Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 Basses improving with age? (DB Forum Thread)
- Thread starter Ed S
- Start date
Of course I can tell the difference between a violin and a sax. But that difference CAN be mechanically confirmed. I often read about things that are detected as above (bats' sonar?) or below (whale song?) the range of human detection. It just surprises me that if the human ear is supposedly able to detect a difference, that that could not be readily confirmable.
It surprises me that no audio engineer has ever bought a fiddle for themselves or their kid, and brought it to work to see if they could actually measure that it "opens up." Or that no fiddle maker/seller ever sought confirmation that their fiddles "opened up."
Some things - like the belief in a supernatural being - are said to defy proof. I don't understand why tonal quality ought to be in that same category.
Let us not confuse hour to hour, day to day variation in the responsiveness and sound of a stringed instrument, with the claimed change over the long term due to repeatedly being played.
The first thing is clearly understood and the mechanism is easy to understand, given how much wood can expand and contract with changes in temperature and humidity. The second thing is not clearly understood. Unfortunately some people have posted their experience with the first thing (dramatic day to day variation) as support for the second (gradual permanent change over the long term).
Further, it seems that the long term change hypothesis needs to be divided in two: 1) the hypothesis that tone changes over time due to aging of the wood; 2) the hypothesis that tone changes over time due to the vibrations of playing. The first one is harder to verify experimentally as the aging of wood is going to be time dependent and there's only so much you can do to speed it up. The second ought to be fairly simple to test, at least at a basic level, by applying vibrations to an instrument 24 x 7 and periodically measuring its sound spectrum. Experimental methods to address and compensate for variation exist and would need to be applied to prevent polluting the results with confimration bias and to ensure than random variation isn't mistaken for real change. But these experimental methods are well established.
The first thing is clearly understood and the mechanism is easy to understand, given how much wood can expand and contract with changes in temperature and humidity. The second thing is not clearly understood. Unfortunately some people have posted their experience with the first thing (dramatic day to day variation) as support for the second (gradual permanent change over the long term).
Further, it seems that the long term change hypothesis needs to be divided in two: 1) the hypothesis that tone changes over time due to aging of the wood; 2) the hypothesis that tone changes over time due to the vibrations of playing. The first one is harder to verify experimentally as the aging of wood is going to be time dependent and there's only so much you can do to speed it up. The second ought to be fairly simple to test, at least at a basic level, by applying vibrations to an instrument 24 x 7 and periodically measuring its sound spectrum. Experimental methods to address and compensate for variation exist and would need to be applied to prevent polluting the results with confimration bias and to ensure than random variation isn't mistaken for real change. But these experimental methods are well established.
There are quite a few issues with human hearing that prevent us from being able to discern differences in sound at an exact mechanical level.
I've managed to build a modest collection of old, mostly fretted stringed musical instruments through the last 50 years, many of them being similar but different enough to intentionally produce different tone. A few of them intentionally look amost exactly the same, being just from different years or possibly different manufacturers, and believe me, I'm obsessed enough to be able to hear the differences. But typically, to people who aren't directly associated with these instruments, they sound the same.
These are the people who make up most of our audiences. They are uniquely objective about the exact details of the instruments we play because their interest focuses are elsewhere.
The differences that people who aren't directly associated with particular instruments can consistently notice are primarily related to the touch of the person playing it. To most listeners, that is the primary difference. Whether the instrument itself is an ancient build by a famous person, or a new build created by using astounding materials and processes, the touch is what they are affected by, and they can hear that difference.
- One is that normal human hearing is not able to notice less than ~10% of a difference.
- Another is that the interface between our ears and cognitive realization is -- and has to be -- colored by the rest of the processes in our mind, including those processes that happen in the emotional centers.
I've managed to build a modest collection of old, mostly fretted stringed musical instruments through the last 50 years, many of them being similar but different enough to intentionally produce different tone. A few of them intentionally look amost exactly the same, being just from different years or possibly different manufacturers, and believe me, I'm obsessed enough to be able to hear the differences. But typically, to people who aren't directly associated with these instruments, they sound the same.
These are the people who make up most of our audiences. They are uniquely objective about the exact details of the instruments we play because their interest focuses are elsewhere.
The differences that people who aren't directly associated with particular instruments can consistently notice are primarily related to the touch of the person playing it. To most listeners, that is the primary difference. Whether the instrument itself is an ancient build by a famous person, or a new build created by using astounding materials and processes, the touch is what they are affected by, and they can hear that difference.
i've played a lot of basses
old basses have a particular character. there's a certain type of flavor in the sound, i guess what we end up referring to as "old" sounding.
and while its true the finest examples are the most well cared for, even a not so great old workshop instrument will change and sound better over 150+ years.
I also see this on the flip side - finely made basses from makers who's skills are every bit as high as any of the great masters.. they can sound like they've not been broken in yet.
i'm not saying old = good. I'm just saying, there is definitely a particular flavor in the sound.
old basses have a particular character. there's a certain type of flavor in the sound, i guess what we end up referring to as "old" sounding.
and while its true the finest examples are the most well cared for, even a not so great old workshop instrument will change and sound better over 150+ years.
I also see this on the flip side - finely made basses from makers who's skills are every bit as high as any of the great masters.. they can sound like they've not been broken in yet.
i'm not saying old = good. I'm just saying, there is definitely a particular flavor in the sound.
My objective observation about my own instrument that I've owned for 42 years now is that the B on the E string speaks much better now than when I first got the bass, which was 22 years old at the time. It has been a gradual process and not due to string or other changes to the instrument. So yes, I think age does matter.
My luthier told me he thinks 50 years and 100 years are markers for improvement. Unfortunately I probably won't be around for the 100 year mark.
My luthier told me he thinks 50 years and 100 years are markers for improvement. Unfortunately I probably won't be around for the 100 year mark.
[QUOTE="
It surprises me that no audio engineer has ever bought a fiddle for themselves or their kid, and brought it to work to see if they could actually measure that it "opens up." Or that no fiddle maker/seller ever sought confirmation that their fiddles "opened up."
[/QUOTE]
A link posted earlier in this thread is about doing this to two same built violins. It's a hard experiment to do. One pair really isn't enough. Dozens or perhaps hundreds of "identical" pairs would be better. 3-10 years is also not really enough time. 50, 75, 100 years is better. See the difficulty in humans organizing, and actually carrying out this experiment? Where's the motivation?
I get what your writing though, measure a single instrument throughout it's use, decade after decade. It is more feasible than having pairs, and one locked away, while another is played and measuring / comparing them years later. With one instrument though, it can be hard to keep track of what change is causing what. Instruments being used, will be modified and adjusted according to best needs of the current performer.
It surprises me that no audio engineer has ever bought a fiddle for themselves or their kid, and brought it to work to see if they could actually measure that it "opens up." Or that no fiddle maker/seller ever sought confirmation that their fiddles "opened up."
[/QUOTE]
A link posted earlier in this thread is about doing this to two same built violins. It's a hard experiment to do. One pair really isn't enough. Dozens or perhaps hundreds of "identical" pairs would be better. 3-10 years is also not really enough time. 50, 75, 100 years is better. See the difficulty in humans organizing, and actually carrying out this experiment? Where's the motivation?
I get what your writing though, measure a single instrument throughout it's use, decade after decade. It is more feasible than having pairs, and one locked away, while another is played and measuring / comparing them years later. With one instrument though, it can be hard to keep track of what change is causing what. Instruments being used, will be modified and adjusted according to best needs of the current performer.
Woods age differently, so the sort of positive aging discussed here shouldn't be taken for granted. I studied okoto in Japan, and it was generally understood that after eight or nine years the traditional kiri (paulownia) bodies of those instruments lose resonance to the point of uselessness, and they're typically discarded.
Yeah - but a lot of people talk about fiddles opening up in the first months/years of heavy playing. My wife is a luthier, and when I asked her this same question, she said she suspected the sound post and everything "settled in" rather rapidly. Sorta like a new car's squeaks settling in. I dunno - that sounds like it COULD make sense to me. But again, I think there are countless references around here of people saying their instruments changed/improved in less time than a decade - which suggests a time period that is very testable.
And people talk about the wood structure changing. Again, that SOUNDS like something that COULD make sense to me, but if it were so, I'd expect it to be testable. Presumably, string instruments are made from well seasoned wood. My bandmate's new cello was made from 150 yr-old wood. I'm not sure how much that wood is gonna be changing anytime soon!
I sorta suspect that with the buying/selling/assessing of instruments, many people DESIRE a "fudge factor" - describing things in non-verifiable terms that can justify a higher "value" for an instrument. I agree, there is some allure/romance associated with an older instrument. I've got no objection to someone saying that sorta thing. But when someone says that time resulted in some specific sonic improvement, that impresses me as something that could be independently confirmed.
Couple more points - I obviously have a tin ear compared to many of you around here. Hell, I'm a bluegrass thumper in the pro-dot faction!
Hell - I had to think a bit before I figured out where the B WAS on my E! 
And my current bass is a 10 yr old plywood Englehardt. So I have no personal thought as to whether that hunk of plywood sounds any better than the day it was made. If it does sound any better, I'd suspect a large part of that was due to my improved ability, and my wife tweaking the setup...Kinda relevant, tho - I've taken my wife to look at a bunch of old plywoods, and her opinion is that old DOES NOT necessarily mean better. When she looks at a 20-70 yr old Kay, she sees a bunch of real or potential problems. To a large extent (not all) luthiery involves creating a solid resonating box. And modern makers, using modern tools, are certainly capable of crafting solid boxes.
The old basses definitely call to me. But my wife says, if SHE is going to be maintaining them, she'd prefer that I buy NEWER!
I'm getting a new Upton hybrid sometime this spring/summer. I wonder if it would be at all practical to try to do some amateurish tests of my own? Just making recordings at different times, and seeing if I can run them through some available software...
One final question - are there any makers who have made similar models for long periods, without significant changes in their tooling, sourcing of materials, quality standards...? Say Shen - 20 years from now. Will a 2040 Shen Willow differ from a 2000 Shen Willow (assuming consistent setup)?
Thanks all for engaging in this discussion in the spirit intended.
There are people who belive that statistics (or models or algorhythm or however you like to call all those numerical representations of phenomes) are enough for understand everything that is a concern.
There are other people who belive in the existence of certain matters that escape those representations.
What's real is not a question of belive but all that is a personal concern. (And hopefully shared with others).
There are other people who belive in the existence of certain matters that escape those representations.
What's real is not a question of belive but all that is a personal concern. (And hopefully shared with others).
Here's an older thread about the concept of basses "opening up" or not, ranging from 2012 to 2018, in case anyone enjoys reading more on this subject. In it, I stated that I suspect that it's the player who "opens up" as they find the range of the bass and how to pull sounds from it. I still believe that, but who knows? Fascinating stuff either way!
Thanks for the link. Sorry I did not search and append to that one.
FWIW, I tend to agree with your POV.
Truth, as always, will be somewhere in the middle of things; the player gets accustomed to the bass, and the bass opens up to the player.
- Oct 12, 2004
- 1,327
- 587
- 72
- Disclosures
- Retailer: Shen, Sun, older European
From about 1980-2010 I sold a lot of new guitars and frequently saw them return as trade-ins or consignments years later. Those that were played regularly sounded more open and developed than those that were interior decor accent pieces. I had two friends who purchased new Martin D-28s on the same day. The one that primarily stayed in its case seemed anemic and dainty compared to the one that was played vigorously every day for 15 years.
Since 1999 I have sold a lot of new basses and frequently saw them return as trade-ins or consignments. Those that were played vigorously every day have a much more developed character, noticeably on the A string and especially noticeable on the E string. I currently have in stock a nearly unplayed Wilfer 3/4 size doublebass that received virtually no playing attention from any members of the family that owns the bass. It sounds green and undeveloped as I would expect a 2-3 years bass would, compared to the actual age of 25 years.
Your experiences may be different than mine or may be very similar. I can only relate how I have experienced acoustic wooden musical instruments that have been used regularly against those that were not played much since brand new.
Since 1999 I have sold a lot of new basses and frequently saw them return as trade-ins or consignments. Those that were played vigorously every day have a much more developed character, noticeably on the A string and especially noticeable on the E string. I currently have in stock a nearly unplayed Wilfer 3/4 size doublebass that received virtually no playing attention from any members of the family that owns the bass. It sounds green and undeveloped as I would expect a 2-3 years bass would, compared to the actual age of 25 years.
Your experiences may be different than mine or may be very similar. I can only relate how I have experienced acoustic wooden musical instruments that have been used regularly against those that were not played much since brand new.
Adding to the subjective observations, I also play saxophone and have for fifty years. I believe, with no science backing me up, that metal instruments can also improve with age. I have three tenor saxophones. A 1937 Selmer Balanced Action, the grandfather of all modern saxophones, A 1950's Selmer Super Balanced Action, and a 1959ish Selmer Mark 6. I choose to play the 1937 horn, the least monatarily valuable of the three.
Like basses, a good instrument can be repaired, maintained so that it functions "like new". The horns each have personalities, which I doubt non- players could discern. But I can sense a "looseness" in the old horn that I equate to the metal having adjusted to "finding" the easyist way to deal with the vibrations it is put through. I have played modern pro horns from Yamaha, and others, and found them unbeatable for mechanical smoothness, good intonation, volume et all, but there is a certain tonal complexity (?) that, for me, is missing. I suspect that in 50 years, the complexity will be there.
Steven
Like basses, a good instrument can be repaired, maintained so that it functions "like new". The horns each have personalities, which I doubt non- players could discern. But I can sense a "looseness" in the old horn that I equate to the metal having adjusted to "finding" the easyist way to deal with the vibrations it is put through. I have played modern pro horns from Yamaha, and others, and found them unbeatable for mechanical smoothness, good intonation, volume et all, but there is a certain tonal complexity (?) that, for me, is missing. I suspect that in 50 years, the complexity will be there.
Steven
I had the privilege of visiting with Francois Rabbath in his home in Paris some years ago. He had 4 basses lined up including 2 original Quenois. One was his main bass which sounded great like it you'd expect it to. He played the other that wasn't used often and it had a dull and lifeless sound comparatively. I doubt if he would have chosen it with that sound, but not being played much may have taken the life out of it.
- Oct 12, 2004
- 1,327
- 587
- 72
- Disclosures
- Retailer: Shen, Sun, older European
Going through the supplements section of a 2-DVD set of Truffaut's 1960 film, "Shoot the Piano Player", Armenian actor-singer Charles Aznavour revealed that the two musicians playing with him in the cafe scenes of the film were none other than Francois Rabbath and his drummer brother, Victor. These were his two traveling concert musicians at the time. The little Quenois (or Quenois-style) bass shown in the film looked easy to transport and play. If this is one of his current basses, it has probably played millions of notes since then !
I have several drummer friends who swear that cymbals get better as they age. One guy commented just recently on how he won't be around any more by the time his cymbals are sounding their best.
