Double Bass prophylactic patch

[arnoldschnitzer]

Why hasn't anyone tapped into the humor potential of the title of this thread?

 

[drurb]

The difference is that the timing belt and water pump (along with the idlers and the tensioner) are wear items, designed to be replaced at regular intervals. The top isn't.

The reason for a soundpost crack in the top is trauma, whether from an over-long post or impact damage, neither of which can be 'planned for'.

Jake, you missed the point. I was simply pointing out that sometimes the risk/benefit ratio of preventative maintenance is favorable and sometimes not. Damon was also speaking of machines that have many "wear items." As I said, I defer to Arnold when it comes to whether any sort of preventative action is, on balance, beneficial for a bass. For anyone who would support the prophylactic patch (certainly not me), your argument could equally well be seen to bolster that view. You can't plan for it, it might occur, so prevent it. Again, I'm not advocating either position as, in such matters, I defer to a trusted luthier.

 

[Cody Sisk]

Why hasn't anyone tapped into the humor potential of the title of this thread?

Can we keep at least one thread without drama, posts lacking in intelligent thought, or off topic discussion/humorous derailment? Things are going so well so far!

 

[Matthew Tucker]

Perhaps we should have our childrens' appendixes removed. After all, they may cause trouble in the future.

wiki says: "Prophylactic appendectomies are occasionally performed if the patient is undergoing other abdominal surgery. For instance, if the patient has an ovarian cyst removed or a hysterectomy, the doctor may perform an appendectomy at the same time. The reason for this is twofold. If the patient has a history of abdominal pain, such as with endometriosis, that pain can mask the symptoms of appendicitis. Additionally, recovering from abdominal surgery isn't pleasant, and by removing the appendix at the same time as conducting other surgery, you minimize the likelihood of additional surgery."

Remember, I am certainly NOT advocating opening a bass solely for putting in a preventative patch.

However, when scientists are travelling to Antarctica or other remote places for any length of time, it has been common practice to have your appendix removed. It is a known weakness, it is cheap and simple to eliminate it.

Damon's analogy seems to boil down to "Sometimes it's cheaper to let it fail and replace it" ... but this is CERTAINLY not acceptable practice in all industries - lets think about aviation??? So I don't think the analogy to bass repair is all that good.

We have established that on basses, trauma causing sound post cracks is quite common - an inherent vulnerability -and that the usual and best method of repair is an inlay patch.

But, evidence is that there although like all repairs, inlay patches can fail, there is all the same a fairly low failure rate. And I'd dare say, a fairly high success rate, since so many basses have this repair?

We have established ( i think) that a well made sound post patch is as strong if not stronger than the original wood.

We have opinions that there is no real sonic disadvantage in a well-executed inlay patch.

We have an anecdote that one in three of the planet's top violinmakers believes that it is worth protecting against sound post cracks via a veneer overlay!

Well, that's a pretty good recommendation actually, and kind of confirms my hunches.

And - just a thought - if i'm going to get my tool out while the top is off (sorry Cody ... there you go Arnold ) a prophylactic patch doesn't need to be anywhere nearly as invasive (deep, wide, long) as one put in as part of a SP crack repair.

All the above still seems to indicate to me, at least, that actually it's NOT a bad idea to think and act preventatively in this area.

 

[Matthew Tucker]

When scientists are travelling to Antarctica or other remote places for any length of time, it has been common practice to have your appendix removed. It is a known weakness, it is cheap and simple to eliminate it.

Actually I've read up on that response of mine a bit - with modern antibiotics it is no longer nearly as common as it was. It used to happen when i was a lad in Hobart, which is a departure point for Australian Antarctic research ships. I know cos my Dad worked at the hospital. Thank goodness we now have a remedy that doesn't involve surgery! But we don't have an equivalent of antibiotics for double basses, and the principle of removing a known vulnerability, if there is known to be one, is sound.

I admit that part of my day job is Risk Management! In fact, in the realm of health and safety law (and you could argue that we are talking about health and safety of instruments here) once you become aware of a vulnerability or potential hazard, if you ignore it and do nothing about it, you have a personal liability if anyone gets hurt later as a result of that vulnerability or hazard.

Dr Matthew

Another thought ... how is this different to installing a carbon fibre rod in a bass neck ... with epoxy? It is a prophylactic addition to prevent a known problem, usually done and recommended by modern makers, but often done on existing basses while the fingerboard is being replaced, although you could argue if you are replacing the fingerboard with a nice thick piece of ebony it isn't necessary. But, it's a fairly straghtforward procedure, and in most cases makes sense.

 

[arnoldschnitzer]

Matthew, it seems as if you are not interested in opinions on this other than those agreeing with your own. By slipping into "lawyer" mode, your persona here has become a bit creepy. I've given my opinion on the subject and will not discuss it further. By the way, I use a carbon fiber insert in my new bass' necks because of the improvement in tone and stability, not to prevent future damage (necks rarely break in that area). Now if I could only think of something funny to say about "prophylactic patches"...

 

[Damon Rondeau]

Damon's analogy seems to boil down to "Sometimes it's cheaper to let it fail and replace it"

With respect, I think that's a wee bit off the mark. I'd give the simple summary more as "watch things that need watching but don't intervene if you don't think you have to."

But really, basses and electricity utilities / aviation industries are probably more different than they are alike. As we say these days "I was just sayin'...."

 

[Matthew Tucker]

well, you did write the "Sometimes ..." bit in your earlier post. Perhaps I latched onto the wrong bit. Like someone's "If it ain't broke ..." line - sure, if it ain't broke, but if I think there is a good likelihood it will break ... and if I have good evidence that it is quite common ... ??

But, I agree with you actually, I suppose its a matter of whether I as a repairman feel like I need to intervene or not - someone has to make that call - and I wanted to discuss this in this thread with repairers AND players - and we're having that discussion!

The other tongue-in-cheek way of looking at it is that by not doing a patch I am ensuring business for a luthier some time down the line ...

 

[Matthew Tucker]

Matthew, it seems as if you are not interested in opinions on this other than those agreeing with your own. By slipping into "lawyer" mode, your persona here has become a bit creepy. I've given my opinion on the subject and will not discuss it further.

Arnold, I am interested in, and I do understand your point of view - and you know, I hope, the respect i hold for your work and your opinions - but I still find there are a bunch of arguments and opinions that seem to support my initial proposition, even some of the things you wrote. And I'm interested in discussing them, rather than batting off glib one-liners. No-one is obliged to enter this conversation. But I'm glad you did, and your caveats still weigh heavily in my mind. You are Talkbass's guru luthier, we all respect that, and you've made your contribution to the thread, and will not discuss it further - fine, but please don't belittle me or expect me to stop discussing the subject in a thread which I started!

 

[kurt muroki]

How bout this, make one bass with the patch, one without. Then send them to me. I'll try them both out for 50 years. I will give you a detailed analysis on the structural integrity of both! Hehe!!! No but seriously... Will the top patch be in need of work, or will a sound post crack develop on a non pre patched bass 1st???? I always love the less is more idea. I wish my old Italian did not have a patch. Waaaah. It's been on the patch for a few years now.

 

[kurt muroki]

Also I usually tend to agree with Arnold because his experiments always have a solid well thought out purpose in mind. Never a whim. This allows him to focus his energy in an extremely productive and fruitful manner. There are only a few people I trust, and he is one of them.

 

[Eric Hochberg]

No but seriously... Will the top patch be in need of work

This is what I am wondering. Are sp patches a sure thing against the kind of hits that cause cracks in an unpatched top?

 

[fdeck]

This is what I am wondering. Are sp patches a sure thing against the kind of hits that cause cracks in an unpatched top?

I think that's the rub. Is it really prophylactic in the first place?

Note that I'm not a luthier. All of my DIY repairs have been on basses that were prophylatically built with thin layers of alternating wood grain directions.

 

[Matthew Tucker]

Well that's exactly what i am wondering too; my thoughts so far on this indicate that it would be a help, but I am very open to other views precisely in order that I don't act on a mere whim. I am the first to admit that I don't have the thousands of bass repairs under my belt that some other luthiers do. Arnold gave some good reasons why he doesn't like the idea, but there are other views.

I am also aware that this is a controversial area between luthiers - this is not the only forum where the issue has been discussed

From conversations with violin luthiers that I have had, it seems once a sound post patch is in, it is quite rare to have to re-do one, and they are eminently redo-able anyway. I have personally never seen nor heard of a sound post crack through an inlay repair, and of course this doesn't mean it can't happen - but it does indicate, possibly, that it is much rarer than a regular SP crack.

Kurt - you don't like the fact your Italian has a SP patch - why? Are you worried it might fail? Presumably it was done by a very competent luthier. But do you feel the bass is somehow compromised now? I'm just curious.

 

[kurt muroki]

I love simplicity. Ultimately the patch on my bass was not the original design of the instrument. As a performer, seeing a patch on a new instrument would always make me ask whether it was a necessary thing to do and if it would affect the sound. I guess building a bass, playing on it, removing the top and putting in a patch, then playing it again would be the best test of sound. Yet even that would not be scientifically sound in the least bit.

 

[kurt muroki]

It is also interesting that in the violin world, an old nice violin with a patch is considered a bad investment compared to one that is crack free. Not so in the bass market.

 

[Matthew Tucker]

I guess building a bass, playing on it, removing the top and putting in a patch, then playing it again would be the best test of sound. Yet even that would not be scientifically sound in the least bit.

That's what happens though, every time a sound post patch is installed after a crack. No-one that I know has been disappointed with the sound of their bass after such a repair. But my sample size is not huge. And I think most luthiers would concur that there is little discernable change, if any. But there must be a bunch of people with opinions who HAVE had it done. We just have to find them!

... but yeah, even then it wouldn't be scientific ... but there is very little science in this field, really. (And if i'm unlucky, that comment is bound to re-start another lively discussion.)

 

[ctregan]

I would go with the thin hardwood veneer, to protect the underside from dents and gouges brought on by a poorly fitted sound post. This kind of damage seems more common than a full blown crack. Also, the density of the hardwood, might make adjusting the sound post much easier. As far as performance goes, since the veneer is so thin, there would be no loss of sensation when playing the instrument.

 

[powerbass]

I would go with the thin hardwood veneer, to protect the underside from dents and gouges brought on by a poorly fitted sound post. This kind of damage seems more common than a full blown crack. Also, the density of the hardwood, might make adjusting the sound post much easier. As far as performance goes, since the veneer is so thin, there would be no loss of sensation when playing the instrument.

As a non luthier furniture maker this intervention seems reasonable. One thing that concerns me about owning/playing the UB is the amount of maintenance and the cost of the repairing even a small crack or wood/joint failure let alone have the top taken off. There is also lost playing time which can be a real issue if you only have one bass. If you happen to live near a bass luthier and you bring your bass in for seasonal checkups maybe the issue of sound post pressure/position/cracks can be avoided. On the other hand age and wear can take a toll on wood leading to failure (same goes for human health). An ounce of prevention may make a big difference down the road

 

[ctregan]

Why hasn't anyone tapped into the humor potential of the title of this thread?

MollyKay might be offended.