34.5" scale?

[Arthur U. Poon]

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. All of my fivers have great B strings, btw.

M. M.

I find this sometimes touchy subject interesting as well, and sorry to go slightly off topic. I haven't played a 34.5" scale instrument, so I can't comment there. But I have owned a few different 34" scale 5-strings, that I sold off because I couldn't get used to the feel of their B-string's.

I gave the 35" scale a try when I bought my Modulus Q4, -after the first few weeks I felt very comfortable with it. My 5-string and my two 6-strings are 35" scale as well. These instruments serve me very well, YMMV.

I guess it was easier for my fretting hand to get used to the 35" scale than it was for my plucking hand to get used to the 34" scale.

I assume a 34" scale 5-string can be made to have a tighter feeling B-string by using a higher tension B-string? And I've read many posts here that state "Scale length doesn't matter, it's the quality of the neck's construction that matters."

The three 34" 5-strings that I owned were a Pedulla Rapture-5, an Alembic Excel-5, and an EB/MM StingRay-5. The StingRay-5 was my favorite of the three for it's B-string feel. I assume that all three of these basses had a very good level of construction quality, yet their B-string's still felt floppy -to me.

So what did I miss here? I experiemented with different brands of strings to no avail. None of the brands yielded a B-string with a tight enough feel -for me.

Does anyone know what's being done differently construction-wise by the top makers of 34" 5-strings that give their B-string's a tight feel?

 

[Solarmist]

All my basses are 34", and I like lower tension B/E the bender I am, however if I picked up a bass I liked that was 35" scale (like a Peavey Grind 5 I missed out on for $190); the scale wouldn't matter.

 

[Hoover]

35....where the B-string is very good but the g-string is way to tight and thin sounding.

I just don't get this. I own three different basses with 35" scale length, and I've never found any of their G strings to be too tight or thin sounding. Moreover, the three other basses I own with 34" scale length don't have an appreciably looser or thicker-sounding G string.

Methinks there's more to it than scale length.

 

[KJung]

I just don't get this. I own three different basses with 35" scale length, and I've never found any of their G strings to be too tight or thin sounding. Moreover, the three other basses I own with 34" scale length don't have an appreciably looser or thicker-sounding G string.

Methinks there's more to it than scale length.

It's called the 'vividness phenomenon' in the psychology literature. You try two basses, one marketed as the miraculous 34.5" scale that is the best of both worlds, and one as 34". The 34.5" happend to sound better to you, and you attribute that to the scale, instead of the combination of 30 or 40 other differences between the two instruments.

 

[Chasarms]

. . .Does anyone know what's being done differently construction-wise by the top makers of 34" 5-strings that give their B-string's a tight feel?

Physical law will tell you that all things being equal, the longer scale will feel tighter. But all things are never equal.

People always claim that the physical tension doesn't change, but I absolutely contend that the physical tension and "feel" of the B string are not always one in the same.

The rigidity of the entire instrument plays a HUGE part. That includes the neck, the neck joint if it is a bolt, the bridge, everything that is holding the string at tension.

When you pluck the string, it is a micro version of drawing a bow, the flimsier the bow, the easier it is to draw. The bass kingdom calls this "floppy."

Further, we know that the bow must return to it's balanced state. That is what flings the arrow at the poor, innocent Bambi. The more the instrument deflects, the more energy is robbed from the string by this process, and we get poor sustain, less fundamental, etc.

All that said, I have parted with my 35" Modulus basses and replaced them with Fenders. All three Fenders have very usable B strings. The Am Dlx P5 is probably the best. The Roscoe Beck is a VERY close second and the Am Stnd J5 is not quite as good, but absolutely fine. All three of these basses have reinforced necks, strung through body and are fitted very well. None of them compare to the power and clarity of the B of the Modulus. And, of course, the Q5s felt tighter.

I have actually concluded that if you can get a 34" with a good B, it is a better bass, IMO, because every 35" bass I have owned, including the Q5s, A Lakland JO5 and a Lakland 55-01 has had thin G strings. In a bass, that is a bad quality. Again, IME.

I think Nordstrand does 34.5" simply to find a niche in an ever-growing market of high-end, bolt-neck custom made basses. His stuff is sweet, but I am guessing the 34.5" is not what is carrying the day.

 

[IotaNet]

...I think Nordstrand does 34.5" simply to find a niche in an ever-growing market of high-end, bolt-neck custom made basses. His stuff is sweet, but I am guessing the 34.5" is not what is carrying the day.

Total co sign! (And in the spirit of full disclosure, 1) I think Carey Nordstrand is a great guy and 2) I've played a lot of his pickups but none of his basses.)

I still believe that the 34.5 is a marketing strategy.

 

[nostatic]

Scale length is affected by solar flares and other phenomenon, much like pickup windings. In a study by Dewey, Cheatem and Howe, the direct correlation between sun spot activity, bbq sauce and B-string tautness was proved. Interestingly enough, a follow-on paper by Igotta, Play and Louder indicated that the connection wasn't causal but in fact casual. Kinda like dating on match.com. This argument was further strengthened by G-string studies at the Spearmint Rhino. But clearly more research is needed.

 

[Rocky McD]

They had two designers. One insisted on 34" the other 35" The company owner settled the argment.

 

[Keith Guitars]

Hi everyone,

With great interest, I'll add my two cents to this one:

First, background - in the last 9 years, I've built and/or assembled around five hundred Veillette guitars and basses,
and done setups and repairs on at least 100 more.
I've also owned upwards of 20 basses with varying scales.

For those that don't know Veillette, our house specialty is custom tuning ranges and scale lengths. An incomplete list of the scales I've built over this time would include:
18.5
22.5
24.1
25
25.5
25.8
26.1
27.7
30
30.375
31.5
32.0
33.0
34.0
34.5
35.0
36.0

Of course, many of these (particularly the smaller ones) were for
custom tuning ranges (high-tuned guitars, baritones, etc.).
However, everything 30" and above was done on basses.
We've even done 30" 5-strings and 35" 4-strings.

With that said: small, even 1/2" differences in scale length can and do make a significant difference in the sound and response of an instrument. I find it surprising that people will quickly accept the 1" difference between 34" and 35", but somehow prefer to dismiss the 1/2" increment.

We're talking about the difference between a 3% change and a 1.5% change - it's within the same order of magnitude.

For a technical look at the issue (prepare for some slightly dry reading), look here:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Those who prefer data-driven decision making should specifically look at the Spectrum Analysis and Comparison sections.

On the empirical side - before I was a builder, I had the same Low E experience with a Rickenbacker that Jedi Bass mentioned.

Again, I can say that with a significant sample size and most other factors in a 'control' category (same builders, body wood, neck wood, fingerboard wood, electronics, pickups, etc. etc., and even the same shop test amp and same player), there will be a noticeable difference between 34", 34.5", and 35".
Please don't tell me it's in my head. I'm not "marketing" to myself.

In fact, I would venture that scale length is one of the bigger factors that will contribute to the overall sound of an instrument. I hear more similarity between my 35" Elrick (ash/maple/wenge) and 35" Modulus (alder/graphite) than I do between the Elrick and my own 34" ash/maple/wenge 4-string. The similarities and differences are just as noticeable on the D and G as on the low E and B.

Just as PRS found a market share by 'splitting the difference' between Fender's 25.5 and Gibson's 24.75, some bass companies have tried to address the sales resistance to 35" by going to 34.5". There is valid business reasoning behind this, but this does not mean it is only marketing voodoo.

Finally - for those that would like to decide for themselves, a suggested experiment:

Get a 35" scale fretless bass and a strong capo.
Using the capo, stop the strings at 34.5" (1/2" forward of the nut, and retune to BEADG with a tuner.
Play.
See if it sounds and/or feels different.
Repeat with the capo 1" away from the nut, for a 34" scale.

Whew! Sorry for the rant. I guess two cents buys a lot.

Peace,
Martin

 

[JEDI BASS]

Thanks Martin (Keith Guitars), very well said, and from someone who truly knows!

 

[Meatrus]

I'm sure Keith Guitars post is very true, and I'm not arguing. But I think the "in your head" bit comes from a large percentage of people who havent actually played a variety of scale lengths. But who are reacting on figures and what other people feel, rather than how the bass plays. EG "this will have a tight B as its 35", etc.

So, I believe it should be based on how it plays, rather than figures, as not all of us can tell the difference (I played a 35" without realising for a while ).

 

[jnammy]

Try out the Nordy 34.5" first and see what you think. I had an F-Bass and although it was 34.5", it honestly felt like 35.5". I also had a Yamaha TRB 35" at the same time and that felt like a 34.5". I had other 34" at the time to compare these basses to as well. I think how long a scale length feels depends on a lot of things, including where the strap buttons are placed on the body, how long the horns of the bass are, body contour, how the weight of the bass is balanced, how close the bridge is to the butt of the bass, width of neck at the nut (wider usually makes the scale feel longer), etc.

 

[koobie]

This is a very interesting thread, Martin's post makes perfect sense to me. For those who discount the diff between a 34" and a 34.5", would you agree that (all other factors being equal), a 30" will have a looser feel and rounder response than a 34"? I understand the allure of a 35" B, but didn't think about how the G could potentially be compromised. I thought many might prefer a 34" over a 35" strictly due to the shorter reach required.

 

[Chasarms]

. . . I thought many might prefer a 34" over a 35" strictly due to the shorter reach required.

In my experience, this is a non-issue. If you compare something like a Lakland JO5, which I owned, with a Fender, which I play now, the only real difference is the scale. The body is mostly identical, the horns, etc, and the bass hangs pretty much the same way.

I don't really notice a different stretch at all.

It's much more right hand than left to me.

 

[PilbaraBass]

I actually prefer 34.148" scale...this is pi^3 + pi...I like pi

 

[spade2you]

This is a very interesting thread, Martin's post makes perfect sense to me. For those who discount the diff between a 34" and a 34.5", would you agree that (all other factors being equal), a 30" will have a looser feel and rounder response than a 34"? I understand the allure of a 35" B, but didn't think about how the G could potentially be compromised. I thought many might prefer a 34" over a 35" strictly due to the shorter reach required.

I think a common misconception about 35" scale basses is that they're simply longer. While there are many makes of bass, longer top horns and bridges placed back further can help. A lot of the time, the bridge might be moved back 0.5" and the nut is about 0.5" longer. I think an interesting example is the Rob Allen MB2, which as the saddles back as far as anyone I know of and a nice top horn. Initially it confused the heck out of me why my Fender Urge I (32" scale) and 35" scale MB2 had about the same first position reach.

 

[asberrys]

When Leo Fender introduced the 34" scale it was in '51 and I will bet the average height was smaller than today.Height is linked to nutritional levels which is why the UN uses it as an index as to economic development in a country.
1951 after the war and the depression I would wager people didn't eat as good as we pigs do today with Mickey D's and all.Were bigger and 35" scale shouldn't be any different if one were to scale things,bun intended,to the proportions back in '51.

I think it is due time that 35" scale should be the new standard.The G string will suffer but the B and E are more important for laying down the bottom. Should I be hanged?

 

[ampegfuzz]

Gibson Grabbers are 34.5 scale and they been around since the 70's so that scale is old hat P.S. I love my grabber.

 

[KJung]

Hi everyone,

With great interest, I'll add my two cents to this one:

First, background - in the last 9 years, I've built and/or assembled around five hundred Veillette guitars and basses,
and done setups and repairs on at least 100 more.
I've also owned upwards of 20 basses with varying scales.

For those that don't know Veillette, our house specialty is custom tuning ranges and scale lengths. An incomplete list of the scales I've built over this time would include:
18.5
22.5
24.1
25
25.5
25.8
26.1
27.7
30
30.375
31.5
32.0
33.0
34.0
34.5
35.0
36.0

Of course, many of these (particularly the smaller ones) were for
custom tuning ranges (high-tuned guitars, baritones, etc.).
However, everything 30" and above was done on basses.
We've even done 30" 5-strings and 35" 4-strings.

With that said: small, even 1/2" differences in scale length can and do make a significant difference in the sound and response of an instrument. I find it surprising that people will quickly accept the 1" difference between 34" and 35", but somehow prefer to dismiss the 1/2" increment.

We're talking about the difference between a 3% change and a 1.5% change - it's within the same order of magnitude.

For a technical look at the issue (prepare for some slightly dry reading), look here:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Those who prefer data-driven decision making should specifically look at the Spectrum Analysis and Comparison sections.

On the empirical side - before I was a builder, I had the same Low E experience with a Rickenbacker that Jedi Bass mentioned.

Again, I can say that with a significant sample size and most other factors in a 'control' category (same builders, body wood, neck wood, fingerboard wood, electronics, pickups, etc. etc., and even the same shop test amp and same player), there will be a noticeable difference between 34", 34.5", and 35".
Please don't tell me it's in my head. I'm not "marketing" to myself.

In fact, I would venture that scale length is one of the bigger factors that will contribute to the overall sound of an instrument. I hear more similarity between my 35" Elrick (ash/maple/wenge) and 35" Modulus (alder/graphite) than I do between the Elrick and my own 34" ash/maple/wenge 4-string. The similarities and differences are just as noticeable on the D and G as on the low E and B.

Just as PRS found a market share by 'splitting the difference' between Fender's 25.5 and Gibson's 24.75, some bass companies have tried to address the sales resistance to 35" by going to 34.5". There is valid business reasoning behind this, but this does not mean it is only marketing voodoo.

Finally - for those that would like to decide for themselves, a suggested experiment:

Get a 35" scale fretless bass and a strong capo.
Using the capo, stop the strings at 34.5" (1/2" forward of the nut, and retune to BEADG with a tuner.
Play.
See if it sounds and/or feels different.
Repeat with the capo 1" away from the nut, for a 34" scale.

Whew! Sorry for the rant. I guess two cents buys a lot.

Peace,
Martin

I would agree in general, IF you could hold everything constant. I think what many of us are saying who have played hundreds of 5 and 6 string intruments that are very different from one another produced by many different manufacturers with many different scale lengths, is that scale length is just a very small part of the total design of a bass.

For example, I have a buddy with a very lightweight (believe it or not) swamp ash bodied 36" scale Fodera 6 string Imperial. Both my 34" Sadowsky 5 and his 35" Fodera Monarch KILL that bass regarding B string tone and feel (even the 'tension feel', due to the fact that the basses with the shorter scale have stiffer necks and more dense bodies, which seem to REALLY drive the feel and 'solidity' of the lower strings more than the tiny percentage difference in scale.

So, I believe the point that many of us are making is to NOT let scale length drive a purchase decision, since the massive other differences across brands, and even individual instruments (I had two 35" scale Celinders IDENTICALLY spec'd... one had a massive sounding B, the other was 'just OK') can easily overwhelm a percent or two difference in the absolute length of the string between the nut and the bridge.

There is no guarantee that a 36" scale B string will be tighter feeling (of course, it will have higher tension in an absolute sense), more focused, or 'better sounding' than a 33" scale.

I have never noticed the impact of these minor scale length differences on the 'quality' of the B or E string over a sample size in the upper hundreds of 5 string basses (probably well over a thousand) at this point, given the massive amount of time I spend playing and evaluating instruments over the years.

IMO and IME. It's like the 'bolt on/neck through' discussion... yes there are some actual technical reasons that they might sound different, but when you combine them with all the other differences across instruments, there seems to be no 'average impact' regarding punch, sustain, whatever.

So, I would STRONGLY advise those who are shopping for 5 strings to neither favor nor eliminate a particular instrument based on scale length or any of these other subtle design compenents (neck through versus bolt on... etc.). The brand, design and gauge of E and B string will have MUCH more impact IMO, as will the general quality and design of the instrument (stiffness of the neck, density of the wood, etc.).

Buy or don't buy an FBass BN5 or Nordy J5 becuase you dig the tone and feel or not, not because it has a 34.5" scale!

 

[Matt Sanchez]

We often hear marketing that a bass guitar has an incredible 'low b' with piano like tone - now, have any of you ever tried to pluck the strings on the inside of a piano? If you haven't, you should give it a shot. The strings have tension of about 425lbs. Scale length does affect string tension; however, it isn't the only variable. Great thread all... stay warm!