Well, experienced builders subscribe to that "less likely" explanation...
And they must know something about how guitars work, right?
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 solid body basses break in over time?
- Thread starter WingKL
- Start date
And they must know something about how guitars work, right?
Do people actually believe this? If this occurence exists, it must be testable, show me some figures to back it up, some reason founded in real science as to why it would happen etc etc.
Would a bass made from a tree beside a road that a lot of heavy traffic goes by "resonate to its potential" from all the noise coming from the road "lining up the fibres of the wood"?
I call BS on the whole thing.
Despite the piles of anecdotal evidence and assumed physical characteristics of wood fiber resonance etc; I cite one of the primary laws of physics and thermodynamics. Entropy. I find it hard to believe that time will make the wood improve in any quantifiable way. It may improve various qualitative aspects, but then it all becomes relative, and thus impossible to prove or disprove. But, if you believe that stimulating your bass with sex toys or stereo speakers will provide some order to the manner in which it is deteriorating, by all means, have at her.
- Jun 24, 2006
- 2,560
- 90
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: MTD basses and strings; Bergantino Amps & Cabs
Inspite of your personal cynicism, it happens, has been noted in the field of luthery for centuries, and it happens in solid body instruments as well, it just takes longer and is perhaps too subtle for you to catch. As the instrument is played, it gets better - period. Just like a baseball glove gets 'broken in', and works better because of it, so does a wood instrument. Do you think all those vibrations travelling through the porous woods have NO effect...?
It is convenient. Imagine if your instrument was worth much, much less once you'd played the bejesus out of it and you couldn't sell it on
Some old instruments are...
First of all, I think what's happening is you've gotten used to the slightly muted sound of your Ibanez. When the Lull is compared to it, it sounds brighter to your ears, as it does to mine. There are several reasons for this:
First, the Lull is a much higher quality bass than the Ibanez. It is made with better quality wood, better quality pickups, and better quality hardware. What you're hearing in the Lull is the full spectrum of the tone band, which the Ibanez just can't produce. Why? Because it's a mass produced instrument, one made for profit, not necessarily for tone. That's not to say it's a mediocre bass, as you obviously like the tone it produces. But from the sound clips you posted, I think it's quite clear the Lull produces a much more piano-like spectrum of tone over the Ibanez. To me, it's much easier to tone down sound, as in the Lull, through EQ, strings, Amps, even different speakers, than it is to try to "EQ up" areas of tone that aren't there, as in the top end that your Ibanez isn't producing compared to the Lull.
Second, every instrument has a sweet spot. I don't think you've found it yet with the Lull. For example, I changed the active EMG system in my custom bass to passive humbuckers, and it took me a literally a YEAR to find the tone I wanted to hear. I also tried different bridges, different strings, and have finally settled on TI flatwounds, and now can dial in just about any sound I want, short of the "zing" that slap requires. My bass in the beginning with the EMG's sounded like your Lull - too bright and active to my ear. Because I had spent almost $3700 at the time to have my left-handed bass made, selling it was not an option to me, so I went on a parts-swap quest to get and hear what I wanted. I've succeeded, and enjoy the tone I have now very much.
Also, there is a school of thought that years of playing a wooden instrument eventually vibrates and lines up the fibers in the wood, allowing the wood to resonate to its potential. I wouldn't wait for that to happen, because like old Fenders, it will take fifty years or more to happen. You need to understand that your Lull is like a Lamborghini to your Ibanez being a Honda Accord... the Ibanez is will made, comfortable, is quiet, and handles pot-holes and bumps well without rattling your teeth.
The Lull-Lamborghini is a highly tuned sports car - it's not subtle, it starts out loud and gets louder when you "gun it", it needs to be driven with all of your senses and skills, and can jar your teeth when it hits bumps and potholes. It requires you to be a better driver. And in this case, the Lull requires you to be a better bass player. By that I mean, it exposes your warts, which is to say technique, EQ, amp and speaker quality, etc. My custom bass, high-end amp and speakers forced me to learn to be a better bass player, as I could be heard over the band. My Ibanez SR800 and Carvin LB75 five-string had never exposed me like that...
In the end, you have to decide whether the Lull is worth the odyssey it will take you on, or is it simply easier to move it out of your life. I know in my case, the challenges I went through to finally be happy with the tone on my custom bass was well worth it, because not only have I learned more about pickups, bridges, strings, etc., I've learned more about finger technique, neck fingering, and what tone means to me. And as far as the tone I want to hear, I'm about 98% there....
I will say I like the tone produced by both of your basses... you understand of course you will never really be able to make the Lull sound exactly like your Ibanez. I think the Lull has more potential for you, but it also boils down to what you want to hear - old school versus new. If you like R&B, blues, old rock standards etc., then the Ibanez would be a preferred choice. The Lull however, with the right EQ etc., can give you that as well, and much more....
Now aren't you glad you opened this can of worms?....
Brilliant description...
Well, experienced builders subscribe to that "less likely" explanation...
And they must know something about how guitars work, right?
It is at the heart of the art of lutherie. Violin builders have known it for centuries. Why would a larger, thicker piece of wood not be susceptible to it? It is just a little too subtle for some people to pick up on, likely the same players who are allergic to 'treble', because it is in the high frequencies that the most notable change takes place. The bass is affected, as well, but it is much more subtle. If you play your bass from 2-10 hours a day like I do, you'll notice the gradual changes in your instrument.
You have every right to stand up and defend your own ignorance, if you like; if not, these links might help you get started on the path to knowledge:
http://www.luth.org/
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Link Removed
One quote from a prominent luthier, regarding classical guitars:
"Each instrument I build takes its own way, its own life. Its maturing process is defined a great deal by the person playing it. For some, the growth of sound is very rapid- they know how to articulate their lines and bring out the full sound of the instrument- these guitars will mature more quickly; In any case, it takes one to two years for a guitar to mature to its full sonority."
At least. Some classical guitars are 'spent' after ten years - all of their 'good sound' is gone, most notably those with Cedar tops. Spruce tops take many years to develope.
The same process happens in a well-made electric bass; it is subtle, and takes a long time, but it happens.
Nope. You are simply wrong. The process happens with silver and gold flutes, with brass trumpets, with pianos, with violins, guitars, acoustic basses, pipas, er-hu's, and it happens with electric basses. At some level, our instrument IS an acoustic instrument, it is just a very quiet one.
I practice all my scales and technique acoustically every day. And hour or two at LEAST, with my instrument unplugged. It's quite easy to notice the differences this way. Those differences translate when you plug it in. And those differences greatly diminish with the amounts of goopey, shiny crap applied to the body and neck, which is why finishes on acoustic instruments have been experimented with and studied for CENTURIES.
THE leading exponent of these ancient practices as they apply to the field of electric bass is Michael Tobias, whose instruments sound AS CLOSE to an acoustic instrument as you can get. His instruments let the woods speak, because of his wood choices, the thicknesses, and what he finishes them with. If you put a thick coat of car paint on them, all chances of any changes taking place are ruined.
I can tell this thread will get increasingly boneheaded and cynical, so I'm outta here.
Good luck,
Cameron
I think you're right. Maybe the wood gets harder as it ages, and that might make it vibrate more, but fibers "lining up"? Nonsense.
The assertion is NOT that the solid neck sounds BETTER. It is that a solid piece of wood has different resonant and acoustical properties than a laminated piece. If you want a pronounced resonance, use a single piece of wood. If you want to take the effect of the wood out of the equation, laminate away. The differences in the resonances and modes between each layer of wood and glue will tend to cancel each other out (or perhaps move the resonance to a higher frequency?), and you will get a more linear, less resonant/peaky sound.
to use Carey Nordstrand's description, the bass with the one-piece neck sounded more "woody" than his other basses. He (and I) assumed this was because the more pronounced resonance of the neck was having a more noticable effect on the sound of the bass. Was it *better*? That is subjective. I liked it.
I think this is why heavily laminated basses (e.g. Alembics) tend to sound like their electronics more than their wood. Is the Kubiki Ex-Factor a hi-fi bass with a linear frequency response and long sustain? Or is it a woody, warm, acoustic-sounding instrument?
Entropy applies only to closed systems, approximated by a bass sitting untouched and in silence for years. A bass that is played or vibrated is recieving information from outside the system, and musical notes are not noise, they have actual informational content (harmonic relationships, etc.).
I'm not sure how I feel about solid-body basses improving with playing (or vibration). But I played violin for many years, and I know that classical violinists believe that you should not only play your instrument a lot, but that you should always tune to the same pitch (440Hz etc) so the instrument will eventually start to sound better at that tuning. They even feel an instrument will tend to sound best in the keys in which it is most often played. Do I believe it? Not sure, but I know my violin's sound really opened up over about 15 years of 4+ hours a day of playing.
I accept all you said, but I am not wrong. Entropy is unavoidable. Nothing you said contradicts what I said, and that is the assertion that in no qauntifiable way, IE measurable in aboslutes and in units understood to be for the purpose can anyone tell me that stuff gets better with age, it breaks down. Perhaps that breakdown of the physical nature of it allows it to improve in a subjective quality, ala wine or scotch or acoustic instruments sound, but these are just that, subjective and qualitative changes. The wood, played or unplayed, resonating or vibrating, nitro or poly, is breaking down physically. It is doing so slowly, and various techniques have been employed to slow this process, but it cannot be arrested entirely. If you think that the sound has improved due to age, that is an opinion. If you think it changes, that may be a fact. But the bass itself did not improve.
Inspite of your personal cynicism, it happens, has been noted in the field of luthery for centuries, and it happens in solid body instruments as well, it just takes longer and is perhaps too subtle for you to catch. As the instrument is played, it gets better - period. Just like a baseball glove gets 'broken in', and works better because of it, so does a wood instrument. Do you think all those vibrations travelling through the porous woods have NO effect...?
Some old instruments are...
Brilliant description...
It is at the heart of the art of lutherie. Violin builders have known it for centuries. Why would a larger, thicker piece of wood not be susceptible to it? It is just a little too subtle for some people to pick up on, likely the same players who are allergic to 'treble', because it is in the high frequencies that the most notable change takes place. The bass is affected, as well, but it is much more subtle. If you play your bass from 2-10 hours a day like I do, you'll notice the gradual changes in your instrument.
You have every right to stand up and defend your own ignorance, if you like; if not, these links might help you get started on the path to knowledge:
http://www.luth.org/
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Link Removed
One quote from a prominent luthier, regarding classical guitars:
"Each instrument I build takes its own way, its own life. Its maturing process is defined a great deal by the person playing it. For some, the growth of sound is very rapid- they know how to articulate their lines and bring out the full sound of the instrument- these guitars will mature more quickly; In any case, it takes one to two years for a guitar to mature to its full sonority."
At least. Some classical guitars are 'spent' after ten years - all of their 'good sound' is gone, most notably those with Cedar tops. Spruce tops take many years to develope.
The same process happens in a well-made electric bass; it is subtle, and takes a long time, but it happens.
Nope. You are simply wrong. The process happens with silver and gold flutes, with brass trumpets, with pianos, with violins, guitars, acoustic basses, pipas, er-hu's, and it happens with electric basses. At some level, our instrument IS an acoustic instrument, it is just a very quiet one.
I practice all my scales and technique acoustically every day. And hour or two at LEAST, with my instrument unplugged. It's quite easy to notice the differences this way. Those differences translate when you plug it in. And those differences greatly diminish with the amounts of goopey, shiny crap applied to the body and neck, which is why finishes on acoustic instruments have been experimented with and studied for CENTURIES.
THE leading exponent of these ancient practices as they apply to the field of electric bass is Michael Tobias, whose instruments sound AS CLOSE to an acoustic instrument as you can get. His instruments let the woods speak, because of his wood choices, the thicknesses, and what he finishes them with. If you put a thick coat of car paint on them, all chances of any changes taking place are ruined.
I can tell this thread will get increasingly boneheaded and cynical, so I'm outta here.
Good luck,
Cameron
Nice. Tell people they are "simply wrong" and "ignorant" and then bail. Your crackpot theories are matched only by your propensity for poor discussion etiquette.
Quantify it. Show me some sort of research to back your "knowledge" up that isn't based on pseudoscience or anecdotal evidence, give me hard facts.
If its ignorant to refuse to be herded like sheep by clever marketing and psychobabble, then colour me ignorant mate.
I also notice you refused to address my question, instead resorting to a personal attack, so how about it? Will the tree grown beside the road sound better than the one that isn't? Surely all those vibrations have SOME effect on the wood? If not, what changes once you cut the tree down?
Just enjoy playing your 50year old bass with clay dots through your amp you've included one of those $30 fuses in. I'm sure you are truly appreciating the difference of this all with your "clean power" from your special wall outlet and with your extra-special cables.
I've got a nice bottle of snake oil here, guaranteed to cure your ails.....want to buy it? Only £25! Today only
Two questions, do you trust your memory enough to say you can accurately remember the exact tone of your violin 15 years ago compared to now? If you think you can, is the only variable time? Why discount the, to me, much more logical assumption that your playing improved and with experience with that particular instrument, you've developed your technique in such a way to make your instrument sound at its best?
That's a good point, and I'm sure a lot of it is the change in my technique and ears. My teacher at the time told me he heard my instrument's sound change over the first year, and he said this even when he played it. He never played it enough to learn the instrument, so if his ears were not fooled (which they could have been), then the instrument did change. He also said he had experience with old instruments that were owned by collectors and so were not played for years, and they only started to "open up" after they were finally being played regularly.
I'm of the camp that says, for the most part, no, especially on basses finished with a very hard finish such as Polyester. There are those that believe they do, obviously, but I believe a Poly lacquer is so hard it won't benefit from years of aging the same way an oil-finished or unfinished bass will. Even so, the aging process is so subtle and takes so long it's unlikely you'd notice any changes within a decade or even several decades.
If you think about classical stringed instruments, such as violins, those that seem most desirable are those that have been around for about 150 years or more. When those instruments were built they didn't use such hard finishing materials.
On the other hand I've worked with vintage guitar snobs who've gone so far as to leave their guitars laying down in front of stereo speakers several hours each day to soak in sound waves and warm up. They claim they can tell a difference over time. I'm not sure I buy into it, but who am I to argue?
If you think about classical stringed instruments, such as violins, those that seem most desirable are those that have been around for about 150 years or more. When those instruments were built they didn't use such hard finishing materials.
On the other hand I've worked with vintage guitar snobs who've gone so far as to leave their guitars laying down in front of stereo speakers several hours each day to soak in sound waves and warm up. They claim they can tell a difference over time. I'm not sure I buy into it, but who am I to argue?
Regardless of what I believe, or do not believe(I do not, FWIW, belive in this), I can quite honestly say, I'd prefer to buy a bass that sounds good today, not one that would need three to ten years to get sounding good.
Entropy is the process of the informational content being spread out evenly over the whole system, thus turning the information to noise. Wood will eventually decompose of course, and then all the structural information is gone. In the meantime though, if you are injecting information in the form of bass notes and vibration, perhaps the structure will reorganize as it is shaken in particular patterns. It certainly won't prevent the wood from rotting, but it may change the sound. Or not...
I like the thought of the molecules in the wood realigning themselves in response to the vibrating strings, it makes it seem as if the bass is a living thing, responding to my touch. I think I'll go right on believing/pretending that, no matter what the science says. It makes the world seem a bit more magical.
Yay for quoting myself
More seriously, bring proofs or just shut up. If playing would somewhat change the molecular position of cellulose molecules (or atoms of metals) in such a way that it change the tone of an acoustic instrument, it would have been studied thoroughly. So, I won't do a research for paper on the subject since I'm not the one defending this point of view and it is philosophically impossible to prove the non existence of something. For those who want to continue with this point of view, bring the proofs please. I'd love to be proven wrong.
