Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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" vs 35"
- Thread starter jrmgcoolville
- Start date
jrmgcoolville said:
the stickied NEWBIE LINKS has your answers
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69903
One's longer, one's shorter. Simple as that.
I'm more comfortable on a 34". Some can go back and forth without a problem. Some feel 35" adds tension to the strings for detuning possibilites, but I've never felt the need for that extra inch.
I'm more comfortable on a 34". Some can go back and forth without a problem. Some feel 35" adds tension to the strings for detuning possibilites, but I've never felt the need for that extra inch.
I broke both of my wrists when I was a kid...
34" scale = comfort
35" scale = pain :scowl:
That's it for me.
The only bass that I have been able to play in 35" scale comfortably is a Skjold.
34" scale = comfort
35" scale = pain :scowl:
That's it for me.
The only bass that I have been able to play in 35" scale comfortably is a Skjold.
Not too hard to get use to switching back and forth between 34" and 35".
Only drawback is sometimes it's hard to buy a case/gigbag for the 35" bass.
Only drawback is sometimes it's hard to buy a case/gigbag for the 35" bass.
the theory is that , the lower the note the longer the scale length of string , wich creates more stability for the note here are my experiences!
take these three basses! LAKLAND 5VER 35", MUSICMAN STINGRAY 34" AND NS EUB 41" .
the laklands B kills , the stingray's is ok but the ns designs B shakes the earth when i hit it but having said that i have found that the notes above the octave position (D and G strings )on the eub seem to die ! they just loose something! so there is perhaps substance to the theory of differing scale lengths for different strings ! have a look at a concert grand piano ! those builders have beeen applying this principle for ......... ever!
hope that helped
take these three basses! LAKLAND 5VER 35", MUSICMAN STINGRAY 34" AND NS EUB 41" .
the laklands B kills , the stingray's is ok but the ns designs B shakes the earth when i hit it but having said that i have found that the notes above the octave position (D and G strings )on the eub seem to die ! they just loose something! so there is perhaps substance to the theory of differing scale lengths for different strings ! have a look at a concert grand piano ! those builders have beeen applying this principle for ......... ever!
hope that helped
Scale length, as I've found through my research and experiences (search on threads titled "Stambaugh Twins") and you'll see I've played basses that were virtually identical in all respects, except for scale length.
To begin with, I currently own two basses that have a low B string, one's a Lakland DJ5, a 35" scale, the other is a Jerzy Drozd Mastery VI, a 34" scale. Which would YOU think (on paper) has a tighter low B, especially given Lakland's very well known tight B?
Actually, the Jerzy has a better B than the Lakland. It's also easier to play because the slight increase in scale length adds to additional string tension (again, see my thread about the Stambaugh Twins) and stretching more in the first position.
I have very large hands and don't have a problem playing the Lakland, but the Jerzy, even with an extra string, is simply a better playing instrument, and has a better B, to boot.
On the other side of the debate, the Stambaugh Twins I played were both neck-through, both made with the same woods, same electronics, hardware, etc. One was 35", the other was 34". The 35" DID have a better B, but was also less comfortable to play. The 34" played like butter, but the B was passable. Chris did build this with body-through stringing, which I've since played with, and found it tightens up the B a bit.
The point I'm trying to make is, if you make it truly scientific, you're missing out on a world of talented luthiers who can eek out magic from seemingly run-of-the-mill materials (can you tell I'm an enormous Jerzy Drozd fan???). BTW: I've also played 35" Jerzys, since that's what he tends to build, and the B isn't really any better than on my 34" Jerzy.
An interesting point I want to highlight: I was hanging out at LAG one day and a guy came in who had tiny hands. He had Keith Roscoe custom build him a 33" Roscoe, which apparently Keith was pretty much against from the outset. I got a chance to tinker with this 33" Roscoe, as it was being considered for a trade with LAG for a Jerzy. The 33" Roscoe had a tremendous low B, one I'd put against any of the best out there.
To begin with, I currently own two basses that have a low B string, one's a Lakland DJ5, a 35" scale, the other is a Jerzy Drozd Mastery VI, a 34" scale. Which would YOU think (on paper) has a tighter low B, especially given Lakland's very well known tight B?
Actually, the Jerzy has a better B than the Lakland. It's also easier to play because the slight increase in scale length adds to additional string tension (again, see my thread about the Stambaugh Twins) and stretching more in the first position.
I have very large hands and don't have a problem playing the Lakland, but the Jerzy, even with an extra string, is simply a better playing instrument, and has a better B, to boot.
On the other side of the debate, the Stambaugh Twins I played were both neck-through, both made with the same woods, same electronics, hardware, etc. One was 35", the other was 34". The 35" DID have a better B, but was also less comfortable to play. The 34" played like butter, but the B was passable. Chris did build this with body-through stringing, which I've since played with, and found it tightens up the B a bit.
The point I'm trying to make is, if you make it truly scientific, you're missing out on a world of talented luthiers who can eek out magic from seemingly run-of-the-mill materials (can you tell I'm an enormous Jerzy Drozd fan???). BTW: I've also played 35" Jerzys, since that's what he tends to build, and the B isn't really any better than on my 34" Jerzy.
An interesting point I want to highlight: I was hanging out at LAG one day and a guy came in who had tiny hands. He had Keith Roscoe custom build him a 33" Roscoe, which apparently Keith was pretty much against from the outset. I got a chance to tinker with this 33" Roscoe, as it was being considered for a trade with LAG for a Jerzy. The 33" Roscoe had a tremendous low B, one I'd put against any of the best out there.
- Dec 18, 2000
- 13,201
- 340
- Disclosures
- greenboy designs: fEARful, bassic, dually, crazy88 etc
The difference between 34 and 35 is so minimal that it comes down more to personal preferences (I really don't like what 35" does to a G or C especially) and constuction, woods, electronics.
I'm playing a Knuckle QUAKE with 39.5 scale right now and that extra two frets of length makes a real difference for low-pitched strings, all other elements equal ... Actually it isn't any harder to play this scale length even for my small hands since what would have been a low B is tuned on this to a low A, which places the low B at the second fret - 35".
I'm playing a Knuckle QUAKE with 39.5 scale right now and that extra two frets of length makes a real difference for low-pitched strings, all other elements equal ... Actually it isn't any harder to play this scale length even for my small hands since what would have been a low B is tuned on this to a low A, which places the low B at the second fret - 35".
