Talk:Double bass/Archive 2

Double Bass featured article nomination

I feel that this article is a fine product of alot of hard work by many individuals. Please support this article in its nomination as a featured atricle. Even if the nomination fails, we can still improve the article greatly based on what comments people have about it. -Bottesini 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Pleas express your opinions on the featured article nomination page which can accessed my clicking the "leave comments" on the FAC box above. -Bottesini 19:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Slim down

Playing styles section needs slimming. Whole page needs to get down to about 32k!--Light current 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

agreed (this is probably my last edit for tonight). by the way, the image on the left looks much better. please continue this great improvement drive. even if we fail, we can still renominate the article after improvement. -Bottesini 02:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I agree. Please let me know if you find any of my edits too vicious. Then we can discuss how to retain the info whilst keeping the article size reasonable.--Light current 03:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Classical DB repertoire

I think this section needs serious thinning out. Its far larger than the paras on other genres and we really need to get the page tighter (smaller!)--Light current 22:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Strings

It says in the article Some bassists who perform in baroque ensembles use gut strings to get a lighter, "warmer" tone. Does this mean the strings have more/less bass or more/less top or what? What about sustain on gut -is it better/worse than steel?--Light current 06:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the addition you are referring to, but in true baroque ensembles there aren't any double basses. I'd like to give a simple answer, but this seems confusing to me because, as I previously stated, there are no double basses in a baroque chamber orchestra (as in an ensemble that uses period instruments and plays period works exclusively), and I doubt that most musicians would change their strings to perform one piece of music. But anyways, I don't believe it is accurate to talk about the differences between modern and gut strings in terms of more/less treble or bass. I would say that modern strings such as steel core varieties are "brighter", and do have significantly increased sustain. ==> Bottesini 00:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotation Some bassists who perform in baroque ensembles use gut strings to get a lighter, "warmer" tone taken from String materials section, para 1. If what you say is true, then this bit is not correct.--Light current 01:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, bassed(!) on my limited experience of nylon strings on Spanish guitars, my gut feeling [:-))]- is to say that they have less sustain than metal strings.--Light current 01:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there were double basses in the baroque orchestra (except for the very early baroque, where the violone was used). Modern baroque orchestras all use double basses as well. Why do you believe double basses were not used in the Baroque orchestra? Badagnani 01:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it true to say that most DB players regardless of genre, now use steel strings?--Light current 03:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There's some interesting information here about early strings and early double bass-type instruments in the Baroque; but I'm not sure I can understand it all. http://www.earlybass.com/dbsession.htmUser:Badagnani

I'm sorry, but I am just not great at getting my point or ideas across in text. In modern Baroque-style orchestras, you're right, there are double basses, but in an ensemble like I mentioned that uses period instruments, modern basses are generally not included. I do not think it is wrong to say that gut strings have a "warmer" tone. Although I think that modern strings are far more popular than gut strings in all genres, I can't speak for any variety except classical (in which gut strings are rarely seen due to durability issues and whatnot). I'm pretty sure there are still some lose ends in what I'm saying, but I'll have to wait and see. ==>Bottesini 02:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, In reference to double basses using gut strings for Baroque music performance... Lemur Music, a store for bass strings and accessories, sells gut bass strings for bass players who perform in Baroque ensembles.NatMor 14:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

DB Sound and harmonics

Anyone know why the DB and BG sound so different. Is is purely to do with the inclusion or lack of frets? ie how did the earlier fretted DB sound and why does a fretless bass sound similar to a DB even tho' it has no body? - --Light current 23:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference in sound between the two instruments is because of their means of amplification and construction. A double bass uses acoustic properties to project its sound, while a bass guitar utilizes pickups or other electronic methods for amplification. While a fretless bass may sound similar to a double bass compared to a fretted guitar, there is still a significant difference. Frets play a role, but a minor one in terms of basic tone (as in tone that is not shaped by the musician). -Bottesini 23:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think its more complex than that, but I'll wait for more comments.--Light current 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's partly this: on the fretless bass guitar, the string contacts more of the surface area of the wood fingerboard than it does on the thin metal frets of a fretted electric bass guitar. This creates a microscopic buzzing of the string against the fingerboard that gives the fretless its special timbre, which is more similar to that of the double bass. Badagnani 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

YES!! That concurs with my suspicions (altho' I havent proved it). There is also the question of how the note tends to grow (the attack phase) or change in tone/timbre just after plucking on a DB or EUB. Any thoughts on that?--Light current 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I shall now be referring to the above effect by the technical term 'Mwaah'--Light current 21:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That is strange, isn't it? This goes along with the buzzing aspect--in this way, the sound is similar to that of the Indian tambura/tanpura/tamboura, which has a special bridge that is gradually sloped so that the string contacts the bridge in this buzzing manner (although the tambura's buzzing is much more pronounced). I think what the buzzing does (on both instruments) is add high overtones. On the tambura, the sound also seems to "grow," as the overtones kick in. Maybe some more acoustically minded people can describe this better, or maybe there is some website that discusses this in more detail. Badagnani 00:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well its seems very logical that buzzing will produce more overtones and as the buzzing decreases (with the diminishing amplitude of the fundamental), so the tone changes! You would think that the fingering would actually reduce the overtones by damping. Perhaps it does happen but not as much as you would think. Still got the attack phenomenon to explain tho'!. I'm not sure whether that's the whole story -but its a start for people to comment on.--Light current 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, just a thought. If you pluck an open string on the DB, BG or EUB, they sound a lot more similar than fretted /fingered notes do. This lends credence to the idea of the buzzing contributing to the tone. On a DB or EUB, or fretelss, the open strings can sound uninteresting by comparison the the fingered notes - do you agree?--Light current 00:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that the open strings sound harp-like. Fretted EB always sounded artificial and compressed to me, maybe because of a lack of overtones (?) -- the waveform is too sine-like, without the imperfections introduced by the "wood" sound of the DB. Regarding the fretted EB, if you used a metal nut, the fretted notes should sound the same as unfretted ones. But most people don't prefer to use a metal nut. I've heard of a lap dulcimer player (can't remember who) who uses a metal nut, believing that all the notes should have the same timbre. Badagnani 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted more buzz on the open strings, I supposes one could deepen the grooves in the nut so the the strings contact the the finger board slightly. Ill have to check an my 'action' at the nut!--Light current 22:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Harp like sound is not surprising because the strings are supported similarly (sort of) and dont rub against anything. They are also plucked. When you say 'wood' sound, I assume you're still talking about the finger board buzz effect because I can get a very good DB type sound from my EUB (which has no body to speak of). I agree about the thumpy (not warm or smooth) sound of a fretted BG.

I suppose the only way to get more harmonics out of a BG is to hammer the strings at the right place and have bright sounding round wound strings (like a piano). I think its clear that metal nuts (zero frets) will give same timbre as fretted notes.--Light current 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the really funny thing is that production of higher harmonics can actually make the DB or EUB sound lower in pitch than it is (I mean an octave lower) due to synthesis in the brain of the missing fundamental!--Light current 01:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it isn't more complex than means of amplification - all I am saying is that this and the basic, obvious differences in construction are the main reasons for the differences in basic sound. If you're going to get into a comparison of the physics and whatnot between bass guitar and real bass, I'm just going to stay out of it because I'm far from having practical knowledge unique to the bass guitar. Viewing the discussion thus far, I may have missed your point. What I do have to say is that an electric upright can only model the sound of a double bass. Bottesini 01:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Correct- because EUBs lack the resonant body structure that gives every DB its unique tone. But consider this- if you were to adjust your amp tone controls to model the resonance of a wooden DB body, wouldn't the EUB then sound identical to the DB?

Also, EUBs can give out a hell of a lot more high frequencies (enough to strip paint off the wall) than DBs due to the piezo pickups.--Light current 01:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So my conclusion is that the sound of a string bass (DB or EUB) can best be described as a bandpass filtered buzz! The filtering is done by the body in the DB and by the amp etc with the EUB. The pressure of the finger also acts to damp out some of the higher harmonics on both instruments again tending to make them less 'buzzy'-- but a buzz it is!!--Light current 17:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mainly because of the physical properties that affect the timbres of both the BG and the DB. The BG has a solid body, and its sound is mainly projected through electronic pickups that detect the sound from the strings. Also, the strings on a BG are most of the time roundwound, which are different compared to the flatwound type strings used on a DB, and even if flatwounds are used on a BG, the sound is still different since the length of the string is shorter, the presence of frets, and also the usual attack of plucking style is different, since the majority of the time, when BG players pluck w/ fingers, its simply plucked in a finger walking motion, while DB tends to use more finger surface and wrist power.

The DB on the other hand, projects its sound by using its large hollow wooden body to resonate the vibrations caused by its large strings. Even when amplified, the strings are longer in length and usually made of different material. Plus, many of the pickups used on DB function differently from many BG pickups, many DB pickups detect the vibrations within the body or bridge. The neck is fretless, and is made of ebony, contributing to the sound (buzz). Also, as stated above, the attack is usually different.

See also

talk:electric upright bass--Light current 02:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Im wondering whether that talk would be welcome (and better placed) over here. There are some interesting comments there. (Not all mine).--Light current 15:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mwaah

Anybody got any theories about the Mwaah sound?--I shall expound my theory shortly--Light current 16:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone care about the cause of the mwaah sound?--Light current 02:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the subtle "buzz" that shows up a second or two into a low pizz note, especially on low notes? I think it comes from what we discussed earlier, the relatively larger surface area of the string in contact with the fingerboard, producing a microscopic "buzz" that doesn't happen with a fretted instrument, or with open strings (the nut or fret being much thinner). Badagnani 02:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed! I'm glad you asked! Since you first made the (Correct I think) suggestion of string buzz a the finger, I have done a lot of thinking, a little research and some simple experiments on my EUB. Now I believe the characteristic tone and change of tone during the note is caused by the following events:

1. The string is initially deflected in a transverse manner by the fingers of the right hand and released causing the string to vibrate in a plane parallel to the finger board. Only a small amount (if any) buzzing occurs at this time.
2. As time progresses, the vibration of the string is transformed from a simple lateral one into a mode where any point on the string describes an ellipse. This phenomenon has been studied in detail I believe with regard to guitar strings.(but I have no refs). This elliptical motion, of course, has a vertical as well as a lateral component.
3. The vertical component of the motion increases the buzzing near to the fingered position and so the tone becomes brighter as these extra harmonics are added by the buzz.
4. As time progresses further, the amplitude of the fundamental reduces due to damping (air resistance, body absorption of energy etc) and therefore the amplitude of the buzzing decreases, causing the higher harmonics to diminish, leaving only the fundamental (eventually).

The above, I believe, describes all phases of the sound of a pizzicato fingered note on the DB (or EUB or fretless bass). It explains the reason for the delay in onset of buzzing and its dying away. It also explains why there is generally very little harmonic richness on open strings (unless of course the action at the nut is set very low).

Now when bassists talk of the note 'growing' (or is it growling?), what they must be referring to is this onset of increasing buzzing which gives more harmonic content and that makes the note appear louder. As some of the higher partials of a stretched string (eg 7th) are slightly out of tune with the fundamental, this buzzing phase can make it sound as if your intonation is bad. It does with me! (I think a bit of vib may help here).

On a DB, the fundamental note and all the harmonics produced by the string are 'filtered' by the bandpass characteristic of the body of the instrument, which may explain why some basses have more or less 'mwaah' and different timbres. Another important factor is of course the action (and probably the gauge) of the strings. Higher actions will give less buzz, lower actions more. On a EUB or fretless BG, the 'body' of the instrument has a minimal effect on shaping the tone, and this is done in the amplifier. Hence the amplifier on electric instrument takes the place of the body on an acoustic instrument as the major timbre modifier. I suspect that to get a nice 'plummy' sound (very few harmonics) DB players set their actions on the high side and use heavy(ish) gauge strings. Is that correct?

I would appreciate any comments on the above exposition!--Light current 04:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Great discussion. This makes perfect sense, and is quite well phrased. The folks who disagreed with you about the buzz, I believe, don't know what is going on with the physics of their own instruments. Two things I'd add is that the "mwaah" buzz is also found on fretless basses (esp. those with lower, or "just right" actions). Regarding the separate issue of whether an EUB sounds different from a DB, I believe they do sound different, in this way: the rather thumpy, "hollow wood" sound coming from a pizz DB (coming from the drum-like sympathetic vibrations of the instrument's thin spruce top, especially when plucked vigorously) cannot be duplicated on a solid-body EUB, no matter how amp settings are arranged. Badagnani 04:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for listening!! Now regarding the diff betweeen EUB and DB sound, the only thing I can think of is that the thumpy sound comes becuase you have a high action and tight strings on a DB that are somehow more highly damped (not sure why this should be physically yet) If you were to set your action very low and use lighter guage (and therefore slacker) strings, my bet is that you would lose a lot of that thump and get more 'mwahh'. I think its probably a trade off-- you cant have both !--Light current 05:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The "thump" does seem to emerge more prominently when plucking higher notes (which would be notes that would have less "mwaah"). Badagnani 05:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh well, I think thats becuase:

1. The DB body, as I said, is like a bandpass filter and the higher notes are mainly outside its passband and so have less resonance
2. I think also that these shorter string lengths dont have as much Q (quality factor) and you cant put as much energy into them with your fingers because you cant deflect them enough. I think theres a physics reason for this but I cant recall it ATM.

Now on the EUB of course (or fretless BG) the body has very little effect on the timbre and so you find the notes even very high up still ring quite well.(but still not as well as lower down the fb). In this respect I would definitely agree that a DB does NOT sound the same as a EUB (unless of course you were able to put some extra damping on the strings ;-))--Light current 05:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes less mwaah on high notes becuase the string vibrates with much less amplitude than for lower notes and so theres less buzz. Aslo, higher up the neck the string departs from the fb at a larger angle , giving more clearance near the finger for vibration without buzz.--Light current 05:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

True. Badagnani 05:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been getting slightly too much mwahh on my EUB G string and this tends to accentuate any intonation problems because of the harmonics priduced by the buzz. Anyway, following the consensus opinion here, I have raised slightly the bridge sadle for this string and, yes, it decreases the mwahh as predicted and lessens the seffects of bad intonation.8-)) (makes this string also sound more DB like - which Im sure some will be pleased to know 8-))--Light current 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Valve sound

Also, does this speculation about harmonics also apply to valve sound where people claim that valve amps sound more bassy than transistor ones?--Light current 17:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Combining Bow Sections

I'm going to go ahead and attempt to combine the two bow sections. I'm not sure how that ever even happened - they both cover slightly different material with alot of overlapping info. ==>Bottesini 20:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

D or Eb neck

Should these two alternatives neck formations ( posn of 'heel') be mentioned?--Light current 04:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have much of an opinion in whether it should be mentioned or not. I'm not going to go out of my way to add it (because the difference is not incredibly profound), but I am not strongly opposed to it being added. Bottesini 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New picture

I vote for a new main picture at the top of the article. Surely there is a better one out there than a picture of someone's personal instrument. I suggest something along the lines of that which is featured in the german article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontrabass (of course a 4-string model, however.) I'll be looking for a better one. -Bottesini 19:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally dont see anything wrong with the picture we've got. But if you can find a copyright free alternative thats better, why not?--Light current 20:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW it's is my bass. I agree that it may be time for a better photo - possibly also a better french bow (also mine - sorry), or maybe if someone with both styles of bow could get a side-by-side photo. The .de page is a better bass photo - I don't see the 5th string as a problem (except for the one occasion I had to play one!)

BTW I think you two (maybe others?) have done a great job fixing up this page. Far better balance and structure. It was on my list of "todo"s for a while but I couldn't give it the attention it needed -- too many random edits by passer-bys with their own limited POV. It deserved my photo! I agree with the FA discussion that it is not quite there yet, but it is a couple of orders of magnitude better than what it was when I last looked in. I will take a hard copy away and look for specific improvements. Catch you later. Andrew Kepert 05:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

PS browsing your respective user pages, I think that Bottesini has a much better bass photo. It is even a better-looking bass. Older with more character. Mine is a "one careful owner" commodity instrument subsequently abused with set of jazz strings and a retrofitted piezo. Andrew Kepert 07:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well I like the look of that one, but he's only got the front view. Do you think User:Bottesini could be persuaded to take a side view pic as well? ;-) --Light current 21:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well you are all in luck. I have pictures of the back, side (I think), scroll (which you can see here: scroll (music)), and f-hole (which you can see here: f-hole). But i don't think the pictures are particularly suited for the article. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, just checked. Don't have a pic of the side. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 23:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well its up to you!--Light current 02:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is an excellent picture here, but it's copyrighted, so I'm not sure if there's a way to get around that. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 16:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yuo would have to get permission from the copyright owner. Why not email them. ;-)They can only say no! --Light current 17:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that. — ßottesiηi ^{Tell me what's up} 17:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell the difference?

I say you cant tell the difference (on pizz) soundwise between a real DB and a EUB with properly adujsted amplifier and good speaker cab! Any comments?--Light current 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, any double bass player could tell the difference. Bottesini 21:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What would you say the difference is?--Light current 22:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's rather hard to describe things like this in text. I'm not sure how I could explain it. I am sure though that it is easily possible to identify them from each other based on their sound. Most people without musical training could probably identify them as different instruments based on their sound, and probably tell which was which. Bottesini 23:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the EUB sounds less 'tubby' on the higher notes (thumb posns on DB) becuase the sound does not depend on the body for reproduction as is does on a DB. In that respect IMO, an EUB sounds better- more sonorous!--Light current 17:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Endpin and bows

Removal of endpin info means that the article doesn't explain what the endpin is or what it does. Please return some relevant info. Also, the comparison with violin, viola, and cello bows was good to have, and quite relevant to the bass's distinction from the other members of the bowed string family. Hope you'll return that as well. Otherwise the article is improving well. Badagnani 03:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Restored as requested.--Light current 03:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm just thinking to keep the description as complete as possible for people who don't know about these instruments (although things like the endpin might be taken for granted by people who know the instrument). Badagnani 03:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Standing on bass

I genuinely think that standing on the body of the double bass is notable and of interest (even if it's done only on occasion by rock and roll and rockabilly players). Badagnani 04:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope!--Light current 05:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not for some styles of music (such as classical), but it is something one does see on occasion, and is notable. Your dismissive response doesn't engender a feeling of teamwork. Badagnani 05:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You dont expect all members of a team to agree all the time do you? Im saying I dont agree with you. You do not have to agree with me. We can agree to disagree. That is not a lack of team work! Standing on a bass is nothing to do with playing style. By defn its another sort of entertainment that any non bass player could do.

Anyway Im going to leave this article now for some other editors to have some input. I may revisit sometime later.--Light current 17:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it may be interesting, but probably not worth mentioning. At best, I could see it as trivia. But anyways, you could never stand on a good quality, fully-carved bass without damaging the actual bass or the endpin. It's still probably damaging to those stupid painted plywood basses. -Bottesini 18:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

b string quote in intro

"...an extra low string tuned to B. Such basses are larger than usual and somewhat harder to play because there is less space in between the strings."

I just don't think that's true. You can make an argument as to why they're harder to play, but that wouldn't be the reason. There is not that much of a difference in string spacing; it is a wider fingerboard and bridge which allows for the extra string. -Bottesini 22:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I just bought a five-string bass and have been practicing for about a month. The crown of the bridge is slightly less and the strings are slightly closer together than a four-string bass, both of which are problematic. However, the string positioning is the most difficult problem I've encountered. The strings just don't seem to be where I expect them. When playing Pizzicato I tend to finger one string and pluck another. When using the bow I tend to bow two strings at once. After four weeks I'm just beginning to feel a little confidence playing the instrument.Rsduhamel 20:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

edit response

(→Technique - Bob Haggart says first finger at HP should be same level as players eye. Is this right or wrong?) - lightcurrent

Well, I always remembered it as first finger at eye level in first position, but i could be wrong. But anyways, its completely different if you play sitting on a stool (like i do), and it really only applies to classical music, and even then its still a matter of personal preference. alot of blugrass players dont even extend their endpin. of course im saying all of this out of personal experince, but i usually set my beginning students up with the 1st finger-eye level in first position. -Bottesini 00:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Im happy to go with the majority view. I only play jazz but I find that if the electric upright bass is too high, I can easily get out of position. (happens if I play without shoes as well!). So I set mine at the Bob Haggart (who of course was a jazz bass player) recommended height and I have minimum trouble (still enough tho'!)--Light current 00:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that if the HP is higher than the players eye level, its easy to get lost simply because you cant see where your left hand is with the peripheral vision of the left eye. I could be wrong about this tho'!--Light current 00:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly a matter of preference. I think that if you need to rely on your peripheral vision to locate a position or note that you need to go back through your simandl book! :) -Bottesini 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I havent got one. Maybe thats why Im in trouble!--Light current 00:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, you need to pick one up. It is affectionately referred to as the "bass bible" by teachers and students. It pretty much set the playing guidelines that we use today. It divided the fingerboard into the positions and developed simple things like how we use our fingers, etc. You should play through the entire book. It may be a hundred-something years old, but it's still a necessity. (@Amazon) -Bottesini 01:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref, but it wouldnt really apply to the EUB with its shorter scale. I use modified bass guitar fingering (horror!) --Light current 01:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm apalled -Bottesini 01:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So this is goodbye then?--Light current 01:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless you repent by listening to the entire "Semi-Abridged History and Chronology of the Viol de Gamba" on audiotape. -Bottesini 01:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can find it. Anyway I like the doghouse sound , its just I cant afford one or transport one. Im listening to Paul Chambers At This Very Moment!--Light current 01:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)