A well respected luthier's comments on scale length...

[cnltb]

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).

I agree in part, but since the initial question is concerned with one element of a "subsystem", the bass, and a statement made specifically about the construction of that, wouldn't it make sense to stay with it?
The instrument is also a BIG part of the complete system.
( Some may do it differently but I take my bass to every gig or session I do. Not so with the amp or cabs.)

It might be a possible subject for a thread on the effects the room may have or the amp. or...etc.

 

[mongo2]

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.

If everything else remains constant, a particular listener will make a judgement regarding the result and whether they like the result or not. Which is still just an opinion.

Change any other variable such as player, rig, room, position in the room, and the result can be dramatically different.

Change the listener and all bets are off.

Here's an example of the effect of one variable after a pickup change...room position. I recently changed out a set of Ibanez pickups for a set of Barts with the result that in my opinion the Barts had more present low end and sounded smoother in the mids and highs. When I moved a few feet to the right the bottom dropped out, a few feet to the left and it was back, move back and the highs sounded more agressive. Changes like that continued as I walked around my music room but it wasn't unexpected since I've noticed it for the 25 years we've lived here. However, it begs the question, which represents the "correct" tone?

 

[mongo2]

I agree in part, but since the initial question is concerned with one element of a "subsystem", the bass, and a statement made specifically about the construction of that, wouldn't it make sense to stay with it?

You can but without consideration of the rest of the system, what's the point? Nothing can ever really be resolved.

And since, as you imply, the system can be constantly changing, even nailing it down of one set of circumstances can be rendered irrlevant in another situation.

I been seeing this all my playing life at every gig, whether it be in a new room or even in the same room, same night as the crowd varies.

My guitarist is driven nuts buy it but I've come to the realization that it's all just a best you can do in the situation situation.

 

[Rusty the Scoob]

I think the real point of the original statement by Jerzy was that too many bassists assume that a 35" scale neck-through bass is automatically better than a 34" bolt-on. I personally believe they are two different but equally effective ways to make a bass.

 

[mongo2]

I think the real point of the original statement by Jerzy was that too many bassists assume that a 35" scale neck-through bass is automatically better than a 34" bolt-on. I personally believe they are two different but equally effective ways to make a bass.

I think the passage below is the real gist of his statement, the rest is just an example:

...many of so called "TOP" improvements which were sold to entire bass community as improvements , actualy [sic] were more "Fashion" oriented and marketing HYPE than real improvements.

 

[IngerAlb]

I'm still waiting for the explanation as to WHY the statement: "many of so called "TOP" improvements which were sold to entire bass community as improvements , actualy [sic] were more "Fashion" oriented and marketing HYPE than real improvements" is correct ?!?
So far all I can read is a shallow copy/paste text and a lot of off topic discussion on how much any other things but the ones in the topic's message affect the tone of the bass ?!?

 

[cnltb]

I'm still waiting for the explanation as to WHY the statement: "many of so called "TOP" improvements which were sold to entire bass community as improvements , actualy [sic] were more "Fashion" oriented and marketing HYPE than real improvements" is correct ?!?
So far all I can read is a shallow copy/paste text and a lot of off topic discussion on how much any other things but the ones in the topic's message affect the tone of the bass ?!?

+1

 

[UncleBalsamic]

Even as a Dingwall owner I still think that we should realise that corelation does not necessarily imply causality.

 

[spade2you]

I dunno, perhaps Jerzey's comments work perfectly for him, but as Mike noted, there's a pretty important degree of the individual luthier! Some stick with 35" because they like the results. There are a few who can do it in 32" or 33" scale, too.

 

[ubado]

1) neck thru superiority over bolton [sic] and set in construction
2) extra long scale (35" , 36") necks superiority over short scale neck basses

Let me say this, I do not bash neck thru nor 35" or 36" , they are fine if you know exaclty [sic] WHY you want these options on your bass. It´s time to tell the truth how any of bass pieces or construction type affects final sound and playabilty [sic] of bass guitar. This is a very important information every bass player should know. Ths [sic] information probably will save many $$$ for these bass players who complain why his expensive (few $1000´s) custom bass doesn´t [sic] sound as good as some less expensive (few $100´s) bass guitars.

It seems that many of these posts are due to quick readers ... and the quick to denounce (due to the failure of adequate facts on Jerzey's end).

As far as "neck thru" and "scale length" ... IMO Jerzey's statment is to shed some light on the idea that scale length's and neck thru's aren't actually "improvements" (as some are advertised to be ... thus "fashion oriented"), and neither of these are "superior" to the other; but design elements in general that effect tone and playability. And choosing one over the other because you think it will be better, may end up unnecessarily costing you more money.

From what I gather from Jerzey's statment is ... IF someone orders a 35" or 36" scale over a 33" or 34" scale ... why are they doing it? Is it because they actually want it, or are they doing it because they think it's going to be a "better" bass. (I've seen so many TB'ers selling 35" scale basses due to the fact that they thought it would be better, but wasn't ... and since they aren't used to, or don't like 35" scale, they sell it). The same can be asked about neck thru's ... are you purchasing it over a bolt-on/set-neck because of tone, or overall feel at the neck-joint .... OR ... are you purchasing it because you think it's superior to the other styles?

 

[mongo2]

I'm still waiting for the explanation as to WHY the statement: "many of so called "TOP" improvements which were sold to entire bass community as improvements , actualy [sic] were more "Fashion" oriented and marketing HYPE than real improvements" is correct ?!?
So far all I can read is a shallow copy/paste text and a lot of off topic discussion on how much any other things but the ones in the topic's message affect the tone of the bass ?!?

It functions more as an axiom which is self-evident since there is no way to determine the definitive absolute effect of any specific characteristic or group of characteristics for all cases.

 

[IngerAlb]

IMO:
1. ppl might wanna order a 35 scale because the general consensus seems to be that 5er with 35 scale would have a tighter low B, for example;
2. ppl might wanna order a neck thru because of the supposedly increased sustain and note definition - another "common consensus"...

Now Jerzy said these are more myth than reality, that these features won't improve the bass, that are mostly for fashion/cosmetical reasons. Ok, let's say I'll take his word for it...but the question of "WHY" remains unanswered! That's what all this debate is about, and not about the superiority of such a bass over a 34 scale BO bass, mkey? So unless additional and detailed info regarding this subject is posted, here, the topis is pointless, it's just a "because X said so" type of thread which is no way helping to enlighten us, the ignorant bassists, so we'd know next time we order a custom or pick up a bass from a shop...

 

[K.Ross]

Wonder what he'd say about a 30" Birdsong?!?
Kent

 

[mikezimmerman]

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?

My point is the second part of what you quoted, but apparently failed to read: 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. Many other very fine builders prefer the results they get with 35" scale, or neck-through. You can't just come and quote one builder--and not the most experienced one by a long shot--and say "See, you've all been duped..."

Mike

 

[joeyl]

You can't just come and quote one builder--and not the most experienced one by a long shot--and say "See, you've all been duped..."

Mike

well put

 

[Baird6869]

I have owned many 34' and 35" scale 5ers as well as a Dingwall with a 36" or 37" scale on the B string....

.... IMO (and a broad generalization as there are exceptions) 35" scale basses tend to have a tighter and better sounding B and are better when playing in the 3rd position (low D) and lower on the B string.

Having said that, my Sadowskys were 34" and they had a great B as does my 34" Fender MIA P5. The Dingwall B was no better than the Sadowskys or Fender.

I don't think "bigger is better" in every case though but if I had to pick a 5er without playing, it would likely be a 35".

 

[john turner]

it's interesting (and cool) that jerzy is making these statements. i played a really beautiful jd 7 for a while (About a week) with the intention of doing a review on it and i thought it was a fabulous instrument. iirc, it was 35" and neck through. he sells 35" and 36" scale length neck through instruments still on his site.

the way i am reading his points, and i may be reading them incorrectly, is that he is just saying that a 35" or greater scale length is neither necessary, nor guarantees, a good sounding bass, and that the same can be said for neckthrough construction, as opposed to bolt on.

these are easily understood statments, and they may have been made in response to the common "net-wisdom" commentary on these topics, where folks that don't really know any better make such blanket statements as "a bolt on will never have as good a low b as a neck through" or "a 34" scale instrument will never have as good a low b as a 35" scale instrument".

in other words, i'd say these comments by JD should be taken more as "responses" to ways of thought than "pronouncements" about "the right way to do things".

i also don't see this as warranting the response it's getting here. mr. drozd has certainly not said anything wrong or incorrect.

 

[emjazz]

it's interesting (and cool) that jerzy is making these statements. i played a really beautiful jd 7 for a while (About a week) with the intention of doing a review on it and i thought it was a fabulous instrument. iirc, it was 35" and neck through. he sells 35" and 36" scale length neck through instruments still on his site.

the way i am reading his points, and i may be reading them incorrectly, is that he is just saying that a 35" or greater scale length is neither necessary, nor guarantees, a good sounding bass, and that the same can be said for neckthrough construction, as opposed to bolt on.

these are easily understood statments, and they may have been made in response to the common "net-wisdom" commentary on these topics, where folks that don't really know any better make such blanket statements as "a bolt on will never have as good a low b as a neck through" or "a 34" scale instrument will never have as good a low b as a 35" scale instrument".

in other words, i'd say these comments by JD should be taken more as "responses" to ways of thought than "pronouncements" about "the right way to do things".

i also don't see this as warranting the response it's getting here. mr. drozd has certainly not said anything wrong or incorrect.

+1 to all of the above...

 

[mikezimmerman]

Regardless of why Jerzy may have orginally posted his remarks, when they are copied and posted to a new thread in a completely different forum "out of the blue" with no context, they come across as "pronouncements"--more by RAM than by Jerzy, really. That, I think is why they are generating the response they are.

Do we really need yet another "34 inch vs. 35 inch scale" thread, or yet another "bolt-on vs. neck-through" thread? Is there really any doubt at this point that there are differing opinions, experiences, and preferences regarding those design choices?

Or is this thread merely intended to point out that people sometimes buy things because they seem "fashionable" or "the next big thing"?

Mike

 

[NickyBass]

If you guys really want Jerzy to expand and clarify certain points, then why not just go over to the Drozd forums instead of pointing out the lack of explaination here? It's not really fair to dismiss his theories here without his input.

If you ask 10 builders about any topic, I'm sure that you'll get 10 different answers...or at least 8