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.
A well respected luthier's comments on scale length...
- Thread starter RAM
- Start date
yep he is just making a statement, I was expecting a long expose on the physics of scale length and tension etc etc.
I say all basses should be 34", because that's what Leo ordered
I'm sure if you ask him this directly he'd compose an entire dissertation for you. I doubt he intended to have to explain himself on his own forum, but don't doubt he'd be happy to explain himself.
For a luthier who's personally built basses for well over a decade and in numerous scale lengths and neck-to-body attachments, whose basses I have extensive experience with, I trust him implicitly. You don't have to if you don't want to.
I have yet to run into a bass with more sustain and a better B string than my 34" set neck Hanewinckel. I am a firm believer that a well made bass will sound extraordinary regardless of whether its neck through or bolt on or 34 or 35" scale. Nowadays I feel that 35 is more of a selling point than anything else.
So you'd trust Jerzy's opinion over, say, Michael Tobias, who chooses to use 35" scale and who's been building for a lot longer than 10 years?
I'm not trying to turn this into a battle of credentials, just pointing out that Jerzy's opinion is just one among many, and though he builds some very fine basses, he's by no means the only one doing so.
Mike
+1
This topic is just a copy/paste of Jerzy's statement - but without any explanation, just the "look what he said" type. IMO that's not enough to start a topic that wants to prove that "neck thru" & "scale lenght" are just myths or selling gimmicks with no real truth in essence. I would have expected a full explanation, or at at least RAM to ask him why he said what he said, instead of this. Oh wel...
Well it seems that there is a dissertation on the relative merits of neck through vs bolt-on that is billed as 'coming soon' on Jerzy's site. However, most of his own neck through basses are now discontinued
There are two to three sizes for double bass, it's the same with violins. People that play those instruments generally say that it's qualities come from the way they are made and the material, it's hardly in the scale length. I think that it's the same with bass guitars. A well made one sounds better than an empty shell. Scale length and bolt on / set neck supply the player with certain characteristics, the final sound comes from the maker and than the player.
That's not the point, I'm afraid.
I'm sure he would explain if asked.
At this point though it's an empty shell of a statement
which I seem to not be the only one to have noticed either.
A statement like this needs backing up.
That's all I'm saying as you'll find done on many luthiers sites-They state something and then they back it up.
His merits or the length of time he has been doing what he does is not being debated here.
That the scale length is not the only aspect in determining the performance of an instrument is also not being debated.
It goes without saying.
That you trust him,is great, but is equally immaterial to this particular point.
No matter what the scale length or the woods used (if any), the neck must be treated as a system which is then part of another system (the instrument) which is then part of the combined player, instrument, rig, room, listener system. And even then it's up to the listener and their particular position in the room, hearing ability, experience, assumptions, and prejudices to decide what the tone is like and if it's "good" or "bad".
In short, it's a crapshoot. And the most variable parts of the system's crapshoot lies at the sender (player) and receiver (listener) endpoints.
In short, it's a crapshoot. And the most variable parts of the system's crapshoot lies at the sender (player) and receiver (listener) endpoints.
But isn't the present discussion concerned with the instrument( or "sub system" as you might call it), rather than all the other elements as mentioned by you?
If it is, all those are irrelevant to it.
What's your point? I happen to have a lot of respect for Mike Tobias, and have a fretless 535 in my collection. So what?
An empty shell of a statement? How so?That's not the point, I'm afraid.
I'm sure he would explain if asked.
At this point though it's an empty shell of a statement
which I seem to not be the only one to have noticed either.
A statement like this needs backing up.
That's all I'm saying as you'll find done on many luthiers sites-They state something and then they back it up.
His merits or the length of time he has been doing what he does is not being debated here.
That the scale length is not the only aspect in determining the performance of an instrument is also not being debated.
It goes without saying.
That you trust him,is great, but is equally immaterial to this particular point.
This particular subsystem cannot function in a standalone manner therefore it is useless on it's own and the presence of the rest of the system is not only relevant, it's mandatory.
I am just staying with the initial subject of this thread rather than bringing other elements which are rather relevant-just not to this particular issue.( you may want to re read?)
My personal opinion has nothing to do with it.
My argument is simply this: If a statement is made, it will carry more weight if properly backed up.
The statement concerned happens to be concerned with the instrument and not with the room , amp audience etc.
That's it.
Simple. No?
Then we shouldn't discuss pickups, hardware, preferred bodys, practically anything to do with bass, all still need the rest of the system to work.
OK then, leaving your opinion out of it.
It's impossible to consider the "initial subject" without consideration of the rest of the system since, as I said previously, the "initial subject" cannot function on it's own without the rest of the system.
Any attempt to do so is what's really irrelevant (to use your terminology).
That's absolutely correct. Well, they can (and will) be discussed but it's really meaningless on it's own. That's the error of every one of those discussions. The entire system must ultimately be considered.
Not really, each part has its own differences, if I have a jazz, with stock pickups, and want a change, each brand and model has its own direction to take, tonally, some brighter, some smoother, some louder, scale length, all things considered does have an affect, which can be discussed.
