Double Bass Have new basses always come apart?

[Bob Branstetter]

Today's makers competing to have the best sounding new instrument in the showroom might be taking off a little more wood than is healthy for the longevity of some of these instruments.

Most of the new instruments that come into my shop for repairing fit in the middle of the road category of instrument quality. By that I mean quality wise somewhat less than Dan Hachez and somewhat better than the low end Chinese and Korean BSO's. While the quality control varies greatly, I have not seen a trend of instruments being graduated any thinner than those of previous decades. Instruments targeted for schools (which is most of them) are still graduated heavy. Despite this, they do seem to be cracking more than in the past. Since it is highly unlikely that the manufactuers today are using air dried tonewood, IMO the best candidate for the cause of these cracks is the super strong white glue that nearly everyone, except for the makers of true "hand made" instruments, uses to hold the instruments together. Without that hide glue "safety valve", they are going to crack regardless of the graduation thickness.

 

[arnoldschnitzer]

But I would proffer that a 3rd reason is the current era's push for immediate gratification. Today's makers competing to have the best sounding new instrument in the showroom might be taking off a little more wood than is healthy for the longevity of some of these instruments.

I measure every bass I take apart (and many I don't). The differences between the plate thicknesses of older basses and newer is not quantifiable. In many cases older means thinner. And thicker does not necessarily mean more stable. A thicker plate is less flexible and perhaps less able to move with the seasons. Generally, the basses with the most cracks are those with wide glue joints or those put together with overly strong glues. As far as immediate gratification, a bass should sound good the day it is strung up. Certainly the tone will continue to develop, but if nothing is there in the beginning, there will likely never be much there.

 

[Bob Branstetter]

Certainly the tone will continue to develop, but if nothing is there in the beginning, there will likely never be much there.

Good point Arnold. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've told potential buyers that they should buy an instrument based on what it sounds like now and not what they think it will sound like after it is played in. But unfortunately, as often as not, they buy a bass that they "know" is going to sound great in a few years. Go figure.

 

[drurb]

Nonsense. I measure every bass I take apart (and many I don't). The differences between the plate thicknesses of older basses and newer is not quantifiable. In many cases older means thinner. Generally, the basses with the most cracks are those with wide glue joints or those put together with overly strong glues....

Perhaps Silversorcerer's notion of basses in the "current era" having thinner plates was too broad and sweeping. Is it not the case, however, that some modern, lower-end, makers do, in fact, build with overly thinned tops in order to enhance the sound at the expense of the integrity of the instrument? I would guess that these are of a class that rarely reaches your shop for repair.

Is this all just a myth?

 

[arnoldschnitzer]

Perhaps Silversorcerer's notion of basses in the "current era" having thinner plates was too broad and sweeping. Is it not the case, however, that some modern, lower-end, makers do, in fact, build with overly thinned tops in order to enhance the sound at the expense of the integrity of the instrument? I would guess that these are of a class that rarely reaches your shop for repair.

Is this all just a myth?

I think so, yes. Granted, different makers have differing ideas of what thicknesses are "correct". Good makers vary their formula depending on the density and grain structure of the wood, the arching height, etc. I doubt if makers are making a deliberate decision to go thinner than "normal" to beef up the sound. As a matter of fact, basses which are too thin present tonal problems of their own. There is going to be a good deal of variation in part thicknesses between makers, and this is fine, providing they make instruments that sound good and stay in reasonable health.

 

[arnoldschnitzer]

DRURB, having re-read your post, I see you were speaking of low-end makers. And here I am in a bit of a tizzy defending my higher-end brethren. So, do you know of a specific lower-end maker selling thin basses that fall apart? Sorry for the mis-interpretation...

 

[Nick Lloyd]

Lower-end makers like Prescott and Tewksbury?

 

[bassist1962]

and

Sorry to butt in BB....Toman, it's not about being "far away", it's about taking the bass from a relativley humid area to a dry area. The radically drying out is what makes the wood crack. Take a bass from NY to here in Colorado without slowly drying it out with damp-it's or some kind of slow humidifier type drying out and...look out!!

This is what happened with my brother in law's plywood bass. This was somewhere between 1959 and 1961. He strapped the bass to the roof of the car in Fort Wayne, IN and trekked to San Francisco, CA. I don''t really know any details except that the neck warped, the body was severly cracked and the instrument on a whole was a mess. He always said that the wood in this bass was greener than he was. He replaced it with the fully carved instrument I now own. I have no idea how he transported his bass around after that.

 

[Nick Lloyd]

My post was in response to another armchair comment by MasterSorcerer.

Makers have been using different graduations... thin, thick... for centuries. A thin top does not neccessarily make an instrument cheap or low-end. I prefer (as well as several contemporary makers) to leave as much wood as possible but still get plenty of volume and tone.

 

[drurb]

DRURB, having re-read your post, I see you were speaking of low-end makers. And here I am in a bit of a tizzy defending my higher-end brethren. So, do you know of a specific lower-end maker selling thin basses that fall apart? Sorry for the mis-interpretation...

Thanks for the re-reply! Well, no, I do not know of a specific low-end maker selling basses that fall apart. Let me clarify. Nicklloyd points out that thin tops do not signal poorly made instruments. No argument from me but that is unrelated to the question that, at least I, am asking. Rather, I am asking whether there is any truth to the notion that some low-end manufacturers produce instruments with plates thinner than "normal," "optimal," or reasonable in an effort to enhance tonal quality at the expense of integrity.

Here's what prompted my question. A number of years ago, I was in a shop in New Orleans and played a bass from what we would think of as a lower-end manufacturer. I will not mention the brand but I will say that it is one that is NOT mentioned in these threads with much regularity (so all of you dealers can keep your shirts on). To my ears anyway, it sounded quite impressive-- better than anything else then in the shop. A close inspection of the outside revealed marginal workmanship. Specifically, the finish was uneven and had blemishes, irregularities, and "crooked" borders and the joints looked a bit suspect. This was a new bass.

I asked (no, I didn't ask the shop owner!) why and how such an instrument at what was a remarkably low price could sound as good as it did. I was told that the top was carved overly thin to ensure/enhance the resonance of the instrument but that this "shortcut" was made at the expense of the integrity of the instrument. It might sound really good for two or three years but then might likely fall apart.

Was this nonsense?

 

[Bob Branstetter]

Here's what prompted my question. A number of years ago, I was in a shop in New Orleans and played a bass from what we would think of as a lower-end manufacturer. I will not mention the brand but I will say that it is one that is NOT mentioned in these threads with much regularity (so all of you dealers can keep your shirts on). To my ears anyway, it sounded quite impressive-- better than anything else then in the shop. A close inspection of the outside revealed marginal workmanship. Specifically, the finish was uneven and had blemishes, irregularities, and "crooked" borders and the joints looked a bit suspect. This was a new bass.

I asked (no, I didn't ask the shop owner!) why and how such an instrument at what was a remarkably low price could sound as good as it did. I was told that the top was carved overly thin to ensure/enhance the resonance of the instrument but that this "shortcut" was made at the expense of the integrity of the instrument. It might sound really good for two or three years but then might likely fall apart.

Was this nonsense?

It is possible that a particular instrument could have been graduated thin, but I am inclinded to think that it was more poor quality control rather than a deliberate effort to make it thin for enhanced resonance. If you would PM me the name of the instrument, I'll be glad to tell you my opinion.

Graduation can be interpreted many ways and there are lots of different opinions among makers. Which is thin? a bass with 12mm at the center and 3mm at the wings or one with 8mm in the center an 5mm at the wings? Few basses are uniform across the entire top.