• 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.

Double Bass Are longer string lengths still necessary?

paulunger

paulunger

Supporting Member
Sep 1, 2002
557
353
Fort Worth, Texas
www.flipsidetheband.com
#1
I realize that there is correlation between the string length, bridge and f hole placements, body size, etc. But given the advancements in the modern steel string and others techniques, is the "standard" 41-42" string length still necessary?
Can a modern bass still be as effective with a 39" or shorter string length?
I have been experimenting with tuning in fifths and have found that shortening the traditional string length greatly improves my technique.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paps
#2
I'm not very well educated in Bass lore, but I would suggest that the 41-42" string length is a more modernized "standard." You often see older basses that have been modified in various ways to get the string length shortened, and they end up around that.

I suppose a well-designed and built bass could be built to play and sound good at 39" or shorter, but I don't think you could effectively modify a bass to that mensure without seriously upsetting the geometry.
 
#3
I would love to hear from Ken, Jeff, Arnold or other experienced luthiers out there.
Is there any reason not to make basses with a shorter string length? Am I mistaken in assuming that the 40+ inch string lengths were used in the past to help raise the gut strings up to a proper tension? And that with the higher tension, and smaller gauge of modern steel strings this added string length is not as crucial? Or is the string length strictly determined by large size of the basses body and where the f holes are cut?
If I were to commision you to make a bass today with a string length of 37", would you expect a drastic alteration in the sound and/or playability? How would you do it?

Thanks.
 
#7
Thanks for the anecdotes. Still doesn't answer my question (not trying to be rude).
I've heard basses (Max Dimmoff's for one) that have a 38" string length that sound incredible and others that have a 44" string length sound wimpy. As we know, many factors go into the construction of a bass to make it sound optimal. My question is, "If the body (the box) is still the same and everthing else being equal, do we still need the longer string length? Is the longer string length such an important and crucial component of the basses' sound that it has to be there?" or is just a matter of "depends on the bass"?
If it is only a matter of bigger and longer is better, then we should all start playing the octobass. The double bass itself seems like a host of comprimises, trail and error and voodoo. There are so many shapes and sizes of basses out there, compared to the other string instruments - which are much more standardized. And since the construction of basses are not standardized (like the other string instruments generally are), then why have we settled on a 41-42" string length? Does this string length standard "have to be"? or is it just what we are use to?
I'm not making the case to turn the bass into the cello. I just would like to know, from someone who is more knowledgable, how string length figures into the overall picture.
Thanks.
 
#8
Well, Again no expert, but I know a little about strings.

The given pitch of a vibrating string is the result of the string's length, mass and tension. So, we all know that a 38" string vibrating at 440 must have some combination of greater mass and/or lower tension than a 41.5" string vibrating at 440.

Perhaps it has been determined over time that a less massive and/ or higher tension string allows for better resonance of the instrument, all other things equal of course. This is absolutely the argument I have been presented in regards to the larger piano. I have never discussed it concerning bass.

I am fully on board with the desire to have a shorter string length. It just makes some sense that it would have caught on already if someone had gained any success with it.
 
#11
Maybe if you have better technique that will make more difference than a few inches.

I have thought about this a little bit, and it seems like the vibration of a string only has so much to do with it. There are so many sympathetic things going on that I would have to say it depends a lot more on the bass and the player than the string length.

I encourage you to use a shorter string length if it feels like the thing to do. You can always change to a bigger bass if that seems like the thing to do later. You don't seem like a guy who lets convention get in the way of your innovation.

Let her rip.
 
#12
paulunger said:
... I've heard basses (Max Dimmoff's for one) that have a 38" string length that sound incredible and others that have a 44" string length sound wimpy. ... My question is, "If the body (the box) is still the same and everthing else being equal, do we still need the longer string length? Is the longer string length such an important and crucial component of the basses' sound that it has to be there?" or is just a matter of "depends on the bass"?
Click to expand...

The size of the body of the bass will affect the optimal string length. The bigger the body, the longer the string length. That is why when you look at a table of string lengths vs 3/4, 7/8, 4/4 basses you see progressively longer string lengths. As I understand it "solo" basses often have shorter string lengths, 38" - 39". They may also have smaller bodies. Does Max Dimmoff play a solo bass? I would also think that solo bassists (i) spend more time up in the higher registers, for which shorter strings may produce optimal tone (ii) may play faster passages, which are more easily executed with shorter strings.

Shorter string lengths, although making it easier to get around the finger board, but may produce less sound volume and orchestral players always want beaucoup volume. There is another factor, I believe, involved in this. As the strings get thicker, their ability to flex at the bridge and at your finger tip (or the nut) is reduced. This reduces the sonic purity of the fundamental and harmonics. Some bass guitarists have in recent years gone to larger string lengths for basses with low Bs in order to get a better sounding instrument down low. Also, they sometimes use tapered, or open core, strings which gives a more piano like tone. (I believe this is improved purity of the fundamental and harmonics.)

The above is how I understand it.

Jim
 
#13
paulunger said:
My question is, "If the body (the box) is still the same and everthing else being equal, do we still need the longer string length?
Click to expand...
In a nutshell, yes. If you stick a short neck on a normal length body, all the notes move down toward the bridge. Now you have an unplayable instrument, because you can't reach or find the normal "guideposts". If you move the f holes up toward the neck, and therefore the bridge as well, now you've got the vibration engine way off-center. Either will destroy an otherwise good bass. The question you might want to ask is, "Can a bass be designed with a shorter vibrating string length that plays well and sounds good?". My answer would be "yes", with some conditions. It would need to be in proportion, and care taken to keep the internal air volume fairly large. The plates would need to be a bit thinner, and thicker gauge strings would need to be used. The low notes will still sound a bit different than those of a normal length bass, though.
 
#16
Interesting observation. One of the reasons I started thinking about this is because one of my section mates has a nice 19th century Italian bass, with a 38" string length. The bass would probably be classified as a 5/8 or small 3/4, but the ribs are above average in depth. The bass does not look or feel unusual.
I've also seen a lot of basses being made with smaller upper bouts and sloping shoulders that compensate with a slightly larger lower bout (Rabbaths Quinol, for example).
Thanks again Arnold. Of course, changing the string length will change our landmarks (where the "D" falls and the first octave "G", etc) but these can be compensated for in the design. Your mention of the plates is very interesting. I'm not sure I quite understand it. Would you mind elaborating?
The issue then seems to be the danger of losing the boom on the bottom end of the bass as you shorten the string length. Then, I guess, it becomes a catch-22 as to how much difference in sound you're willing to accept.
Do you think a 38" string length really needs a higher gauge string? String manufacturers have been getting pretty good at making smaller gauge steel strings, with higher tension in the last 20 years. Which was part of my original query. Does the fact that we now have higher tension steel strings, with smaller gauges, help minimize the sound we might lose when you lower the string length from 42" to 38"?
The more years I play and the more basses I hear, the more I feel that it is all about the "box". There is such a wide range of sizes and styles and bigger doesn't always mean better. It is more about "quality" of sound.
 
#17
Chasarms said:
I'm not very well educated in Bass lore, but I would suggest that the 41-42" string length is a more modernized "standard." You often see older basses that have been modified in various ways to get the string length shortened, and they end up around that.

I suppose a well-designed and built bass could be built to play and sound good at 39" or shorter, but I don't think you could effectively modify a bass to that mensure without seriously upsetting the geometry.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree with Chasarms on this one. Specifically addressing some of the relations Arnold references on my own bass: My bass has a 43 inch string that some have suggested that I shorten. This is the same length of the table between the neck block and end block. Shortening the strings would definitely decrease the vibrational mass and reduce the power behind the pluck and require looser tension or heavier, less flexible strings. Not only that, but it will also move the harmonics away from their intended placements. Specifically, the "C" on the D string currently lands precisely where the fingerboard leaves the neck at the overstand. So you have two built-in references that will be moved, the "D" (fifth on the G string) at the heel and the "C" at the overstand. The Helmholz frequency of the bass is "C" and so is the tap tone of the neck and scroll assembly. Are these geometric relations to the body and harmonic relations to the instrument's resonances accidents and coincidence or intentions of the Markneukirchen-trained Master that built it?- take your guess. I'm betting on the Master. Is it superstition to build it this way or knowledge? I'm betting it is knowledge.

If it was me, I'd just get a bass built originally with the string length you prefer. There are nice basses in a number of mensurs. 37" is kind of short though. What's wrong with a cello? If you want to tune in fifths and play fast passages, I think a cello is the way to go. Check out Dave Holland's "Life Cycles". If you want to have really big low notes, they start slow, are further apart and are best played on a big old monster DB. At some point it becomes an either / or situation. BTW, Edgar Meyer uses a 5/8 size instrument. The whole thing is smallish and sounds fine.
 
#18
paulunger said:
Your mention of the plates is very interesting. I'm not sure I quite understand it. Would you mind elaborating?
Click to expand...

Two main factors drive the output of the bass' body; the size of the enclosure, and the thickness (and graduation layout) of the vibrating parts. (Arching has an effect as well, of course) A larger bass will generally need slightly thicker plates because there is a broader area of unsupported pressure. A smaller bass can be built somewhat thinner because there is a narrower and shorter area of unsupported pressure. Without taking this into consideration, the builder can end up with a smaller, stiff and unresponsive bass(too thick), or a larger, collapsing bass (too thin). I see hundreds of basses in my shop, and I have been concerned for a while about certain makers who ignore the long-term structural needs of their instruments to create an immediate strong tone. These basses are generally large, with thin tops that start deforming within months of being strung up. Sorry, I'm way off-topic...:rollno:
 
#19
arnoldschnitzer said:
I see hundreds of basses in my shop, and I have been concerned for a while about certain makers who ignore the long-term structural needs of their instruments to create an immediate strong tone. These basses are generally large, with thin tops that start deforming within months of being strung up. Sorry, I'm way off-topic...:rollno:
Click to expand...


C'mon Arnold, you can always do a restoration every 15-20 years.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back