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.
Do basses get better sounding as they get older?
- Thread starter pringlw
- Start date
just the age alone does not determine that it will sound a sertern way...
but what does make a differance is if some one plays on a serten instrument and how much time does he spent doing that!!! the more you play it the better it will sound!!! that is a FACT!!!
but what does make a differance is if some one plays on a serten instrument and how much time does he spent doing that!!! the more you play it the better it will sound!!! that is a FACT!!!
Funny... I don't subscribe ANY psuedo-science and I always look for empirical proof, peer reviewed studies, etc., before I make judgements on things like this; ...except for mojo. Somehow I feel that an object can become imbued with "charm" through very personal contact and heat from somebody good or special. I also feel this can work in reverse and an object can get some type of negative charge. I know all this sounds ludicrous considering I reject everything else that falls within this extremely subjective subject. I acknowledge, for instance, that in double blind tests audiophiles cannot tell the difference between lamp cord and $1000 speaker wire.
So, quick answer: The instrument will not sound better through age alone, nor will it always sound better no matter who plays it... but if a person connects strongly with whatever has been placed within the instrument, they can channel the charm and play better with it. I feel it is entirely possible that this "charm" can be explained mentally and physically in the purely physical attributes acquired through much passionate contact in previous playing.
I think it is just as ignorant, if not more so, to declare that an instrument cannot sound better from the aging/wearing of the wood for the simple fact that we are talking about music! Wow, how much more personal and emotional and subjective a field could we possibly choose? If there is a place for magic this is it. I for one feel I have never played a note that was mine, but rather the whole of existence doing its thing. So yeah. Sorry for the tangent.
So, quick answer: The instrument will not sound better through age alone, nor will it always sound better no matter who plays it... but if a person connects strongly with whatever has been placed within the instrument, they can channel the charm and play better with it. I feel it is entirely possible that this "charm" can be explained mentally and physically in the purely physical attributes acquired through much passionate contact in previous playing.
I think it is just as ignorant, if not more so, to declare that an instrument cannot sound better from the aging/wearing of the wood for the simple fact that we are talking about music! Wow, how much more personal and emotional and subjective a field could we possibly choose? If there is a place for magic this is it. I for one feel I have never played a note that was mine, but rather the whole of existence doing its thing. So yeah. Sorry for the tangent.
That's quite an indictment.
What can happen is that an instrument may change over time and use/abuse. What cannot be assumed is that it will change for the better, if it changes at all. It could just as easily change for the worse.
Which it will do is a crapshoot, if it does anything at all.
Of course "better" and "worse" are completely subjective and can only be assessed if one knows what the instrument sounded like when it was new.
The listeners perception of the tone is perhaps the biggest crapshoot of all.
Mojo in instruments is a belief that I don't hold.
I hear ya, I can completely understand. I'm not even sure it exists, I just find it likely.
Ever get into the *extremely scientific/mathematic* theories of relativity, space-time, and all that goodness? Realizing that other dimensions exist and that time is but a concept really make one sit down and wonder what the hell is going on. Damn, I'm really starting to sound like a hypocrite. Agh, I blame it on Duality.
This is a good example of why the myth of 'basses sounding better as they get older' hangs on (and to the poster, not doggin' you personally).
The 'non scientific method' involves comparing two things and then attributing the differences to the most easily identifiable thing, regardless of the true causal impact of that particular factor.
In this case, two P Basses, one new one old, and they sound different. So... it must be the 'new versus old'. In fact (and obviously if you think about it) there are probably hundreds of differences between those two basses, from the exact metal used in the bridge to the pickup winding to the density and even sub-variety of the wood, pots, magnet strength and even pickup design that has changed over the years, etc., etc.
The scientific method is about holding as much constant as you can, and then changing one thing at a time (or more than one thing if you have a true experimental design and can 'deconstruct' the impact of the multiple change factors while controlling for the impact of others.).
The only way to really test the impact of age on an instrument is to find a relatively large sample of, for example, 30 year old instruments of the same basic design and spec, and then 'go back in time' and find a similar relatively large sample of those instruments when they were new. Of course, this is not able to be done, and hence the discussion will continue to be in the realm of opinion, not true scientific comparison.
The reason is that you and the others prefer the sound of the old P bass for whatever reason. It's most likely it was always the "better" sounding instrument.
I've heard some old Fenders that myself and others think are real clunkers...but don't tell a "vintage" dealer that...they don't like it.
Right, very little aside from the body of the instrument, its neck and scroll, and usually, the fingerboard.
But yeah, other than that, not much is left.
I would say yes the wood sounds better as it gets played.
It is the same with double basses, when you get it brand new the sound is week so you gotta play it to get the sound of the double bass; the more you play it the better it sounds; that is why all the orchestra players prefer to get basses that are over 100 years old.
As of pickups; yeah they get weaker but that is something you can replace.
It is the same with double basses, when you get it brand new the sound is week so you gotta play it to get the sound of the double bass; the more you play it the better it sounds; that is why all the orchestra players prefer to get basses that are over 100 years old.
As of pickups; yeah they get weaker but that is something you can replace.
All species of wood have, if you were to examine them under a microscope (actually, it would be called a macroscopic crossection that you'd be studying) resin/sap ducts. When wood is alive, as in still in a living tree, these ducts carry nutrients through the tree, much like blood vessels.
After wood gets cut and aged, these ducts remain, and the resin in them stays as well... however, over time, the resin ages and shrinks, leaving macroscopic chambers throughout the wood. So, yes, there is a scientific explanation as to why older instruments have a different resonance.
The longer you wait, the more resonant the wood becomes... the ultimate example being a Stradivarius violin. Of course the wood they used was special too, because it was extra resonant due to the Little Ice Age occurring at the time... but maybe I'll save that for another day.
Class Dismissed!
Actually, most of the sap is carried up the tree in the layer right under the bark. That's why if you girdle a tree (strip the bark and underlying layer in a ring completely around the tree), you've killed it.
Short answer? IME/O: YES. (Usually...)
Rick Turner wrote an article in BP way back when, examining how the wood resonates differently, the more the axe gets played out. IIRC it was all about the acoustic vibratins settling the grain or something. Someone even built a giant rig to try and simulate the process. (Strap it down & jiggle it ultrasonically for a while = 20 years of bar gigs?)
I remember reading that same article. I did some searching and turned up this TB post that mentions the (defunct) company Timbre Tech that would "age" instruments on a shaker table.
I also found this TB post that talks about the Timbre Tech process, mostly from an acoustic guitar perspective. I find the concept very interesting and also pretty plausible. But I can't say it is proven because, while they made some attempts at being scientific, I don't think their experiments were set up properly to eliminate "confirmation bias" or wishful thinking.
Still, I'd love to get two virtually identical, brand new basses -- maybe a couple of Fender American P5s -- and run one of them on the shaker table, leaving the other as a control, and see how they differ after the treatment. I guess you'd need to get a number of bass players together and do a double-blind A/B comparison both before and after. You'd want to confirm that people couldn't tell them apart before the "aging", and then see if they show a statistically significant preference for the "aged" bass after the shaker process was run.
