (figuratively go out on a limb).it's really not that difficult to knock on farmer browns door (or whomever) and buy (trees/timber for a nominal price)many of the species disscussed...even some imports in urban settings. arrange your own milling..on site band? what ever it takes..buy,mill,dry(works the same on the westcoast as it does on the east)..beats the wood boutique. nothing like building a little sweat equity in your own trade..all things being equal,piss fir,pussywillow,or the shithouse door off a tuna boat(now thats tonewood) you'll manage to build;)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back