- Nov 6, 2007
- 152
- 0
- 55
- Disclosures
- humble instrument maker
Mike, do you have a photo from the side? What are the angles of the neck heel and the top of the soundbox where it attaches?
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.
Double Bass Fingerboard dress; What would you do?
- Thread starter drguitar
- Start date
Guess we went to different schools together, Mike.
I built a 22" scale Ashbory about 2 years ago. Had trouble staining and finishing it because it was so much fun to play. Build a battery/AC amp/speaker into a case for it (an efficient use of space) and use it when I need to fly somewhere and play.
Your group's MP3 is really nice.
The Ashbory sounds good. They have no overtones, pure thump and sine-wave.
Sorry you got into that fingerboard conundrum (as Matthew said). You communicate well, I think you should call the luthier and talk it over, then decide.
Your suitcase should play easily. The MP3 sounded good. As someone said part of it may be just getting used to it. At like 1/3 the size it will never be as loud and have the depth of a standard DB. Played alone they sound a little "plucky" but not with a group. I had more difficulty switching between the Baroque and the DB that I did between the BG and Baroque.
A couple thoughts:
Maybe the top plate is too tight - not prone to vibrate. We are employing a pretty traditional violin plate/bridge/soundpost design. One of the functions of the FF hole is to provide a looser part of the top or for the E side of the bridge to move. I think this is significant.
Take a look at this Link Removed
This is the second Baroque I did. I found by experimenting with the first, which had a center sound hole, that it was too small overall and it needed a FF slot to loosen up the top - like doubled the loudness. The round hole tunes the cavity to low E similar to your port. Might be more satisfying to the bassist if that port pointed up.
Do your strings seem tight? I also raised the tail-wire 1" to loosen the strings a little. Strings themselves make a lot of difference. I think I got lucky.
For comparison my bridge is 6.5" high and like yours the feet are thicker than the norm. Per plan. Works.
Gary
I built a 22" scale Ashbory about 2 years ago. Had trouble staining and finishing it because it was so much fun to play. Build a battery/AC amp/speaker into a case for it (an efficient use of space) and use it when I need to fly somewhere and play.
Your group's MP3 is really nice.
The Ashbory sounds good. They have no overtones, pure thump and sine-wave. Sorry you got into that fingerboard conundrum (as Matthew said). You communicate well, I think you should call the luthier and talk it over, then decide.
Your suitcase should play easily. The MP3 sounded good. As someone said part of it may be just getting used to it. At like 1/3 the size it will never be as loud and have the depth of a standard DB. Played alone they sound a little "plucky" but not with a group. I had more difficulty switching between the Baroque and the DB that I did between the BG and Baroque.
A couple thoughts:
Maybe the top plate is too tight - not prone to vibrate. We are employing a pretty traditional violin plate/bridge/soundpost design. One of the functions of the FF hole is to provide a looser part of the top or for the E side of the bridge to move. I think this is significant.
Take a look at this Link Removed
This is the second Baroque I did. I found by experimenting with the first, which had a center sound hole, that it was too small overall and it needed a FF slot to loosen up the top - like doubled the loudness. The round hole tunes the cavity to low E similar to your port. Might be more satisfying to the bassist if that port pointed up.
Do your strings seem tight? I also raised the tail-wire 1" to loosen the strings a little. Strings themselves make a lot of difference. I think I got lucky.
For comparison my bridge is 6.5" high and like yours the feet are thicker than the norm. Per plan. Works.
Gary
Why not try some lower-tension strings on that bass? If your wife has hand issues this will help alot, and the string height will not need to be kept so low.
Plenty of string choices for Bluegrass and the like that are not stiff steel strings.
Plenty of string choices for Bluegrass and the like that are not stiff steel strings.
Matthew Tucker
Commercial User
- Aug 21, 2002
- 2,686
- 387
- Disclosures
- Owner: Bresque Basses, Sydney Basses and Cellos
gbaker - I am interested why you say the bridge looks acoustically well designed with no direct path from the strings to the FB? I'm not sure I understand the thinking behind that.
On a conventional bridge, the feet are thinned because they allow the assembly to pivot laterally, particularly on the soundpost side. This frees up the bassbar side to pump the top.
Your suitcase-bass appears to have a top that is a pure curve from edge to edge. This will be very strong, but that strength will inhibit vibration. So whereas you'll still get plenty of string movement, that won't be translated into big "woody" or "breathy" LF sounds, as the movement of the top (the bellows, if you like) is restricted. And particularly if you are playing with a low action in a bass guitar style.
I agree that some FF holes, or TT holes, or whatever suits the design, would probably increase the volume of the bass. But I'm not giving you any guarantees!
On a conventional bridge, the feet are thinned because they allow the assembly to pivot laterally, particularly on the soundpost side. This frees up the bassbar side to pump the top.
Your suitcase-bass appears to have a top that is a pure curve from edge to edge. This will be very strong, but that strength will inhibit vibration. So whereas you'll still get plenty of string movement, that won't be translated into big "woody" or "breathy" LF sounds, as the movement of the top (the bellows, if you like) is restricted. And particularly if you are playing with a low action in a bass guitar style.
I agree that some FF holes, or TT holes, or whatever suits the design, would probably increase the volume of the bass. But I'm not giving you any guarantees!
Bridge - I can't remember the exact terminology - maybe " bridge compliance". Also can't find the reference book. To paraphrase - in order to have a similar response from each string, the direct pathway through the bridge itself to the soundboard should be similar in density for each string. So if the bridge has carved openings or drilled holes placed under at least some of the strings (to remove bulk) then holes should exist under all the strings. A three-footed banjo bridge is a good example of poor design (may explain a lot
) whereas a two-footed banjo bridge is better design (the feet are at the ends beyond the strings) because no direct path exists. The bridge in question has no direct paths under any string so the response should be similar from string to string, a simplified but good bridge design. Feet thickness - Opinion - I fully agree with the rocking concept; whether the feet (toes?) can be thinned enough to be compliant east and west is another question. Guess it helps. Obviously something is giving in or under that east foot.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
It's a violin but the physics are similar. This may be heresy but why are spread feet even used? Pure aesthetics? In fact, I think a ball and socket type joint should be used to decouple the leg from the foot. I digress.
In this case, not my design, the extra bulk of the thick foot may help suppress higher frequency response some and darken the sound - a reason to leave it there.
Gary, thanks for all the information. You may be right about the top being too tight. I have thoughts of scalloping the bass bar some to loosen the top and I also want to put a sound port in the front (top left corner as you look at the instrument. Something like this:
Invalid Link Removed
Gearhead, I tried lower tension strings first with limited results. I used the highest tension "weedwacker" strings I could find and the E and A strings sounded just plain lousy. I then tried a combination of steel and weedwacker strings but the tone difference was too stark. It may be that I will spend hundreds of dollars on strings before finding a set I like best; this seems to be the way it works for upright basses. The strings I am using now were recommended by Bob Gullihur. Still, there may be another set that will work better with some trial and error (mostly error ).
Finally, I am curious about the responses I have gotten about how to properly set the neck relief. I have read dozens of articles on the subject and it seems that although most of the articles published agree on some of the parameters you need to follow, most all seem to believe that it is done on a case by case basis and that there is no "right way"; that the process is as much art as it is science. The reason I mention this is that I have been setting up acoustic guitars for over 38 years and although the string length and mass are different, the concepts are very much the same. A string will vibrate widest at the middle when plucked or played arco. When fingered, the point where the middle of the string is changes (moves toward the bridge), but the concept of the widest arc of the string remains at the center of the string. Certainly, there are other places the string will also arc according to the resonance of the instrument, string and how the string is plucked (ie the string will cause an arc to a lesser degree at the octave harmonic, 5th harmonic...etc), but I digress.
Considering that the string will generally arc widest at the octave position, shouldn't the relief be greatest at that position. In addition, shouldn't the fingerboard, starting at the octave, then run flat and parallel to the string from the octave to the end of the fingerboard. Keep in mind that the arc of a fingered note will "generally" not be as wide as the same string played open so no additional relief is needed past the octave position.
Invalid Link Removed
I know the above drawing is not to scale and is way off in terms of the actual measurements, but it does show the concept I am suggesting. From the open string to the octave above there is a gentle arc with the arc at it's deepest at the octave. From the octave to the end of the fingerboard, the fingerboard runs parallel to the string.
The reason I ask this is that it seems to me that if a DB was set up this way, you could than have a lower action without any buzzing and you would have a system for precise relief work on the fingerboard. Keep in mind that this is a question from a know nothing guitar guy who has used this concept for guitars and fretted instruments (and fretless 34" scale basses) for many years. I am not suggesting that I understand the workings of DB fingerboard relief work nor am I trying to step on toes. This is just a question and I am hoping the answer will give me a better idea of the concepts of DB fingerboard relief and dressing.
Thanks,
Mike
Invalid Link Removed
Gearhead, I tried lower tension strings first with limited results. I used the highest tension "weedwacker" strings I could find and the E and A strings sounded just plain lousy. I then tried a combination of steel and weedwacker strings but the tone difference was too stark. It may be that I will spend hundreds of dollars on strings before finding a set I like best; this seems to be the way it works for upright basses. The strings I am using now were recommended by Bob Gullihur. Still, there may be another set that will work better with some trial and error (mostly error
).Finally, I am curious about the responses I have gotten about how to properly set the neck relief. I have read dozens of articles on the subject and it seems that although most of the articles published agree on some of the parameters you need to follow, most all seem to believe that it is done on a case by case basis and that there is no "right way"; that the process is as much art as it is science. The reason I mention this is that I have been setting up acoustic guitars for over 38 years and although the string length and mass are different, the concepts are very much the same. A string will vibrate widest at the middle when plucked or played arco. When fingered, the point where the middle of the string is changes (moves toward the bridge), but the concept of the widest arc of the string remains at the center of the string. Certainly, there are other places the string will also arc according to the resonance of the instrument, string and how the string is plucked (ie the string will cause an arc to a lesser degree at the octave harmonic, 5th harmonic...etc), but I digress.
Considering that the string will generally arc widest at the octave position, shouldn't the relief be greatest at that position. In addition, shouldn't the fingerboard, starting at the octave, then run flat and parallel to the string from the octave to the end of the fingerboard. Keep in mind that the arc of a fingered note will "generally" not be as wide as the same string played open so no additional relief is needed past the octave position.
Invalid Link Removed
I know the above drawing is not to scale and is way off in terms of the actual measurements, but it does show the concept I am suggesting. From the open string to the octave above there is a gentle arc with the arc at it's deepest at the octave. From the octave to the end of the fingerboard, the fingerboard runs parallel to the string.
The reason I ask this is that it seems to me that if a DB was set up this way, you could than have a lower action without any buzzing and you would have a system for precise relief work on the fingerboard. Keep in mind that this is a question from a know nothing guitar guy who has used this concept for guitars and fretted instruments (and fretless 34" scale basses) for many years. I am not suggesting that I understand the workings of DB fingerboard relief work nor am I trying to step on toes. This is just a question and I am hoping the answer will give me a better idea of the concepts of DB fingerboard relief and dressing.
Thanks,
Mike
Matthew Tucker
Commercial User
- Aug 21, 2002
- 2,686
- 387
- Disclosures
- Owner: Bresque Basses, Sydney Basses and Cellos
AT first look, you theory makes sense. The issue I think is that a string does NOT just vibrate in a simple flip-flop fashion with the widest excursion at the octave! Maybe it does if you pluck at the octave, then you get a simpler "sine" tone. But strings are bowed and plucked usually a fair bit lower, right to the end of the fingerboard and further, and this generates a whole lot of harmonic vibrations as well as the fundamental. I have found that it is these waves that cause string rattle, in fact more often that at the octave. And since the string movement is generally greater in the lower positions, the maximum scoop can be lower in places that are not so easy to predict.
On a guitar, when you have a fret buzz, where does this happen? Not at the octave, but at the next one or two frets. So you level the frets as best you can, then the scoop raises one fret very slightly above the next in a controlled way, yeah? And the flattened-out part of a guitar fingerboard past the octave is so largely because the fretboard is fixed - in most cases - to the body!
Another thing is "growl" which for a DB player can be desirable. This comes about when the string tension, angle of the string/fingerboard and finger pressure all come together to make a controlled string buzz under the finger that reinforces and enriches the sound, especially in a pizz situation. A flatter FB scoop can help this. But on the other hand, an arco player will often want less growl and a purer tone - the bow stroke already provides for the overtones in spades - and a greater scoop and higher string height is in order.
Well, that's how I've come to understand it, anyway. (Hey, I've got a place I can write "YMMV"! Cool!)
PS. The reason wheedwhackers are not loud, I think, is because they are so elastic that they lose too much of their vibrational energy internally. You need a fair bit of string tension to get the top moving. The soundhole might be more practical if you place it lower down so that you can retrieve socks and beercans and things dropped or stowed inside A soundhole may let the air in the box resonate in another way, but I would lean towards an FF hole in a conventional position which would - it would seem to me - allow the top to move more. But no guarantees!
On a guitar, when you have a fret buzz, where does this happen? Not at the octave, but at the next one or two frets. So you level the frets as best you can, then the scoop raises one fret very slightly above the next in a controlled way, yeah? And the flattened-out part of a guitar fingerboard past the octave is so largely because the fretboard is fixed - in most cases - to the body!
Another thing is "growl" which for a DB player can be desirable. This comes about when the string tension, angle of the string/fingerboard and finger pressure all come together to make a controlled string buzz under the finger that reinforces and enriches the sound, especially in a pizz situation. A flatter FB scoop can help this. But on the other hand, an arco player will often want less growl and a purer tone - the bow stroke already provides for the overtones in spades - and a greater scoop and higher string height is in order.
Well, that's how I've come to understand it, anyway. (Hey, I've got a place I can write "YMMV"! Cool!)
PS. The reason wheedwhackers are not loud, I think, is because they are so elastic that they lose too much of their vibrational energy internally. You need a fair bit of string tension to get the top moving. The soundhole might be more practical if you place it lower down so that you can retrieve socks and beercans and things dropped or stowed inside
A soundhole may let the air in the box resonate in another way, but I would lean towards an FF hole in a conventional position which would - it would seem to me - allow the top to move more. But no guarantees!
As Matthew said so well:
Your suitcase-bass appears to have a top that is a pure curve from edge to edge. This will be very strong, but that strength will inhibit vibration. So whereas you'll still get plenty of string movement, that won't be translated into big "woody" or "breathy" LF sounds, as the movement of the top (the bellows, if you like) is restricted.
This is important. If I hadn't personally tried a similar bass to yours with and without the FF hole I would not be so sure.
Through experimentation (more here than opinion) on my first Baroque, I found it needed a slot in the top beside the west bridge foot - an FF hole of some kind. The difference was remarkable. This creates a flap (like a speaker cone) section in the top that the bridge can more easily move. Cutting the east side is optional.
I think for your bass it should be about 7" long and not too wide. Use a round hole at each of the slot to prevent a stress point. You can use a traditional FF or just a simple or curved slot. Plywood doesn't carve well, I drilled the ends then cut the middle with a rotary tool.
The bass bar transmits energy north and south, stabilizes the flap and supports the string pressure. If you cut the FF hole you will need the beef. So decide on the FF before thinning the BBar which I don't think will do much for the reasons Matthew mentioned.
If you cut a round hole in the top as you illustrated, or anywhere else, you will need to cover the hole in the bottom or you will detune the sound box with too much port area.
Someone here might comment on SuperNils - compared to weed-whackers. You can check the Strings & Acc. forum for used strings.
Gary, when you speak of the "west" side of the bridge as a place to put an elongated "f" hole, do you mean like this picture represents?
Invalid Link Removed
And if I understand correctly, this is because the hole will allow the bass side of the top to vibrate more easily and in turn produce more volume and better lower frequencies.
Is that correct?
Mike
Invalid Link Removed
And if I understand correctly, this is because the hole will allow the bass side of the top to vibrate more easily and in turn produce more volume and better lower frequencies.
Is that correct?
Mike
Matthew Tucker
Commercial User
- Aug 21, 2002
- 2,686
- 387
- Disclosures
- Owner: Bresque Basses, Sydney Basses and Cellos
That's what he means, yes.
The theory is appealing, as it mimics a "normal" FF hole placement, more or less. but I have no idea whether it will do what you hope.
(And people will keep asking what happened to the OTHER one. You had better have an answer ready!)
The theory is appealing, as it mimics a "normal" FF hole placement, more or less. but I have no idea whether it will do what you hope.
(And people will keep asking what happened to the OTHER one. You had better have an answer ready!)
The original design called for "ff" holes, but I thought I would experiment without them. If adding them back to the design adds volume, I am all for it.
Mike
Mike
I am not a luthier,so please take what I'm about to say with that in mind...
Replace the fingerboard.
With ebony,rosewood or maple.
You indicated that the fingerboard is black walnut,and judging by the nice clear pics it appears to be a very attractive piece of wood.
The knots do add character and the other grain swirls promotes the visual drama,but herein lies your problem I believe.
The knots are very hard structures compared to the surrounding material and any attempt to dress and scrape will not produce optimal results due to the nature of the wood itself.
Hard and soft areas on a fingerboard seem to be a prescription for a headache that will never end.
At the top of the setup forum there is a sticky in the newbie links post where Jeff Bollbach,talks about fingerboard setups here is the direct link.
Jeff,explains the reasons why selecting wood with a uniform straight grain pattern for fingerboards better than I could ever hope to.
I know this is probably something that you didn't want to hear,especially from someone that is not a luthier.But hopefully a luthier will comment if my suggestion is valid or not.
I'm just echoing what a couple of other folks have mentioned here as concerns the FB being made with walnut,so I guess just add my comment to the consensus.
Replace the fingerboard.
With ebony,rosewood or maple.
You indicated that the fingerboard is black walnut,and judging by the nice clear pics it appears to be a very attractive piece of wood.
The knots do add character and the other grain swirls promotes the visual drama,but herein lies your problem I believe.
The knots are very hard structures compared to the surrounding material and any attempt to dress and scrape will not produce optimal results due to the nature of the wood itself.
Hard and soft areas on a fingerboard seem to be a prescription for a headache that will never end.
At the top of the setup forum there is a sticky in the newbie links post where Jeff Bollbach,talks about fingerboard setups here is the direct link.
Jeff,explains the reasons why selecting wood with a uniform straight grain pattern for fingerboards better than I could ever hope to.
I know this is probably something that you didn't want to hear,especially from someone that is not a luthier.But hopefully a luthier will comment if my suggestion is valid or not.
I'm just echoing what a couple of other folks have mentioned here as concerns the FB being made with walnut,so I guess just add my comment to the consensus.
Exactly. You can put one on the other side if you like for visual balance but the bass bar side is where it is needed acoustically. You might match the height of the MusicMaker FF holes. I think your design is more attractive. Center the FF on the bridge.
Since I will be using an "S" shaped hole (my wife's name is Sara), if they ask I can just reply, "It only takes one S hole to play a bass!"
That Catholic Irish upbringing comes in handy sometimes... lol
Mike
Sorry Mike, couldn't help but notice that the flattop appears to be suicidal and may not be adjusting well to the new instrument in the house.
You may need more professional help there. I cut an "S" hole on the bass side of the boxbass and I must say I am a little disappointed with the result. I was hoping for increased volume, but that result did not pan out. Nor did I get increased bottom with the E string. It may be too early to tell, so I will continue to play the thing to see how much it helps. It may "open up" a little once the wood figures out it is no longer a tree. My guess is it will continue to sound about the same since it is a laminated top.
Oh well...
Mike
Oh well...
Mike
I cut an "S" hole on the bass side of the boxbass and I must say I am a little disappointed with the result. I was hoping for increased volume, but that result did not pan out. Nor did I get increased bottom with the E string. It may be too early to tell, so I will continue to play the thing to see how much it helps. It may "open up" a little once the wood figures out it is no longer a tree. My guess is it will continue to sound about the same since it is a laminated top.
Oh well...
Mike
That is disappointing, Mike.
Sure worked for me.Maybe there is too much vent area. Is there a resonance peak where a note or two is noticeably louder in the lower octave? What is the diameter of the hole in the bottom?
It all depends on the size of the cavity and the plate resonance, etc, but generally the smaller the hole the lower the resonance. Should be about E to G (E string).
I had to reduce this on mine from 4" (where I started, about C) to 2.7" to get a peak at E - 42 hz. I my opinion when the peak is E everything sounds more balanced.
You can have someone cover the round hole to various degrees with a book or something as you play and see if you can observe the peak and if it affects it favorably.
One more little thing, are you using the side of your right index finger to pull the string? Across the strings BG method is rather twangy. Sorry, just a thought.
Yep,
I am using the side of my finger for "plucking". I will check about the resonance, but I doubt very much that it will help. There does not seem to be any notes in the lower octave (or anywhere else for that matter) that are louder or more sympathetic to resonance than any other. Honestly, the lowest octave is pretty flat in volume. It may be that I just should try a higher tension string. It may be that I need to add another "S" hole. It may be that I need to realize that this thing is going to be seriously limited in it's ability to produce big, fat, bottom notes.
Thanks for your concern. I am curious about your 22" "Ashbory" type bass you built. DO you have and info on that you would be willing to share? It may be that I will build one for my wife. She enjoys the Ashbory because of it's simplicity and ease of play. The problem is that it is butt ugly and the scale is silly short (18"?). I would like to build a 21" scale version with polyurethane strings. And I just picked up a Roland Micro Bass Amp so it makes her Ashbory very portable.
Take care,
Mike
I am using the side of my finger for "plucking". I will check about the resonance, but I doubt very much that it will help. There does not seem to be any notes in the lower octave (or anywhere else for that matter) that are louder or more sympathetic to resonance than any other. Honestly, the lowest octave is pretty flat in volume. It may be that I just should try a higher tension string. It may be that I need to add another "S" hole. It may be that I need to realize that this thing is going to be seriously limited in it's ability to produce big, fat, bottom notes.
Thanks for your concern. I am curious about your 22" "Ashbory" type bass you built. DO you have and info on that you would be willing to share? It may be that I will build one for my wife. She enjoys the Ashbory because of it's simplicity and ease of play. The problem is that it is butt ugly and the scale is silly short (18"?). I would like to build a 21" scale version with polyurethane strings. And I just picked up a Roland Micro Bass Amp so it makes her Ashbory very portable.
Take care,
Mike
There is a different mindset with acoustic bass. I have a set of normal DB metal strings from ebay $25 on my Baroque and it works well. In fact a couple of the guys I play with prefer it to my DB, says they can hear it better?? Yours should not be THAT different.
The Ashbory -
Link Removed
I bough a damaged one (eBay of course) with a broken neck, missing headstock. Used it for parts - pickup/bridge and preamp.
BTW a pot stem in the preamp was broken, the knob was jammed tight on it. The preamp had a cold solder joint - noisy. I think the owner was trying to get the amp out, broke the pot and then broke the neck over his leg! How else does a 16" neck get broken in the middle?
I ordered tuners and a nut from "Large Sound"
Also a good community forum.
http://www.largesound.com/
I was influenced by the look of the Mark II and built it gunstock shaped. Mistake. Needs a larger body to prevent rocking and a leg concave for playing sitting down. The longer 22" scale makes it easier to play in tune. The Fender gummy strings suck; G kept breaking. Now using poly black strings for 3 years, no problem. Nice bass uke designs too.
http://www.bassuke.com/Main.html
A couple other design points - If I made another it would be a through-neck rather than a bolt-on, it is in one plane and would be simpler. Don't worry about balance that much, you can't play up the neck very far (fingering too tight) so you can just mount the strap button on the back of the neck where it balances.
If you have any Ash questions give me a PM.
