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.
fanned frets.. what the freak?
- Thread starter MM playerrrr EB
- Start date
JAUQO III-X
Inactive
Not to take anything away from Bud LeCompte but all fanned fretted instruments with more than one scale degree on it is a multi scale instrument.
I notice that you just joined TB, next time you discover something new please do a search first so that we don't have to read all the silly stuff directed toward you. Wake up and smell the coffee.
I put together a project bass with a Novax neck. It seriously took about 30 seconds to get used to it, and the bass is one of the best I've ever had. The fanfret is my main bass now.
TB is a Twilight Zone. I'll bet 95% of bass players haven't even heard of Sadowsky.
I've played the fanned frets. I was surprised how easy it was, notes way down low and chords up high the exception. I'm sure I could get used to it, but having also heard one live lots I see no compelling reason.
No slag on those who dig 'em, as I'm a big fan of Dingwall as a builder and fellow Canadian, I just have no need or desire to get used to something that ain't the norm or of any clear advantage to me (and I can think of several personal disadvantages).
I don't buy the piano similie at all. The scale is far more pronounced on pianos and they're acoustic instruments that strike the string with a fixed-position hammer. Factor amps, cabs, hand positioning, etc. and I doubt I - or perhaps anyone - could tell fanned from non-fanned in proper listening tests. If you want to argue ergonomics or cool looks, that's obviously different.
JAUQO III-X
Inactive
Do you mind sharing what those personal disadvantages are? and if not I'll respect your wishes.
Sure. Buying new basses, getting used to one format when the world is in the other should I wish to borrow a regular-fretted bass, play guitar, or play my other basses (I have a hard enough time functioning on fretboards I'm used to!), buying different scale strings sets (? I'm guessing). The stretch to the low F on my 35" Lakland I can notice is a bit awkward, and on the Dingwall it was much more so.
Biggest functional "con" for me is the positional difference from fretless, and that I found chording to be really awkward on fanned frets up high which much to my surprise I'm doing a lot of lately in one project. I respect and believe those who say they don't have a problem with chording on the fanned-frets, and maybe it'd become easy for me too, but after barely learning it one way I've got no reason to force a potentially difficult change.
I imagine they'd freak out guitarists too. I already get some guys complaining if I play a 5 or 6 string instead of tuning down to C#. They see my hand in a different place and their brains seize up. Actually, I could see something that looks so odd potentially costing the occasional gig.
Bottom line for me is I have nothing against them but nothing for them either. I "get" the advantages on paper, and even some potential real adantages for me, but I don't believe they're universally objective advantages just like I think it's wrong to say they're a dumb idea for everyone.
I'd love to support Dingwall & own one, I fully respect he marches to his own drum, and the bassist in a fave band of mine has played them for years & has a fantastic recorded tone (Wide Mouth Mason), but I ain't on board with the idea. Those "Torzal" twisted necks make more sense to me, but I wouldn't get one of those either unless I had a medical/physical need.
JAUQO III-X
Inactive
fwiw, I've had about four friends sit in at gigs on my 33"-36" five string. All but one are four string Fender or Lakland players and the B string seemed to be a bigger issue than the fanned frets. It's surprisingly easy to get used to. Also, regular strings work fine.
This is the way I see it:
The difference between string tones on a piano is only a half-step, while on an electric bass, it's a fourth, or five half-steps that's five-hundred percent of the piano's string-to-string difference.
Picture a piano tuned in fourths, and I think you'd see a piano with a scale length disparity much like on a Dingwall bass.
Look at a harp, for example. Harps are tuned diatonically, and look at how much the scale length varies on a harp. Even with the harp's largest string-to-string difference being only two half-steps (compared to the Dingwall's five), one can see how "fanned" the scale is:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Using a harp (or a theoretical fourths-tuned piano) as a model, the Dingwall's variable scale lengths make perfect sense to me.
budman
Commercial User
- Oct 7, 2004
- 1,785
- 106
- 62
- Disclosures
- Owner/Builder of LeCompte Electric Bass
The reason I call mine "multi-scale" is because "Fanned-Fret®" is a registered trandmark.
JAUQO III-X
Inactive
I can do the math. Can you bet me $10000 you can hear the difference once an amp, cab, mix, etc. gets involved?
Not being cheeky, I'm just saying what reads sensibly on paper doesn't necessarily transfer to reality/practicality either at all or in a significant enough amount to make the difference worthwhile ... at least to me.
Acoustic guitars have been around awhile with fixed lengths, for an alternate example. Pipe organ or a Leslie vs. Nord on a recording in a mix? Electric basses aren't acoustic instruments. I used to own a Porsche, but it didn't go very fast when stuck in rush hour traffic no matter how good the driver. There are other factors to consider with electric instruments and the reality of their usual applications and how their sounds get to the ears. Reality vs theoretical. There are no absolutes in this discussion, IMO.
I think if the significance with a Dingwall were only theoretical, they wouldn't have acheived such a following and the design wouldn't have made it past the prototype stage.
IMHO, I can't see a whole lot of use in the 4 string realm, but slap on a low B and a high C and I think you'd be able to tell. Are there 34" scale basses with a dropped A that will sound remotely as good as a Dingwall? Nope. I could also pretty much guarantee that a 37" scale high C string (and above) would sound pretty thin, probably not very usable.
I'm not saying the differences aren't real, I'm just saying they're not really practical for many players and audibly in most situations even less so.
For the "low C# theory" or slapping the low B through a 2x18 it might make a big difference, at least for the player in a tactile sense. For covering AC/DC through a 1x12, not so much, or if an instructor has one that's teaching kids that own a Squier starter pack it might just make it tougher.
For some people and some applications it's possibly "better", for some it ain't. No universal right or wrong. Despite the original post's sentiment, we can have some balance. I'm suggesting that "balance" includes not pretending the piano is really a valid direct comparsion, though it's a great way to illustrate the concept.
For the "low C# theory" or slapping the low B through a 2x18 it might make a big difference, at least for the player in a tactile sense. For covering AC/DC through a 1x12, not so much, or if an instructor has one that's teaching kids that own a Squier starter pack it might just make it tougher.
For some people and some applications it's possibly "better", for some it ain't. No universal right or wrong. Despite the original post's sentiment, we can have some balance. I'm suggesting that "balance" includes not pretending the piano is really a valid direct comparsion, though it's a great way to illustrate the concept.
I agree with you SMASH there are a ton of different factors to consider, and no, I probably could not tell the difference in a recording. That said, there are a lot of things I could likely not tell from a recording I think this is true of most of us, just look at the many blind sound tests on the forum comparing a real P Bass to a Variax, or a high-end Fender to an SX.
Where I can tell the Dingwall difference is in the string-to-string tension. This is one of those things I formerly pooh-poohed, but when I finally picked up a Dingwall, I was surprised how well-balanced it felt. It really is noticeable, and just feels "right". And no B I've ever played has even come close to what a Dingwall gave me. Could I tell the difference between a recording of a Dingwall and another bass, once compression, eq, and a ton of plug-ins, cabs and amp sims were added to the mix? Perhaps not, but then again, I'm not one of these people who claims to be able to hear the difference between a poly and a lacquer finish on a recording, either.
The importance of these things really get down to the player. What is a necessity to me might not mean beans to you, while a feature that is "indispensable" to you might be something I'd never notice. Different strokes for different folks.
I totally agree. The tactile difference is very evident. To a guy that's spent a couple decades refining his touch to compensate for the tension variances on a typical bass, that difference might not be a good thing.
I think it's a brilliant, logical idea that's a refreshing change from yet another J copy (and I'm a fan of J copies, including the Super J). There are lots of valid, and whimiscal, reasons why people might get on board ... or not.
I've seen lead vocalists fan guitar players frets while they were playing with no discernible effect on their tone.
While it is and (I'm pretty sure) will remain a niche market, I've played one briefly a couple of times and thought it sounded really good and played great.
The only thing standing between me and a Z2 is my current FDD (fund deficit disorder).
While it is and (I'm pretty sure) will remain a niche market, I've played one briefly a couple of times and thought it sounded really good and played great.
The only thing standing between me and a Z2 is my current FDD (fund deficit disorder).
