Double Bass Breaking in a New Bass

[Ed S]

Well - what if you make a new fiddle out of old wood?

I see at least 2 different "beliefs" discussed in this thread:
1. that old fiddles age over long periods of decades/centuries; and
2. that new fiddles somehow "break in" over the first months/year of being played.

The first would be tougher to test, but I would at least expect there to be scientific papers explaining the specific changes that take place, and how that would affect the acoustics. WRT the second, if there are studies comparing the acoustics of 2 new fiddles, where 1 is played for a year and the other sits in its case, I have not seen them.

I'm not expert enough to say neither 1 nor 2 happen, nor have I exhaustively researched the literature. But if someone holds the "belief" that either 1 or 2 occur, I would expect them to be able to point to something other than vague suggestions of how materials change over time, their perception that something occurred, or having heard a story that appeals to them.

Of course, I've never been big on religion, either...

 

[Don Hergert]

There have been a number of "scientific" -- basically statistical -- tests of this among experienced violin-savvy audiences, basically all pointing to evidence that in the right hands a high quality newly built violin can sound as good or better than a very old one. That doesn't diminish antique or collectable value, but from the human ear's point of view, the difference has not been shown to be obvious.

I'm sure it's still a kick in the pants to play a Strad though.

My personal point of view is that I like older banjos, older mandolins, older Dobros and older (aluminum) double basses, but I cannot honestly say they sound superior to new ones.

 

[oliebrice]

When I borrow a bass on tour I can always tell if it doesn't get bowed much. 10 mins of arco long tones, harmonics and double stops makes a definite difference, to the pizz sound as well as the arco sound. Things open up and start to vibrate more freely.

I have a very young bass, built about 4 years ago, which is still changing all the time and has definitely opened up a lot in that time. I also have an old bass, about 200 years or so, and I am completely convinced that since I started using a really good bow this year there is more richness and complexity to be found in the pizz tone of the old bass.

I couldn't prove any of this with a scientific objective method but I know it to be true. I think of it as teaching the wood more ways of vibrating, although I'm sure many people would laugh at that idea. But how could we be artists and not believe that magical reactions happen that are hard to measure and explain?

 

[JBarz]

So here's something I've been thinking about a lot recently in a similar vein, not to derail this thread: Other than the hairs taking more rosin, do ya'll think new wooden bows break in over time and/or use?

 

[turf3]

One way to assess the likelihood of this type of theory is to consider that, if valid, it ought to work both ways.

In other words, if the aging of the wood and the subjection to vibrations from playing DO make an actual difference, there ought to be plenty of examples of instruments that sounded WORSE after a few [months? years?] of aging and playing. Yet all we ever hear is "opened up", "sounded better", etc.

Because vibration of the wood structure of the bass DOES influence sound, I remain agnostic or cautiously positive on this theory but would caution all that the very time-dependent nature of this purported process renders it darn near impossible to test in a controlled way. Sure, you can test and record a bass now and then five years from now, but all the other variables (player, strings, setup) will also have changed during that time.

I will also point out that when I start a playing session I start out pulling hard and not getting a great sound, and then after some minutes of playing I start hearing a bigger better sound with less effort (pizz). I do not think the bass changes every time I start playing it and then goes back when I stop - I think that my body and nervous system adapt to the bass in the first few minutes of playing.

 

[turf3]

When I borrow a bass on tour I can always tell if it doesn't get bowed much. 10 mins of arco long tones, harmonics and double stops makes a definite difference, to the pizz sound as well as the arco sound. Things open up and start to vibrate more freely.

I have a very young bass, built about 4 years ago, which is still changing all the time and has definitely opened up a lot in that time. I also have an old bass, about 200 years or so, and I am completely convinced that since I started using a really good bow this year there is more richness and complexity to be found in the pizz tone of the old bass.

I couldn't prove any of this with a scientific objective method but I know it to be true. I think of it as teaching the wood more ways of vibrating, although I'm sure many people would laugh at that idea. But how could we be artists and not believe that magical reactions happen that are hard to measure and explain?

I strongly disagree that one has to believe in magic to be an artist.

 

[Ed S]

...the very time-dependent nature of this purported process renders it darn near impossible to test in a controlled way. Sure, you can test and record a bass now and then five years from now, but all the other variables (player, strings, setup) will also have changed during that time.
...

Yeah, that's why I focussed on folk who seem to suggest that an instrument changes over the initial weeks - year or so. That would be a very simple thing to test - especially for the large builders who turn out large numbers of instruments that they try to make as identical as possible. Just keep one pristine, and give the other to a serious student who will play the heck out of it. Test them in a year. If there is a difference in the sound quality, that should be detectable.

When I borrow a bass on tour I can always tell if it doesn't get bowed much. 10 mins of arco long tones, harmonics and double stops makes a definite difference, to the pizz sound as well as the arco sound. Things open up and start to vibrate more freely.

This suggests a 3d category to the 2 I mentioned before. It sounds reasonable to me that a fiddle would take time to loosen/warm up - as so many other things do from human bodies to car engines.

I really am dubious, tho, of people saying what they "know" to be true, and their belief in the accuracy of their recollections. Memory is HORRIBLY fallible/malleable. And countless people have killed each other over their conflicting beliefs which they equally validly KNEW to be true.

 

[oliebrice]

I really am dubious, tho, of people saying what they "know" to be true, and their belief in the accuracy of their recollections. Memory is HORRIBLY fallible/malleable. And countless people have killed each other over their conflicting beliefs which they equally validly KNEW to be true.

My point about knowing it to be true isn't that my knowledge is more scientifically trustworthy than scientific investigation, just that it's more relevant and useful in the context of being a bass player who plays my bass. If I know it to be true, work with it and get a big sound I'm proud of and keep developing that is much more important than whether there is peer reviewed academic research that agrees with my knowledge - that's all I meant by know it to be true

That said I'm not sure memory is a big issue, I play my instrument for hours of every day, I'm not relying on distant memories as I find new tones from it

 

[oliebrice]

I strongly disagree that one has to believe in magic to be an artist.

Is there no music you find magical? Or if there is, can you give a rational and provable explanation of why it is?

 

[turf3]

Is there no music you find magical? Or if there is, can you give a rational and provable explanation of why it is?

What I meant, and didn't express very well, is that it's not necessary to believe in magical intervention in the laws of physics, to be an artist. There are a lot of things that aren't subject to logical explanation, but magical modifications of the mechanical properties of wood don't fall into that category.

 

[bassmanbrent]

n other words, if the aging of the wood and the subjection to vibrations from playing DO make an actual difference, there ought to be plenty of examples of instruments that sounded WORSE after a few [months? years?] of aging and playing. Yet all we ever hear is "opened up", "sounded better", etc.

I'm not sure I follow the logic in this... I can see how a bass could start to sound worse over time if it weren't properly constructed. That said, there are plenty of great old basses that are in pretty bad condition that still sound amazing.

 

[AGCurry]

I'm not sure I follow the logic in this... I can see how a bass could start to sound worse over time if it weren't properly constructed. That said, there are plenty of great old basses that are in pretty bad condition that still sound amazing.

I think the logic is this: If "breaking in" can make an instrument sound better, isn't there also the possibility that it could make the instrument sound worse? Why must the change be for the better?

Clarinets and wooden drums do not get better with age and playing in.

A blind study was done with violins. Most listeners thought the new instruments sounded better than the Stradivarius and other highly-prized instruments.

 

[jj.833]

Why choose a belief? There's a measurement of aging available at Knut Guettler webpage.
Check the 'A measurable effect of long term playing' article. This guy sure was no mystic, as you can check in his bass method book.

 

[JBarz]

Add this to the list of "touchy subjects" on talkbass, lol. I think D neck'd basses break-in faster (nay, 'better!') than Eb neck'd bass -- what do ya'll think? /s

 

[LouisF]

Isn't this the point of the Toneright (Anyone used a ToneRite before)

One shop here in LA uses it on lower level/cheaper basses with some success (i.e. they sound a bit better)

 

[Don Hergert]

Yes, that is one of the devices I was talking about in post #5.

Some people swear by them. Others scratch their bald heads wondering. I have no experience with them so I cannot judge (although I scratch my bald head anyway).

 

[bassmanbrent]

A blind study was done with violins. Most listeners thought the new instruments sounded better than the Stradivarius and other highly-prized instruments.

I hear you. I think there have been many similar studies done over the years and the results have mostly been the same. My thought is that an old instrument is not necessary a better instrument. I'm sure most Strads sounded great when new and and have continued to subtly improve, assuming they've been played regularly. I also think the the difference in instrument quality is most noticeable to the player. Everyone else is just hearing slightly different flavours of a musician's sound, but the difference between a good instrument and a great one can be profound to the person playing it. Just my take, as always.

 

[statsc]

I strongly disagree that one has to believe in magic to be an artist.

“ There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Hamlet (Shakespeare).

 

[CryingBass]

If I had to make a dumb guess ( which is all I got ) micro shifts in soundpost location, bridge shifting, nut slots, and of course string break - in would be 100 times more likely than body wood changes. If it sounds better in those cases, it’s by accident

 

[Ed S]

Why choose a belief? There's a measurement of aging available at Knut Guettler webpage.
Check the 'A measurable effect of long term playing' article. This guy sure was no mystic, as you can check in his bass method book.

Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading it and will check back in.

As I've said, I'm certainly not an expert. But if there IS some change, it surprises me that people holding that position are so infrequently able to site more than their beliefs, perceptions, and what they've been told.