IvanBassist
Commercial User
- Jun 8, 2008
- 3,744
- 11,128
- Disclosures
- Content Manager at Darkglass Electronics, Dingwall Guitars Artist
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.
Dingwall Owners Club
- Thread starter FroggyOne2
- Start date
This is a good point that you make about the string spacing. The Dingwall specification page shows that the bridge spacing on an ABII (5-string) is 18mm between strings. While I'm certain this is an accurate measurement on Sheldon's part, 18mm string spacing will feel tighter on a multi-scale instrument than it will on a single-scale instrument because it actually is.
That said...Dingwalls are fantastic instruments.
I understand those 18mm are measured between the bridge anchor on the shorter string it's the perpendicular point on the adjacent longer string, not between two adjacent string anchors. The string spacing is actually 18mm.
If nothing else, in theory the string spacing between the longer strings at the first cross-string pluckable position should be less than the spacing between the shorter strings because strings get closer towards the neck; however, it's so minor it's not noticeable. I haven't felt it. It's theory.
The string spacing is measured perpendicular to the centerline at roughly the witness point of the A-string.
I'm not sure about the technical details. To me, the spacing gives the right-hand feel a lot like several of the fives that I owned before going to "fully" spaced fives. I don't own a four string and haven't in several years, but my main go-to fiver for a LONG time was a Modulus Q5 (another one coming!!! Woo Hoo!!!!) That bass had tighter spacing as did the L2500 I had before that.
After the Q5, I went through a Fender ADPV, Fender RB5, Fender ASJV, and two NYC Sadowskys. All have the 19 mm spacing.
This bass has been a pleasant reminder of how comfortable straight-up fingerstyle is with the tighter spacing. I just seem to play more quickly and cleanly. I know many say it is easier to slap the wide-spaced basses. Maybe so, but I find that I am equally bad at slapping either which leads to another aside about the Dingwall. This is the first bass that I have ever owned that I can get a really clean, balanced slap sound out of a slapped open B. I know that doesn't come into play much, but it's nice to have.
So, a bit more review since this is the "Thread of Record" here at TB for Dingwall.
At Sheldon's suggestion, I played around quite a bit with the passive options. To my ears, it was a wonderful demonstration of a few points. First, the bass has a ton of natural low-end. I am very impressed with the punch, focus and articulation of the bass even in passive mode. It's pretty impressive and somewhat negates my long-held assumption that active electronics were mostly essential in a five string. You could remove the preamp from this bass and still have very acceptable bass. I don't know that I have owned too many fivers I could say that about. Also, it shows that the Glockenklang preamp is actually pretty transparent apart from significant EQ adjustments. The bass has the same general character in either mode. It's just a little less aggressive, especially in series.
A few other observations:
- To me, the fanned fretboard is simply not an issue. Granted I do not chord much at all, and I probably don't play nearly as much above the 14-15 fret as some players may. But, I never even blinked with it. The fret spacing below the 7th fret is wide enough that you can pretty much finger parallel anyway and stay within the spacing. From about 7-12, the spacing is pretty parallel anyway, so it is also a non-issue. Above there, I haven't done much, but it hasn't been a big deal.
- The bass has one of the most balanced fingerboards I have played in a great while. I had always enjoyed the fact with my Q5 that I was never afraid to go to the lower strings around 10-12 fret or higher. This bass is very much the same. Those higher notes on the B and E strings are extremely clean and resonant. No "warbling" or mud whatsoever. It really gives you options that some basses don't. I was never comfortable playing the B up there with the Fenders. It was not at all balanced with the other notes and tended phase in and out of tune. This was the case, but to a lesser degree, even with the Sadowsky basses.
- The neck is VERY petite. This is probably the most difficult adjustment for me so far. The whole bass is very light anyway. It's lighter than my Sadowskys which were around 8.5, so it feels a bit wimpy on my 6'3", 235 lb. frame, yet it sounds like a giant BEAST, so I have that contrast to adapt to. The neck specifically is just small. Narrow as well as shallow. So much in fact, I am surprised at how stable it is so far. It must be more graphite than wood!!! It has already demanded a bit more discipline on my part with left-hand technique. There's not much mass there to help you to hold form.
Anyway, I'm loving it.
Thanks Sheldon!!!
BurningSkies
CRAZY BALDHEAD
- Feb 20, 2005
- 27,956
- 20,348
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Dingwall Guitars
I'm not sure about the technical details. To me, the spacing gives the right-hand feel a lot like several of the fives that I owned before going to "fully" spaced fives. I don't own a four string and haven't in several years, but my main go-to fiver for a LONG time was a Modulus Q5 (another one coming!!! Woo Hoo!!!!) That bass had tighter spacing as did the L2500 I had before that.
After the Q5, I went through a Fender ADPV, Fender RB5, Fender ASJV, and two NYC Sadowskys. All have the 19 mm spacing.
This bass has been a pleasant reminder of how comfortable straight-up fingerstyle is with the tighter spacing. I just seem to play more quickly and cleanly. I know many say it is easier to slap the wide-spaced basses. Maybe so, but I find that I am equally bad at slapping either which leads to another aside about the Dingwall. This is the first bass that I have ever owned that I can get a really clean, balanced slap sound out of a slapped open B. I know that doesn't come into play much, but it's nice to have.
So, a bit more review since this is the "Thread of Record" here at TB for Dingwall.
At Sheldon's suggestion, I played around quite a bit with the passive options. To my ears, it was a wonderful demonstration of a few points. First, the bass has a ton of natural low-end. I am very impressed with the punch, focus and articulation of the bass even in passive mode. It's pretty impressive and somewhat negates my long-held assumption that active electronics were mostly essential in a five string. You could remove the preamp from this bass and still have very acceptable bass. I don't know that I have owned too many fivers I could say that about. Also, it shows that the Glockenklang preamp is actually pretty transparent apart from significant EQ adjustments. The bass has the same general character in either mode. It's just a little less aggressive, especially in series.
A few other observations:
I have one other neck comment and perhaps my only actual complaint about the design. I understand the absence of a kerf joint with the fanned fret design because of the angled nut. But, the heel off the headstock invades a bit too much of the playable neck. If I drop down the neck until my thumb hits the heel, my first finger is not behind the fret on the B string to correctly stop a low C. You either have to allow your hand to shift ahead of your thumb or stretch your index finger. Neither is ideal. It would seem that they could get away with easing that heel a bit or even shifting it down some. I would think that it would only take 3-4 mm to make the a big difference. I am sure it is something that I can adapt to easily enough, but right now, it's a pretty glaring issue. I don't know enough about bass design to know why this was done this way. I am willing to accept that it was simply a necessary compromise, but you can't make a bass with some of the best-sounding extended range notes in the business and then make them hard to get to!!! That's just mean!!!
- To me, the fanned fretboard is simply not an issue. Granted I do not chord much at all, and I probably don't play nearly as much above the 14-15 fret as some players may. But, I never even blinked with it. The fret spacing below the 7th fret is wide enough that you can pretty much finger parallel anyway and stay within the spacing. From about 7-12, the spacing is pretty parallel anyway, so it is also a non-issue. Above there, I haven't done much, but it hasn't been a big deal.
- The bass has one of the most balanced fingerboards I have played in a great while. I had always enjoyed the fact with my Q5 that I was never afraid to go to the lower strings around 10-12 fret or higher. This bass is very much the same. Those higher notes on the B and E strings are extremely clean and resonant. No "warbling" or mud whatsoever. It really gives you options that some basses don't. I was never comfortable playing the B up there with the Fenders. It was not at all balanced with the other notes and tended phase in and out of tune. This was the case, but to a lesser degree, even with the Sadowsky basses.
- The neck is VERY petite. This is probably the most difficult adjustment for me so far. The whole bass is very light anyway. It's lighter than my Sadowskys which were around 8.5, so it feels a bit wimpy on my 6'3", 235 lb. frame, yet it sounds like a giant BEAST, so I have that contrast to adapt to. The neck specifically is just small. Narrow as well as shallow. So much in fact, I am surprised at how stable it is so far. It must be more graphite than wood!!! It has already demanded a bit more discipline on my part with left-hand technique. There's not much mass there to help you to hold form.
Anyway, I'm loving it.
Thanks Sheldon!!!
[FONT="]I have an AB-1 (the passive, non-hollow, Alder/Maple) version of that design. And I agree with your assessment entirely. Its actually the closest youd get to an active bass as a passive instrument. [/FONT]
[FONT="]On the neck/headstock intersection I mostly agree. First off, Sheldons other designs do have compound angled headstock & kerf, so it is possible with the angled nut. The AB was intended to be (at one point) a compromise: keep cost down and quality high. You can see that it worked quite well. I always thought that the heel that youre talking about is the least graceful looking part of the bass. I find that my hand fits around it very comfortable, but with a straight-draw headstock theres not too much option. I always felt that it was well worth the design compromise for the great bass that the Afterburner is, and in terms of on-stage practicality, I never had any difficulties with it while playing down the neck.[/FONT]
If you look at the neck from the treble side you'll see why the headstock heel area extends so far on the bass side.
I appreciate your comments on this though as it helps to visualize things better. It's on my todo list to re-program the neck carves and I've been trying to wrap my head around how to leave enough meat on the treble side while creating more room on the bass side. The final solution has to fit with our current methods of sanding and or course look nice too. I'll figure it out.
I appreciate your comments on this though as it helps to visualize things better. It's on my todo list to re-program the neck carves and I've been trying to wrap my head around how to leave enough meat on the treble side while creating more room on the bass side. The final solution has to fit with our current methods of sanding and or course look nice too. I'll figure it out.
Sheldon,
While we are on the topic of string spacing, how are you measuring the nut width provided the information on your Dingwall Specifications page?
I am also wondering how much space you leave between the center of the outer strings and the edge of the nut/fingerboard.
While we are on the topic of string spacing, how are you measuring the nut width provided the information on your Dingwall Specifications page?
I am also wondering how much space you leave between the center of the outer strings and the edge of the nut/fingerboard.
Regarding that neck-headstock intersection, I've found it pretty neat. It's like an anchor point or a marker that helps with intonation down low. Maybe coincidentally, my index finger stands exactly on the low C when I touch that heel with my thumb. On a fretted bass, that might be a bit too close to the fret; with a fretless, it's so good I though it was a carefully planned feature, I loved it. Live and learn
As long as we're suggesting things: it might be a good idea, as far as fretlesses go, to put side markers just as if the neck were unlined. I'm not the first guy to wish for that. If you're playing in any environment with less than perfect lighting the fretlines become invisible, and the big side-markers just stand out - having them positioned between fretlines makes playing only more difficult.
Also this might but very useful: the same markers put between the D and the G strings on top of those "important" fretlines: the 3rd, 5th etc. That way you could visualize those important fretlines even in the dark, follow the "crookedness". You might as well go unlined in that case. Even better, position them in a way that they form an arc over an unlined fretboard, like on those bar-style markers. That would be sick... I'll Photoshop it.
instead of
instead of
The Sklar style front dots look cool Bocete, but the dots would work better if they were all between the D & G string, on the lines, on a fanned fretless.
You'd want one in the 1st fret too.
You'd want one in the 1st fret too.
I'll have to measure the jig to be really accurate but IIRC 3 mm on the treble side and 4-5 mm on the bass side.
Regarding that neck-headstock intersection, I've found it pretty neat. It's like an anchor point or a marker that helps with intonation down low. Maybe coincidentally, my index finger stands exactly on the low C when I touch that heel with my thumb. On a fretted bass, that might be a bit too close to the fret; with a fretless, it's so good I though it was a carefully planned feature, I loved it. Live and learn
As long as we're suggesting things: it might be a good idea, as far as fretlesses go, to put side markers just as if the neck were unlined. I'm not the first guy to wish for that. If you're playing in any environment with less than perfect lighting the fretlines become invisible, and the big side-markers just stand out - having them positioned between fretlines makes playing only more difficult.
Also this might but very useful: the same markers put between the D and the G strings on top of those "important" fretlines: the 3rd, 5th etc. That way you could visualize those important fretlines even in the dark, follow the "crookedness". You might as well go unlined in that case. Even better, position them in a way that they form an arc over an unlined fretboard, like on those bar-style markers. That would be sick... I'll Photoshop it.
Dots on the lines would be way better. But really you should opt for white plastic lines on a fanned fretless, mostly for the better visibility on the SIDE of the neck. The standard larger white dots work perfectly in between the frets with white lines.
One thing Sheldon that would help the visibility even more would be to polish the hazy epoxy on the side of the neck. On Bocete's bass, (my old fanned fretless) the combo of maple lines and hazy epoxy made for poor visibility in the 1st 4 fretlines, then they started to fade again around the 12th fret in med-low lighting. You suggested white plastic @ order time, in hindsight I should have listened.
One thing Sheldon that would help the visibility even more would be to polish the hazy epoxy on the side of the neck. On Bocete's bass, (my old fanned fretless) the combo of maple lines and hazy epoxy made for poor visibility in the 1st 4 fretlines, then they started to fade again around the 12th fret in med-low lighting. You suggested white plastic @ order time, in hindsight I should have listened.
That would definitely be more practical, but wouldn't look as cool
I feel it's important to have fingerboard markers near the G string near the nut and above the, say, 15th fret. That's where the fan is greater, so it's more important to have the side and the fingerboard markers further apart, to enhance precision. Near the middle of the neck, where the frets are almost perpendicular to the strings, it's affordable to have fingerboard markers closer to the B string. You might as well go without them, in theory. Because of that, I think Sklar dots might work, maybe almost to the same extent of having markers between the D and G strings all the way.
Regarding that neck-headstock intersection, I've found it pretty neat. It's like an anchor point or a marker that helps with intonation down low. Maybe coincidentally, my index finger stands exactly on the low C when I touch that heel with my thumb. On a fretted bass, that might be a bit too close to the fret; with a fretless, it's so good I though it was a carefully planned feature, I loved it. Live and learn
As long as we're suggesting things: it might be a good idea, as far as fretlesses go, to put side markers just as if the neck were unlined. I'm not the first guy to wish for that. If you're playing in any environment with less than perfect lighting the fretlines become invisible, and the big side-markers just stand out - having them positioned between fretlines makes playing only more difficult.
Also this might but very useful: the same markers put between the D and the G strings on top of those "important" fretlines: the 3rd, 5th etc. That way you could visualize those important fretlines even in the dark, follow the "crookedness". You might as well go unlined in that case. Even better, position them in a way that they form an arc over an unlined fretboard, like on those bar-style markers. That would be sick... I'll Photoshop it.
I'm really happy you like the idea.
I've tried to push it further but didn't really see it through: making several interleaving arrays of dots of different dot materials and sizes. Different materials didn't really achieve the effect, it looked tacky; maybe it would work on a colorful ziricote fretboard.
Each array having different marker size does seem to have potential, though: it becomes instinctive do isolate one array from another, so it doesn't look as if you need to connect the dots to get fretlines. Upon closer inspection, that becomes clear. It's like one of those duck-rabbit optical illusion things.
I find the same thing that Sheldon does about the neck intersection and the low C. Pretty much the perfect place to force my pointer finger right against the fret so that my little fingers can actually make the stretch to the Eb.
BurningSkies
CRAZY BALDHEAD
- Feb 20, 2005
- 27,956
- 20,348
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Dingwall Guitars
Awesome! I saw your email pics, but things have been crazy at work so I haven't had a chance to respond. The crossover looks nice and clean and careful, and I think you're really going to love this cabinet with your Dingwall. I know I love mine! But its a sickness, and soon you'll want the sub too.
