Did they send me mislabelled short scale strings?

[paulraphael]

Ok, I figured it out. Juststrings.com had the wrong product information. D'Addario says, as do all of you:

"Scale length refers to the distance between the bridge and the nut. Short scale basses have a scale length of less than 30", medium scale basses run from 30" to 33", long scale basses are the most common with a scale length of 34", and super long scale basses have a scale length of 35" or greater."

So indeed I need long scale, and juststrings.com needs to fixt their product description.

 

[RandomKaren]

Then there are the one-off or odd sizes like 33" or a Rick's 33 1/4" or the Gibson Ripper 34 1/2" scale, which either need the size-up or specialty strings for those basses.

I have standard long scale La Bella strings on my 33 /14" scale Ric 4003.

 

[Jeff Scott]

Then there are the one-off or odd sizes like 33" or a Rick's 33 1/4" or the Gibson Ripper 34 1/2" scale, which either need the size-up or specialty strings for those basses.

I have basses with 33 1/4" and 34 1/2" scale lengths. Standard long scale strings work perfectly on both.

 

[paulraphael]

Juststrings.com is sending me a new set. They say:

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. After some research it seems D'Addario is the source of the confusion, but we absolutely understand why it would not be clear and we are working on a good way to reword the bass length descriptions on the D'Addario bass pages.

What I mean is that the description you see on our site was provided by D'Addario, however, they tend to use bass scale length and string scale length instead of saying something like bass scale length and winding length as other brands do.

Our site has "Fits medium scale basses with a string scale length of up to 34” inches” and it seems very obvious that customers might read that as overall bass scale length since most other brands would word it that way.

Honestly, I had to wrap my head around it myself, but I agree that it definitely needs to be clearer. GHS also uses confusing wording; each brand has their own little quirks.

 

[michael_t]

GHS also uses confusing wording...

Any examples of this?

GHS is one of the companies who are very clear and upfront about their bass strings in terms of winding material, construction, type of winding, type of core wire, AND WINDING LENGTH. All the info is right on their website.

 

[paulraphael]

Any examples of this?

GHS is one of the companies who are very clear and upfront about their bass strings in terms of winding material, construction, type of winding, type of core wire, AND WINDING LENGTH. All the info is right on their website.

I don't know ... just quoting the nice lady at juststrings.com who is working to fix this.

 

[Captain Chaos]

 

[GIBrat51]

Let us all repeat the mantra:
1) measure from the string anchor to the tuner side of the nut;
2) measure from the string anchor to the middle of the tuner post for the lowest string;
3) purchase a set of strings where the winding length or speaking length of the string is between these two numbers.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the bass is a long scale bass, and these measurements will be roughly 35" and 37" respectively. So regular long scale strings are what this bass needs. The OP purchased the wrong set of strings. He can sell them on the forum.

^^THIS^^ times about eleventy billion. If you have enough basses of different scale lengths - and types - and buy enough different strings for them - and change them yourself? You will eventually learn what fits what - the hard (and expensive) way (ask me how I know... ) In the long run, @iiipopes advice is a lot easier - and, much, much less expensive...

 

[Tim Skaggs]

JustStrings seems to try to do the right thing in most cases. Good for them and you in this case. Your string sizing training advanced significantly with this experience….

 

[Iristone]

I always wonder why 'long scale' isn't just called 'regular scale'. Most basses on the market are 34" scale, and most of the rest are 30.5". It makes sense if they just call 34" 'regular scale', and 32" 'indermediate scale'. Just like 45-105 are called 'regular gauge', with 50-110 'medium gauge'.

 

[Pier_]

I always wonder why 'long scale' isn't just called 'regular scale'. Most basses on the market are 34" scale, and most of the rest are 30.5". It makes sense if they just call 34" 'regular scale', and 32" 'indermediate scale'. Just like 45-105 are called 'regular gauge', with 50-110 'medium gauge'.

that's because of history

the 34" scale, despite being the first "electric bass guitar" scale, wasn't the most used back then. in the late 50's and during the 60's there were more 30" scale basses (Gibson EB series, Hofner, Danelectro and many cheaper replicas), compared to a couple of Fenders.

so string's world was mostly divided in "short" and "long".

today we consider the Fender scale the standard one, but it wasn't back then.

 

[Iristone]

that's because of history

the 34" scale, despite being the first "electric bass guitar" scale, wasn't the most used back then. in the late 50's and during the 60's there were more 30" scale basses (Gibson EB series, Hofner, Danelectro and many cheaper replicas), compared to a couple of Fenders.

so string's world was mostly divided in "short" and "long".

today we consider the Fender scale the standard one, but it wasn't back then.

But there still weren't many 32" basses to warrant the 'medium' label, though?

 

[Iristone]

Gibson EB series, Hofner, Danelectro

I happen to really like these 3 bass designs! So I'm aware of the prevalence of 'short scale'. Some of these basses need 'medium' scale strings, though, and I wonder if there's a better naming to take account of these?

 

[HaphAsSard]

But there still weren't many 32" basses to warrant the 'medium' label, though?

See post #16 above, by yours truly, Chop T. Liver:

32" scale (or thereabouts) basses weren't a thing for most of the classic, Rise of the Electric Bass age.*
So all you got was long and short, neither of which was the undisputed standard: Fender easily prevailed in terms of the number of units sold, shorties as far as the number of existing models in the market.
This had two consequences:
- 34" took some years to reach the point when it could be called "standard"; furthermore, it couldn't be called "medium" because 35" and 36" scale weren't a thing (they are still a minority, after all)
- when 32" scale finally appeared (in tiny but statistically relevant examples) alongside the historically-established long (34") and short (30"), calling it "medium" was pretty much inevitable.
The whole scale length naming system could well have been, and still could be revised, along the lines you propose, but it happens to have not.



* [apart from some Burns of London models, and possibly sporadic others (there weren't many around, and I'm willing to bet they were thought of as just "short scale" back then)]