Does a bass really improve with age??

[Marill]

I tend to think that the longer time you spend with the instrument, the more you know about the little nuances, and better you are in knowing how to coax a good tone out of that instrument.

 

[main_sale]

I think that they do! In fact, I can't wait until tomorrow because I get better looking everyday!!!

 

[MNAirHead]

I've owned some.. as they age.. the pickups get corroded and pots get scratchy.

Rest is goofiness.

Acoustics do mellow.. much of this is the finish and moisture etc.

 

[RobJ]

There are a couple of patented devices out there meant to artificially "age" the wood in guitars and basses. They apply vibrations at various frequencies for periods of time, at least one of them uses a speaker array, and another that I recall reading about involved laying the instrument on it. I recall Bass (or Guitar) Player had an article on the process back in the early '90s. Personally I think there's validity to the premise that the molecular structure of wood changes over time due to vibration and the natural aging process, but I'm not sure it can be quantified as beneficial to how a guitar sounds really. There are too many other variables involved I think.

 

[bass player 48]

I think that changes can happen to an instrument over time, that's pretty well accepted. Nobody really questions this of you're talking about a stratovarius violin. I think it's pretty well accepted with accoustic guitars. Solid bodies, not so much.

I think it's 1/2 being broken in, 1/2 of it is the player growing famliar with the instrument, and 1/2 imagined. Yes, that's three 1/2's.

...and when you remember back, wasn't everything better way back when in the old days?

Last thought - in the early days of building basses, hand built in the US from the best available parts and assembly with great attention to detail was the norm - not something reserved for "boutique" brands.

 

[climb]

Interesting thought, and not much of a consensus. Any luthiers care to chime in on this question? Do you think your instruments sound better as they age?

 

[JanusZarate]

IMO, I would attribute any "improvements" to psychoacoustics and other related items:

A) A particular player's preference for the aging tone of their strings
B) Becoming more familiar with the tone of an instrument and what it can do
C) A player's natural progression with what they want in their sound, and learning how to "find" said sound
D) Partial loss of hearing
E) Brain damage
F) The general trend among the music community to place vintage gear on a pedestal
G) The price tag of an instrument

And so on...

I'm not convinced that electric instruments are destined to improve with age.

 

[BobXboB]

Generally, yes. As the wood gradually ages, any excess moisture leaves the instrument, so it becomes more resonant. Through repeated playing (i.e. string vibration), the various components become more "mated" with one another, also contributing to a bit more resonance and sustain.

It's all good...

MM

Actually wood moisture levels fluctuate both ways depending on the moisture in the environment it's in. People assume that wood only loses moisture but they forget there is moisture in the air. Moisture levels can be measured and this drying myth is easily disproven once we leave the world of I said so so its true. Moisture leaving wood has impact on it's dimensions which can be predicted and measured, any moisture changes once the instrument is built are a defect.

Also you can't add resonance and sustain, if the terms were understood that would be like saying the bass becomes lighter and heavier.

 

[BobXboB]

I thought the "mojo" aging process only happened to guitars with the nitro finish. I have always heard\read that nitro is the only finish that lets the wood "breathe".

Or is this a misconception on my part?

Screw holes let wood breathe (to use a grossly inaccurate but popular term) so do pickup routes and neck pockets. The nitro breathing better tone into a guitar is just a desperate attempt to claim nitro's inferior protection is actually a reason to pay more. IMHO.

No one can tell the age of a guitar by listening in a double blind test. Anyone who makes the claim that they can compare their memory of a sound from years ago to what they are hearing today is delusional. There is a million dollar prize waiting for anyone who can demonstrate this skill so instead of just calling me names anyone who can really do this can simply become rich instead. Then they can use that money to buy directional copper cables and $5k AC cords and enjoy the audiophile perfection of their super human brains.

 

[BobXboB]

There are a couple of patented devices out there meant to artificially "age" the wood in guitars and basses. They apply vibrations at various frequencies for periods of time, at least one of them uses a speaker array, and another that I recall reading about involved laying the instrument on it. I recall Bass (or Guitar) Player had an article on the process back in the early '90s. Personally I think there's validity to the premise that the molecular structure of wood changes over time due to vibration and the natural aging process, but I'm not sure it can be quantified as beneficial to how a guitar sounds really. There are too many other variables involved I think.

It is interesting to note that once someone assumes older = better they will generally agree with any ideas supporting that premise. Even if they are self contradictory.

The shaking concept was originally devised trying to rationalize the supernatural qualities of Stradivarius fiddles. It missed on a few points, one that it required hundreds of years for the effect to take place (but on a bass it only takes a few years ) so a Strads quality wouldn't have been apparent to the original owners, and that great modern violinists couldn't pick out the sound of a Strad just by listening, they had to be told which is which first.

 

[BobXboB]

Last thought - in the early days of building basses, hand built in the US from the best available parts and assembly with great attention to detail was the norm - not something reserved for "boutique" brands.

Fender's were made as cheap as possible out of wood rejected by the cabinet making industry. They were mass produced assembly line instruments sold cheaply mainly for the reason that they were built by unskilled labor in a factory owned buy a guy who couldn't play an instrument and didn't actually do any of the work. Of course the legend now is that Leo was a great luthier but that's just make believe.

Modern basses are made to much tighter tolerances and have added things for consistency such as actually counting the amount of windings on a coil. None of this should counter any beliefs one has though.

 

[Jools4001]

electric? No.
Acoustic? Yes.

One theory I heard years ago was that the reason old strats are SO cool is that all the crappy ones have been turned into firewood by then...

Got it in one

 

[BobXboB]

Interesting thought, and not much of a consensus. Any luthiers care to chime in on this question? Do you think your instruments sound better as they age?

Who here is above average intelligence? Hmm, most everyone The term better should be reserved for advertising as it has no actual quantifiable definition in relation to guitars.

Notice in most questions of which sounds better the answer will be given before listening. Listening is usually just a formality after the conclusion has been reached. Real scientific studies show that the sound with the most volume will almost always be considered the best tone.

 

[BobXboB]

IMO, I would attribute any "improvements" to psychoacoustics and other related items:

A) A particular player's preference for the aging tone of their strings
B) Becoming more familiar with the tone of an instrument and what it can do
C) A player's natural progression with what they want in their sound, and learning how to "find" said sound
D) Partial loss of hearing
E) Brain damage
F) The general trend among the music community to place vintage gear on a pedestal
G) The price tag of an instrument

And so on...

I'm not convinced that electric instruments are destined to improve with age.

Finally a non mystic answer Funny how the 2 groups who we attribute the largest golden ears to are 2 groups likely to suffer well above average hearing loss. Rock musicians and those that work with power tools all day long. Impartial observers like oscilloscopes are just mechanical devils trying to trick us

You mentioned string age, it's pretty well accepted that strings aging have a large tonal component yet strings are rarely considered in these enthusiastic group consensus' of what reality is.

 

[Ric5]

Some people claim that old wood sounds better ... I am not sure I am convinced. Some people say old pickups sound better. I don't agree. Old pickups just get weaker with time as the magnets degauss. But old basses can have mojo which makes them fun to play.

 

[waynobass]

... a stratovarius violin. ...

Stradivarius, no relation to Stratocaster.

 

[spade2you]

Some people claim that old wood sounds better ...

Usually "old wood" was grown at random, some really dense, some not so dense. Most modern tree farms have the trees spaced for maximal growth, which has thinner "rings", which will typically make them less dense on average.

Still, "better" is an operative word. I tend to prefer ligher woods to have a more even tone while I tend to associate dense woods with a strong attack and quick decay. Then again, others might prefer it the other way around.

 

[BobXboB]

But old basses can have mojo which makes them fun to play.

That's true, unfortunately some seem to need to justify everything in terms of tone as if preferring the look of one bass over another isn't a valid reason to buy it.

 

[experimental bassist]

The shaking concept was originally devised trying to rationalize the supernatural qualities of Stradivarius fiddles.

...the fiddle part made me chuckle.

 

[BobXboB]

Usually "old wood" was grown at random, some really dense, some not so dense. Most modern tree farms have the trees spaced for maximal growth, which has thinner "rings", which will typically make them less dense on average

Thinner rings are found in denser woods, thicker rings are found on tree farms since they grow faster and put on more thickness each year, which is what a ring denotes.

This brings up another contradiction in that old Fender wood is praised for being the light stuff. Old growth is usually more dense and not random. But all this speculation is moot as wood can simply be weighed to discover it's density and there are no correlations between new and old and certain "magic" densities.