• 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 Breaking in a New Bass

S

statsc

Apr 23, 2010
1,004
1,491
Burlington, VT
#1
I think it’s pretty universally accepted that basses (and indeed, all wooden instruments) change sound as they age and are played, usually for the better. Many have also claimed that there are ways to accelerate this process through exposing the top to increased vibratory energy through mechanical means or through particular ways of playing; specifically, through fortissimo arco playing of double stops. I’ve always thought there was a bit of “snake oil” to these methods, but decided to try out playing loud arco double stops on my brand new New Standard Cleveland hybrid. The double stops I used were drones (two adjacent strings, one open, one fingered), perfect fourths, perfect fifths, and tri-tones.

When I first tried out this bass, I noticed that it had the basic tone I was looking for, but with somewhat of a sharp and brittle edge to it; not surprising given new Spiro Mittels and brand new wood not yet fully accustomed to its new shape. When I finished my first arco double stop session (really only a few minutes) I immediately noticed a somewhat rounder, warmer pizz. tone that hadn’t been there before. After leaving the bass for a few hours and coming back to it, I noticed that the pizz. tone had regressed somewhat back towards the harder more brittle side, though not quite all the back to where it started. Subsequent arco double-stop sessions brought even more movement towards the warmer rounder side, with smaller regressions towards the sharper more brittle side in between. So progress is being made, and seems to be much faster than my previous brand new bass (Upton Standard laminate), which was not subjected to this double-stop arco regimen (hours vs. weeks).

Perhaps this is just some psycho-acoustic “smoke and mirrors;” my ears playing tricks on me, but I’m now a believer, although I’m not yet ready to lay the bass down in front of hi fi speakers and expose it to loud rap or heavy metal!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bar Star
#2
I’ve never believed in any of the breaking in theories. I think it’s far more likely that we adapt to our basses and gradually learn to get what we want to hear out of them with our technique. I know I need to adjust my touch and feel with any new bass compared to my main bass. I would just play the bejesus out of the new axe and enjoy the honeymoon!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRA, Papageno, Silevesq and 14 others
#5
Tone woods do age and change at a molecular level, and then can equate into better sounding instruments, but unless something that was originally done wrong in the wood preparation process or in the build process is subsequently corrected, it takes years if not decades of playing to effect this magnitude of a change in a finished wooden instrument.

If this is just a short term change that you're observing, I'd be more likely to wonder about setup related things such as strings settling into the nut and bridge slots, sound post settling into the top and the back better, wood compression around the bridge feet and other areas, and other things that sound related vibration can possibly improve in a short period of time such as strings breaking in, etc.

But the other thing is technique... A good musician's technique will change based on the instrument that is being played, in a pretty-much subconscious effort to produce the best sound. Some changes are immediate, and some changes happen over longer periods of time. This is something that can be difficult to identify as it is happening, but can be recognized once the technique changes cause enough sound differences to recognize.

There are devices that will vibrate an instrument with similar vibrations to playing it, that are supposed to speed up this process. The devices of this type that I've encountered were for smaller instruments than a double bass, but it is possible that they may also be available for the double bass.

I've also heard people attribute instrument improvements to vibration related to constant car or bus travel, or related to an instrument sitting for long periods in front of a large speaker that is playing music.

These are all hard to prove and human hearing is very subjective. I've read in numerous places that the human ear has trouble distinguishing less than 10% in sound differences, and some folks say this is more like 20%. But often our minds take care of the rest. Emotional hearing is something we all do based on what we want to hear, it's just part of the human condition.

I'd say if you like the sound of your instrument, that's great. You gotta live with it. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Keith Rawlings and AGCurry
#10
Edicson Ruiz has stated that tuning his 1750 Landolfi in 4ths, Viennese and solo opened up the instrument’s sound.

I have not noticed any significant change in a bass sound other than cold winter periods the bass can sound less deep. Possibly this may be to do with the sound post tightness.

There was a long ago belief that carved basses only start to sound good after 50 years. I think we can agree that new basses do indeed sound fantastic, and that was an old false belief.

I will say that my violin, which sat unplayed for decades, absolutely came to life when I started playing it daily last year. It was noticeable in the first few weeks. The sound, as Edicson said, is best described as ‘opened up’.
 
Last edited:
#16
So, 14 replies so far (make min #15), and not one person has yet fully agreed with this universally accepted belief? ;)

I recall posting in similar threads in the past, so I'll refrain from repeating myself here.
 
#17
This is such a complicated topic! I really think that a whole lot depends on the quality of the individual instrument. A well made instrument 'should' sound great right from day one and improve subltly over its life, IMHO. This is not an attempt to discount Chris Fitzgerald's point that a player gets a better sound as they get to know a particular instrument, because that's definitely part of it too. A lot of factory instruments take quite a while to start sounding good, again IMHO, because the wood needs to age and vibrate for some time to start sounding optimal due to the fact that they may not have been made with the same level of expertise as a master built instrument. Just my observations, as always.
 
#18
Ed S said:
So, 14 replies so far (make min #15), and not one person has yet fully agreed with this universally accepted belief? ;)

I recall posting in similar threads in the past, so I'll refrain from repeating myself here.
Click to expand...
OK Ok; I’ll retract the “universally accepted belief” part of my post, given the evidence cited above. A lot of musicians I know accept this belief, but apparently not on this forum. I’ll stand by the rest of my post, however, as this continues to be my experience as I play this bass. YMMV!
 
#19
statsc said:
OK Ok; I’ll retract the “universally accepted belief” part of my post, given the evidence cited above. A lot of musicians I know accept this belief, but apparently not on this forum. I’ll stand by the rest of my post, however, as this continues to be my experience as I play this bass. YMMV!
Click to expand...

I agree with you. In my area, it is generally accepted that musical instruments sound better with constant active play. This is due to both the passage of time and vibrations. Changes over time occur over many years - wood shrinkage, changes in fiber density, stress relaxation, etc. Vibration change occurs quickly on new instruments and slowly on old ones. There is a concept of "played" instrument, which means that active playing reveals the sound of the instrument, makes it brighter and more dynamic. This opinion is shared by violinists, cellists, folk musicians. Double bass players even have jokes that in an unfamiliar philharmonic society it is necessary to take the most scratched instrument, because the double bass sounds better, which is played more. I know of cases when a good bass was broken, then glued together, and after several hours of active play it began to sound noticeably better than before it was destroyed! I am talking about a professional opinion, which I have come across many times and which I can consider to be quite well-established.
 
  • Like
Reactions: statsc

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back