How do you make a great bass guitar ?

[Andyman001]

I'm loathe to start this again, but the vibrating wood (or material of your choice) of a solid body bass must influence the sound of the instrument to some degree. If this is true, can we look at the body like a resonating chamber for the string, and channel the mechanical feedback between them (by shaving or shaping the body for example) so it would enhance the acoustical quality of the plucked string, allowing that “enhancement” to be heard through the electrical pick up ?

In my opinion, a pickup can only detect the string vibrating in front of it. And so being, the body (neck joint, bridge connection etc.) can only "take away" as in limited sustain, of sympathetic vibrations causing dead spots and such

 

[wsmerwin@hotmai]

Imagine a vibrating string. The string makes a sound. Imagine that vibrating string attached to a plank of wood. The sound of the string is amplified / reinforced by the wood resonance and the two vibrating together generate a tonal structure of the combined materials (with resonances canceling and augmenting each other). This exemplifies the agreed acoustic relationship of string and wood / instrument body. Now introduce a magnetic pick up. If the string is suspended in isolation above the pick up the sound of the vibrating string alone is reproduced. Once the string comes in contact with any material it will impart some of its energy to the material and (in most cases) recover some of the same energy in return. This is feed back. This mechanical feed back contributes to the vibration of the string and the tone of the instrument. Though the attack of a note made with a plectrum and suspended string undoubtedly carries more characteristics of the string, the decay (and its tone) will be affected by the properties of the material to which the string is attached. Electronic pick ups will reproduce these changes in decay caused by resonant feed back of the guitar body interfering with the vibrating string and changing the tone of the guitar. Think Steingerger vs. any wood guitar. If there is an audible difference between an instrument made from wood and one that is not, it seems logical there would be differences in wooden instruments also. How much is another issue.

Perhaps we agree but are saying the same thing differently, with different emphases.

 

[mikeyswood]

A report in American Luthiery did a wonderful scientific study about neck construction and found that bolt-on had the longest sustain. A full millisecond longer if memory serves me well.

 

[Bass-Adrenaline]

Imagine a vibrating string. The string makes a sound. Imagine that vibrating string attached to a plank of wood. The sound of the string is amplified / reinforced by the wood resonance and the two vibrating together generate a tonal structure of the combined materials (with resonances canceling and augmenting each other). This exemplifies the agreed acoustic relationship of string and wood / instrument body. Now introduce a magnetic pick up. If the string is suspended in isolation above the pick up the sound of the vibrating string alone is reproduced. Once the string comes in contact with any material it will impart some of its energy to the material and (in most cases) recover some of the same energy in return. This is feed back. This mechanical feed back contributes to the vibration of the string and the tone of the instrument. Though the attack of a note made with a plectrum and suspended string undoubtedly carries more characteristics of the string, the decay (and its tone) will be affected by the properties of the material to which the string is attached. Electronic pick ups will reproduce these changes in decay caused by resonant feed back of the guitar body interfering with the vibrating string and changing the tone of the guitar. Think Steingerger vs. any wood guitar. If there is an audible difference between an instrument made from wood and one that is not, it seems logical there would be differences in wooden instruments also. How much is another issue.

Perhaps we agree but are saying the same thing differently, with different emphases.

Simple answer - Youre way overthinking it.

It seems like no matter how many times someone gives you an answer youre still fishing for what you want to hear.

 

[wsmerwin@hotmai]

It seems like no matter how many times someone gives you an answer youre still fishing for what you want to hear.

No one has said "Yes, there are techniques used to build and design acoustic instruments that can be adapted to and adopted by solid body basses (and here they are)" or, "Nothing which applies to the design and building of acoustic instruments is applicable to solid body design (and here is the reason)". One of these statements (or "I don't know) ought answer the question I asked.

 

[Schizoid75]

I don't see how you are ever going to get a scientific answer to this question. Sure, everyone can weigh in with their opinions or what they have observed, but it would be nearly impossible to prove that a given design technique from acoustic instruments could make a change in solid body instruments. In order to really prove anything, you'd have to have two identical instruments where the only difference is the certain construction technique you are testing. Who's got time and money to do that? Plus, you'd have to build from the same pieces of wood, etc. Even then it would be nearly impossible to hold all the variables constant, changing only the design technique in question.

Then, even if you pulled all that off, you still have to measure and quantify what the differences are.

And then you have to decide if anyone can actually perceive those differences with their senses.

And then you have to decide if those differences were an improvement, or just different.

My personal opinion would be that I doubt any technique not already borrowed from acoustic instrument building would make much discernible difference to a solid body instrument.

 

[Rodent]

I'm loathe to start this again ...

COOL!!!! Then let's just not do it and close this thread. Drop a simple PM to one of the mods and they will close this so that in a few days it won't even be remembered

if you do still want to have a discussion, let's get back to that quantification of 'better'

I might also suggest you check out a copy of 'Left-Brain Luthierie' by David C. Hurd, Ph.D and also 'Understanding Wood - A Craftsman's Guide to Wood Technology' by R. Bruce Hoadley. Both of these references will serve you far better in your growth of understanding than what you'll find (with rare exception) posted in this forum (you need to recognize that the majority who post in this forum haven't even done so much as assemble a parts guitar or learned how to properly adjust a trussrod. several here in LC are bonafide builders with solid skills and many, many builds to their credit. the vast majority, however, would be clueless if left to their own to select wood at a hardwood store)

The standard principle building approach is very similar, but the acoustical properties of a resonance chamber as opposed to a block of wood are vast, and share very little commonality.

and for the record - Musiclogic totally answered your intended question to the fullest extent. there's a ton of wisdom in his post that your lack of building experience caused you to totally miss. there are a lot of commonalities to the woodworking techniques. for all purposes, his reply is really the /thread

all the best,

R