• 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.

35", or thicker strings?

A

-Asdfgh-

Apr 13, 2010
15,383
27,600
UK
#1
35/34 is roughly a 3.5% increase, so the same increase in tension. Since string mass per unit length is roughly equivalent to the radius squared, then moving up from a radius of 50 to 52, or given cores are denser, moving from 100 to 105 diameter should be about the same tension increase as 34 to 35 inch scales.

So why 35 inch scales? Thinner strings that are less rod like so sound better in the upper register? Or is that really more of a factor for just E or B strings?
 
Last edited:
#4
-Asdfgh- said:
35/34 is roughly a 3.5% increase, so the same increase in tension.
Click to expand...
See http://www.daddario.com/upload/tension_chart_13934.pdf
T = (UW * (2*L*F) ^ 2) / 386.4
So tension is proportional to the square of scale length, so is multiplied by (35 / 34) ^ 2 = 1.06. A 6% increase.
-Asdfgh- said:
moving from 100 to 105 diameter should be about the same tension increase as 34 to 35 inch scales.
So why 35 inch scales?
Click to expand...
Because thicker strings are stiffer and so less bright, less harmonic, more difficult to intonate, and generally have worse tone.
B strings especially suffer from these problems, E not so much. 35" is primarily done for B strings but also helps E strings.
A longer scale allows you to use slightly smaller gauges while maintaining a certain tension.
But also, the string is more flexible due to being longer, as stiffness is determined by the ratio of length to gauge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Solarmist
#5
-Asdfgh- said:
35/34 is roughly a 3.5% increase, so the same increase in tension. Since string mass per unit length is roughly equivalent to the radius squared, then moving up from a radius of 50 to 52, or given cores are denser, moving from 100 to 105 diameter should be about the same tension increase as 34 to 35 inch scales.

So why 35 inch scales? Thinner strings that are less rod like so sound better in the upper register? Or is that really more of a factor for just E or B strings?
Click to expand...

For me, it's for a tighter feeling B-string. I was playing a 35" Modulus Quantum 4 when I bought ordered my first 6-string bass. I figured I was accustomed to the 35" scale, so I stuck with it.
 
#6
Yes, since most string sets have a loose B it's good for increasing it's tension without needing to increase gauge.
This is how 35" is usually advertised by guitar manufacturers, "increases tension!" as if there was no other way =)
 
#7
ixlramp said:
Yes, since most string sets have a loose B it's good for increasing it's tension without needing to increase gauge.
This is how 35" is usually advertised by guitar manufacturers, "increases tension!" as if there was no other way =)
Click to expand...

To get a thicker string to pitch, more tension is required. My point was given that, why not just use a thicker string, which would also lead to a tighter B? Why is an increase in scale length more desriable? The other extreme would be a 17 inch scale and very thick strings.
 
#8
-Asdfgh- said:
To get a thicker string to pitch, more tension is required. My point was given that, why not just use a thicker string, which would also lead to a tighter B? Why is an increase in scale length more desriable? The other extreme would be a 17 inch scale and very thick strings.
Click to expand...

A shorter, thicker B sounds much different than a longer, thinner B.

35" scale also makes it much easier to use standard B-strings, since no manufacturer makes B-strings thick enough for 34"scale (besides Kalium)

The average B-string is just way too thin. It was a poor design choice and unfortunately stayed that way.
 
#9
-Asdfgh- said:
My point was given that, why not just use a thicker string, which would also lead to a tighter B? Why is an increase in scale length more desriable?
Click to expand...
Well, i answered that above, tone quality, due to a thinner string for the same tension, or, more tension without increasing gauge.
This is why basses are longer than guitars.
 
#10
Thicker strings, over roughly a .110, sound increasingly muddy at 34". The thickness will get you tension, but at the cost of articulation.
Personally I prefer the sound and feel of a .120 or .125 B on a 35" in scale bass. It maintains its clarity and bite, while still giving you the low notes you want. I suppose it depends how much snap you want. Some people don't really want that. I have a LTD TA600 tuned BEAD that works really well. I used to have a Lakland 55-02 and loved the sound, but the neck was too thick for me. I have played a few 5 string Spector basses and loved the sound of the B.
 
#12
socialleper said:
Harps at the same way. To create an even tone across the scale, pianos and harps lengthen the scale of the strings. 35" on a B just makes sense.
Click to expand...

Historically speaking, what range of strings were available when those instruments were created, and is it a case of seeking that tone, or just that there was no other way of going from low to high pitch other than scale length?

However, I should hang my head in shame for remembering the tension:length relationship incorrectly.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back