• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Interesting Extension issue and experiments

TL;DR version (but missing the interesting bits):

I’ve had a ‘wolf’-esque issue with my open C string. It is NOT a wolf tone (as far as I can tell). It happens at multiple pitches from Bb to C# and D-Eb with a solo string. Happens across multiple brands of strings and gauges.

It is stopped by adding mass to the scroll--I also found a pretty big improvement in sound (bottom, volume/power, and response) by adding this mass, but when using low profile/localized mass, I am nearing a pound--which seems excessive. Placement seems to be important.

Quick video of the issue and using my hand to stabilize the string; when using a clamp or adding mass other ways, it is even more effective.



Thumbnails:
IMG_7251.JPG IMG_7245.JPG IMG_7248.JPG IMG_7249.JPG IMG_7250.JPG IMG_7252.JPG IMG_7253.JPG IMG_7254.JPG IMG_7255.JPG

Is there another solution or interaction I am missing?
 
Details of working through things:

I've been having fun trying to figure this out--with email help from a luthier here who may tune in. I have not had it down to my luthier, who also did the extension work, but planned when available. This has mostly been an interesting trial and error in figuring out the issue and interesting interactions--Any "I" ideas below were definitely collaborative with these other minds.

The bass is young, November 2017, and played arco primarily. C Extension was installed in January 2019. Issues began in late February/early March 2020. Bass wolf is just south of A.

My open C string began to be tricky to start and maintain--the string wasn't reliably oscillating on C and would falter often. I first noticed when prepping Beethoven 5 in school.

At first, I thought it was an issue with the string (Perm), so I swapped it for another I had handy, but it also was present. Swapped it for a Spiro, Evah, and Passione--Same issue. Through this, I made sure the extension and nut were secure, I've had the sound post adjusted, and tail-piece moved). All of these resulted in more volume, tone, and response, except for the C string--as all of these improved, the C issue became more obvious.


I noticed that the first overtone (octave harmonic) made the issue more obvious, sounding very wolf-life, slower in its oscillation--I tried various things, including detuning other strings to reduce downward pressure on the top--which didn't help. For the hell of it, I detuned my C to B, and to Bb, the issue remained until just south of Bb, which I think was more to do with the loss of power/energy in such a soft string.


I looked back at the extension and thought perhaps the break angle behind the nut was too low, not creating a clean enough node/stop. I grabbed the scroll, pressing down on the length behind the nut, and the issue vanished! I assumed I had it, and we had a plan.

Thinking about it, this introduced more variables... I wasn't only increasing break angle, but my hand was ultimately dampening.

My extension has an adjustable/tunable nut, so I maxed it out--no change in the stability of the open/harmonic C.

Wanted a simple and temporary means of testing things--put some felt furniture pads on a few different styles of clamps--some smaller 2-ounce trigger clamps and 7-ounce spring clamps. Boom more stability in the open string and harmonic—the heavier clamp made the octave harmonic/node cleaner and less diffuse feeling under hands, a more defined node—with the 2-ounce clamp, there wasn’t the faulting of the string, but the node felt fuzzy under my finger. All other harmonics on the instrument also seem to be clearer and have more sustain.

I imagine this is what is happening at the nut as well… ultimately, the extra mass near/past the nut increases the stability of the anchor point/node of the vibrating length, creating a more stable string vibration—an inertial anchor of sorts… Other mechanisms at play could be related to constructive/deconstructive frequency responses of the neck assembly changing with the added mass in a more favorable direction in this case.

The larger mass also seems to increase fundamental/first partial—a deeper and clearer tone. Notes across the bass and in all registers are also more even and full sounding.

Beginning to think of potential more permanent solutions, brainstorming places to hide mass—behind the extension, pegbox, etc.… began using the clamps to test different placements.

Placement seems important. At the very top of the scroll is most effective—moving behind the scroll, on the body of the extension, and pegbox is all less effective in both the vibrating string stability and the perceived improvement in tonal response.

To refine this, I tried applying some small, ¼ ounce tire weights with removable mounting putty. I quickly realized that the localized weight was less effective than the large, extended clamps, which are A) vibrating along their length and B) acting with some mechanical advantage… again.. either more potential energy dampening or frequency interaction.


The 2-ounce clamp gets me a minimized vibration/string stability issue. Using a clamp around 9.5 ounces seems to give me the best response without any real volume loss. Starting the string, even at the most ppp, is easy and effortless to maintain, and I can play much closer to the bridge before I lose contact/resistance from the string.


Using the smaller profile/localized and incremental tire weights, adding ¼ ounce at a time gets me: around 6 ounces, the fundamental begins to develop more, but the instability is still present. Around 12 ounces, the instability begins to subside, similar to the 2-ounce clamp—slightly diffuse node at the harmonic. Around 13.5 ounces, the node begins to feel more stable but not as solid as the 9.5-ounce clamp. I ran out of weights at 14 ounces. I’ll pick up some more tomorrow and do some consistent side-by-side recording to post along with any suggestions or requests.


This all feels a little counter-intuitive… and adding nearly a pound to the scroll seems less than exciting. The scroll and extension aren’t particularly petite.


An additional complication, as the stability and tonal improvements, seem to peak, the string feels more difficult to close with my left hand—Not that moving the string to the fingerboard takes more energy, but there is enough vibration that keeping the string closed feels like it takes more effort and is pretty tiring.

IMG_7310.JPG IMG_7311.JPG IMG_7312.JPG IMG_7230.JPG IMG_7231.JPG
 
Last edited:
My guess is that the pegbox probably is a bit weak for an extension and has a resonance frequency with the extension mounted that is close to a harmonic of the extension open C.
By adding the weight you move the resonance lower, so the open C is no longer affected (as much).

I’m not sure what can be done to effectively avoid that. Maybe some sheets of carbon fiber to the sides of the pegbox, it I’m not sure if without a good bonding to the cheeks they get effective (if at all). That’s better answered by a luthier what I am not.

I don’t think the neck is too weak. The ebony fingerboard usually makes it stiff enough. But the transition to the pegbox might be weak or the pegbox may twist too easily.

If it is twisting the same amount of weight might help more if it is perpendicular to the neck than in line.
If it is the opposite the pegbox vibrates towards the bridge.

I guess the amount of fixation to the scroll is as much important than the weight itself.
 
I’m not sure what can be done to effectively avoid that. Maybe some sheets of carbon fiber to the sides of the pegbox, it I’m not sure if without a good bonding to the cheeks they get effective (if at all). That’s better answered by a luthier what I am not.

Or maybe heavy metal plates under or around the tuners like with Tyrolean gears?
 
My guess is that the pegbox probably is a bit weak for an extension and has a resonance frequency with the extension mounted that is close to a harmonic of the extension open C.
By adding the weight you move the resonance lower, so the open C is no longer affected (as much).

This was the first assumption I was working under, but I was unsure because it happens when the open string is tuned to Bb-D/Eb-- Also, the open string and harmonic are the only affected notes, closed C anywhere else on the bass is fine.

Also, clamps on the cheeks aren't particularly effective compared to clamps at the very top , or at least where I am grabbing the bass in the videos. As I move down the scroll from the top, the same clamp seems to have less and less effect.

Once I get a few suggestions in here I will do a higher integrity audio recording keeping, distance from mic and everything as uniform as I can.

Still very well could be this, I just am unsure--which is why I am posting here =). Good insight.

I don’t think the neck is too weak. The ebony fingerboard usually makes it stiff enough. But the transition to the pegbox might be weak or the pegbox may twist too easily.

If there is weakness in the fingerboard and neck bond, do you think this could lead to anything like this? With the weather change I did notice more of an edge to the ebony as the neck contracted a bit faster than the fingerboard--there is no gap or movement that I can feel.

If it is twisting the same amount of weight might help more if it is perpendicular to the neck than in line.
If it is the opposite the pegbox vibrates towards the bridge.

I guess the amount of fixation to the scroll is as much important than the weight itself.[/QUOTE]

Both of these could be true, and explain why clamps seem to be more effective than localized mass in regards to both issues. When I first started applying the tire weights, I was up to about 2 ounces on either side, totaling 4 ounces plus the mounting putty... I ended up clamping that over night trying to ensure a good bond to the scroll, but the clamps will always have more of that via spring or trigger I suppose.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe heavy metal plates under or around the tuners like with Tyrolean gears?

While not my favorite aesthetic, definitely more elegant that what is going on at the moment ha! Clamps don't seem to be as effective when applied to the cheeks. Clamps and the plates are ultimately different, but the clamps and weights are definitely most effective when level with or past the C nut.
 
This is fascinating. What you are describing is exactly what happens when a fat)finger is attached to the headstock of an electric bass such as Fender to minimize or eliminate dead spots. The problem is at least reduced, and in addition to this effect the fundamental on non-problematic notes is enhanced.

Location of the added weight also is paramount. On a Fender-style headstock the optimum position seems to be around three o'çlock; on a 2+2 headstock the happy zone seems to be at twelve o'çlock high. So I would say that both the amount and location of the weight added are important variables.

It has been documented that studio electric bass players in the sixties often would attach c-clamps to the headstocks of their basses to even out note response for a recording.

If nothing else works I would suggest you find the best weighted clamp and optimum location (top of scroll?) and cover it with some embellishment that would not be so visually off-putting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iamthebassplayr
This is fascinating. What you are describing is exactly what happens when a fat)finger is attached to the headstock of an electric bass such as Fender to minimize or eliminate dead spots.

I also thought of this comparison! This and people talk about adding an extension opening the bottom of the bass up.

There is another thread on the purpose of the scroll, with many leaning tradition and aesthetic, but some more in either the resonance or anchor point camp as well...

If nothing else works I would suggest you find the best weighted clamp and optimum location (top of scroll?) and cover it with some embellishment that would not be so visually off-putting.

Definitely is cheaper and less invasive... It'll draw attention I'm sure, and doesn't feel the most professional.

Would be nice to be able to remove it though when I don't need it, especially because with the added weight, when the bass is on its side, it wants to rest on the upper bout and scroll instead of the upper and lower bout.

One more clearance/doorway issue ;)
 
Another idea. Bore a hole through the widest part of the scroll and fill with a tube shape weight.
This is what has been suggested by the luthier I've been emailing with (who may be present here). Would love something with a little less cutting, but the improvement in sound and response is pretty incredible...

https://www.amazon.com/RotoMetals-Lead-Cast-diameter-Length/dp/B001QV3EC8
or
https://www.amazon.com/Pinewood-99-95-Tungsten-Weight-10-Pack/dp/B079VTLVPX/
 
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
Another idea. Bore a hole through the widest part of the scroll and fill with a tube shape weight.

And a very good suggestion. My principal concern would be the inevitable trial-and error of finding the optimum length and weight of the tube, plus best location. Ungainly as it will appear, the clamp at least has the advantage of being a reversible mod.
 
Definitely is cheaper and less invasive... It'll draw attention I'm sure, and doesn't feel the most professional.

Would be nice to be able to remove it though when I don't need it, especially because with the added weight, when the bass is on its side, it wants to rest on the upper bout and scroll instead of the upper and lower bout.

One more clearance/doorway issue ;)

This mod at least is reversible, and if you attach the clamp so that it is on the back side rather than the top side of the scroll, nobody besides your section mates should see it. To avoid marring the scroll I would pad the jaws of the clamp with leather or thick felt or some such.

Remove it when you are not playing; re-attach when you are. You already would know the placement of the attachment. You won't be playing while you are going through doors, and when not in use the attachment can be stored in the bass bag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iamthebassplayr
I would first try to analyze what part is vibrating and where the weak point is.
If it is the scroll that vibrates on top of the pegbox but the pegbox does not vibrate as much, the weak point might be the connection from pegbox to scroll. In that case making the pegbox stiffer would not help.

And if the scroll vibrates, it is like a scale hold partly onto a table that gets plucked. The same mass added gets the lowest frequency if added at the freely vibrating end. Closer to the table the same mass has a much lower influence.
So mass added at the farest point from the pegbox-scroll-connection has the most effect then.

But it would be wiser to make any weak connection stronger than to add mass to move the resonant frequency. If possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iamthebassplayr
You have been doing a lot of experimenting. Can you draw the conclusion that the problem is frequency-related or physical weakness-related? I am more inclined to think that the lateral (or elliptical?) forces applied to the scroll by the long open string vibrating at 31cps have found a weakness around the top of the neck and the base of the peg box. Adding weights to the scroll could create sufficient inertia to hide a such a weakness. Perhaps -

(1) check that there is no gap between the end of the extension and the end of the fingerboard after slackening off the C string. Fit a shim if necessary to ensure firm contact.
(2) be absolutely sure that the fingerboard is glued on strongly. The neck can potentially flex sideways if there is any weakness or looseness in that last few inches at the top where it is least strong.
(3) look for a hairline crack in the "butt" end of the pegbox at the top of the neck. It would be in line with the width of the side of the peg box and indicate that something has caused a shear in the wood, eg a bang on the scroll, that may go deeper.

A final step might be to take the fingerboard off, rout a channel in the neck and glue in a carbon fibre rod that will guarantee its straightness and strength once the fingerboard is replaced.

Your bass looks lovely and the quality of workmanship is plainly evident in the extension.

Best wishes in sorting this out. DP


.
 
Last edited:
Your bass looks lovely and the quality of workmanship is plainly evident in the extension.
Yes, I realize more and more as the sound develops that this instrument has a beautiful voice. It has had some funny things along the way, but the luthier who did the extension does amazing work and every step has been a positive one. The extension itself is very solid and my issue isn't with the extension (poor choice of words in the OP--I can't seem to find the edit button), but just the extra energy with the string length I think.

You have been doing a lot of experimenting. Can you draw the conclusion that the problem is frequency-related or physical weakness-related? I am more inclined to think that the lateral (or elliptical?) forces applied to the scroll by the long open string vibrating at 31cps have found a weakness around the top of the neck and the base of the peg box. Adding weights to the scroll could create sufficient inertia to hide a such a weakness. Perhaps -

I am inclined towards the node at the nut and first capo not being stable.. this is reflected in the diffuse feeling of the harmonic, and explains it happening at multiple tunings/strings/etc. Whether this is frequency related or a physical weakness, I am unsure. It makes sense to me that the extra mass is increasing inertia and stabilizing the node.

(1) check that there is no gap between the end of the extension and the end of the fingerboard after slackening off the C string. Fit a shim if necessary to ensure firm contact.
(2) be absolutely sure that the fingerboard is glued on strongly. The neck can potentially flex sideways if there is any weakness or looseness in that last few inches at the top where it is least strong.
(3) look for a hairline crack in the "butt" end of the pegbox at the top of the neck. It would be in line with the width of the side of the peg box and indicate that something has caused a shear in the wood, eg a bang on the scroll, that may go deeper.

These are the sorts of things I was hoping to get here, thank you! While adding mass might be mitigating symptoms of an issue, if there is an underlying cause, it should be addressed (once/if found).

I will give everything a good once over as I can--and leave the rest to my luthier when he is able to see the instrument.

I haven't noticed any movement in the extension itself, but noticed the edge of my fingerboard coming past the neck itself. No movement or gapping that I've seen, but will be on the hunt now. This happened maybe a month or two (-rough- timeline) before I began having the issue... I initially attributed it to weather changes and contracting in the neck happening quicker than the fingerboard, but it hasn't really changed since.

In addition to really inspecting for any hairline gaps or cracks tonight, I'll see if I can find a spot where vibration really starts (cheeks/pegbox vs past the spiral, etc) as DoubleMidi suggested.

Thank you!
 
Last edited:
There are a couple of things I would check. First does the extension fit around the scroll properly? It looks good but if there is an area that it does not perfectly fit it will cause issues. I mold the scroll to the extension using an epoxy wood product that gets that last absolute positive fit. Also, if those are delrin closers and not ebony, they are slightly lighter. Another thing you could change is brass hardware for those steel screws, they are heavier.

If all that checks out, which I'm sure most of it will- you could add the weight to the extension itself. Lead or something really heavy in the underside of the extension. You could encapsulate it so no one would every see or hear it rattle.

One last surefire way to add weight to a scroll is a KC Strings extension. They weigh WAY more than 1 pound!!

Hope that helps, BG.
 
Happy New Year everyone!

...The ebony fingerboard usually makes it stiff enough. But the transition to the pegbox might be weak or the pegbox may twist too easily.

If it is twisting the same amount of weight might help more if it is perpendicular to the neck than in line.
If it is the opposite the pegbox vibrates towards the bridge.

I would first try to analyze what part is vibrating and where the weak point is.
If it is the scroll that vibrates on top of the pegbox but the pegbox does not vibrate as much, the weak point might be the connection from pegbox to scroll. In that case making the pegbox stiffer would not help. [. . .]
But it would be wiser to make any weak connection stronger than to add mass to move the resonant frequency. If possible.

The vibrating feels like it begins in the last few inches of the neck—relatively suddenly—maybe 7-8 cm/3 inch below the nut/pegbox.

Beggining to think the fingerboard might be coming up, though I can’t feel any play when pressing...


You have been doing a lot of experimenting. Can you draw the conclusion that the problem is frequency-related or physical weakness-related? I am more inclined to think that the lateral (or elliptical?) forces applied to the scroll by the long open string vibrating at 31cps have found a weakness around the top of the neck and the base of the peg box. Adding weights to the scroll could create sufficient inertia to hide a such a weakness. Perhaps -

[. . .]
(2) be absolutely sure that the fingerboard is glued on strongly. The neck can potentially flex sideways if there is any weakness or looseness in that last few inches at the top where it is least strong.
[. . .]
A final step might be to take the fingerboard off, rout a channel in the neck and glue in a carbon fibre rod that will guarantee its straightness and strength once the fingerboard is replaced.

While I don’t have any play or movement of the board when I press against it, it seems like many of my symptoms could be attributed to a flexible neck... at the very least, the stability of the open string and harmonics, and iffy response of the string. This past year I felt like I had a bear of a seasonal change, and that even day to day could be pretty wild... I figured it was our long/extreme fire season and perhaps a picky instrument... but a lack of rigidity in the neck could also do this?

Also, when adding weight to the top of the scroll, as David Potts pointed out, I think I’m hiding the real issue (rigidity) by adding inertia around or past the nut/node. I noticed as I added weight, the rest of the neck feels like it vibrates more—energy finding a different means of expenditure? It was not that the strings were harder to move to the fingerboard, but they felt harder/more taxing to keep down with the vibrations after adding mass.

Hopefully something definitive of this can be spotted by my luthier when I hear from him. If so, I’m anticipating the stability issue and string response to improve. The fundamental will likely clean up and the evenness across the neck/in all registers will improve also, but unsure if I’ll get some of the other tonal improvements—these may be had by adding mass to the scroll in the end, or more traditional spots (heavier TP?)—but fixing any potential rigidity issues first seems the way to go.

Searching the forums I came up with some great info on carbon fiber reinforcement. One or two rectangular sheets (over hollow or solid tubes/beams/rods) inserted into the length of the neck seem to be a go to for some bass whispers and respected names on their new instruments, and often done whenever a fingerboard comes off an older instrument.

If that route is taken, is there some benefit to inserting some into the heel as well? Is there added rigidity (that benefits sound/feel) to be had by doing this? It’s a spot where instruments break... but wouldn’t it be a preferable break point, where reinforcing it means something else would likely break in its place? Not that I plan to drop it...

Thank you everyone for your responses and suggestions. Amazing the different interactions across basses.
 
Last edited: