Luthiers, help me out here! I practice and listen to recordings of other bassists, and like everybody keep trying to get better. Then just listen to even a high-school-age violinist or cellist - they can do so many things on their instruments that we can't! After however-many-hundred years of wrestling with a fretless instrument with a 40-plus inch string length, why are basses still constructed like big violins? Compare a bass to a Model T Ford, when the technology exists to build a Formula 1 race car. Why do we keep sawing away year after year and suffering with carpal tunnel and the like? Is there any real reason not to change the instrument to suit our physiology? Like, brass and woodwind instruments have been adapted as technology improves. We no longer put calfskin heads on tympani. So my question is: have you ever heard of, or participated in, any testing of high-tech improvements to basses? For example, has anyone tested using composite materials for bridges, sound posts, fingerboards etc.? Has anyone tried moving or re-shaping F holes for more low bass sound? How about "tuning" the cavity of the instrument with patches of dense material the way dampening is done to a bass drum (I'm sure that's done with wood patches, but is it routinely done to new basses? What about quicker response? I know strings are evolving, but what else? If higher tension produces a quicker response but kills sound, can a bridge be designed that increases playing tension but regulates tension on the table of the bass? Why, exactly, are the feet and lower arch of the bridge designed that way? Just wondering if any of you can point me to existing info on this. Or is EUB the answer? Are DB luthiers making any changes based on EUB technology? Thinking of the speed and ease of playing that electric guitars made possible for guitarists.