Double Bass Warming up the bass?

[drurb]

OK. But if we all need to produce empirical evidence to support our opinions we're not going to get very far here are we?

cheers MT

You're right. It is a slippery slope. Because the effect discussed here involves expectations and subjective reports of changes in sound, I am especially wary. It's an occupational hazard, I'm afraid.

 

[M Ramsey]

I've commonly heard claims or statements that before a gig its best to spend about 10-20 minutes just bowing long tones on the bass so that it "warms up" or "opens up" and gets a better sound. I'm just wondering if anyone has actually tried doing this or if anyone knows the actual physics behind this claim?

I think we need to re-read the original post in this thread. (See above) The term "warm up, warming up, warms up" is not actually referring to increasing the temperature of the bass or parts thereof. I'm pretty confident that it is about "opening up" the response of the instrument to playing.

I'll agree that it is beneficial for the player to warm up or stretch joints, muscles and tendons, but the "warming" of the bass is to allow it to "wake up" from a period of idleness, or not being played.

Not trying to argue, just trying to clarify the discussion.

 

[Matthew Tucker]

Many posters have expressed their experiences about the first part of the question. It comes unstuck when an answer is sought for the second part.

I'm sure that little, if ANY of the myriad observations about construction or sound of double basses, by players and makers in the thousands of posts here on the DB side of TB can actually be supported by irrefutable scientific evidence. There are just too many variables with double bass.

But just because something cannot be supported by science doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think the only thing to be wary of is expecting science to explain art and music!

 

[moles]

The term "warm up, warming up, warms up" is not actually referring to increasing the temperature of the bass or parts thereof.....
Not trying to argue, just trying to clarify the discussion.

I agree somewhat. However, there is a reason that the saying "warm up" is used as such - boiling it down right to the point, lets say you take a paper clip. Bend it back and forth a few times, eventually it'll break. Touch the broken ends to the back of your hand - feel hot? Yep, feel free to correct my expanation, but it's my understanding that any material with a degree of elasticity will experience internal friction when it is stretched or bent - which produces heat. I presume that wood will undergo the same process as it has some elasticity to it also.
So setting aside the issue of whether or not a bass will open up over an extended period of time - I guess I would say that although I'm still a touch skeptical and I'd be interested in seeing a real 'test' done, I can still see that playing the instrument for a half hour or whatever would produce some small changes in its response - and in the whole instrument, not just the strings.
The other thing I might add is, I wouldn't be so quick to discount "small" effects on the sound either. Lots of us here would and have spent big buck to find the perfect combination of strings, pickup placement/design, soundpost placement, bridge setup, deyada deyada....all to refine our sound when alot of these differences may not be discernable to the 'average' listener (whatever that means

Another thought - speaking on the idea of bombarding and instrument with sound from a speaker - I wonder if it isn't important for the instrument to vibrate with the frequencies and overtones that it will be producing. The bass is played, over time it becomes 'tuned' (again, whatever that means...) to making that particular range of sounds, making it produce those sounds clearer when its played, and so on. Kind of and exponential growth idea, rather than just randomly vibrating it with Skynard or whatever.
Hey I wonder if you did that long enough, would Freebird come out whenever you start bowing away? Okay, kidding....now I'm just getting silly...

 

[drurb]

But just because something cannot be supported by science doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

With regard to physical changes in an instrument, if they truly cannot, as a matter of principle, be supported by science, then they become unverifiable hypothesis which, logically, are meaningless. Now, before you hit that reply button, I am not saying that objective empirical evidence must be supplied in order for one to believe that effects exist of the type being discussed.

Had you said:

"But just because something is not supported by science doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

then I'd be okay. Once you discuss purported physical effects that "cannot" rather than "are not" supported by science, it is an entirely different ballgame.

 

[jsbarber]

You guys are arguing semantics. If you take the word "science" in Mathew's comment to mean the existing body of scientific knowledge then he is correct; i.e., that because there is no way to use existing scientific knowledge to explain a phenomenon doesn't mean that the phenonmenon is not real.

Drurb, seemingly, interprets Mathew's comment to mean that there is no possible scientific explanation of a physical phenomenon [doesn't mean that it doesn't exist]. That is a Philosophical discussion, once you begin to discuss whether future scientific revelations can/must describe a phenomenon.

I saw a great talk some years ago my Thomas Pickering, inventor of the Pickering phono cartridge. He and some scientific colleagues had modeled the violin, and optimized a design based on this model. They then built violins to this specification, and these violins were good but not great. So, one could reasonably conclude that the existing body of scientific knowledge was unable to explain why a Strad sounds so damn good. Does that mean that the scientific method is incapable of explaining it at some point in the future? Who knows - that is speculation. But at that time it, seemingly, did not.

But as far as I know, no one has even done any rigorous science to study the phenomenon of a double bass "opening up". We have people who claim to have observed it (me and others); we have data that master players get their students to open up the instrument for them (decoupling the personal warm-up from the instrument warm-up), see posting by AES; and we have people saying they don't see how this can be true, which is nothing more than an opinion.

Let me temper this comment by saying that I'm not trying to put anybody down here. Drurb in particular, is an eduated guy with good insights, and I enjoy his posts. But saying that - I'm educated and I don't see how it can be true - is not a scientific conclusion.

Jim

 

[drurb]

t is frustrating when my words are not read carefully. After all, I try very hard to choose them in that manner.

You guys are arguing semantics.

Why, of course we are! "Semantics" refers to the meaning.

If you take the word "science" in Mathew's comment to mean the existing body of scientific knowledge then he is correct; i.e., that because there is no way to use existing scientific knowledge to explain a phenomenon doesn't mean that the phenonmenon is not real.

Drurb, seemingly, interprets Mathew's comment to mean that there is no possible scientific explanation of a physical phenomenon [doesn't mean that it doesn't exist]. That is a Philosophical discussion, once you begin to discuss whether future scientific revelations can/must describe a phenomenon.

Agreed.

I saw a great talk some years ago my Thomas Pickering, inventor of the Pickering phono cartridge. He and some scientific colleagues had modeled the violin, and optimized a design based on this model. They then built violins to this specification, and these violins were good but not great. So, one could reasonably conclude that the existing body of scientific knowledge was unable to explain why a Strad sounds so damn good.

Au contraire! The scientists may have applied the existing knowledge inadequately and/or may have not had access to all of the relevant data. It's quite a logical leap to conclude that the failure described means that the body of knowledge is insufficient.

But as far as I know, no one has even done any rigorous science to study the phenomenon of a double bass "opening up". We have people who claim to have observed it (me and others); we have data that master players get their students to open up the instrument for them (decoupling the personal warm-up from the instrument warm-up), see posting by AES; and we have people saying they don't see how this can be true, which is nothing more than an opinion.

So none of these reports are much more than opinion.

Let me temper this comment by saying that I'm not trying to put anybody down here. Drurb in particular, is an eduated guy with good insights, and I enjoy his posts. But saying that - I'm educated and I don't see how it can be true - is not a scientific conclusion.

You are correct that to say that would not constitute a scientific conclusion. I never said that it would. Furthermore, I never said anything about my education or held it up to anyone. The point here is, as you state, that there is simply no good empirical evidence. On that we seem to agree. There is nothing wrong with saying something like, "In the absence of relevant data, I have no reason to believe that this or that effect occurs, based on my understanding of the subject." Notice that my example statement does not deny the phenomenon, it simply says, I have no reason, at this time, to accept its truth.

Go back and read my words. I said things like, "I'm not convinced" and "I am suspicious." Those are hardly assertions. I also stated, "I would be happy to be disabused of these notions by the presentation of contrary empirical evidence." Hardly a closed mind.

Given that we've edged toward philosophy, I believe that one does not always require the results of a direct experiment to have a sound basis for a belief. One can appeal to the body of scientific knowledge. I long ago gave up arguing with the "golden ears" in the audiophile world who claimed to hear this or that change evaluated subjectively and in an uncontrolled manner in their armchairs. When I would argue that the physics and a vast literature regarding the operation of the ear simply were inconsistent with their claims, they'd ask if an experiment was ever done specifically regarding their claim. They'd also argue that if the science didn't support what they "knew" they heard, then the scientific method was flawed. It was an endless cycle. So, they continued to mark the outer edges of their CDs with transparent green marker (I'm not making this up) and enjoyed the superior sound they just "knew" it produced.

Why did I bother saying all of this? If an expert in the the area of wood deformation, aging, and acoustics said to me that, based on his/her knowledge, claims about warming up, opening up, or whatever make perfect sense are likely valid, I would take that very seriously and likely change my belief. That is, I would not demand a specific experiment.

Let good reason prevail.

Okay, I'm done for now.

 

[Matthew Tucker]

If an expert in the the area of wood deformation, aging, and acoustics said to me that, based on his/her knowledge, claims about warming up, opening up, or whatever make perfect sense are likely valid, I would take that very seriously and likely change my belief. That is, I would not demand a specific experiment.

In my opinion, you probably can't go past someone like Arnold as an expert in the area of wood deformation, aging and acoustics.

Or by "expert", do you exclusively mean someone with scientific qualifications?

 

[drurb]

In my opinion, you probably can't go past someone like Arnold as an expert in the area of wood deformation, aging and acoustics.

Or by "expert", do you exclusively mean someone with scientific qualifications?

If you look carefully, you will see that I took Arnold's comments quite seriously. Please read carefully. Arnold, for whom I have a great deal of respect, never ascribed differences resulting from short-term warm-up to any changes in the wood. I asked him if he thought the effect was a result of a change in the strings.

When posters mentioned that the effect might be related to changes in the bow/rosin and/or strings, I explicitly stated that that makes a great deal of sense! That is, I broadened my view.

 

[mrpc]

So if the molecular structure of the wood is changing as it is being asked to respond to the pitches made by the vibrating strings, wouldn't this create some kind of fluctuation in the temperature of the wood itself, however minute? And what about the memory that all wood(s) seem to have........wouldn't it seem possible that wood could be reminded of a prior state of flexability and it's corresponding sound if it is "reminded" of it by the action of playing after a period of not being played?

From "Scientific American".


Does temperature affect the sound of a musical instrument?
M. Cary
Ypsilanti, Mich.
E-mail ArticleE-mail Print ViewPrint RSSRSS del.icio.usdel.icio.us digg reddit newsvine
Chris Rogers, a professor of mechanical engineering at Tufts University, and Jesse Jones, a musical instrument engineer, explain.


Temperature can affect the sound of an instrument in a variety of ways, which are different for each instrument. It also influences the abilities of a player. In the case of the violin, for example, warmer weather changes the amount of friction between the bow and the strings, changing the way the bow pulls on each string. Warm weather also tends to expand instruments and thus alter their ability to withstand tension, which again changes their interaction with a musician. In a piano, increases in humidity and temperature cause the bushings (hinges in the mechanical assembly of the piano action around which one component rotates with respect to another) to swell. Such swelling increases the time between when the player hits a key and when the hammer hits the string by roughly 10 milliseconds. Musicians describe this effect as "sluggishness."

 

[drurb]

Twilight Zone Alert!

Now, how much change in temperature do you suppose results from playing the bass? Compare that to the changes being referenced in the Scientific American article which include seasonal swings of tens of degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[mrpc]

Well, Doesn't the most minute placment of your fingertip on the string affect the resulting intonation? Minute is EVERYTHING when it comes to musical instruments and the production of music. Or a minute twist of a tuning gear or placement of the bridge, you are sh....t outta luck when you are on the bandstand.

HOwz about a minute crack over the sound post or bass bar.

Yup, the minute things make the big picture work.

And "The Twilight Zone" might describe a place where creativity resides.

One of the most wonderful aspects of scientific research seems to be getting information from the "twilight zone" and aplying it in useful ways to "make it real" in the world we live in.

Damn right fellas, warming up the bass (taking it from a state of inactivity to an active one) makes a big difference in sound and response of the acoustic bass.

And to answer the question about temperature change while playing the bass, I don't know. But I think it should be possible to measure the temperature of organic substances in motion. Not in terms of degrees, but something much smaller. It seems like this would be a valuable tool in medical research. If it absolutley can't be, then someone might say so here.

 

[jsbarber]

...Au contraire! The scientists may have applied the existing knowledge inadequately and/or may have not had access to all of the relevant data. It's quite a logical leap to conclude that the failure described means that the body of knowledge is insufficient.

Let's face it, if science could explain Stradivari's work they'd be making knock-offs in a factory in China and we'd be paying $100 apiece for them not >$1M.

So none of these reports are much more than opinion.
...
I long ago gave up arguing with the "golden ears" in the audiophile world who claimed to hear this or that change evaluated subjectively and in an uncontrolled manner in their armchairs. When I would argue that the physics and a vast literature regarding the operation of the ear simply were inconsistent with their claims, they'd ask if an experiment was ever done specifically regarding their claim. They'd also argue that if the science didn't support what they "knew" they heard, then the scientific method was flawed. It was an endless cycle. So, they continued to mark the outer edges of their CDs with transparent green marker (I'm not making this up) and enjoyed the superior sound they just "knew" it produced.

I would not equate the "opinion" of a virtuoso musician to that of a passive audiophile. The musician that can create the beautiful music that we all aspire to play is worthy of being taken seriously. However, that is not to say that it would not be interesting and potentially valuable to conduct experiments to understand the effect.

Jim

 

[mrpc]

I would not equate the "opinion" of a virtuoso musician to that of a passive audiophile. The musician that can create the beautiful music that we all aspire to play is worthy of being taken seriously. However, that is not to say that it would not be interesting and potentially valuable to conduct experiments to understand the effect.

Jim

Yup!

 

[drurb]

Well, Doesn't the most minute placment of your fingertip on the string affect the resulting intonation?

Minute is EVERYTHING when it comes to musical instruments and the production of music. Or a minute twist of a tuning gear or placement of the bridge, you are sh....t outta luck when you are on the bandstand.

HOwz about a minute crack over the sound post or bass bar.

Yup, the minute things make the big picture work.

Nope, these things are not minute at all along the their dimensions of relevance.

And "The Twilight Zone" might describe a place where creativity resides.

More like a place of fantasy.

One of the most wonderful aspects of scientific research seems to be getting information from the "twilight zone" and aplying it in useful ways to "make it real" in the world we live in.

Really?

Damn right fellas, warming up the bass (taking it from a state of inactivity to an active one) makes a big difference in sound and response of the acoustic bass.

The question is, if it occurs, then why? The player, the strings, the bow/rosin are all reasonable explanations.

And to answer the question about temperature change while playing the bass, I don't know. But I think it should be possible to measure the temperature of organic substances in motion. Not in terms of degrees, but something much smaller.

Degrees or fractions of a degree will do. There is nothing mystical about this.

As I said earlier, "Let reason prevail."

 

[drurb]

I would not equate the "opinion" of a virtuoso musician to that of a passive audiophile.

Irrelevant. The virtuoso musician does not give us the explanation, which is what we are discussing. In addition, I think you missed the point of what I said. It was that we do not always need an experiment!

Let's face it, if science could explain Stradivari's work they'd be making knock-offs in a factory in China and we'd be paying $100 apiece for them not >$1M.

Not necessarily true. That assumes that it could be copied cheaply. You might be surprised at the amount of formal research that has been done and what it has yielded. Look.

 

[Jeff Guevin]

Not necessarily true. That assumes that it could be copied cheaply.

I think it's a safe assumption their materials and labor wouldn't approach $1M. Probably not $100, either, of course, but likely towards that end of the spectrum.

What are we talking about again?

 

[drurb]

I think it's a safe assumption their materials and labor wouldn't approach $1M. Probably not $100, either, of course, but likely towards that end of the spectrum.

What are we talking about again?

True, but a large part of the $1M price tag is because Stradivarius made it and it is old and rare. I'd bet that even if a new violin were created that could not be functionally distinguished from a Strad, the Strad would command way more $$$.

I'm not sure what it is that's being discussed. The thread is inching toward the notion that we can just never understand these minute, mystical influences. That's where I get off the boat.

 

[mrpc]

As I said earlier, "Let reason prevail."

What do you define as reason here? Is it collective,or just your own dictative opinion(s)?

 

[jsbarber]

Irrelevant. The virtuoso musician does not give us the explanation, which is what we are discussing. Look.

I thought we were discussing whether or not a double bass opens up after it is played for a short period of time.

Jim