Double Bass ball front vs ball back

[bonaventura]

Have you tried a bel canto? More resonance means more sound and nothing beats bel cantos! But if that doesn't do it for you, try stringing it with the balls facing out.

I gather that's how yours are strung. What does that do for your sound?

 

[Francois Blais]

It decreases the angle of the strings over the bridge, therefore there is more pressure transmitted to the top.

 

[bonaventura]

Francois, don't you mean less pressure on the top, ergo more volume?

 

[Filhup Hollydae]

You never can be sure what playing balls out can do for your bass but with mine it increased response, resonance, and volume. Try it and see what happens, but you must try it for a while so the bass adjusts.

 

[Francois Blais]

Francois, don't you mean less pressure on the top, ergo more volume?

No, more pressure on the top.
But your own bass may react the other way and get choked, therefore giving less volume.

As Filhup said, you need to try it to know if this will work on your particular instrument.

Best,
François

 

[CPike]

I may be stepping on some toes here, but I like doing that sometimes... I've given this issue of stringing the ball in the front vs the back of the tailpiece a lot of geometric thought but never bothered to chime in until now. I don't see how either way can change the angle of the string afterlength (and, thereby the amount of pressure on the top.) If it did, then that would mean the tailpiece itself stays rigid in 3D space with respect to the body of the bass and the afterlength situated at a shallow angle when strung with the ball in the back, and a sharper angle with the ball in the front. But the tailpiece would not stay rigid in 3D space - it would move more forward away from the bass if the balls are in the front.

Look at the two pics attached.

The first one shows the traditional "ball back" method, and the second, "ball front". Either way, with the strings at full tension, they would be pulled in a direct line from the edge of the bridge to the top of the saddle (see the red line in both pics.) Therefore no change in afterlength angle! The tailpiece would move as shown.

I'm not doubting that stringing the balls from the front could change the sound in some way - I just don't see how the angle would change in either case! Someone please try to convince me otherwise, because I just don't see it.

Chris

 

[bonaventura]

I may be stepping on some toes here, but I like doing that sometimes... I've given this issue of stringing the ball in the front vs the back of the tailpiece a lot of geometric thought but never bothered to chime in until now. I don't see how either way can change the angle of the string afterlength (and, thereby the amount of pressure on the top.) If it did, then that would mean the tailpiece itself stays rigid in 3D space with respect to the body of the bass and the afterlength situated at a shallow angle when strung with the ball in the back, and a sharper angle with the ball in the front. But the tailpiece would not stay rigid in 3D space - it would move more forward away from the bass if the balls are in the front. Chris

See, it always takes an engineer to bring everyone down to reality...

Your point is a theoretical one. In terms of physics, the angle will be the same... assuming the tailpiece is a plane, i.e., flat.

Wouldn't it make a difference that the tailpiece is curved?

 

[Francois Blais]

See, it always takes an engineer to bring everyone down to reality...

Your point is a theoretical one. In terms of physics, the angle will be the same... assuming the tailpiece is a plane, i.e., flat.

Wouldn't it make a difference that the tailpiece is curved?

Not only curved, but it also has a non-negligible thickness.
Also, the pivot point is not the saddle, but the place where the string exits from the tailpiece hole.
The tailpiece's thickness is the key in the geometry here.

It would actually be very interesting to measure the angles in both setups.

 

[CPike]

Not only curved, but it also has a non-negligible thickness.
Also, the pivot point is not the saddle, but the place where the string exits from the tailpiece hole.
The tailpiece's thickness is the key in the geometry here.

It would actually be very interesting to measure the angles in both setups.

If the pivot point were indeed the string hole, then the opposite end of the tailpiece would have to move up or down - but it can't because it's right down by the saddle. If something pivots on one end, then the other end must be free to move, correct? That's the whole concept of "pivot" I would think. I think the pivot point is the where the tailwire meets the saddle, since that is fixed. That leaves the top of the tailpiece, where the strings attach, free to move forward and back. It would be positioned back toward the belly when the strings run over the front of the tailpiece and it would be positioned forward away from the belly if the strings run along the back of the tailpiece with the balls visible in front. Again, in either case the string vector still points directly at the saddle from the bridge edge.

Chris

 

[CPike]

See, it always takes an engineer to bring everyone down to reality...

Your point is a theoretical one. In terms of physics, the angle will be the same... assuming the tailpiece is a plane, i.e., flat.

Wouldn't it make a difference that the tailpiece is curved?

See my above post. I think the thickness or curvature of the tailpiece is negligible. The tailpiece is just a coupling between the string and tailwire. When the strings are at tension, the line from the bridge edge to the saddle is straight and the tailpiece which couples the string to the tailwire moves out of the way of this line - depending on which side the strings go through.

Chris

 

[Francois Blais]

Since I only have an EUB, I can't do the experiment, so I'll leave this to AUB owners.
That still doesn't explain why the tone is different on Filhup's bass though.

 

[CPike]

I don't doubt there is some perceivable difference in how the bass sounds or responds, I was just challenging the string angle/tension aspect that had been brought up. Perhaps it's the very fact that the tailpiece mass is more forward of the body than its traditional position that causes the difference. Francois, as moderator, is there any possibility of extracting these posts and creating a new thread? I fear we have detracted from the original poster's E string issue.

Chris

 

[Filhup Hollydae]

Have you tried a bel canto? More resonance means more sound and nothing beats bel cantos! But if that doesn't do it for you, try stringing it with the balls facing out.

 

[Jake deVilliers]

I'm with CPike on the straight line theory - because of the flexible mounting, the angle is the angle.

Maybe Mr Hollydaye ended up with vastly changed afterlength tuning and that improved the tone? The strings would last touch the end of the tailpiece instead of the 'fret' that's on the top of the tailpiece, and on some tailpieces that's 1/2" or more.

Just thinking out loud.......

 

[CPike]

Yes, I think you're on to something with the fret and the afterlength...

And thanks to Francois for extracting this thread for separate discussion!

Chris

 

[Francois Blais]

 

[Marcus Johnson]

Where's Jeff Bollbach when we need him?

 

[Filhup Hollydae]

I like the term balls out better than ball front, it's more descriptive.

 

[Don Higdon]

I like the term balls out better than ball front, it's more descriptive.

My balls are always in front, but rarely out.

 

[Jake deVilliers]

"My balls are always in front, but rarely out."

+1