Guitar technology breakthrough.

[thanny XIII]

Hey man as Jermey poiunted out we're not trying to bust your balls.I may have seemed like it but I wasn't. But I know nothing about you ezcept your basses. What are your favorite bands. What else do you do besides breakthrough guitar technology And a hint for body design. Bassists don't like our women or our basses flat.

[TimR]

How long is the scale? When you are holding the bass it looks tiny. That may be why the strings look strangely spaced and action looks so high in the photos.

[LizzyD]

It seems you have quite a long way to go before you can claim "The system I developped (sic) is by far the best and most modern guitar making system in the world today." It also might be a good idea to get a real digital camera and put up a website with info about your "breakthrough" and why it is so far superior to anyone else's.

[lug]

Am I the only one to realise that by filling the resonating chamber with spam, a more "meaty" tone could be achieved? DO I HAVE TO DO ALL THE THINKING AROUND HERE!

[Thomas Wilburn]

Oh, I don't know. Sounds like a canned joke to me.

 

But then, I haven't tried to steak my reputation on meat puns. Which is good, because I don't have many of them just loin around. Hey, just ribbin' ya!

 

Now that I think about it, I probably shouldn't joke about cuts of meat if we're discussing spam. I'd just make a hash of it.

[lug]

Originally posted by Thomas Wilburn:

Oh, I don't know. Sounds like a canned joke to me.

 

But then, I haven't tried to steak my reputation on meat puns. Which is good, because I don't have many of them just loin around. Hey, just ribbin' ya!

 

Now that I think about it, I probably shouldn't joke about cuts of meat if we're discussing spam. I'd just make a hash of it.

Sir, your post in this thread is a cut above the rest.

[rdepelteau]

So many questions, well I'll answer you all, well almost all...

 

First the action, I measured the height of the action at the bottom of this bass, and it is 3/16" at the bottom of the fretboard, at the fifth fret it is a hair over 1/16", at the octave, it is a hair under 1/8" the action is very low, I don't like to work hard. That's why I make these basses, low action, small, but not too small, light and powerful.

 

The technology I'm talking about is the way the neck is joined to the body, that is original. You can't see it, and I haven't described it in detail. And it is a system I invented. That is unique and state of the art. The resonator is not a new idea, but combined with the original contruction, that will be also a technological breakthrough. I expect my construction design to become the industry standard, once it becomes known. For two reasons, first, it reduces complications, second it reduces costs. Of course ajusting the neck height on the fly might detune it a bit, but very little, I did it many times, when demonstrating my system, and it didn't really affect the tuning, because of the way it is built.

 

From the end of the fingerboard to the end of the string is 5 1/2", the number system I put on the fingerboard goes like this: 8 is the octave, 3 is G, 4 is A, 6 is C, and 8 is 1, the octave. Then I repeat the pattern, so the second 8, which is the one in the picture is the second octave, with two more frets. I used a 24 fret guitar neck as a template for the fret spacing.

 

The sound is great, with a piezo/electric set up, I can get it to squeal really tinny, or very bassy with just the electric. That gives me a very wide range of sounds. I like the sound of it, and others liked it too.

[thanny XIII]

That is impossible. Unless you are God, any noticable neck change is going to change the pitch. Maybe you just have a bad ear...

[rdepelteau]

You're most probably right....

 

And for bands, I like Willie Nelson, Doobie Brothers(?), Country standards, I played a lot of blues, but now getting into bluegrass. I really like Bela Fleck, talking heads, Cecilia Bartoli, Anne Murray, and of the young guys, Corin Raymond, a local guy with some very nice originals.

 

www.corinraymond.com

[getz out]

Originally posted by rdepelteau:

First the action, I measured the height of the action at the bottom of this bass, and it is 3/16" at the bottom of the fretboard, at the fifth fret it is a hair over 1/16", at the octave, it is a hair under 1/8" the action is very low, I don't like to work hard. That's why I make these basses, low action, small, but not too small, light and powerful.

Honestly, I do not understand. From looking at the photo, which appears to have been taken with a webcam (nearly all of which have an equivalent to 50mm lense so images are proportional to the human eyes' perception), if you have correctly measured the action to be 3/16" from the end of the fretboard, you neck would only be about 1.25" wide at the octave. Is that true? This would make it a VERY tiny instrument.

 

Originally posted by rdepelteau:

The technology I'm talking about is the way the neck is joined to the body, that is original.

It looks similar to the Travis Bean...

 

http://www.travisbeanguitars.com/images/beans/TB1000Ano102/bean4_bg.jpg

 

http://www.unsound.com/GTR/TB2000_0/backdiag.JPG

 

Originally posted by rdepelteau:

Of course ajusting the neck height on the fly might detune it a bit, but very little, I did it many times, when demonstrating my system, and it didn't really affect the tuning, because of the way it is built.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Even minor adjustments to action will have a significant affect not only to your tuning but to your intonation. With your fixed bridge and static saddle, I do not understand how this works. Can you please articulate how you compensate for this?

 

Originally posted by rdepelteau:

I used a 24 fret guitar neck as a template for the fret spacing.

Was it the same scale length?

[jeremy c]

You've explained your numbers, but that ain't Nashville number system.

 

For an E string, 3 is G# and 6 is C#

on the A string, 3 is C# and 6 is F#

on the D string, 3 is F# and 6 is B, and

on the G string, 3 is B and 6 is E

 

Your 3 is really a b3 and your 6 is a b6.

 

I just thought about some more: your numbers go with the key of C. It still doesn't really make sense, though. The Nashville numbering system uses moveable numbers...that's the whole point. The number "1" starts at whatever key you are in, so it really could be anywhere and will be in a different place from song to song.

 

Now if we were in France where "do" "re" and "mi" do not change and always refer to C D and E you could put those names on the fingerboard. They'd still only work for one string.

[way2fat]

Thomas, you mean to say that you don't have any more meat puns just loin on the ground 'round there? May as well chuck the subject.

 

Why would such advanced technology use off-the-shelf electronics, if you don't mind me asking? And you can make it sound like an upright? That is a very big claim. There are a whole bunch professional players and degreed engineers and technically savvy folks around here. You need to build a lot more basses before you come around here talking about "most advanced technology". Perhaps in time you will. Until then, your natural audience will be at the forum with posts like "KoRn RooLz".

[rdepelteau]

Yes 1.25" thick, and a hair over 2" wide. And that's the thickest part of the instrument. I can make it thinner too sans problemo. The body is just under 1" thick including the back piece which runs over the body. I'm working on having interchangable bodies, with snap on facias. But that would be on production models since this requires precision machining, and I just make them one by one, with innovations introduced for each new one.

 

I'm sorry but this Travis Bean doesn't look like mine at all, you will notice his aluminum piece is very thick, and could be replaced by wood, no innovation there. My brace is on the surface, and runs the whole lenght of the instrument. Though I could make it shorter, I like the simplicity of having the back brace also hold the strings. I am very interested in the aluminum neck though, that's what I plan to use in the future, a hollow aluminum back with an ebony fretboard. I have a problem with the balance, it is a little top heavy, and I have to do something about it, so I thought of having an aluminum neck and machine head hollow contour where I'll rig the machine heads into it somehow. I wonder how it feels to play an aluminum neck...? Tone and feel is important.

 

The bridge is not fixed, it is held in place by string pressure. That's what I exploited in the next generation, I isolated all the electronics from the body by wiring the controls into the thumb rest, with the volumes and tone controls just below the thumb as I play. And by having the jack at the back of the longer thumb rest. The E pup is wired at the top, with the wire running on the surface, and the piezo wired at the back with the wire on the surface. That allows me to separate the electronics from the guitar, by loosening the strings, and taking the one screw off. You can see it clearly on this picture:

 

 

As for the scale lenght, yes it's the same lenght as a double octave guitar lenght. The lenght of the scale is not determined by the note you're trying to achieve, but by the physics of vibration. Whatever lenght or thickness a string is, it's middle point will be the octave. So if I use a guitar fretboard, and put bass strings on it, it will have the same result as thinner guitar strings over the same interval. I set up the harmonics the same way, and the intervals are identical.

 

As as for this:

 

For an E string, 3 is G# and 6 is C#

on the A string, 3 is C# and 6 is F#

on the D string, 3 is F# and 6 is B, and

on the G string, 3 is B and 6 is E

 

You're absolutely right, each number is the beginning of a new scale. I just used the locations of standard guitar buttons for clarity (except for the C). So the 6 is the C on the E string, and the 4 is the A on the E string, not exactly honest.... but who reads numbers anyway?

I stopped putting numbers on the neck after a couple of guys told me they didn't really like it. Though a few also told me they loved it. If I do it again, I would not use the 6 but the 5 note, just so the placement of the numbers corresponds to standard guitar buttons. I found that the C is confusing to people who play it and are expecting the marker on the 5 instead of the 6. I didn't put numbers on the last one, just longer lines on the side of the neck. I was tired of building this one, it took me longer to make it, and in the end, I just want to slap it together and start a new one with all the fresh ideas.

[TimR]

You say the same length as a double octave guitar. That's Guitar not Bass Guitar right? To me it looks more like a 3/4 bass. How many inches?

[rdepelteau]

The neck is 20 inches long from nut to bottom, and it's 26 frets, that makes it a double octave plus two notes.

 

As for making it sound like an upright, that's my next project, with the resonant rib cage, I think I can achieve this feat. Though my bass have incredible sounds as they are, my ultimate goal is to replicate the upright sound, and I think I can achieve this with the resonator. The particular thump of the upright is just the wood vibrating, and by tuning my resonator with more or less thump, and by using oscilloscopes to determine the range and amplitude of a particular thump, I'm certain to be able to create very similar acoustics in my "John Player Special".

[getz out]

Thanks for your response, but you have not answered any of my questions.

 

- What is the scale length, nut to bridge?

- How do you compensate for your "on the fly" neck adjustments and intonation

 

- Also, something does not jive with this photo and your response:

 

http://static.flickr.com/50/135986766_fddb67c9bf.jpg?v=0

 

If that neck really is 2" wide at the octave, then that action is at least 1/2" high, minimum. I am not a forensic photo analyst, but I can tell from my amateur photography classes that this photo is in proportion and if anything, the G string height is actually understated based on its position in the photograph. This is verified by the reflection of the strings and the shadows on the fingerboard.

 

The Travis Bean design does anchor the strings at the bridge. It is a "half" neck-through, or hidden-neck-through design, meaning there is wood on the top, opposite the neck. It is a 32-year-old design. Most would say it was innovative at the time.

 

http://www.unsound.com/GTR/TB2000_0/all.jpg

[Dave Brown]

It takes a lot of courage to open yourself up to this kind of public comment.

 

I have several based on my observations:

 

It would be better to change the name of your numbering system to something like: "Fret Number" system. The "Nashville system" means something different.

 

I could never get used to playing an instrument with that gawky thumb rest in my way.

 

The arched fingerboard traces its evolution to the upright bass. The reason the URB board is curved is because you have to have an arched bridge so you can bow one string at a time. It is not fast or comfortable. The arch gradually lessens as it approaches the nut. There is no advantage to an arched board on a non-bowed instrument.

 

In fact, that's a disadvantage. Since the bridge doesn't appear to have an arch, the e and g strings will be lifted very high off the arch by the straight bridge.

 

 

You want to sound like an upright? The violin family instruments are MARVELS OF TECHNOLOGY that evolved over hundreds of years. ALL IN WOOD! Without a knowlege of physics.

 

It's more than just wood resonating a chamber. The 2 footed bridge vibrates the top in specific ways. The treble foot is held in place, but not fully, by a soundpost joining the top and back. This also serves to transfer some vibration to the back.

 

The fixed treble foot forces the bass foot to vibrate the top "in phase" vastly increasing power of the instrument.

 

Under the bass foot of the bridge, inside the body and glued to the top is a bass bar running along the f holes. The mass of this bar increases the response of the instrument in the lowest register as the top vibrates.

 

The F holes allow the waist area to vibrate more than the upper or lower bouts.

 

Now, all of the sound bouncing around the corners and angles inside the body influences and is influenced by the vibration of the wood surfaces. The tone of these instruments is incredible complex in the same way that blended whiskeys work.

 

I can change the sound of my bass to something I hate by moving my soundpost 3/4". Every tiny evolution away from the true violin system changes the sound.

 

In fact, peizo systems and advanced pickup systems cannot capture the tone that comes out of a violin family instrument. There is no "perfect" pickup. In the recording studio, engineers invariably mic basses, sometimes using 2 or 3 mics.

 

A floating bridge on a vibrating surface? You are trying to make a bass that responds like a banjo.

 

Please explore all you want. The tonewoods you are using are quite rare. I think people should have a license to use them. The woods themselves are only a tiny fraction of your tone.

 

Be careful you don't fall victim of subjective "group-think." This is what is killing GM right now. They got core ideas 60 years ago when they were very successful and built the most powerful auto industry in history. But now they can't escape those original ideas. In fact, they hire "outsiders" to help them think "outside-the-box" and invariably fire them when they upset the corporate apple-cart.

 

You seem married to a number of original ideas. What if your ideas are wrong? What if each of these things has been tried and rejected? Sure, Travis Bean made an aluminum neck joint. Bassist rejected that because of the sound. Reverend basses (which sound incredible) have a floating top, advanced pickups and a styrofoam resonating chamber. Even though they were bargains and beautiful instruments, they couldn't sell enough of them to keep them in production.

 

Don't reject the past. Learn to copy it first (like Picasso did) before you re-invent it.

[rdepelteau]

Well I can tell that "you're not a forensic photo analyst", as I said, the action is a hair over 3/16" on the E string, and the G string is the same. Which is a little high, but because I don't arc the neck I can't get around this. The string starts flush with the fingerboard, and rises slowly from 0 at the nut to 3/16" at the bottom.

 

The Travis Bean design is interesting for the neck contruction, I wonder how it sounds and feel. But since I have access to formed aluminum, I'll try it anyway. My next bass will truly be original, with the Travis Bean type of neck, and ribbed aluminum resonant cage, it should be interesting to build as well as to engineer.

[Rowbee]

Perhaps if the photo that Getz has printed here (from your page) is misleading, you get display another one here showing how low the action really is?

[rdepelteau]

Thanks Dave, I'm not reinventing the past, I am inventing the future. That's what I do, I have several patents. I( don't mind opening myself up to you guys since I know most of you have a lot of knowledge, and as much as I am being the target of some ribbin, I don't mind because all your contributions are invaluable to me.

 

Yes the Nashville system is not something I intend to carry on. I stopped after two basses. The thumb rest is not in the way at all, it's not bigger than any other thumb rest, and I find having the controls right under my thumb makes it very easy to tweak them on the fly, without having to reach down and drop a few notes in the process. The hand doesn't go over the buttons, as this picture shows.

 

http://static.flickr.com/50/143428789_4c8c476629_m.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/45/143428790_cf72568294_m.jpg

 

The reason I arch the board is because I like the feel of an arched board. It also strenghtens the neck as I have no truss bars. A lot of classically trained U of T students play bluegrass and hang out at the Tranzac where I play, and everytime I get the chance, I let them play it, just so I get their feedback. While those who are used to a regular electric wouldn't touch my bass, the classically trained ones just can't get enough of it. Who else but a classical musician would like a arched fretless bass? One problem I had with the arch was that the end strings are low, and the epup picked them up louder, so I had to rearrange the posts on teh pup, take some out, lower some, and raise some to balance the gain. I now use a four post pup. My bridge is also arched of course.

 

I'm really interested by your analysis of the violin type construction of the body. That is something I will have to analyse in detail, in order to grasp the fundamentals of the technique. I'm certain to reproduce some of the features as the mechanics do not change regardless of the material used. The F holes allow the waist area to vibrate at a higher frequency than the upper or lower bouts. I think that's what you mean here. Top face and bottom face are linked to vibrate in phase. I certainly will experiment to find a good set up. I'm certain I will be able to come up with a great degree of versatility as to what sound I can get out of the set up. By changing thicknesses, and width, I can change the pitch of each individual element, to be in tune with each other. And as a whole, I can affect the tone by changing the internal layout and points of contacts of the ribs. Respond like a banjo is not far from what I have in mind, as the banjo bridge rests on a vibrating membrane, I think the membrane is too thin for the sound I'm trying to achieve. Although I probably will have to use just a very thin wood face over the rib cage. That will certainly minimise the cost of making the instrument since exotic wood is quite expensive.

 

But that's all theoretical, at this point, since I haven't started it yet. But certainly is food for thought.

[rdepelteau]

I measured the height and took a picture of it, so you Thomases can see it with your own eyes. But you can be sure that the action can be set at any height. I set is as low as I could, without the E string buzzing too much.

 

http://static.flickr.com/46/143442468_9fb8c5c6ef.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/56/143442469_6d009c460b.jpg?v=0

[rumpelstiltskin.]

Originally posted by rdepelteau:

I'm not too computer savvy,

you seem to have enough interweb skillz to post here about the products you sell. but then, google and research clearly aren't your friends. certainly not like hubris.

 

how does one decode fact from fiction?

 

robb.

[getz out]

http://static.flickr.com/46/143442468_9fb8c5c6ef.jpg?v=0

 

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

However, the standard measurement for action is to take the measurement from the bottom of the string in question to the top of the fretboard directly below.

 

So, based on where you are taking your measurement compared to where the E or G string sit, it does appear to be at least twice what you stated. That action must be nearly 1/2".

 

While I am no forensic expert, you sir are by no means a luthier, carpenter or engineer.

[...]

I would suggest that in your quest to bring the Next Big Thing to the bass world that you move that control box thing. That looks very uncomfortable and I can tell you by looking at it that it would be in my way when trying to play this thing. I doubt that I'm in the minority here.

 

http://static.flickr.com/50/143428789_4c8c476629_m.jpg

[Whacked]

Damn thats a huge radius on that fretboard. Chording must be a nightmare.

 

Sheesh, even with the new photos and the rule, the E and G string action is high enough to bungie jump from. Is that part of the innovation? to shoot suction cup arrows at the audience during a solo?

[way2fat]

Well, I'll give you points for thick skin, and maybe you'll come up with something by trial and error, but I'm pretty skeptical about making it sound like an upright. It isn't at all easy to make an upright sound like an upright through an amp without about $3,000 worth of pickups and a blender. With off the shelf electronics? I doubt it. Of course, sometimes tinkerers get lucky because they don't listen when people tell them it can't be done. I got lucky that way once while converting an old Bassman cab, but it was luck. What type of engineering is your degree in?

[way2fat]

You still haven't answered the question about scale length. Do you know what the scale length is? Do you know what scale length means?

[Dave Brown]

Originally posted by rdepelteau:

 

 

The reason I arch the board is because I like the feel of an arched board. It also strenghtens the neck as I have no truss bars. A lot of classically trained U of T students play bluegrass and hang out at the Tranzac where I play, and everytime I get the chance, I let them play it, just so I get their feedback. While those who are used to a regular electric wouldn't touch my bass, the classically trained ones just can't get enough of it. Who else but a classical musician would like a arched fretless bass?

 

I'm really interested by your analysis of the violin type construction of the body. That is something I will have to analyse in detail, in order to grasp the fundamentals of the technique. I'm certain to reproduce some of the features as the mechanics do not change regardless of the material used.

 

The F holes allow the waist area to vibrate at a higher frequency than the upper or lower bouts. I think that's what you mean here. Top face and bottom face are linked to vibrate in phase.

 

I certainly will experiment to find a good set up. I'm certain I will be able to come up with a great degree of versatility as to what sound I can get out of the set up. By changing thicknesses, and width, I can change the pitch of each individual element, to be in tune with each other. And as a whole, I can affect the tone by changing the internal layout and points of contacts of the ribs. Respond like a banjo is not far from what I have in mind, as the banjo bridge rests on a vibrating membrane, I think the membrane is too thin for the sound I'm trying to achieve. Although I probably will have to use just a very thin wood face over the rib cage. That will certainly minimise the cost of making the instrument since exotic wood is quite expensive.

 

But that's all theoretical, at this point, since I haven't started it yet. But certainly is food for thought.

Well, I'm a classically trained URB player, but on a bass intended to be played like a guitar, I'd hate the arch.

 

The space between the f holes doesn't vibrate at a higher frequency; that's determined by the pitch being played. The area vibrates more freely, for the precise reasons mentioned. This allows the bridge to push the bass bar more freely, carrying the vibration through the top.

 

Also, it's not the top place and rear plate that have to be in phase. Without the sound post, the 2 seperate feet of the bridge would cause the top itself to vibrate in phase.

 

Check out the Reverend basses, which have resonant chambered bodies and have already solved many probs you are encountering. However, they compared their tone more to a piano than an URB.

 

I'm sure you mean you change the sympathetic resonance of each element, not the pitch.

 

Any thumb rest gets in my way (although I don't "tear ass all over the galaxy") and I'd prefer not to have anything there.

[TimR]

Ok I think I might be out of my depth here, these are just questions:

 

If as you say the fingerboard is 2 octaves and only 20". That is more the size of a guitar, or a 3/4 size bass?

This maybe why people are thinking the action is high. The fretbeard is smaller than a conventional full size bass. Others might be better to comment, but most bass players would prefer a full size bass.

 

Also as the string length increases the Tension must increase as a square to maintain the frequency doesn't it?. Would your single point of adjustment cope with this added tension on a full size bass?

 

Will the fact that it is not a full size bass affect how much the intonation would change when you make adjustments 'on the fly'? And maybe why it's not percieved that much?

 

Is this just a prototype or is the final version going to be that small.

[rdepelteau]

G: "the standard measurement for action is to take the measurement from the bottom of the string in question to the top of the fretboard directly below."

 

That's what I did.

 

W2F: "It isn't at all easy to make an upright sound like an upright through an amp without about $3,000 worth of pickups and a blender. With off the shelf electronics? I doubt it."

 

Actually, it sounds pretty close to it as it stands. It's always been my intention to begin with. The sound is quite nice, if I could make a recording live I'd like that, but the jammers don't like it when we record the jam, I did it once, and there was a huge storm of protest. Some guy wants me to play bass on his recording so I'll have something if and when that happens.

 

 

Scale lenght? I think it's the lenght of the octave. Is that it? If so, the scale lenght is about 13". So the whole lenght of the string is about 26"

 

It's not a bass intended to be played like a guitar, it's a bass intended to be played like a bass. I also play keyboard and guitar parts on it, whatever the songs needs. Then I go back to the bass line. When a guy soloes, I like to hum the melody between the bass notes, just to keep the jammers on cue, they sometimes lose the song, and I sometimes lose the song too, after a good mexican cigars and a couple of pints of Rickard's red.

 

So the F hole actually reduces the strenght of the body at the narrow point to allow vibrations to pass through more easily. I can change both resonnance and pitch just as easily as one can tune a xylophone note. By pinging a piece, I get the general natural frequency response, and can tune each separate piece in tune with each other, as well as having a tone for the assembled framework.

 

I checked out Reverend basses, they're were doubt very well made, but they're out of business.... and they sound like pianos, I suppose I could get that tone also, if I searched for the right combination. I like the thumb rest, and it's not in my way, as my hand loops over the area anyway. I do change picking position up and down the strings, to get different sounds, and it never gets in my way. Some people like thumb rests, others don't, I have two of them without it, and two of them with it.

 

I'll certainly study the architecture of the upright, and the logic behind the construction, in order to better approximate the desired effect. I have to find aluminum for the neck, since I don't cast, I'll have to use industrial stock, modified to fit. If I can find hollow half round tubing.... there's a challenge all by itself. The rest of the metal I can scrounge for bits and pieces to fit together. I'm not an engineer, or a luthier, or a carpenter, I'm a hacker, but I do have a few patents behind my belt already, so it's not like the opinion of some no name rock star will throw me off... I like this tinkering too much.