You missed the point completely.
We are discussing about a THINNER and longer string vs a thicker with normal lenght.
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.
40" scale Quake bass in production (2000USD)
- Thread starter ixlramp
- Start date
You missed the point completely.
We are discussing about a THINNER and longer string vs a thicker with normal lenght.
I'll try to make this easier to understand: Longer, thinner strings will be more flexible at the same pitch. That makes intonation better and gives a more piano-like harmonic structure, which is something many people want. Shorter strings which are thicker are less flexible and begin to behave more like solid bars than strings. This is one of the reasons you can't put an inch thick string on a mandolin and tune it like a bass.
Please define 'normal'? Your assumption of 'normal' may be different from other's assumption. That said, I'll 'assume' you meant a 34" scale, which is probably most popular for electric bass.
This topic has been covered extensively on TB; if you are interested, read the Dingwall owners thread and numerous other threads about longer scale lengths. Those should come close to answering your question as to 'why' a longer length is used by some players.
I'm glad to have options - everything from a Kala U-Bass to a Knuckle, you should be able to find what suits your needs the best. I wish Kalium the best, can't wait to order some more strings for my 34" custom fiver, which suits me just fine (going for the .150 stainless set this time I think).
Raz
So?
We understand the physics perfectly. The discussion is about using a 40" inch bass with thinner strings detuned or using a normal bass with thicker strings.
With the 'math argument' it would be great to play a 2 meters bass with hair strings.
I think its better to play an standard bass.
Go to a Music Store or bass Builder and ask for a bass. That scales they offer are normal.
A 2 meter bass would be near impossible to play (though there have been massive upright basses that are played using levers)
The stated purpose of this instrument is to play lower notes workout getting muddy. Nobody's telling you to abandon what works for you
The stated purpose of this instrument is to play lower notes workout getting muddy. Nobody's telling you to abandon what works for you
Ok, one more time. Because you just aren't getting it.
Let's say you want to tune a string to the G below standard B on a 5 string bass. If you use a 34" bass you might have to use a .170 string to get playable tension. If you use a bass with a longer string, say a 37" Dingwall or a 40" Quake you could use a much thinner string to get the same pitch and tension. That thinner string would be more flexible. That thinner string would intonate better and have a different harmonic structure because it will vibrate more like a string and less like a solid bar.
Quake is made by a bass builder. That means 40" is normal.
What is untrue about it? That someone would want to use a .170 to tune to G below standard B on a 34" bass?
Are you trolling? You've had it explained several times and not only don't seem to get it but you keep arguing against it despite clearly doing none of your own research
Sharp looking axe!....I might be a little long in tooth to pick up one to give it a go... btw.. how much does it weigh?
Actually not nonsense. Basically it is the question of string flexibility. As you know bass strings are wound (as are low guitar strings) and that produces less than ideal vibrations. This is why the saddles on your bridge are intoned at an angle. The longer and thinner the string the more flexible it is and the more ideal will be it's operation. In the practical case, there is the other issue of that you actually have to play it which makes a 100 meter scale a bit impractical.
Hey, I WANT one of these! I've been GASSING for fanned fret for some time now. Is 40" too long a scale? Need it in my hands to find out. Hence the desire to own and try one of these. Starting price of two grand is not nearly as bad as I thought it would be (although an extra grand for a "trim upgrade" sort of gives the high end hint)
Of course tone depends on much more than just scale length so the real question for me here is how would the Quake compare to my 35" Modulus which is my standard for "to die for" B strings, string to string balance and no difference between fretted and open notes. Hence my questioning GAS.
He's not wrong though, it probably would sound cool as hell to get a string as thin and long as possible and play it like some kind of super piano
You can play an F# with a .135 without any problem...
You just said .170 to reinforce your theory about the mandatory necesity of playing a 40" scale...
Im not saying the math involved is non sense.
Im saying playing a 40" scale with thinner strings detuned because you get "more clarity" is non sense.
Im not saying the math involved is non sense.
Im saying playing a 40" scale with thinner strings detuned because you get "more clarity" is non sense.
I've played basses ranging from 30" to my 37" dingwall. There is a difference in how the bass plays and sounds. In drop a tuning my .130 low a string on my dingwall is still tight and bouncy, this makes playing intricate/faster rhythms much easier to play imo. there is an illusion of more mids and highs to the tone where on short scale there appears to be more fundamental. This isn't really true although I can see how people would have different opinions on it. It's kind of like folks saying all overdrive pedals kill your low end. Reality with that is overdrive pedals tend add midrange which can create the illusion of less low end in some cases where there actually was no loss of low end at all. As far as dealing with the longer scale. Imo my 37" dingwall is actually no more difficult to reach the 1st fret as any 35" scale bass I've owned and a few 34" scale basses. Most of the extra length is built into the body end of the bass, not the neck. Which is partially why I'm able to fit my 37" dingwall in my fender bass case designed for 34" basses(the other reasons is a smaller headstock) Also the strap pin location is different, this shifts the position of the bass when playing standing to compensate for the longer scale as well. But yeah for the folks who say dingwalls are way too long I believe they haven't played one and they'd likely have just as much trouble playing a 35" Spector or a 34" thumb bass. Because I've played them. It's something that's difficult to see in pictures because you might judge the reach one has to make to the first fret wrong. For example this is me playing a warwick thumb nt5. That's a 34" bass that feels like a 35" bass because of the way it hangs on a strap. My 37" dingwall actually doesn't feel any longer to me. The difference that's noticeable to me is when I'm playing way up the neck (say 19th fret and up) my fretting hand more so gets between my body and the bass. Also keep in mind when seeing these pics that while then dingwall is a longer scale the thumb has more frets. But also notice how when playing the dingwall my left arm is not stretching out at all. In fact my elbow is almost at a 90 degree angle. And maybe even with my elbow more bent than the pic with the thumb bass with my fingers at nearly identical positions
Last edited:
