When did elevated finger boards come about?

I think what you're talking about is the over stand, which is more about the angle at which the neck and body meet. My understanding is that started changing when steel (or metal) strings became more predominant than gut strings.

 

As the change makes thumb position and bow/bout clearance easier, I imagine it started happening when bassists began playing more virtuosic material in that register. 30's-60's possibly?

One old bass of mine (20's) had a 1/2" overstand, my 30's has a 7/8" and a 50's is 1.1", all original work. These days I believe they are commonly set at 1.25-1.50". Luthiers?

 

+1. A second issue is top tension. I think that before the '70s most bassists played with much higher action than they do today. As you lower the string height you lose top tension, and often sound goes down correspondingly. If you have a raised saddle it means that the luthier wanted to increase overstand without adding top tension. On my Geiger I had the overstand increased mainly to increase top tension, but upper register playability was also enhanced.

 

Isn't it an increased neck angle (that allows a higher bridge while maintaining reasonable string height) that raises tension? I don't think a greater overstand alone will do it.

 

Well, Yes - but... Top tension is related to the angle of the strings over the bridge. If you bring out the neck and preserve its angle but don't raise the saddle correspondingly, then you will increase the angle on the tailpiece side. On my bass we raised the saddle slightly but not as much as the fingerboard. The result was just enough increased top tension to really improve the sound. Also, when you reset a neck you have some ability to change its angle too.

I suppose having a taller bridge alone will have some effect on the sound as well.

 

That's exactly right. Increasing the overstand and maintaining the bridge height reduces the breakover angle and the downward pressure on the top table at the bridge.

 

There is a "standard" string breakover angle for double bass?

I think it's an important thing (this angle), cause it reveal the relationship between neck angle, overstand, saddle height, bridge height, with the arching of the top; the resulting downward pressure. But a low arching possibly need less pressure? That isn't an easy phenomenon to deal with.

 

There is a typical range, but I cannot remember exactly, I think something between 30 and 40 degrees (out of 360 for the circle). (OK, it's 180 +/- 30 to 40 degrees to be correct.)
But I think one of our bass builders will jump in and nail it a bit better than me.

 

Would you do this though? My impression is that most operations to increase overstand include raising the bridge, and maybe saddle too. Especially if you are employing a fingerboard shim instead of a neck reset.

 

It depends on what you are looking for. Often the only problem is that the low overstand prevents access to the transition and thumb positions. In that case, assuming the bridge height is okay, I would reset the neck with more overstand and less angle. One has to be careful with bridge height; too high and the top table can be damaged. It can also hurt the bowing arm shoulder as the player will be moving the bow arm away from his/her body and putting more pressure on the shoulder muscles. With a large bass, the player may also have to bend the back more to nestle around the bass when the bridge is high, and that can result in back strain. Folks need to take the ergonomics of the bass seriously. That thing can cause some serious pain...

 

Wow, a multidimensional issue. Thanks for this explanation. I suppose all of this must also be weighed against any potential ill or beneficial effects produced by reducing the tension on the top that, as you confirmed, comes about when the breakover angle is reduced.

 

You will note that Arnold doesn't say "tension" he refers to pressure on the top, which I think is a much more accurate way to look at what is going on.

 

Yes, right. And generally, lightly-wooded basses "like" less loading on the top table, and heavily-wooded basses "like" more (and can stand up to more).

 

You are quite right. I'm usually more careful about such terms. Tension is entirely the wrong term. It is really downward force. Thanks!

 

For sure. I played a 4/4 Pöllmann for many years. Not by choice. The orchestra owned four of them and expected them to be used. Between the high bridge, deep ribs, and general tightness of the instrument, I ended up with permanent shoulder damage. I can still play my own instruments without pain. It's just things like pulling a heavy box off a high shelf that I feel it.

 

Arnold, I have often wondered about what constitutes light or heavy construction. Can you tell just by looking at the thickness of the top plate at the "f" holes? If so what would the range in thickness be between "light" and "heavy"?

I ask because in thinking about a change in strings, I would like to know if my current bass is too light for high tension, or too heavy for low tension.

 

It's a complex process. Factors include a general impression of the instrument's weight, plate thicknesses and graduations, arching height/style, bass bar size and strength, breakover angle, etc. If I were to give you a formula here I would be doing a disservice.

 

Arnold,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I can see how complex it could be. The bass is a Shen SB180 (hybrid), but I think I'll just take it back to the luthier who did my set up, and have him evaluate it.