Prosebass Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Bass design hasn't progressed any since Leo Fender did his stuff back in the 50's Body shape has changed and you can have as many strings as you want it would seem but the basics are the same as ever. We now use attractive woods and carbon fiber but essentially its same old same old... Do any changes need doing or are we destined to be playing Precisions in 2058 ? (not me personally I'll have croaked) Midi bass failed, headless is still a niche, 4 strings tuned EADG still rule, is there anything that can be done to improve future designs ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protium Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Racing stripes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ped Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I think mainly because they are the ones that SELL. There are many many extravagant and innovative ideas out there, but without big markets, they will never become as visible in the market as your usual run of the mill stuff. I do however also think that the bass guitar has probably changed more than any other instrument since its inception, especially when compared to instruments like the violin and so forth... Cheers ped Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraham Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 I think there's been quite a few little advancements that help to perfect an already pretty good design. At the end of the day it's an electric bass guitar, i.e. a longer scaled fretted electric guitar. Beyond better/improved construction with better quality materials, I can only think of a few more things I'd like to see. I'd quite like to see more preamps with a headphone jack out, i.e. an onboard preamp that allows you to hear your instrument without a rig. Electric violins have this, some electric guitars (e.g. traveler guitars) as well, even some electric pianos! It seems a fairly obvious design option considering that the bass is an [i]electric [/i]instrument. Perhaps more transparent pickups/means of detecting motion of the strings? Forgetting about what sells and what people expect to hear for a moment, consider that in dealing with sound signals, it is useful (not saying best as it depends on mixing purposes, at least in music) to start with a 'pure' signal first, and then effect it after achieving this. You can't reintroduce something accurately into a sound that wasn't there to start with etc. Some pickup companies have gone for this such as Q-tuner, certain active pickup companies etc. Oh and more companies producing basses with finger ramps! Mark P.S. I'm not saying that any of these things will take off, but I think that they are common sense ideas that I rarely see or hear about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosebass Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 [quote name='Protium' post='330693' date='Nov 17 2008, 02:37 PM']Racing stripes?[/quote] Been done...... [attachment=16063:zoom_b_mach4_red.jpg] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosebass Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) [quote name='mcgraham' post='330702' date='Nov 17 2008, 02:52 PM']I think there's been quite a few little advancements that help to perfect an already pretty good design. At the end of the day it's an electric bass guitar, i.e. a longer scaled fretted electric guitar. Beyond better/improved construction with better quality materials, I can only think of a few more things I'd like to see. I'd quite like to see more preamps with a headphone jack out, i.e. an onboard preamp that allows you to hear your instrument without a rig. Electric violins have this, some electric guitars (e.g. traveler guitars) as well, even some electric pianos! It seems a fairly obvious design option considering that the bass is an [i]electric [/i]instrument. Perhaps more transparent pickups/means of detecting motion of the strings? Forgetting about what sells and what people expect to hear for a moment, consider that in dealing with sound signals, it is useful (not saying best as it depends on mixing purposes, at least in music) to start with a 'pure' signal first, and then effect it after achieving this. You can't reintroduce something accurately into a sound that wasn't there to start with etc. Some pickup companies have gone for this such as Q-tuner, certain active pickup companies etc. Oh and more companies producing basses with finger ramps! Mark P.S. I'm not saying that any of these things will take off, but I think that they are common sense ideas that I rarely see or hear about.[/quote] A few inexpensive guitars have a headphone out but basses don't seem to have adopted it. It is easily possible to include one. Having built 3 basses with Q-Tuner pups I can vouch for their "transparency" . The problem here is that a bass fitted with them sounds superb through headphones and then loses a lot of that transparency when plugged into an amp, maybe a transparent amp is needed as well. By finger ramps I take it you mean a method of thumb placement ? Edited November 17, 2008 by Prosebass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 [quote name='Prosebass' post='330690' date='Nov 17 2008, 02:31 PM']Bass design hasn't progressed any since Leo Fender did his stuff back in the 50's Body shape has changed and you can have as many strings as you want it would seem but the basics are the same as ever. We now use attractive woods and carbon fiber but essentially its same old same old... Do any changes need doing or are we destined to be playing Precisions in 2058 ? (not me personally I'll have croaked) Midi bass failed, headless is still a niche, 4 strings tuned EADG still rule, is there anything that can be done to improve future designs ?[/quote] You say bass hasn't progressed since Leo then list all the changes!!! I've 3 basses sitting in my back room all of which are a million miles ahead of Leo's original idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraham Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 [quote]A few inexpensive guitars have a headphone out but basses don't seem to have adopted it. It is easily possible to include one. Having built 3 basses with Q-Tuner pups I can vouch for their "transparency" . The problem here is that a bass fitted with them sounds superb through headphones and then loses a lot of that transparency when plugged into an amp, maybe a transparent amp is needed as well. By finger ramps I take it you mean a method of thumb placement ?[/quote] As you say, it is easy to include one. So why hasn't it been done? It would certainly help address monitoring and volume issues. I agree with your comment about transparent amps/rigs/speakers. But that is an issue with PA, cabinet and amp design, not bass design. Interesting comment about the Q-tuners. I'm contemplating switching out my DiMarzio Model J's for something a little different, but I'm undecided at present as they do sound good. Finger ramps - garywillis.com, or search for people like Matt Garrison etc. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Jack Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 [quote name='Prosebass' post='330690' date='Nov 17 2008, 02:31 PM']... is there anything that can be done to improve future designs ?[/quote] Define "improve". My coffee cup hasn't changed its shape in a century. It was a pretty good design for drinking coffee then, and it still works perfectly well now. This is a classic example of [i]If it ain't broke, don't fix it[/i]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosebass Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 [quote name='chris_b' post='330709' date='Nov 17 2008, 03:04 PM']You say bass hasn't progressed since Leo then list all the changes!!! I've 3 basses sitting in my back room all of which are a million miles ahead of Leo's original idea.[/quote] They are changes to the basic design, the same with cars....four wheels 2 rows of seats and a fossil fuel engine. A Model T Ford is fundamentally the same as a 2008 BMW 5 Series Virtually 99% of basses have the same layout and design features of a Precision. A neck with frets and tuners and a 34" scale. A body with holes in it for the pups and controls, contoured to be comfortable and a metal bit to secure and adjust the strings. Now unless your 3 basses are in the 1% of something totally different they will share the same design principles of a Precision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 There's a certain performance envelope for any piece of design that is based around fitness for purpose. So long as the bit of kit does what its supposed to and doesn't cause more problems than it solves then there's little reason for its to evolve. Any attempts to force it to evolve are often meaningless in the long run. Sales hype, decoration or otherwise frivolous features often masquerade as innovation (tm) (pat. pending). Usually the most significant way in which otherwise stable design ideas develop is with the advent of new technology eg. graphite composites, or new manufacturing techniques, eg. laminated necks or the use of NURBS modelling in CNC milling. Ergo, you could also say the precision bass shares 100% of its design with a guitar. The only thing fundamentally different is the scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraham Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) Whilst I agree that basses by their very nature comprise those aforementioned features, I disagree with your insinuation that the basses that were mentioned are not 'million miles ahead' of Leo's design. The mere aggregation of features does not make something better or an improvement, but by providing an additional feature (or perhaps changing one or even removing one!) that may appear to be a trivial modification when taken in isolation [i]can[/i] contribute to a massively different technical effect that provides a marked improvement. Mark Edited November 17, 2008 by mcgraham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosebass Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 [quote name='Happy Jack' post='330725' date='Nov 17 2008, 03:27 PM']Define "improve". My coffee cup hasn't changed its shape in a century. It was a pretty good design for drinking coffee then, and it still works perfectly well now. This is a classic example of [i]If it ain't broke, don't fix it[/i].[/quote] Thats what I'm getting at, can it be improved ? The Precision and Jazz are design Icons having lasted 57 and 48 years respectively. Does this mean we are all ultra conservative or that the original designs were so good ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neepheid Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 [quote name='Happy Jack' post='330725' date='Nov 17 2008, 03:27 PM']Define "improve". My coffee cup hasn't changed its shape in a century. It was a pretty good design for drinking coffee then, and it still works perfectly well now. This is a classic example of [i]If it ain't broke, don't fix it[/i].[/quote] +1 I tried really hard to design my first bass from scratch to be original, but it ended up being a slightly offset waisted Les Paul Money bass (which I didn't know of at the time). Bah, humbug. I'm still going to make it though I think it's really hard to make something original which is such a stellar leap forward it will convince people to change the way they think about basses. There is also the problem that a radical improvement is so far ahead of its time that it doesn't overcome traditional and conservative outlooks. Think of the guitars Andrew Bond came up with - stepped fingerboard instead of frets, digital readout of the settings. What happened? Disappeared *shrugs* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosebass Posted November 17, 2008 Author Share Posted November 17, 2008 [quote name='mcgraham' post='330731' date='Nov 17 2008, 03:33 PM']Whilst I agree that basses by their very nature comprise those aforementioned features, I disagree with your insinuation that the basses that were mentioned are not 'million miles ahead' of Leo's design. The mere aggregation of features does not make something better or an improvement, but by providing an additional feature (or perhaps changing one or even removing one!) that may appear to be a trivial modification when taken in isolation [i]can[/i] contribute to a massively different technical effect that provides a marked improvement. Mark[/quote] I agree entirely, but we have not seen that leap that Leo Fender made in 1948-1950 to change the "popular" bass from an upright fretless to the Precision. That was a major design change. What I want to hear opinions on is whether that leap will ever be made again rather than just tinkering around the design envelope of present basses. Granted uprights still sell alongside modern basses and I love EUB's having owned a Framus but I would love to see a different "mindset" in how bass design could go forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 [quote name='Prosebass' post='330735' date='Nov 17 2008, 03:41 PM']Granted uprights still sell alongside modern basses and I love EUB's having owned a Framus but I would love to see a different "mindset" in how bass design could go forward.[/quote] Like this? [quote name='Prosebass' post='330733' date='Nov 17 2008, 03:33 PM']Thats what I'm getting at, can it be improved ? The Precision and Jazz are design Icons having lasted 57 and 48 years respectively. Does this mean we are all ultra conservative or that the original designs were so good ?[/quote] Lets not look at the bass guitar in isolation, the original designs were an improvement on earlier guitar ideas too (including those by Les Paul). Have recent innovations I've already mentioned been successful? Sure to a certain extent, we still have instruments with graphite necks and laminations and active circuits and headless designs and fanned frets and 15 degree twisted neck and vibrato bridges and onboard tuners and stereo circuitry and optical pickups and neck LED's. Put all those together in one instrument and compare/contrast it to Leo's Fender P. How does that stack up in terms of design? And then lets consider whether that instrument is MARKETABLE? If it doesn't sell but is still innovative, is it successful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraham Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Well, I've always been a fan of the idea of combining bass and guitar into one instrument. Kind of extended range bass or extended range guitar, but not quite. Something that provides the physical nature of a bass and a guitar as much as is possible in a single instrument, e.g. Charlie Hunter (EADADGBE), but less divided courses of strings, i.e. more like a piano and its continuous range. Say... 8/9 strings to combine the range of a 4/5 string bass with a 6 string guitar. Possible tuning options: (B)EADG for bass (~30-34" scale), EADGBE/DGCFAD for guitar (with 25.5" scale extended by 'two frets' to ~28.5" scale to get the lower DGCFAD tuning) This would equal (B)EADGCFAD. Say ~32/33"--29" fanned fret scales... My 'vision' is that it would have more guitar like spacing, but not quite as tight, somewhere between 12-14mm spacing. Also splittable pickups for bass courses/guitar courses but also combinable. Midi capable saddles would also be a good idea. Preamp/eq, stereo/dual output, perhaps a trem on the high strings etc would be options too. Essentially I've always been jealous of keyboard players. Of their range, of their available sounds, and how portable all that is/can be in comparison to a guitar and how many additional bits and pieces you need to get there. This would afford greater range, would allow bassists and guitarists do their thing on the same instrument. So, what do you think? Different enough? Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tait Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 [quote name='Prosebass' post='330690' date='Nov 17 2008, 02:31 PM']Bass design hasn't progressed any since Leo Fender did his stuff back in the 50's Body shape has changed and you can have as many strings as you want it would seem but the basics are the same as ever. We now use attractive woods and carbon fiber but essentially its same old same old... Do any changes need doing or are we destined to be playing Precisions in 2058 ? (not me personally I'll have croaked) Midi bass failed, headless is still a niche, 4 strings tuned EADG still rule, is there anything that can be done to improve future designs ?[/quote] what else is there to do to it? theres a reason "different" designs fail, and thats cos they're not needed and (usually) very expensive. [quote name='Prosebass' post='330735' date='Nov 17 2008, 03:41 PM']I agree entirely, but we have not seen that leap that Leo Fender made in 1948-1950 to change the "popular" bass from an upright fretless to the Precision. That was a major design change. What I want to hear opinions on is whether that leap will ever be made again rather than just tinkering around the design envelope of present basses. Granted uprights still sell alongside modern basses and I love EUB's having owned a Framus but I would love to see a different "mindset" in how bass design could go forward.[/quote] i see what you're saying, but the double bass and electric bass are two very different instruments. you can simulate a bass sound using keyboards or MIDI or even things like guitar pro? surely thats a leap like Leo Fender made, playing a bass without an instrument there? then theres the ERB, i;d say thats a completely different design. tbh i don't think theres ever going to be a "better" kind of bass than the electric, with the range of sounds you get, the accessability of every note on the fretboard, not to mention all of the options. you can present it differently, but its more than likely going to be more difficult to carry around, less fun to play on stage (for instance, you may have to stand stationary like you do with the double bass), and just in general less convinient. then you'd have to come up with things it does better in order to make it worthwhile, as well as it having everything the electric bass has, you'd have to be able to slap, double thumb, change volume and tone, theirs just so much that you can do on the electric bass that its going to be hard to improve. bear in mind that the electric bass was based around another instrument, the electric guitar, that evolved from another instrument, the acoustic, that evolved from other instruments, the lute etc. its all about evolution, and everything finishes evolving at some point. perhaps next we'll mix the bass with another instrument? find a way of playing bass and guitar at the same time? its a problem i had in my graphics coursework, that you had to give a reason why you were designing what you were designing. there had to be gap in the market or a problem with the original product. their isnt either of these things with bass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezbass Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 The human body hasn't evolved at all in recorded history so anything that was originally designed from an ergonomics perspective (horns/cutaways, body contours,etc) is going to be as relevant today as it was when Leo and Co came out with their original designs. As for the range of a bass instrument, that's governed by what other instruments are being played with. The original Double Bass was designed to work with the sonic space of the accompanying instruments at the time, and to be fair those instruments (guitars, keyboards, drums, brass, etc) have hardly changed since then in terms of sonic space/range, so an electric 4 string bass is still going to be the de facto standard in an ensemble situation. Ultimately our bodies and our hearing determine the state of (accompanying) bass and as I said we haven't evolved any more so bass doesn't [b][i]need[/i][/b] to. That's not to say bass shouldn't evolve, at least in its range, and ERBs in a solo type situation are proof that there room for growth sonically. Shapewise though , if it isn't comfortable not many people are going to use it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcgraham Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Whilst we haven't evolved in recorded history, what is mechanically achievable in the products/devices we design and make has improved vastly. For example, different people prefer higher/lower actions, before truss rods or other equivalents, it would've been next to impossible to readily adjust the neck of an instrument. This would've been an ergonomic issue that seemingly had no solution, i.e. no-one could envisage a way to remedy this issue, therefore it would likely have been dismissed as 'a limitation of the instrument, get on with it or get over it', at least for a time. I can think of a few issues that seem 'physically impossible' to overcome, but that certainly present ergonomic issues for some people. Who's to say that in a few years someone won't come up with some method that blows your mind about how to overcome such problems? Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 [quote name='LWTAIT' post='330773' date='Nov 17 2008, 04:27 PM']its a problem i had in my graphics coursework, that you had to give a reason why you were designing what you were designing. there had to be gap in the market or a problem with the original product. their isnt either of these things with bass.[/quote] that's what I was hinting at, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezbass Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) [quote name='mcgraham' post='330784' date='Nov 17 2008, 04:49 PM']Whilst we haven't evolved in recorded history, what is mechanically achievable in the products/devices we design and make has improved vastly. For example, different people prefer higher/lower actions, before truss rods or other equivalents, it would've been next to impossible to readily adjust the neck of an instrument. This would've been an ergonomic issue that seemingly had no solution, i.e. no-one could envisage a way to remedy this issue, therefore it would likely have been dismissed as 'a limitation of the instrument, get on with it or get over it', at least for a time. I can think of a few issues that seem 'physically impossible' to overcome, but that certainly present ergonomic issues for some people. Who's to say that in a few years someone won't come up with some method that blows your mind about how to overcome such problems? Mark[/quote] I think that all the original Fender guitars had truss rods? But I guess you mean DBs. There are some absolutely awful DBs out there with cr@p actions and like the absolutely awful unplayable electrics, they don't get played. If something's fundamentally wrong then someone will fix it, but that doesn't preclude others making inferior versions for the sake of a cheap product (for the maker at least). I'm interested in your list of "issues that seem 'physically impossible'" as you could be onto something we have never considered. I guess the other reason that things haven't changed much is that we tend to hold older things in reverence whether it be a bass, a car or a bass player, for to argue against the norm is to open yourself to ridicule. Am I wrong? Just start a thread that slams the P or J bass or Jaco and see what happens. Edited November 17, 2008 by ezbass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoying Twit Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 (edited) Could The Stick be seen as a step forward, or at least something radically different? And what about optical pickups? Edited November 17, 2008 by Annoying Twit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Burpster Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 Its pretty obvious isnt it? While there is still passion and desire for the drum, bass, & 1or2 geetar band format, things will stay the same...... There was a bit of a design flourish in the 80s, but Britpob bought the format back into vogue in the 90s..... Whilst Geetarists (bless 'em) still want to play Strats and Les Pauls we'll be twanging Fender clones of one sort or another.... These are generalisations I know, but just check out popular geetar sales, and you'll see what I mean... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezbass Posted November 17, 2008 Share Posted November 17, 2008 [quote name='The Burpster' post='330827' date='Nov 17 2008, 05:25 PM']Its pretty obvious isnt it? While there is still passion and desire for the drum, bass, & 1or2 geetar band format, things will stay the same...... There was a bit of a design flourish in the 80s, but Britpob bought the format back into vogue in the 90s..... Whilst Geetarists (bless 'em) still want to play Strats and Les Pauls we'll be twanging Fender clones of one sort or another.... These are generalisations I know, but just check out popular geetar sales, and you'll see what I mean...[/quote] My point exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.