34" vs 35" scale. Can anyone really tell the difference?

[wazzel]

I do not notice the difference in my fretting hand. My 35 needs a bit more reach than my 34's, but that is because the body on my 35 is smaller than the 34's. Strap button is at the 14th fret on my 35 and at the 12th fret on all my 34's.

It does fell like the strings are slightly tighter on the 35, but not enough that it would cause issues jumping back and forth.

 

[jim nolte]

My main bass is 34.5 inch scale enough to add a little more tension to the B string but not enough to effect the G string as much as 35 inch can in my experience, I have owned 34-35” basses and find the 34.5” a nice compromise, only problem is very few builders use that as their standard.

 

[Windreaper]

I used to buy fully into the myth of the 35" scale B string until I realized that 35" scale is snake oil. The only reason I have seen put forth is that a 35" scale tightens up a B string. If you have an issue with a floppy B string on a 34" scale instrument, you are using a B string that is too light a gauge. That's a string issue.

A 35" scale, or longer, allows you to use thinner strings while keeping the same tension. Superior harmonics, better string-to-string balance. Slapping on heavier strings isn't going to make your 34" bass sound like a 37" Dingwall.

 

[Kael]

Altering the 4 other strings scale length affects their feel, resonance, etc. So instead of getting differing B string you can either get a differing strings for all 4 other strings or just live with the changes to those strings. You like those changes to the 4 other strings? Cool. You are ok with, or even like, the instrument requiring larger shifts for note changes (making it marginally harder to play)? Cool. You do you. Point is changing scale length alters the entire instrument. If your goal is to alter the entire instrument and not just tighten up a floppy B string, cool. If your issue is just the B string, then 35" scale is silly fix.

Disclaimer, I still own a high end 35" scale instrument. It plays well enough. It doesn't see stage time because I own 34" instruments that have stellar low B's without issues introduced by adding scale length.

By fundamental principals of how strings work, 35" scale length is not "snake oil". String tension at pitch is defined by a combination of both gauge and scale length (and string construction methods). You can vary the tension on the string by modifying either or both parameters. Changing one is no more or less appropriate than changing the other.

For me, having to order custom string sets to accommodate a a 34" 5-string doesn't make sense. A 35" scale 5er just works better for me all around. Multiscale has been better yet, for my personal preferences. For a fretless player I definitely understand that changing scale length would have a much bigger impact to playability though.

 

[buzzbass]

I have both and can't tell the difference going back and forth

 

[lokikallas]

Tuned a half step down, I can tell the difference, as well as the low B on my 35" feels and sounds better than the B on any 34" I've played.

 

[NKBassman]

Altering the 4 other strings scale length affects their feel, resonance, etc. So instead of getting differing B string you can either get a differing strings for all 4 other strings or just live with the changes to those strings. You like those changes to the 4 other strings? Cool. You are ok with, or even like, the instrument requiring larger shifts for note changes (making it marginally harder to play)? Cool. You do you. Point is changing scale length alters the entire instrument. If your goal is to alter the entire instrument and not just tighten up a floppy B string, cool. If your issue is just the B string, then 35" scale is silly fix.

Disclaimer, I still own a high end 35" scale instrument. It plays well enough. It doesn't see stage time because I own 34" instruments that have stellar low B's without issues introduced by adding scale length.

True. I don't mind the change overall, but I've recently switched to a 35-32" multiscale Dingwall, which is the nicest 5 I've tried so far.

 

[Fuzzbass]

In all my years of selling basses, this happens most consistently:

I post a 35" scale bass. I get a comment saying, "If this bass was 34-inch scale, I'd be all over it." A little while later, I sell a 34" scale bass and get the comment, " Man! If this was 35-inch scale, we'd be talking."

I own both. I play both... in 4-string and 5-string. Scale-length has never crossed my mind when switching from a 34" to a 35". I've never noticed any need to adjust. For me, scale length isn't even in my top-10 of things I look for in a bass.

Can anyone REALLY tell the difference between 34" scale and 35" scale? If so, what's the deal? Does it affect your playing? Is it all about how the low-B sounds?

I don't get it. Enlighten me.

(don't get me started on multi-scale... lol)

I can play 34" and 35" easily enough, assuming ergonomics are the same (e.g. two Fender-style basses).

That said, to my ears, there's a slight difference in timbre between 34" and 35". I noticed this in a mostly apples-to-apples comparison: for example, I compared a Lull P5 (35") to a Sadowsky P5 (34"). Both are high quality Fender P-style instruments (a better test than comparing a Modulus 35" to an all-wood 34"). I compared both in passive mode and also unplugged, and I set 'em up with identical strings. To my ears, 35" had a slightly more "modern" timbre. I also took into consideration other 34" and 35" instruments I've owned and played.

I get it: I didn't perform any scientific tests. Also, with instruments, "all else is equal" can never exist due to the variable nature of wood: two "identical" basses can sound different simply because of this.

Even so: I've been playing close to half a century, I try to remain unbiased/open-minded, and my gut tells me that there's a slight difference in timbre between 34" and 35". Also a slight difference in feel (again, even when identical strings are used).

Ultimately, I've decided I prefer 34", even though the tonal differences are subtle enough to be completely irrelevant to bandmates and audience.

Another reason is practicality: on 34", I can use standard long scale strings, no need to worry about "extra long scale". Standard long scale strings can sometimes be used with 35", but if the headstock end has silk it can sometimes travel over the nut.


Edit: should have mentioned that I play 5-string exclusively. With quality basses, 35" B string isn't "better", it's just "different".

 

[Acoop]

20 to 30-years ago when more companies were making 5-strings I thought a 35" made the low B-string tighter, but since I think string manufactures and builders have corrected that. ... But I only have one 5-string.

 

[Cleezmo]

I have one 35" bass (Modulus Q5) and several 34" 4- and 5- string basses. I can feel the difference, as some others have said, mostly in the first 5 frets. But I can swap between 35" and 34" between sets or songs with no issues, not a big deal. As far as tone, yeah there are differences, but in my case it's Modulus vs. wood basses so of course there are gonna be differences. The B strings on my Modulus and G&L are both great, but different.

From a playability and tone standpoint, I do I prefer slapping on a 34" vs. a 35", but I have one (1) tune I get to slap on in the current set list, so not a major issue there. Plus to be fair I'm not nearly as clean slapping on an 18mm 5er regardless of scale length...I need that extra 1mm of spacing!

 

[Altitude]

I played bass for 20 years before I learned there were basses with varying scales. I learned about it here of course.

When I did learn, I realized I had a 34” and a 35” scale bass. I’d never perceived a difference.

I figure bridge placement has at least as much to do with the feel of a bass than a one inch difference in scale. Fender basses in particular have the bridge mounted a bit inland from the bottom edge. I have others where the bridge is right against that edge.

 

[Berniez40]

On 4 string, makes no difference to me, but on a 5'er--I prefer a 35" scale. It just stops the low "B" from feeling, and oft-times sounding, a little flabby.

 

[bigjames]

I have a 34" and 34.5" and I do notice a difference even with that extra .5". My hand fatigues faster playing the 34.5". Not 100% sure if this is due to the fret spacing or the slightly longer reach to the lowest frets and how that impacts hand position. I should note, the two basses "sit" differently as well, so it could have nothing to do with the scale length. Is this a deal breaker? No. Do I think I need to practice more to get used to the slightly different finger positions? Yes. Even that .5" results in richer tones, especially on the B and E strings.

I played a true 35" for an evening and noticed the same effect as the 34.5". Faster fatigue, but tighter strings and really nice feel on the B and E.

 

[Dr. Keebs]

If I can play it comfortably and I like how it sounds, specs don’t matter.

 

[Sam Dingle]

I prefer 34. I hated a Spector 5 string I once owned though it sounded great. I have a lakland 5 that’s 35 scale that’s ok, but if I played more 5 string I’d look into a 34 scale

 

[lamarjones]

Bending a note on 35" is significantly harder.

 

[Lesfunk]

More power to the fans of longer scale length, but 35” is generally a deal breaker for me.

I’ve played enough basses of both scale lengths to find that there are just as many great sounding 34” (and shorter) basses out there as 35”, so it becomes more of a comfort factor than anything else.

 

[Eilif]

It might be some hype, but I really do think I can tell the difference, and with my knuckle-dragging monkey-arms, there's no ergonomic downside.

All my basses are 4 strings and except for two (my first an MIM P and a T-40 for recording) all my main players are 35". The tension of the strings feels tighter and I like that. Whether or not there's a notable sonic difference is up for debate, but I think there is some, especially as regards sustain and ring. I also definitely liked the feel of 35" years ago when I had 5 string basses so when I eventually get around to converting one of mine to BEAD, I know I'll really appreciate the difference. I think also there's some advantage to having standardized on 35" when playing my unlined fretless (also a 35"), though I assume folks who only play 34" have similar benefits when they play 34" fretless basses.

Lastly, locking myself into 35" 4 strings with wide nuts has helped cut down on GAS almost entirely. It's easier to not buy when there's nothing out there that "fits" you.

 

[The Expendable Clay]

In all my years of selling basses, this happens most consistently:

I post a 35" scale bass. I get a comment saying, "If this bass was 34-inch scale, I'd be all over it." A little while later, I sell a 34" scale bass and get the comment, " Man! If this was 35-inch scale, we'd be talking."

I own both. I play both... in 4-string and 5-string. Scale-length has never crossed my mind when switching from a 34" to a 35". I've never noticed any need to adjust. For me, scale length isn't even in my top-10 of things I look for in a bass.

Can anyone REALLY tell the difference between 34" scale and 35" scale? If so, what's the deal? Does it affect your playing? Is it all about how the low-B sounds?

I don't get it. Enlighten me.

(don't get me started on multi-scale... lol)

I notice it very clearly, mostly on the B.
I like the tension of a 35" but I feel the stretch a little on frets 1-4. so in that area I like the fretting on a 34". Everything has some kind of compromise though.

 

[chadds]

Yes.
Regardless I love each bass for all its characteristics in total. So my four string is perfect as it is, my 35” 5 is perfect as it is and my 18” Ashborys are perfect.