• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

34.5" scale?

E

emblymouse

exempt
Jan 22, 2006
5,395
1,475
#1
Hey- I'm putting a finer point on my preferences in 5 'ers. After starting out w/ Laklands I find I prefer a shorter (34") scale. I just stumbled on a Nordy which looks sweet in every way BUT...it's 34.5" scale:eyebrow:. What is the reason behind this? Does it play easier than 35" scale? Is it noticable different from 34"? Anybody have first hand experience with this?
 
#4
I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but I like it. My three basses (two customs built by Martin Keith and a Nordy) are all 34.5" scale. I first found I liked the scale length after owning a few F-Basses. One thing all these basses share is great playability, a solid feeling and sounding B string, and a G string that's not too thin sounding..although that might not be due to the scale length, and I'm not saying that 34" or 35" is inherently inferior by any means. If/when I order another bass, I'd prefer to stick with 34.5".
 
#7
Carruthers does 34.5 on his 5-strings. So does F-bass. As I understand it, the the theory is that this enhances the B string without sacrificing tone on the G string to the extent that seems to happen on many 35's.

Who knows? This stuff is so subjective and situational, it's treacherous to rely on hard-and-fast rules.
 
#9
I had an F bass 34.5" 4 string and it was awesome. Gave the E string a little more snap and clarity but I couldn't feel any difference in tension or reach. Didn't bother me feelwise at all and it sounded great.
 
#10
Zombbg4 said:
I like the B on my 33" just fine and hardly noticed a difference between it and a 35" bass. It's all in our heads IMO.
Click to expand...

I'll entertain any notion...

But, here's my story: before I ever knew anything about scale length (heck I didn't even know what scale any basses where), I played a Rick at a music store back in '89. I knew that I preferred my Peavey Foundation's 34" E and A, but really thought the Rick's D and G sounded awesome. Ricks are what 33.25". Then flash ahead many years... I picked up a Peavey Cirrus 4 string at, coincidentally, the same store. I noticed immediately that the E sounded better than any E I'd ever played, so much so that I got on the internet when I got home to research what the deal w/ these basses was. I found out that Cirrus basses are 35" scale. I sold my Ibanez 34" 6er and got a Cirrus 6er... much clearer and more musical B string and improved E also. My eyes were opened and I started educating myself about scale length. Since then I've owned 2 Dingwall Afterburners: a 5 and a 6er. The B is 37", E 36.25", A 35.5", D 34.75", G 34", and the C is 33.25". Basically Dingwalls are built like a piano, and noone ever argues THAT design concept, LOL.

I couldn't adjust to the bridge slant of the Dingwalls :mad:(I always play near the bridge), and decided that FOR ME 35" basses were the best compromise.

NOW, all that being said.... does it really matter? As bassist, do we really need piano-like clarity from our B and E strings? Probably not, but I prefer it :).

So, I'm glad to see some builders using 34.5" scale length. I'm sure that for some bassist, 34.5 will be pure perfection.
 
#11
Im on Nordy thats 34.5, and I have to say that marketing has NOTHING to do with it.

To me it's the perfekt blend between 35....where the B-string is very good but the g-string is way to tight and thin sounding. And 34 where the b-string might not be tight enough.

That said, if I could get a 34 with a b-string that worked as good as my 34.5 i would chose that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonyP-
#13
My Mayones Comodous 5 is 34.25", and I like it very much! I don't know if it has anything to do with the scale length and I haven't chose this base because of the scale lenght. But the way you guys describe 34.5 as the best compromise between a tight B and a nice G string I guess it's the same story for this bass.
 
#14
See, you guys are proving my point. You have this ideal number that is the best of both worlds,"gives sooo much clarity on the G and ease of playabilty, but the B is taught and string. If it were a 34 the B would be junk, 35 and I couldn't play it, waaaayy too big!!"

Its marketing and it works well, not to say your 34.43256" basses are not sweet, but the extra or less .5 is nothing. All IMO,IME,YMMV ect.
 
#16
Scale length...one of my favorite topics. I notice a bit of tightness (poinkyness) on the G string on a couple of my 35" basses, but not on my Elricks. This tendency is independent of string type or brand. Go figure. :hmm::) All of my fivers have great B strings, btw.

M. M.
 
#17
blowinblue said:
Scale length...one of my favorite topics. I notice a bit of tightness (poinkyness) on the G string on a couple of my 35" basses, but not on my Elricks. This tendency is independent of string type or brand. Go figure. :hmm::) All of my fivers have great B strings, btw.

M. M.
Click to expand...

You're making too much sense. Although, I've found that I tend to prefer different gauges and often use custom strings, which aren't a large expense, especially on an an already custom bass.
 
#19
BiigM said:
Im on Nordy thats 34.5, and I have to say that marketing has NOTHING to do with it.

To me it's the perfekt blend between 35....where the B-string is very good but the g-string is way to tight and thin sounding. And 34 where the b-string might not be tight enough.

That said, if I could get a 34 with a b-string that worked as good as my 34.5 i would chose that.
Click to expand...

Play one of the new 34" Nordy's:smug:, or a Sadowsky, or an A-C.

I'm sure the 34.5" B string on your Nordy is great, just like the B string on the new 34" Nordy's:D
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back