Hi,
This is a follow-up point I'd like to mention...
Much of this discussion has focused on the B-string response, and the effect of scale length on the low notes.
However, to my ear, the change in scale length is just as noticeable on the high strings. When you get up to a 6-string, IMHO the High C is far and away the most affected by scale.
F-Bass was the first boutique company to adopt the 34.5" scale on a production level. Not surprisingly, they are a specialty builder who for many years did a whole lot of 6-strings - arguably, the most well-known F-Bass is the AC6, and their star player is a hard-core 6-string advocate.
One of the other big-time 6-string evangelists, Anthony Jackson, has also used scale length as the primary means of adjusting the signature Fodera that bears his name. Most of his other specs have remained constant, but he has varied the scale by 2" over the years. He is notoriously picky about his sound, and about his setup and the resulting 'feel'.
I would venture that 34.5", in the context of a 6-string bass, is a clear winner over 35", as a practical and valid compromise between B-string clarity without C-string stridency.
True, there are dozens (at least) of factors that affect the tone and 'feel' of a bass. Many of these, even when building from scratch, are hard to control predictably. Body wood density, for example, and even neck stiffness can vary considerably from piece to piece, and even from one end of a plank to another. Furthermore, there is not a direct, linear, predictable curve to the results they will yield.
For example, I have several times worked with batches of 2-3 basses built with both necks and bodies from the same planks, fingerboards from the same cuts, etc. etc. Not only did their sound vary considerably from bass to bass, but it sometimes did so counterintuitively - I've heard bigger, stronger bass from instruments with more flexible necks, and sometimes the other way around. There is so much interaction and interference between these physical elements that even an experienced builder is often just taking their best guess.
By contrast: there are some elements that, IME, can be controlled by the builder, yielding a fairly predictable result.
Pickup position would be a big one. Scale length is another.
A change in either will have a much more consistent effect
across a large sample of instruments than changing something
like body wood density, or even species - poplar to alder, for example, or wenge to rosewood or even ebony.
IMPORTANT NOTE: I'm not saying it has a bigger effect - I'm saying a more consistent one. On the whole, when trying to predict the character of an instrument, scale length is pretty high on the list of factors that I, at least, will consider. Based on my experience building, I'll say that holding all other things equal, it would be among the most effective variables in changing the sound, feel, and responsiveness of an instrument.
Compared to changing the pickups, for example, let's make the following analogy: If there's music playing on your iPod, changing the pickups is like changing your headphones.
Changing the scale length is more equivalent to changing the music itself.
Geez - every time I start typing, here I go again.
Peace,
Martin
. 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?
