35" Scale - Drawbacks?

[Flintc]

I play one of each. Out of curiosity, I measured the total length, and found that they were the same - each bass is just over 45" from top of headstock to base. The headstocks are the same length, so the difference is that the 34" bass has an extra inch of wood between the bridge and the bottom, while the 35" bass has the bridge right at the bottom.

In practice this means the 35" bass is better balanced, and there's no difference in how far you need to stretch your arm to reach the nut. But the slight difference in distance for 8-fret jumps is still there and noticeable.

 

[jnprather]

As people have mentioned, the only real drawback for me is the slightly larger stretch in the lower frets. The higher tension in the higher strings is a good point as well, though personally it hasn't been an issue.

 

[spade2you]

I play one of each. Out of curiosity, I measured the total length, and found that they were the same - each bass is just over 45" from top of headstock to base. The headstocks are the same length, so the difference is that the 34" bass has an extra inch of wood between the bridge and the bottom, while the 35" bass has the bridge right at the bottom.

In practice this means the 35" bass is better balanced, and there's no difference in how far you need to stretch your arm to reach the nut. But the slight difference in distance for 8-fret jumps is still there and noticeable.

A good 35" scale bass isn't much bigger than the average 34" sclae bass. A cool one is even shorter than a 34" scale bass!!! My Rob Allen MB2 is a 35" scale 5 string that is roughly the same overall length as my 32" scale Fender Urge bass when ya factor in bridge placement and headstock length.

Usually the additional left hand reach is minimal. I think it can become problematic if bassists try to wrap their thumb around the entire neck, hang the bass too high, or other possible form problems.

 

[KJung]

Not all gig bags can fit a 35" scale basses.

Lot's of mis-understanding here IMO (using the above post as an example).

1) A longer scale length doesn't mean the bass is longer. Many 35" scale instruments get the extra inch in length by modifying the bridge position and neck pocket. A standard Fender J Bass is typically much 'longer' than most 35" scale boutiques due to the large off-set body and large classic headstock.

2) The extra length is obviously divided proportionally over the entire neck.... the difference in, for example, the distance between the nut and first fret is very slight.

3) While it is a physical fact that the tension of a string (assuming all else is equal) will increase at a given pitch when a longer scale length is used, this increase in tension is very slight, with the small 3% or so increase in length.

4) Many comments about the 'wider' feeling of some basses in first position attributed to a 35" scale are impacted more (IMO and IME) by the upper horn length (i.e., the distance that the neck is pushed to the left of the body) than scale length. For example, the MTD's really push your left hand out, making the first position feel somewhat wide to some. On the other hand, the way the Lakland 55-94 is designed, the first position feels much more like a standard 34" scale Fender type instrument, to me anyway. These are both 35" scale instruments, but they feel very different.

5) The inherent stiffness and tension of a particular brand or model of string (along with its gauge) seems to have MUCH more impact on the feel of the B string than a slight increase in scale. For example, a .128 Sadowsky SS string, or a .135 MTD string (i.e., heavier gauge strings that are also inherently 'tighter feeling') will feel MUCH tighter on a 34" scale instrument (all other things being equal) than a .125 Hi Beam on a 35" scale instrument. Related to this, the stiffness of the neck material and design, while not impacting tension, seems to have a big impact on how 'tight' the B string sounds.


Whew ... so, for the OP question, it's not a simple thing to say what impact a 35" scale will have. It's a small part of a bass design that, while definitely having an impact (point 3 above), can be very subtle, and easily overwhelmed by other design components of a particular bass guitar.

 

[ped]

I recently sold a 36" scale bass that sounded fantastic all over the board, but weather that was due to the extra scale or not I have no idea. It certainly did not feel noticeably different to me, and I think any arguments about weather a 34" or 36" B string is best is completely redundant, it has so much more to do with the construction.

 

[ped]

Oh. What KJung said, basically.

 

[seansbrew]

The only thing I see as a drawback in a 35" scale bass is that it's not 36", which I prefer. Most 34" scale 5'ers have a floppy loose B string that is not much use unless you play it very lightly. Fenders are notorious for that IMHO. I like distinct notes on the B string below E. My 36" Elrick provides them without sounding mushy.

Assuming standard tuning, wont the D and G strings on a 36" scale bass suffer?

It seems that there is a compromise when choosing scale length.

 

[fullrangebass]

That's where the fanned fret concept makes a difference

 

[JansenW]

Lot's of mis-understanding here IMO (using the above post as an example).

1) A longer scale length doesn't mean the bass is longer. Many 35" scale instruments get the extra inch in length by modifying the bridge position and neck pocket. A standard Fender J Bass is typically much 'longer' than most 35" scale boutiques due to the large off-set body and large classic headstock.

This sounds right. Perhaps I just had a gig bag that fitted my 34" Fender but not my 35" MTD.

 

[KJung]

That's where the fanned fret concept makes a difference

After spending a little time with a fanned fret bass, per my general comments above on scale length, it seems like 'quite a lot about not so much'. While it makes sense on paper, and obviously, the tension on the B and E strings will be a little higher, that slanted bridge is a disaster to those of us who like to play close to the bridge IMO and IME.

That being said, if the slanted bridge is not a problem for you, and you don't mind your string choice being somewhat limited, the Novak system is unique, and could be a positive for some.

Put another way... I'd love to compare a Dingwall with and without the fanned fret system to see just how much the scale length impacts the tone and feel. The two Dingwall's I've played so far have wonderfully stiff necks, which IME has a huge impact on the quality of the B string. My guess is that the superior construction of these basses has just as much to do with the great tone and feel as the Novak system.... just a guess though.

Edit: I think one of the things that cemented the '35'" scale results in a better B' was the introduction all those years ago of the Modulus 5 string bass. Those basses had SUCH better B strings than anything else out there at the time (a few Alembics, a few Fodera's, and some homemade stuff). We all attributed this to the unheard of at the time 35" scale. Later, when I learned more about bass construction, I came to believe it had much more to do with the uber still, rock hard graphite neck.

 

[stretch80]

In my experience owning and playing both, I like the looser, bassier feel of the D and G strings with the 34" scale, but I like the overall tight sound of the 35".

At the moment, the 34" (Stingray 5) is the winner.

I'd like to play a fanned-fret bass someday. Sounds like a cool concept.

 

[permagrin]

I had a nice 35" scale 5-string bass, but after about 2 years I just couldn't get used to the scale, I was messing up notes all the time and my fretting hand simply felt uncomfortable. I'm much happier with my new 34" scale 5-string.

One thing that was better with the 35" - the extra distance between frets is very small by the 12th fret and above, but that tiny extra space makes knoodling in the upper registers more funner.

 

[Justin V]

I used to own a decent 35" four string (Ibanez BTB) and had no problems with the extra reach when I was living in the bay area. Then when I moved north to Humboldt for college, I found it somewhat painful to play because of the extra stretch needed for the lower notes. I think it was the increase in humidity. I prefer 35"s for five strings, but I've played some sweet 34" 5-ers (mostly MMs and Laklands).

If it feels/sounds right to you, play it.

 

[jambassist]

i was never a fan of 35" scale basses. most of them are 5 string and i don't like 5 string basses. however, my elrick is a 35" 4 string and it feels better to me then any 34" i've ever played.

 

[bradjonesbass]

I have small hands - weirdly small considering I'm 6'5" tall - and can't play 35" scale basses - even Laklands, which are by far the most comfy 35" scale basses I've tried. The B on my 34" G&L is great, so I don't worry about the extra inch.

 

[Stu Rose]

Wanted to ask what drawbacks, if any, you find in playing a 35" scale bass as opposed to 34 or less?

One inch too long!

F bass 34.5 is very comfy, 34 inch Smith has a nice B, and Ken Lawrence 35" neck design works so well and is so comfy the 35 is no problem.

MTD & Modulus are harder to play IMO

 

[fullrangebass]

That's where the fanned fret concept makes a difference

KJung is a very good and experienced player (I am sure he is better than I am, meaning I know that I have something to learn from him), and for sure he has tried many basses (Dingwalls included); but here are my .02

All my Dingwalls have not suffered neck movement during this extreme summer (their necks are really solid) whereas other basses have suffered. Solid construction has a lot to do with solid notes projecting from an instrument.

Having owned and played many different scale basses (34", 34,5", 35", 35,25" and 36" and the Dingwall take on the Novak fanned fret concept) my own opinion and experience leads me (and only me) to choose the more balanced tension and tone of a Dingwall over the string balance of a "conventional" bass (not superior or inferior; just conventional). The fact that I own several Dingwalls and many more basses (well maybe a few more than that ) allows me to choose the specific bass for the specific project (not all basses sound the same).

IMHO and IME the fanned fret concept provides an even-ness in tone and sound; Dingwall ergonomics and playbility are added bonuses. I understand that certain techniques may need a leeway space to get to the level of perfection (eg playing by the bridge or chording above the 15th fret); I guess I was lucky not to get into trouble while using those techniques. Then again the high G and C strings were quite tight on the 36" Aries 7str bass of mine.

Then again I would like to state again, that this is my opinion based on my experience and that KJung is a TB-er that I am looking up to and respect him the most.

 

[KJung]

KJung is a very good and experienced player (I am sure he is better than I am, meaning I know that I have something to learn from him), and for sure he has tried many basses (Dingwalls included); but here are my .02

All my Dingwalls have not suffered neck movement during this extreme summer (their necks are really solid) whereas other basses have suffered. Solid construction has a lot to do with solid notes projecting from an instrument.

Having owned and played many different scale basses (34", 34,5", 35", 35,25" and 36" and the Dingwall take on the Novak fanned fret concept) my own opinion and experience leads me (and only me) to choose the more balanced tension and tone of a Dingwall over the string balance of a "conventional" bass (not superior or inferior; just conventional). The fact that I own several Dingwalls and many more basses (well maybe a few more than that ) allows me to choose the specific bass for the specific project (not all basses sound the same).

IMHO and IME the fanned fret concept provides an even-ness in tone and sound; Dingwall ergonomics and playbility are added bonuses. I understand that certain techniques may need a leeway space to get to the level of perfection (eg playing by the bridge or chording above the 15th fret); I guess I was lucky not to get into trouble while using those techniques. Then again the high G and C strings were quite tight on the 36" Aries 7str bass of mine.

Then again I would like to state again, that this is my opinion based on my experience and that KJung is a TB-er that I am looking up to and respect him the most.

Hey... I'm as full of hooey as the next guy I just love thinking about and noodling all this stuff. The Dingwalls I've played were pretty smokin' basses, and I can totally see the logic of that fret system. I totally agree that it makes much more sense than just increasing the standard 34" scale length to 35" across the board.

 

[cricketfever32]

does the extra inch tighten up the g string (haha) that much?

 

[Moe Monsarrat]

I have never noticed any "suffering" going on with my G or D string on my 36" scale Elrick. Maybe I'm just used to it, but it gets the nod in the studio over a lot of other good basses & if it sounded weird I can't imagine that happening.