Short Scale basses

[Pilgrim]

The issue about how the bass sits relative to your body is critical...and it's the reason that I got a 34" EB-3 and got rid of it immediately.  The way that bass is laid out threw the neck much farther to my left than usual - I just couldn't reach the lowest frets comfortably.  I immediately swore off owning any other 34" scale SG-style bass.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

Ideally, a fanned fretboard (Dingwall, Novax, etc) with 32 on the high side and 34 on the low is the perfect combination IMO.

A 34" scale is the ideal length for the G-string, so you would need to start from there and go up for even harmonic tone across all the strings, like on the Dingwall Voodoo basses, which end up with a 37" B-string for their fiver. They were VERY smart, however, in making their Jazz copy start at 32" on the G and going to 34" for the longest scale length which gives its E a traditional tone while evening up the response of the other strings to it.

[SKATE RAT]

Pilgrim, i'm the opposite. i like them farther to the left. i play really low and if the bass hangs too far to the right i end up picking on the fret board.

[uwe]

"A 34" scale is the ideal length for the G-string ..."

If you're a slapper. I find a 30" scale G string much more expressive, it also sounds phatter. 34" is crucial with the E IMHO and pretty much no other string.

[mc2NY]

A 34" scale is the ideal length for the G-string, so you would need to start from there and go up for even harmonic tone across all the strings, like on the Dingwall Voodoo basses, which end up with a 37" B-string for their fiver. They were VERY smart, however, in making their Jazz copy start at 32" on the G and going to 34" for the longest scale length which gives its E a traditional tone while evening up the response of the other strings to it.

Um....so if Dingwall was "VERY smart...making their Jazz copy 32 on G to 34 on E," just like I said.....why would 34 on G to 37 on B be better?

Maybe "techncially" if you throw it on a meter, the 34-to-37 might show better frequencies but I don't think I want to be reaching to 37 inches....despite having he big hands to do it. If I recall, the open D on a Kubikci uses a 36-inch scale and that is certainly long enough a reach. I have a few low B basses that have great B strings using just a 34-inch scale.

A 32-to-34 fanned fret bass combines the medium scale on the G (which most long-scale players would hardly notice as different) and the typical 34-inch E that mosts players use. That seems the best of both worlds...playability vs sound.

When Stu Hamm sold em a couple of his Kubickis, one was the drop D ExFactor and the other a non-drop D Factor that he said Satriani insisted he get, claiming the 32-inch low E "lacked bottom." Even Hamm said he thought he was just imagining it because he knew the ExFactor was a medium scale.

As I said earlier.....virtually NO ONE listening to a live concert or recording can hear the difference between short/medium/long scale basses. It is hard to tell if what is being heard if from the actual bass or the processing. Only after visually seeing the bass model will you start to "imagine" what you are hearing and start to rationalize IMO.

***TO ILLUSTRATE THIS......ANYONE HAVE ANY AUDIO TRACKS TO POST FOR MEMBERS TO GUESS WHAT SCALE BASS WAS BEING USED? MIGHT BE INTERESTING.

[Dave W]

If a short or medium scale bass lacks bottom, it's not because of the scale length. What they do lack is the authority on the E string that a long scale bass has. And they aren't as harmonically complex.

IIRC Uwe was the first to post this, noting how Woody avoided the E on the short scales but rides it with the T-Bird at the end. Doesn't mean either is better or worse, just an example.

[Basvarken]

And they aren't as harmonically complex.
[/quote]

Explain please.

I talked about this with a luthier the other day.
In his opinion all the harmonics are there. In the same place.
But the string tension is just different, which makes some shorties (with too thin strings) sound floppy.

[Dave W]

Explain please.

I talked about this with a luthier the other day.
In his opinion all the harmonics are there. In the same place.
But the string tension is just different, which makes some shorties (with too thin strings) sound floppy.

The harmonics are there no matter what scale length, the question is how much they are heard. The amplitudes of different frequencies changes with scale length. Even with very small differences. Even if you compensate for string tension.

[dadagoboi]

The harmonics are there no matter what scale length, the question is how much they are heard. The amplitudes of different frequencies changes with scale length. Even with very small differences. Even if you compensate for string tension.

Only if you believe in knowledge based Physics.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

"A 34" scale is the ideal length for the G-string ..."

If you're a slapper. I find a 30" scale G string much more expressive, it also sounds phatter. 34" is crucial with the E IMHO and pretty much no other string.

That's exactly the point. When a string has a "proper" harmonic period, it has a much higher harmonic content, IOW, it is much brighter because of all the octave overtones, the 'piano string' sound.

Um....so if Dingwall was "VERY smart...making their Jazz copy 32 on G to 34 on E," just like I said.....why would 34 on G to 37 on B be better?

...because if you gave a Jazz copy the "correct" intonation scale length, it would no longer sound and play like a Jazz bass.  Their Jazz copy is an attempt to use the traditional shape and low E of a Jazz bass but give it a more consistent string-to-string tone and feel.

Maybe "techncially" if you throw it on a meter, the 34-to-37 might show better frequencies but I don't think I want to be reaching to 37 inches....despite having he big hands to do it. If I recall, the open D on a Kubikci uses a 36-inch scale and that is certainly long enough a reach. I have a few low B basses that have great B strings using just a 34-inch scale.

You've missed the point of what I'm talking about completely. I'm NOT saying that anything less than 37" is wrong, just that by the laws of physics, a vibrating electric bass string tuned to low B will have its most even harmonic content when stretched across a period of 37" (or 74", 148"... etc).

As I said earlier.....virtually NO ONE listening to a live concert or recording can hear the difference between short/medium/long scale basses. It is hard to tell if what is being heard if from the actual bass or the processing. Only after visually seeing the bass model will you start to "imagine" what you are hearing and start to rationalize IMO.

If the bass sound was accurately presented, it would be blatantly obvious to even the most casual listener, but then it most likely would sound bad to everyone, including the player, and would probably not work within the context of amplified music.

***TO ILLUSTRATE THIS......ANYONE HAVE ANY AUDIO TRACKS TO POST FOR MEMBERS TO GUESS WHAT SCALE BASS WAS BEING USED? MIGHT BE INTERESTING

Try switching to decaf. You're fighting a battle that doesn't exist.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

If a short or medium scale bass lacks bottom, it's not because of the scale length. What they do lack is the authority on the E string that a long scale bass has. And they aren't as harmonically complex.

Exactly.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

Only if you believe in knowledge based Physics.

Careful; that's fool talk for an internet bass forum.

[dadagoboi]

Careful; that's fool talk for an internet bass forum.

That's why I like to state, "According to my crackpot theory," when pulling unsubstantiated facts from my rectum.

[Dave W]

That's why I like to state, "According to my crackpot theory," when pulling unsubstantiated facts from my rectum.

If anyone is inclined to look at something technical, read this Ralph Novak lecture about scale length differences and tone.

[patman]

Have played both short and long scales as my main bass.  For me, the difference is long scales "speak" with more authority...move more air.