• 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 The Traeger Bass Book Is Here

#161
Yes, all excellent points that make one THINK about the concept. You know as a bassist only and not a luthier or even a wannabe-amateur luthier, one of the things I find appealing in a luthier that I select to do work for me, is an open mind. I often go to my luthier and ask him about something I've read and he always approaches it with an open mind even if it is not something he is familiar with. That's something I appreciate as a customer and a person - someone that is open and willing to grow. An arrogant/know-it-all attitude is never appreciated regardless of what the experience of the person. No one person can ever know anything and even people of vast experience can be wrong. Of course there is always unrefutable scientific evidence from controlled studies but that's another matter...
 
#162
On the subject of bridge replacement, perhaps a better statement or thought would have been for CT to say:

There has been tremendous advances and understanding of the instrument in bass lutherie in the past decade and it is our thought that any bridge older than 10 years old needs to be examined and replacement considered.

IMO, this would have been a widely accepted statement and reflects my own personal beliefs. Careful editing of the book and word/phrase choices could have extended credibility to such a degree that we all would be talking about this book in a much different light. This is just one example...
 
#167
nicklloyd said:
More or less: The upper part of the body block (all those angled bits) are removed, then new mortise-wood (spruce, poplar) is chalk-fitted and glued. The dovetailed neck (maple) is now ready to be chalk-fitted into the new mortise and glued. Requires a few chisels, a ruler, and patience. No bolts.

This is also assuming that the button is intact and sound. ;)
Click to expand...
Nick-
Ok the button is intact and sound. How much of the existing portion of the block stays, and how much gets chissled out? In this particular case, the angled parts, whatever they're called, have sheared off because the last guy to work on the bass (my friend) epoxied the neck back in when it came out. He now knows his mistake. So, is ist possible to just clue new "wings" onto the block to make a new mortise, or is this structurally as unsound as it seems it would be. How about using wooden pins to strenghen the joint? The neck itself is good, except for some epoxied on portions of the block that came out with the neck. Those have to be carefully excised somehow.
-Jon
 
#171
One thing that I find particularly bothersome about many of the "quotes" from the Traeger book that are presented in this thread is the lack of context within which they are presented. This has been consistent with all of the "quotes" I've seen posted as the basis for critique. One that kind of jumped out at me recently was the one from Gary at Upton's about the relative height of the bridge legs and the wood above the heart. While it is correct that Traeger believes longer legs are better, he also gives 7/8" as a guideline for the "minimum" height of wood above the heart. To not include both items removes the quote from context and distorts the meaning of the quoted words. To go further and liken this to a "Belgian" bridge is venturing into imaginative personal indulgence at least.

When I have read these "quotes" in the context of the book and I see these kind of out of context posts, I have to conclude the person posting has either poor reading skills or has something to gain by trashing Charles Traeger. So which is it?

Thankfully, most people reading this forum are not going to fall for such tactics in the guise of "critique". I think that is quite a bit of the point that Brent Nussey made so well, that the book presents each repair tactic "within a context".

With all due respect to Ken Smith's wood and bass acumen, there are different things that happen to wood while it ages. Drying or seasoning, more appropriately, is not just a measure of moisture content. The moisture content of kiln dried wood vs. air dried wood expresses little of the differences in the qualities of the two. Any experienced wood carver will know that seasoned dry wood is harder than kiln dried wood of the same MC. As the wood seasons, it also hardens. This is not just a function of MC, but of chemical curing processes that naturally occur as the wood ages. Kiln drying stops this process, and in fact makes it chemically impossible no matter how long the kiln dried wood ages. Does this mean bridges get worse with age? Tough to say, but unless you have a bridge made from kiln dried wood, it will definitely become harder with age.

I have actually read an opinion of one violin maker that thinks that the idea that an old instrument is better is totally bunk. And this fellow ( I think the shop is in Chicago) claims that the entire instrument eventually suffers from deterioration in performance due strictly to the age of the wood. He goes even further to claim that there is a whole price-inflated scam market, a dogmatically maintained industry around marketing this idea that older violins are better. Of course, he sells new ones ...
 
#172
Silversorcerer said:
I have actually read an opinion of one violin maker that thinks that the idea that an old instrument is better is totally bunk. And this fellow ( I think the shop is in Chicago) claims that the entire instrument eventually suffers from deterioration in performance due strictly to the age of the wood. He goes even further to claim that there is a whole price-inflated scam market, a dogmatically maintained industry around marketing this idea that older violins are better. Of course, he sells new ones ...
Click to expand...

I once read an article by a guitar luthier, who made a statement that an instrument sounds best, just before it falls apart. This is certainly an exageration on his part, but from my experience, it seems to be true to a certain extent. I have seen many, literally unplayable instruments with absolutely fantastic sound. I believe that constant flexing causes deterioration of wood fibre and glue joints, causing the instrument to loose tension, and "open up", resulting in an improvement in tone. I am not proposing that you trash your instrument in an attempt to improve tone.
 
#175
SS, just out of curiousity, are you an experienced luthier, or wood monger, or carpenter ? I am just trying to get some perspective on where you're coming from. It seems that everything you state starts with " I read..." or something like that.
 
#176
Silversorcerer said:
With all due respect to Ken Smith's wood and bass acumen...
Click to expand...

As a noob to the DB side of things myself silversorcerer, and therefore one who is keenly interested in what experienced double bassists and experienced luthiers have to say, I'm curious as to what credentials you have in either milieu. All I can derive from your profile, and a couple of Google searches, is that you own a couple of basses, your real name might be David Powell, the sound files on your website seem to be conspicuously absent of any actual bass playing, and that you apparently study with a cat named Seth Gamba who teaches Suzuki method violin. :confused:

Merely from reading your posts, you seem to be the world's foremost authority on wood in general and bass luthiery in particular. There are a bunch of cats here, all of whom have no problem posting under their real names, who are verifiably the "real deal". I'm not out to cause you embarrassment, but as someone who knows both Ken and Gary personally, and has heard both of them play, I'd like to know more about why I should take your posts, eloquent though they are, seriously.
 
#177
So now we are getting down to questioning each other's "credibility?" IMHO this is not the issue. We are all free to post and free to make our own decisions as to how useful those posts are to each of us. What confuses things is when things get OFF-TOPIC and the threads get cluttered up. What is worse is when we start making negative references to someone's character or demeaning them in a manner that is unexpected for mature adults.
 
#178
Adrian, as you well know most posts here go OT at some point. And yes, I think that in the case of repairs and luthiery there is no harm in questioning credibility when the purported expert has no body of work t orefer to. Like Craig, I am not trying to cuase problems but I 'd really like to know on what authority some people speak.

At this point I hope Bob kills this thread since it has nothing to do with CT anymore...
 
#179
Silversorcerer said:
One thing that I find particularly bothersome about many of the "quotes" from the Traeger book that are presented in this thread is the lack of context within which they are presented. This has been consistent with all of the "quotes" I've seen posted as the basis for critique. One that kind of jumped out at me recently was the one from Gary at Upton's about the relative height of the bridge legs and the wood above the heart. While it is correct that Traeger believes longer legs are better,he also gives 7/8" as a guideline for the "minimum" height of wood above the heart. To not include both items removes the quote from context and distorts the meaning of the quoted words. To go further and liken this to a "Belgian"bridge is venturing into imaginative personal indulgence at least.
Click to expand...

To clarify, the words which I quoted in post #94 were from page 23, in chapter 6 "Some general observations on the setup for optimum sound - the proper order of adjustment - the four genies of sound and playability" This paragraph does site chapter 11 for more information, however in this chapter (6) my quoted text in this thread IS the whole paragraph.

Is not a Belgian bridge leggy? Is that not a great visual representation of legs as long as possible? The way I read it that's exactly what I pictured him talking about especially when he mentions "cello bridge" otherwise the mention of cello bridge would be similar to a typical French style bass bridge, somewhat more of a half on top half on the bottom bridge.
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20698

SS, of all the quotes mentioned it seems you chose the one that actually had all the meat included, it would in fact have been easier to choose a quoted line that WAS in fact segmented??

Understood the standards, or lack of standards in the double bass world do leave a lot of room for these type of comments. However I assure you that if you read that paragraph to any...well most well known luthiers they would disagree.

In CT's defense this leggy bridge could perhaps be the answer for a solo musician playing arco looking for a bel canto sound...a great tool for a speciffic desired tone...but not a sweeping generalization.
 
#180
DZ said:
SS, just out of curiousity, are you an experienced luthier, or wood monger, or carpenter ? I am just trying to get some perspective on where you're coming from. It seems that everything you state starts with " I read..." or something like that.
Click to expand...
Without giving you my entire history, suffice it to say that I am, if nothing else, a reader. If you want more, go to my home page or my public profile, google if you like, and I wish you luck. I'm kind of tired of this barrage of questions that ultimates leads to me divulging more personal information than I am comfortable with posting. I have a generous public profile, and lately it just seems that folks are being nit-picky about my street cred. True, in the recordings that I have posted on my home page, I am a multi-instrumentalist who didn't play DB until two years ago. If you want to hear EBG, try Daily Trains, Red, The Gate Slammed Shut, Van Johnson Younger, The Sky is Carved of Gray Marble. You can hear some more recent washtub work on the live Van Johnson Younger.

Sorry I don't have a reference URL for the reading material but it was a more modern version of what Ken McKay posted but really a much longer rant on the whole industry of antiques, auctions, dealers, etc. I certainly don't endorse it. I kind of hoped my tongue in cheek comment about the shop selling "new" instruments would be sufficient to imply that I don't swallow everything that I read whole.

I do, however, recognize that whatever is going on with the aging of wood, there is a point where those conditions result in a richer tonality. That is my practical experience with a 1965 Harmony solid spruce top / mahogany student classical guitar. Dad's old classical always sounded good, but lately, it is so much different than it was. Whether the wood continues to change and goes beyond that to some eventual poor sounding condition and at what rate would be something to consider. Chemical changes like the hardening of the wood would slow down as those reactions proceeded to equilibrium. So the real question would be when, if ever, is an aging instrument in or past it's prime. Specifically, does this also apply to the instrument's bridge? Is a softer (less seasoned) bridge better than a seasoned one?

One of the other things I am besides a reader is a chemist. Chemistry happens in a lot of unexpected places. I've applied it directly and practically to water quality, photography, document conservation, picture framing, metal finishing, even cooking. I also do a number of things in addition to reading. One of the more interesting things I've recently experimented with is nuclear fusion bow recambering. But that will be covered soon in the Bows & Rosin thread....(Yes, it worked.) :)

As to being an authority on wood, I have studied trees and natural things since childhood. My direct knowledge is mostly with more common North American woods, but in picture framing I also dealt with a number of exotics. I have also worked with all kinds of tools since before I could read. Specifically what I know about what is happening chemically in the aging of wood is directly a result of my formal training in synthetic organic chemistry. There is no way to synthesize cellulose, the major structural material of wood. Cellulose is best preserved in a neutral pH environment. This is a part of chemistry that is applied in art conservation and ducument conservation. Within the wood is another substance that is acidic. Over time this hardens and "burns" the cellulose. The effect is easily seen on cotton clothing left in contact with unfinished wood in cheap clothes chests or on art that is right next to a wooden frame. So the wood has in it a chemistry that destines it to changing with age. The cellulose will harden and become more brittle as the acidic chemicals in the wood attack it over time. Eventually (it could be a very long time), the activity of the chemicals will reach equilibrium and the wood will no longer change like this.

Edit:With regard to any claim to any "special knowledge" of luthiery that some may percieve I claim to have in some of my posts: It is my concerted opinion that "luthiery" as a body of knowledge, if it is a legitimate true body of knowledge exists within a greater body of true knowledge. There is not some possibility of conflict or of exclusivity. Expressed as an anecdote:

To a biologist, biology is the study of living things;- to a chemist, biology is applied chemistry;- to a physicist, chemistry is applied physics;- and to a mathematician, physics is applied mathematics;- to a philosopher mathematics is applied philosophy. What, then, is this we call "luthiery" but some limited body of knowledge. It contains me no more or less than I contain it.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back