• 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

#41
statsc said:
“ There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Hamlet (Shakespeare).
Click to expand...

Well, that's a nice quote, but it doesn't follow that age and vibration related changes in the mechanical properties of wood in a musical instrument are affected by supernatural intervention. Last time I looked, Shakespeare did not have much of a knowledge of materials science.

That said, I'm agnostic on whether the wood ages due to age and exposure to vibration in a way that affects the musical behavior of the instrument. It is true that vibrations of the body are important in a stringed instrument. It would be a difficult thing to prove given the large variation in pieces of wood and the time factor, as I pointed out above. I do find it somewhat suspicious that little space is given to instruments that are believed to sound worse as time passes; it's only ever about instruments sounding better. Why is that, do you think.
 
#42
turf3 said:
Why is that, do you think.
Click to expand...

Because the wood fibers lose rigidity over time, making them vibrate easier. Easier vibes = louder and more “full” tone. Also the wood cures over time and the moisture content dampens the motion of the top. But this seems obvious to me - why is this such an inflammatory controversial subject? Are we just that bored and looking for a semantic argument, or are we all just joking about how ridiculous this all is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ericsmith and VictorW126
#44
Bro, I don't know much about much and don't claim to be an authority on this or anything else ... but, I have broken in enough guitars and basses (not to mention cane saxophone reeds!!) to notice the phenomenon. To say instruments (especially wooden ones) don't break in as they're played over time seems like a masterbatory exercise in high-school debate-club. Even freakin' brass saxophones break in on a molecular level. Consider this -- everything (!) in the known universe is in energetic flux. Why would the wooden top of your bass be the only thing in this universe that doesn't change over time when energy is applied? Basses break in - yes they do - they just don't do it over one afternoon of heavy bowing.... (edit: Furthermore; wooden endpins are 'the best', one should only use hardwood soundposts in plywood basses, Traeger's 'mode-matching' system is legit, and D necks are superior to Eb necks.) Flame on, Jeremy out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VictorW126
#46
That was an interesting article. I had not previously seen any such studies. I admit, some of it is over my head in terms of exactly what they were testing and recording, but it does seem to indicate some change with vigorous playing over time.

I'd be interested in seeing other similar studies to further narrow in on the different types of "breaking in" we've discussed: immediately after purchase, rewakening a seldom used instrument, or the effect over decades/centuries. I'd also be interested in more analysis of what the results in that study mean in terms of what the player/listener experience. Sounds like the heavily played instruments were louder at various (but not all) frequencies. Suggests to me that, as turf3 suggests, if certain frequencies changed more than others, the result could be a deterioration in the sound quality. Finally, my quick reading of the study does not identify the mechanism (loosening wood fibers, settling/loosening seams, etc) responsible for these changes.

But thanks for the link. I tend towards empiricism, and personally prefer such information over "anecdata."
 
#47
I have few answers and many questions. I hope they lead to more discussion. I do like the way my instruments sound the more I play them with the bow.

Does my ability to draw the sound improve with regular practice? Likely.

Is it possible that the instruments’ organic materials themselves are also changing in that time? Also likely (and I look forward to hearing the changes in my instruments and my ability to enjoy those changes over the next 20 years at least!).

With respect to questions of whether negative changes occur with extended play and/or lack of use…Wouldn’t the techniques/procedures/choices/designs that evolved over centuries of wooden instrument production have evolved to minimize tone regression and maximize the longevity of the instrument?

With respect to the lack of published research studies, whose interest would be served enough to fund such studies (Large manufactures, Luthiers)? Longitudinal studies to objectively prove anything would be very expensive.
 
Last edited:
#48
@Ed S: the bass plays only some frequencies. If you play open G which is about 100 Hz, the string vibrates 100x in a second. But also another vibrations occur: two at once (200 Hz), three (300 Hz) and so on. If you find it hard to understand, take a rope, tie it to something on one side and shake it on the other side. If you do that vigorously enough, you will see more than one wave at once.
So, the theoretical response of the string would be only given frequencies: bass playing open G plays 100 and 200 and 300 Hz, but not 105 or 209 or 333. Reality is different, bass plays everything in between the theoretical frequencies, but less loud. The loudest frequencies are called the peaks and they follow the 1* 2* 3* (etc) rule.
The measurement in the article show that with vigorous playing, the peak frequencies get stronger, and only some of them, mostly the higher ones. This would mean that the sound of the bass gets cleaner, gets 'more so', and that more higher mids appear in the sound.
The changes are subtle, and surely changes of the player are faster and more hearable. That would be, I think, the heart of the dilemma.
The best violin makers in my country, most of them one man workshops, often lend their best works to a master player for a year, and only then go to sell it. (It is said.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CryingBass
#49
I am pretty convinced that a wooden instrument will physically change over time from a combination of vibrations from playing and environmental flux. Whether that is major enough to materially change the sound of the bass for the better i am not 100% sure about, but my thinking is that it is at least possible and maybe even likely. My theory is that the wood conditions to accept/reciprocate the vibration more easily as more vibrations are pumped through it. Sort of like grains of sand settling/evening out on a vibrating surface.
 
#50
AGCurry said:
Clarinets and wooden drums do not get better with age and playing in.
Click to expand...

I just had a thought about this... I don't think either one of these instruments vibrates as much when played as a DB does. Just give your E string a good tug sometime and watch how much the top flexes around the bass bar/F hole area. It's actually quite a bit of movement. This is happening constantly when we play, we just can't see it happening. That amount of movement can never happen on a clarinet or drum shell. To me, that's the reason why these instruments don't change much, if at all, over time. They just don't get subjected to the same level of tension and release that a bass does.
 
#51
Humbly, I assert that clarinets and wooden drums absolutely DO get better with age and playing in! Vintage Buffet R13 clarinets are much more desirable than their modern counterparts. Same with vintage drums, ya'll... Would you rather have a vintage or modern Gretsch kit of similar spec? Lets talk politics instead. How 'bout that 'rona?
 
#52
bassmanbrent said:
I just had a thought about this... I don't think either one of these instruments vibrates as much when played as a DB does. Just give your E string a good tug sometime and watch how much the top flexes around the bass bar/F hole area. It's actually quite a bit of movement. This is happening constantly when we play, we just can't see it happening. That amount of movement can never happen on a clarinet or drum shell. To me, that's the reason why these instruments don't change much, if at all, over time. They just don't get subjected to the same level of tension and release that a bass does.
Click to expand...

Brent, as I tried to say, I don't know whether vibrations and/or age make an instrument sound better. I don't disbelieve, but I'd like to see scientific experiment results before I believe. My point was not so much to answer a question as to ask "Why do we think that the changes caused by vibration must be positive?," i.e., why can't they harm?

Like viols, the wood in clarinets and drums are involved in the sounds of their instruments and are subjected to vibration. Clarinets and drums have a life span, and they degrade with age and playing. So - good with viols and bad with woodwinds? Why?
 
#53
JBarz said:
Humbly, I assert that clarinets and wooden drums absolutely DO get better with age and playing in! Vintage Buffet R13 clarinets are much more desirable than their modern counterparts. Same with vintage drums, ya'll... Would you rather have a vintage or modern Gretsch kit of similar spec? Lets talk politics instead. How 'bout that 'rona?
Click to expand...

Also humbly ...

I was told by a pro clarinetist that a clarinet - the wooden barrel - eventually wears out. I can only speculate that it's due to vibration (although moisture may also be a factor, I suppose). The best drummer I know would rather play a 20-year-old Yamaha kit than the 1960s Ludwig kit he used for years. I would expect a vintage Gretsch kit to be worth more in the market but not sound any better than a contemporary one.
A Selmer Mark VI saxophone is also extremely desirable, but I doubt that it's due to sounding better because it's well-broken-in.

Again, I don't have a dog in this race. I'm just leery of truisms which exist because everyone knows.
 
#54
AGCurry said:
Clarinets and drums have a life span, and they degrade with age and playing. So - good with viols and bad with woodwinds? Why?
Click to expand...

I didn't know that drums have a lifespan... All I can add is that violin family instruments don't seem to degrade sonically with age. Why, I do not know. I think it'd be a very difficult thing to prove scientifically due to all the factors involved. Anyway, this is a very interesting thread that I'll now step away from since I don't think I have anything constructive to add. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AGCurry
#55
Strokes and folks - 'the best' drummer I know actively won't play anything that says “Yamaha”, and everyone’s got opinions… my 50s Slingerland kit with real skin heads speaks for itself, just not on the internet. With clarinets, it’s all about cracks - you don’t want them (!), but if the instrument is well taken care of (swabbed, climate controlled, etc) cracks can be avoided. Some players prefer not having to think or fret about it and buy modern (just like us -buy the La Scala and call it a day), some risk the scars and damage of an aged axe. In terms of saxophones - a well played Mark VI will outplay any modern Selmer “reference” replica because the brass absolutely ages and breaks in (“the molecules align” or some BS) — but again, they come with the caveat of worn down keywork that needs to be tightened and/or issues with previous repairs. Always a trade-off balancing act… Worth it to some folks, not to others. “Both ways are fine.”
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AGCurry and VictorW126
#58
AGCurry said:
A Selmer Mark VI saxophone is also extremely desirable, but I doubt that it's due to sounding better because it's well-broken-in.
Click to expand...

I have a (tenor) Selmer Mark 6, (early '60s? A Selmer super balanced action, (50's) and a Selmer Balanced Action (1937). I just play the 1937 because of its "smoothness". I'm a believer, that it is because its been played so much. All of them have, but the the decages of use seem to matter. The actions (mechanical stuff, key placement etc) got better through the years, but the feel and sound of the oldest one is the "warmest".
 
#59
One more thought. I'm not sure it's the actual aging of the wood that makes all the difference. As an amateur bass "restorer", I'm not sure that many players know how much bending to fit the final assembly of stringed instruments can require. Refitting backs and tops requires many clamps, not just to press the glued joints, but also to hold the parts in place. The structure of the bass is so relatively flimsy, that one must use mild pressure to fit all the parts properly. This bends a bit many of the parts. Then, I figure. it takes some time and playing to get the wood to stop trying to revert to its original "stressless" state. Moving it with the vibration of playing seems eventually to take the fight out of the parts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee Moses, Bar Star, VictorW126 and 1 other person
#60
notabene said:
One more thought. I'm not sure it's the actual aging of the wood that makes all the difference. As an amateur bass "restorer", I'm not sure that many players know how much bending to fit the final assembly of stringed instruments can require. Refitting backs and tops requires many clamps, not just to press the glued joints, but also to hold the parts in place. The structure of the bass is so relatively flimsy, that one must use mild pressure to fit all the parts properly. This bends a bit many of the parts. Then, I figure. it takes some time and playing to get the wood to stop trying to revert to its original "stressless" state. Moving it with the vibration of playing seems eventually to take the fight out of the parts.
Click to expand...

I have read mention of instruments sounding better after the top is off and reinstalled, implying that resetting the top after some years of aging helps to relieve some residual stresses.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back