Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 Tone?, Volume?, Resonance?, Can't explain, please read.
- Thread starter Tim Skaggs
- Start date
Na Don't do that - it probably out of your price range!Originally posted by olivier
Dang, I gotta have that book !
Should hurry, might run out of stock
I believe, since I began asking questions about how to improve the sound of my bass, that my bass should be the test subject and I should be the judge of the imnprovement (or lack thereof). Where do I take it for the treatment? 
Once again I'll mention that BP magazine did a somewhat scientific test of EB vibration. They tried to keep it scientific and not subjective by recording basses before and after treatment. It's not a direct comparison to the subject at hand, but a very similar procedure. I'm sure we all have heard about instruments being put in front of stereo speakers to "break them in". I'm also sure we have all played "old" electric & acoustic instruments and have "felt" that difference that can quite be explained. My conclusion is this; vibration changes the structural "integrity" of instruments. I doubt anyone denies that. The "change" is what we question. Is it improvement, or just change? Most feel that naturally aged instruments are improved. Does artificially induced vibration changes = naturally induced vibration changes? Not likely. Is one better that then other? Inconclusive. Change is not always positive, but it's always something different. Is that what I'm after? Not necessarily, but more volume would be nice. 
Once again I'll mention that BP magazine did a somewhat scientific test of EB vibration. They tried to keep it scientific and not subjective by recording basses before and after treatment. It's not a direct comparison to the subject at hand, but a very similar procedure. I'm sure we all have heard about instruments being put in front of stereo speakers to "break them in". I'm also sure we have all played "old" electric & acoustic instruments and have "felt" that difference that can quite be explained. My conclusion is this; vibration changes the structural "integrity" of instruments. I doubt anyone denies that. The "change" is what we question. Is it improvement, or just change? Most feel that naturally aged instruments are improved. Does artificially induced vibration changes = naturally induced vibration changes? Not likely. Is one better that then other? Inconclusive. Change is not always positive, but it's always something different. Is that what I'm after? Not necessarily, but more volume would be nice. I wish that I could give you the names of X number of luthiers to take your bass to for treatment. Unfortunately, as you can see by the reaction of some people on TB, this process has not been widely accepted by the luthiery community. Not too many bass luthiers have chosen to make the investment of time and money needed to perform this rather unique process. I can only suggest that you contact Henry Strobel and ask him if he knows of any persons in your area that are performing Vibration DeDampin.
BTW - I still fail to see any similarity between the BP article and Vibration DeDamping. Simply recording before and after is (IMO) valueless in terms of scientific testing.
I meant absolutely no disrespect and I'm fairly new to this board, but your reaction to the BP test is not unlike the reaction of some on this board to the process you brought up here. Have you read the BP article? It was a pretty in depth test using equipment that would be considered either too expensive or unavailable to the average person. To begin with, they used a 7 KILOWATT amplifier to drive a SERVO MOTOR as a vibrating device, not a magnet and voice coil. You said you fail to see the similarity. I personally think they were headed down the same path as Mr. Strobel, but they were "treating" a totally different instrument. As for dismissing recording as a scientific method, what else would you suggest? Surely you wouldn't suggest depending on the human memory of the sound before treatment to compare it to the sound after treatment would you? IMO, that would be much more UNscientific and unreliable. As for geting my bass treated, I was pretty much joking. I would probably upgrade to a better instrument before I would strap an electric motor to my bass and vibrate it to the point of possibly falling the soundpost. That process actually sounds a little like it would be to a luthier like a hail storm is to a body shop, although, it certainly makes an interesting topic for discussion.
OK - perhaps this thread should come to an end. First (and for the last time) the book is published by Henry Strobel. The Book was written by Prof. Gerhard A. v. Reumont. Mr. Strobel is a very well know publisher of violin family luthier type books.
As far as the article in Bass Player magazine is concerned, I dismiss it because it was done to a slab of wood with a neck - not a REAL double bass. If you don't see that there is a big difference, I think you are on the wrong side of TB. As I mentioned in my first post, this book AND Process is for members of the violin family and similar instruments. If BP has done tests on a double bass, I would be willing to consider the results - otherwise, it is apples and oranges. There is a reason why Prof. Reumont chose to use the motor and offset weight approch rather than a servo or even a transducer. The direction of the force is controlled - not random.
I dismiss recording as not being scientific, not because I would trust ears, but because it doesn't go far enough. What about instruments analyzing frequencies and overtones. I want to see graphic charts of before and after. Full spectrum analysis of frequencies that the ear can not register. In short - some real scientific intrumentation under truely controlled conditions.
Even if you were joking. I would certainly hope that you would not "strap an electric motor to my bass and vibrate it to the point of possibly falling the soundpost." A fallen soundpost is the least of the possible damage you could do If You Don't Know What You Are Doing. This is a process for a luthier - not a novice - and Certainly not you.
I have tried here to present the process to this group as information. If you choose to think it is bogus, that fine. Just don't be too surprised if you find out (in the future) that your bass was treated before you bought it.
As far as the article in Bass Player magazine is concerned, I dismiss it because it was done to a slab of wood with a neck - not a REAL double bass. If you don't see that there is a big difference, I think you are on the wrong side of TB. As I mentioned in my first post, this book AND Process is for members of the violin family and similar instruments. If BP has done tests on a double bass, I would be willing to consider the results - otherwise, it is apples and oranges. There is a reason why Prof. Reumont chose to use the motor and offset weight approch rather than a servo or even a transducer. The direction of the force is controlled - not random.
I dismiss recording as not being scientific, not because I would trust ears, but because it doesn't go far enough. What about instruments analyzing frequencies and overtones. I want to see graphic charts of before and after. Full spectrum analysis of frequencies that the ear can not register. In short - some real scientific intrumentation under truely controlled conditions.
Even if you were joking. I would certainly hope that you would not "strap an electric motor to my bass and vibrate it to the point of possibly falling the soundpost." A fallen soundpost is the least of the possible damage you could do If You Don't Know What You Are Doing. This is a process for a luthier - not a novice - and Certainly not you.
I have tried here to present the process to this group as information. If you choose to think it is bogus, that fine. Just don't be too surprised if you find out (in the future) that your bass was treated before you bought it.
I promise You I won't try it. It seems you are judging me to be below novice level. I'm not sure how you knew. Thanks, now I know I have a greater range of achievement before me.
This is what I was referring to in my statement about strapping a DC motor to my bass and shaking it to the point of *possibly* falling the SP. Could it fall? Is it possible?
I initially brought up the BP article in support of the process Prof. Gerhard A. v. Reumont developed. I simply wanted to point out that others have recognized that vibration, regardless of whether it's natural or artificial, has an effect on material, be it on the molecular level or mechanical level. I'm not comparing the instruments, I'm comparing the general idea of inducing vibration as a method for producing change. It seems that you would see some similarity in that as a support for the process you introduced here. My mistake for assuming you would. I didn't initially think this process was bogus, and I still don't. I read and post here to learn. It's working from my point of view.
Dear Mr. remus_redbone,
I'm sorry if I came down on you a bit hard on the last post. Sometimes may patience runs a bit thin. The remark about it being a luthier process was meant for emphasis to the entire group not just to you.
Certainly the sound post could fall. This in itself is no big deal. Sound posts fall all the time and resetting it is a very simple job for any luthier. A lot of players have a soundpost setter so they can do it themselves. I didn't want to go into details on possible damage since some of the light hearted here are already having attacks. It is possible to break strings, pop seams, put dents in the top and even cause the bass bar to come unglued if one were to use the motor device without extreme care. However, when used as recommended by Prof. Reumont, no damage is likely to occur. Having the soundpost move around is the ONLY adverse thing I've ever had happen while doing the process.
As my esteemed friend Mr.Schnitzer said early in this discussion, there have been playing in schemes around for centuries. Most don't work - period. If the BP method works for planks, good for it. If fellow luthiers Mr. Schnitzer and Mr. Bollbach can disagree with me, there is certainly nothing wrong with us disagreeing.
Jeff Bollbach
Jeff Bollbach Luthier, Inc.
Awwright! Disagreeing-my favorite activity! Actually, I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with ya Bob on whether the post could fall or move. In previous employ many times I saw it being pointed out that a post was fitting poorly and the pointer was told -Oh it must have "shifted". Never, not under tension. There is a huge amount of tension when a bass is tuned up-if you could reach in and grab the post you could lift the bass up and rotate it without it moving. That's why when someone sez that a "tight" post is dangerous I always amend it and say that it's really a poorly fit post that's dangerous because all posts-well-fit or other wise are pushing pretty good into the top.
ps-I know that this is a picayune point and that this thread is past it's prime, but forgive me Bob, I'm just having a boring afternoon.
Hey Jeff,
I can't believe you are questioning me on this one. It's always fun for me to show people like you just how much the top moves while undergoing Vibration DeDamping. A stroboscope is a very important part of the process because it allows you to stop the motion (visually). It also allows you to view the amplitude in slow motion. If you really push it, the top will actually move (up & down) close to an eighth of an inch. Not the entire body - just the top! Believe me - the post will move!
I agree with you that a tight post won't much under normal playing condition if it is tight or even properly fitted. A loose one of course will easily drop when you take the tension off the strings.
I can't believe you are questioning me on this one. It's always fun for me to show people like you just how much the top moves while undergoing Vibration DeDamping. A stroboscope is a very important part of the process because it allows you to stop the motion (visually). It also allows you to view the amplitude in slow motion. If you really push it, the top will actually move (up & down) close to an eighth of an inch. Not the entire body - just the top! Believe me - the post will move!
I agree with you that a tight post won't much under normal playing condition if it is tight or even properly fitted. A loose one of course will easily drop when you take the tension off the strings.
Jeff Bollbach
Jeff Bollbach Luthier, Inc.
Bob- I don't doubt the movement. Pull the E with some muscle, look at the bass side eff and you'll see most tops will easily move an 1/8 or so just from strenuous pizz. Certainly the post will move with this-but will it move in plane or actually move from its position?
ps-I don't disagree with the concept of the damndedamping. I just feel that most basses are not optimized in their repair and set-up. If the luthier can do these things then the "magic" comes from the time the player spends with his/her instrument. This dedamping is a hard thing to prove. All these tests that were suggested-let's get fifty basses and the best players an we'll compare em' before and after dedamping-well I just think it may not happen. I wish we could do it-then we could test one of Arnold's basses against mine and prove to Ed that price is irrelavant.
ps-I don't disagree with the concept of the damndedamping. I just feel that most basses are not optimized in their repair and set-up. If the luthier can do these things then the "magic" comes from the time the player spends with his/her instrument. This dedamping is a hard thing to prove. All these tests that were suggested-let's get fifty basses and the best players an we'll compare em' before and after dedamping-well I just think it may not happen. I wish we could do it-then we could test one of Arnold's basses against mine and prove to Ed that price is irrelavant.
My experience has been that some posts have moved up to 4 inches away from the starting spot. For this reason, I constantly monitor the position of the SP after each frequency change (15 times all together). Believe me, the motion you mention with regard to pulling on the E string is nothing compared to the movement generated by that little motor and weight. I'm talking about the whole top, bridge and strings moving up and down - not just lateral movement around the bass bar.
This dedamping is a hard thing to prove.
On the contrary - it is quite easy to prove. All you have to do it try it! If you aren't willing to do that, it's impossible to prove either way.
I agree, It would not be hard to prove whether or not the dedampening has an effect.
A test lab I worked in a few years ago did some vibration testing, and sound testing.
I no longer work in that facility, but I don't seem to remember there being a whole lot of equipment used in the evaluation process.
If you were to measure specific sound characteristics of a bass before and after the test, you could atleast see if there is a difference (for better, or for worse). Perhaps in the wave, or in the volume. Of course, how the string was articulated would have to be exact for the before and after, but that could be handle through the use of some type of force gage.
Sorry but I simply reject the idea that old instruments sound better than new ones just because they are aged. Wood must vibrate for sound to be produces but to suggest the glue of the instrument changes or that the wood somehow undergoes some sort of reversible change just sounds like voodoo. Musicians are very easily sold a bill of goods that I believe is all imagination. Musicians make music not the instruments. I've watched the same instrument played by an accomplished musician sound fantastic while others marvels at it tone. Guess what, when someone less acccomplished played it, it sounded only okay. Its kind of like marketing the big musical instrument makers use. Play a strat and you'll sound like Hendrix. Beware of those with something to sell you. Just my $.o2 and I'd loved to be proved wrong. Something that could make my bass sound better without requiring work on my part would be heavenly.
If this discussion had pertained to solid body guitars like the Stat that pathdoc2 mentioned, I would probably find little to disagree with. However, when you include members of the violin family, it's a different story. Over the past century or so, it has been reported by many of the worlds most respected experts and concert players that if concert quality instruments such as those from the hands of Stradivarius are not played, they "go to sleep" and need to be played for some period of time before they "wake up". I saw this mentioned in documents at the Shrine to Music Museum in Vermillion, SD where many of the worlds finest finest examples of the violin maker's art are on display and where artists are periodically invited to play these instruments in concert. I personally observed this phenomenon in one of my personal basses that I did not played on for several years. I can guarantee you that it wasn't my playing that improved with "playing in" the instrument.
There was an interesting discussion of this a while back on a cello forum I subscribe to.
Link Removed
Link Removed
I read the entire discussion with interest. However, I was somewhat disappointed that not one single person actually tried the methology as outlined in the book.jlattuada said:
Actually, one of the contributors went on to apply the techniques from the book and emailed me some photos and info:
The motor pic shows the bolt as it was with 4.5 grams of imbalance on it. It is a 6-32 machine screw with 5 nuts on it. the nuts weighed in at .5 grams and the bolt was around 2 gms. to get a 1/2 grm at the end you can use a short machine screw. I had three different screw lengths.
The white stuff is reflective tape so the lazer tachometer could read the speed. Put on cheapo strings, because the process destoyed my expensive spirocore C and my Evah A. You need to place foam rubber under the strings at the finger board and I put styrofoam under the tailpiece with a soft cloth between it and my cello. I also put some foam rubber under the tailpiece gut/adjuster. you don't want the strings taking the vibrations you want it all on the bridge so it transfers through the plates of your cello. I used locktight on the imbalance screw so it wouldn't loosen and fly out. It would really mess up the cello if that happened. The voltmeter cost me around $69.00 plus shipping. and I got the tach for $35.00. When you get it going around 3,000 rpms dial it in to a perfect pitch using a tuner. I didn't lessen the weight to 4 gms until the fourth step. The rpms would change by around 300 rpms at first. I can send you some copies of the pages of the book that shows the recorded chart of cello de-damping. It gives you a kind of guide line for weight, speed and time schedules. Each cello is different and if it shakes violently it some speeds you have to speed up to the next pitch/speed that it runs smooth. The cello is already resonant at the violent point.
You can find out where the tight spots are that way and they usually coordinate with notes you find are less resonant. It came out with more wolf, but it's better for it. I can tame the wolf.
The motor pic shows the bolt as it was with 4.5 grams of imbalance on it. It is a 6-32 machine screw with 5 nuts on it. the nuts weighed in at .5 grams and the bolt was around 2 gms. to get a 1/2 grm at the end you can use a short machine screw. I had three different screw lengths.
The white stuff is reflective tape so the lazer tachometer could read the speed. Put on cheapo strings, because the process destoyed my expensive spirocore C and my Evah A. You need to place foam rubber under the strings at the finger board and I put styrofoam under the tailpiece with a soft cloth between it and my cello. I also put some foam rubber under the tailpiece gut/adjuster. you don't want the strings taking the vibrations you want it all on the bridge so it transfers through the plates of your cello. I used locktight on the imbalance screw so it wouldn't loosen and fly out. It would really mess up the cello if that happened. The voltmeter cost me around $69.00 plus shipping. and I got the tach for $35.00. When you get it going around 3,000 rpms dial it in to a perfect pitch using a tuner. I didn't lessen the weight to 4 gms until the fourth step. The rpms would change by around 300 rpms at first. I can send you some copies of the pages of the book that shows the recorded chart of cello de-damping. It gives you a kind of guide line for weight, speed and time schedules. Each cello is different and if it shakes violently it some speeds you have to speed up to the next pitch/speed that it runs smooth. The cello is already resonant at the violent point.
You can find out where the tight spots are that way and they usually coordinate with notes you find are less resonant. It came out with more wolf, but it's better for it. I can tame the wolf.
