Banjo Lefty - Posted - 08/08/2014:  13:33:42

My banjo education is advancing by leaps and bounds, thanks to all you experts willing to share your knowledge.  But I'm stumped at the term "ball bearing conversion."  Apart from the strings, banjos don't have moving parts, do they?  Why would they need ball bearings?

HSmith - Posted - 08/08/2014:  13:55:32

Hi,

At one point in their evolution, Gibson Mastertone banjos did indeed have many moving parts embedded into the wooden rim supporting the tone ring. You can find a mass of information about these 'ball bearing' Mastertones on the web. Here's a link to Roger Siminoff's excellent site on which you'll find an good explanation.  siminoff.net/gibson-mastertone-banjo/

Best wishes

Harry

brunomathilda - Posted - 08/08/2014:  14:45:37

Thank you for the link

The Old Timer - Posted - 08/08/2014:  14:52:05

The ball bearings were not there to facilitate movement of any kind. They made convenient minimum contact points between the tone ring tube, and the rim. The intent of Lloyd Loar was to ISOLATE the tone tube vibrations from the rim, and the best insulation he could come up with was to raise the tone tube just a hair above the wood rim by resting it on 60 ball bearings, which were themselves further insulated from the wood rim by resting on washers which rested on metal springs (very stiff metal springs). So everything was stout and firm, but with minimized contact between tone tube and wood rim.

I suppose an advantage of ball bearings for the contact points is that they wouldn't scar the relatively soft metal of the tone tube, and they were cheap and available and precisely made for reliable dimensioning inside the banjo assembly.

Fairbanks had tried a somewhat similar idea pre-1900 by inserting a number of little studs in the wood rim, and the Electric tone ring, or some proto-type thereof, rested on the little studs, NOT on the wood rim itself. This was the Curtis Fairbanks model.

There was a LOT of experimentation decades ago whether the metal tone apparatus should contact the wood rim intimately or not.

Culloden - Posted - 08/08/2014:  17:32:09

The other posts have given some insight into the ball bearing model Gibsons of 1925 and 1926 so I won't elaborate further.

The term Ball Bearing Conversion refers to a ball bearing model Gibson that has been converted from tenor, or plectrum, to five string. Most banjos in the 1920's were tenor models because Ragtime and Dixieland music were the rage. When the five string came back into popularity in the forties and fifties some genius realized that you could make a five string neck for a tenor banjo and make a good Bluegrass instrument. Many old tenor banjos have been converted to five string. Prewar Gibsons are often converted because of their desirability as Bluegrass banjos.

I love the tone of a Gibson ball bearing model. It sounds great in a small venue where you don't want the banjo to be overpowering. I have not had good results with a ball bearing model onstage. To me they don't mike well but maybe others have had better results.

The Old Timer - Posted - 08/08/2014:  19:27:36

Exactly right Culloden, but there's another school of ball-bearing conversion, where it's presumed the neck has already been converted to 5 string, but additionally the original ball bearing tone ring (and assorted springs, washers and ball bearings) have been replaced with a "drop in" special cast tone ring, usually a flat head. Or even more seriously, the rim has been altered to accept a standard cast tone ring. Really sort of a "double conversion" if neck and tone ring both have been changed.

BuckM - Posted - 08/08/2014:  19:39:34

quote:

---

Originally posted by brunomathilda

Thank you for the link

---

Amen, I hadn't noticed all that info on Roger's site before.

On conversions, the two mentioned above are the standards that are pretty well accepted now, and I don't feel uneasy owning and playing one (still BB but with new 5-string neck). Completely original RB (= regular 5-string banjo ) flathead Mastertones from the 30s are so rare and thus expensive that only people with six figures of discretionary spending money can buy them today, hence conversions of the much more numerous tenors with archtop tone rings that even I can afford.

Lately we've started to see conversions from one model to another, such as a pre-war non-Mastertone tenor being converted to 5-string with new tone ring and other accoutrements of a Granada or RB-4, for instance, so that one wonders what's original to the instrument and what isn't, what to call the final product, and what it's worth on the market.

Edited by - BuckM on 08/08/2014 19:58:26

Banjo Lefty - Posted - 08/08/2014:  22:42:53

So you alter the rim, change the tone ring, and add a new neck. Probably a new head too, because the old one is torn. And new strings, and maybe a new bridge. Now I'll ask the same question I posted under the thread "Pre-war Banjos." What's the big deal about pre-war sound when none of the supposedly pre-war instruments can possibly have it? Because they're mostly post-war . . .

Ks_5-picker - Posted - 08/09/2014:  04:21:10

The "prewar" tone comes mainly from the 80+ yr old rim and it helps if the resonator is old too,most would agree.

Can you get prewar tone from all new components................you can sure get a tone  you can be happy with.

The ball bearing rings have 60 holes,but the rim just has 24 in the top.

Some folks like the ball bearing tone,it's different from a flathead,but good.

Mitch Meadors has a system to convert them to a flathead or archtop without sacrificing the rim.

Edited by - Ks_5-picker on 08/09/2014 04:24:57

BanjoLink - Posted - 08/09/2014:  07:42:48

No you don't have to alter the rim and change the tone ring.  They sound just fine like they are.  If you don't like the sound, you can buy another banjo or then do any alterations that you want.  If it is a '26 model I think there are severa sippliers that offer a conversion ring without any alterations to the rim.

McUtsi - Posted - 08/09/2014:  07:56:46

Some of the gutsiest banjo tones I ever heard emanated from Winnie Winston

playing his ´25 BB pot.McUtsi

Julio B - Posted - 08/09/2014:  12:25:27

quote: Originally posted by Banjo Lefty: "What's the big deal about pre-war sound . . . . "
Useful to mention is the fact that ball-bearing banjos sound quite different from those with cast tone rings; I don't know that "pre war sound" should be ever be used to describe any ball bearing Gibson. By the way, Roger is a band-mate of mine and his ball-bearing sounds excellent and is louder than many banjos I've heard.
He definitely knows how to set-up those suckers.
~Julio

Joe Spann - Posted - 08/10/2014:  06:06:49

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo Lefty

So you alter the rim, change the tone ring, and add a new neck. Probably a new head too, because the old one is torn. And new strings, and maybe a new bridge. Now I'll ask the same question I posted under the thread "Pre-war Banjos." What's the big deal about pre-war sound when none of the supposedly pre-war instruments can possibly have it? Because they're mostly post-war . . .

---

This is a very interesting statement.

You must have extensive experience with the "pre-war sound."

I would like to hear more about all the pre-war banjos you've owned and played. 

How do you personally define "pre-war sound?"

Joe Spann

Banjo Lefty - Posted - 08/10/2014:  10:14:15

Of course I have no personal experience with the "pre-war" sound other than the old recordings. That's precisely the point: I'm trying to arrive at a definition, but the discussions on the BHO are confusing and sometimes contradictory. How can a banjo which has more modern parts than old ones have the same sound as one that is all original? Particularly as I've seen it stated in these forums that every part contributes to the tone. Unless of course they don't. Or perhaps this elusive "pre-war" sound is merely a trick of collective memory. Banjos on the old records (both LPs and CDs) sound just about the same to me as many of the new instruments played today. I honestly can't hear the difference, although perhaps that's because my ear is still untrained. . .

Joe Spann - Posted - 08/10/2014:  11:22:42

Since your intent is educational, there are several facts you might consider.

- The quest for "pre-war" sound is not confined to the banjo market. Players of acoustic guitars, mandolins and dobros all value this ideal. Luthiers in each of these area strive to recreate the best instruments of the pre-war era. They often use a variety of new and older materials to achieve their goal.

- The term "pre-war" sound was first used in the late 1960's and early 1970's, concurrent with the almost single-handed creation of the vintage instrument business by George Gruhn and the overall decline in quality of new instruments during that period.

- The difference in pre-war and post-war instruments is not a clear-cut line. Fabulous instruments were made in the late 1940's and 1950's, particularly Martin D-28 guitars. The term "pre-war" has become a catch-all phrase for a certain set of characteristics which define certain instruments, whether they are banjos, guitars, mandolins or dobros.

- Talking about sound is like dancing about art. The "pre-war" sound is something experienced by a player during the act of performing on an instrument. It cannot be defined as a specific recording on a specific day by a specific artist. There is too much variance in recordings as a result of the exact equipment used.

Joe Spann

REarl - Posted - 08/10/2014:  14:43:03

Compared to those like Joe Spann I know nothing about banjos. But I have done a little reading, and playing and talking and have arrived at some tentative conclusions. Most of these are "borrowed" from others. Every instrument is different so statements about a class of instruments is an approximation. But lacking specific knowledge about a specific instrument approximations can be useful. I have heard that of the pre-war Gibson banjos that 20% are not worth what they cost; 80% are very good instruments and might be worth the asking price, but there are alternatives; 20% are worth selling the farm to get, nothing compares.

I have also heard that it is the rim and the tone ring that make the banjo. All other parts contribute, but it is the rim and the tone ring that makes the biggest difference. Also, somehow or another over time and with playing the tone ring and the rim meld with one another. A banjo that is left alone for 80 years will not sound like it would if it were played for 80 years. If you change the tone ring you will lose that melding. You might get a sound you prefer, but it won't be the sound of a mated pre-war rim and tone ring. But constant play changes the rim and that you don't lose.

Prior to 1929 the rims and tone rings for four string and five string instruments were the same. Beginning in 1929 the flathead tone rings used in plectrums and five string banjos were usually different from the tenors which had a 40 hole archtop ring. I have heard it argued that a rim/ring that has been played as a tenor has a different sound than one that has been played as a five string. But, as far as I can determine, that doesn't seem to be an opinion that is widely held. So converting a tenor to a five string loses little, if any, of the pre-war advantages.

Anyway, others, much more knowledgeable than I can correct, amend and add to this list. But as an approximation pre-war Mastertones are the measure against which resonator style banjos are measured.