• 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.

Flats do not work on shorties

#41
DavyR said:
I've known about this for decades from repair men, players, and my own ears. There's tons of info on this. With only a quick 10 minute search I found many references. Here's a few. I'm sure there are better articles than these. I'll keep looking. Please feel free to knock yourself out, prove it to yourself, and then report back with your findings so others can learn.

Link Removed
Another difference in long scale and short scale models is the tonal quality. Because the scale length influences the tonal value due to the tension of the string at a certain pitch, the tonal quality on 5 string bass guitars is enhanced with a longer scale neck because it gives better sound to the lowest string. On short scale models, the G string will sing out and the tonal quality is perfectly acceptable.
Bass Guitar Scale Length – Stretching Too Far? | The Bass Guitar Blog
The long scale 34 inch bass dominates as the standard these days for a range of reasons. A longer scale length means higher tension and/or thinner strings can be used, generally producing a better tone. Intonation is also less tricky at longer scale lengths (keeping the bass in tune across different notes).
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed])
With regard to tone, a longer scale "brightness" or cleaner overtones and more separated harmonics versus a shorter scale which favors "warmth" or more muddy overtones. According to Dave Hunter's "Tone Manual" (2011), each scale length has its characteristic sound and tone, which is individual from other sounds in the tone chain: strings, pickups, pedals, amplifiers, speakers, and cabinets.
Click to expand...

The statement I responded to was "Physics proves that short scale basses do not intonate correctly, or as well, as long scale basses."

There are three clear assertions in this:

First, that short scale basses do not intonate correctly. I disagree, and the quotations above do not support the statement.

Second, that short scale basses do not intonate as well as long scale basses. This may be the truth, but the quotations above do not support it, and there is also a meaningful question of whether any difference in intonation is audible or meaningful.

Further, the statement clearly asserts that Physics (and I assume this means either the laws of physics or tests which can be performed based on the principles of physics, and from which evidence can be generated) PROVES both of the other assertions.

None of the links you provided cite more than opinion. There are no measured tests, no evidence based in physics, no scientific evidence at all. There is opinion, yes. That's not proof based in physics.

And none of the text cited indicates that the authors said "Physics proves that short scale basses do not intonate correctly...".

The text cited does say that longer scale basses are easier to intonate, but that's not a statement that short scales do not intonate correctly. In fact, the first quotation says "On short scale models, the G string will sing out and the tonal quality is perfectly acceptable."

The quotations provided don't even support the second half of the original statement: ""Physics proves that short scale basses do not intonate...as well, as long scale basses."

If you want to assert that "In my opinion based on experience, short scale basses do not intonate correctly, or as well, as long scale basses," I won't argue with your opinion. However, you have presented no evidence based in physics, so your statement is not supported.

These are the kinds of unfounded, unsupported assertions for which I return papers.

I realize I may be over-reacting. However, when someone makes claims in a public forum which purport to bear the weight of science but which lack any supporting evidence, it bothers me and I feel that it's important to point out the unsupported nature of the assertions.
 
#42
The writer of that article is probably one of those sustain freaks who thinks only notes that last longer than 15 seconds sound good. Probably plays a neck-thru-body dealio. Whatever.
 
#43
I dont think the OP is really talking intonation guys he is talking about overtones from the flats on a SS. I will agree flats on a SS or full scale do have a bit of honking or overtones to them vs say rounds, but thats part of a flat wound on any bass . Is it an issue to me? no, it's part of the beauty of flats IMO.

On the subject of intonation how importent is it? We all know you have to get it as close as possible but there are some strings that are funny (TIs) Even when I have set the intonation played a gig and came back to check it, intonation has been off a little from where it was set before. I understand trying to get intonation right and the scale should make no diff what so ever. I also still agree flats work on a SS just fine or there would be allot of players from years ago crying out about it before now.
 
#45
Pseudo science is one thing I find extremely annoying, and this thread probably sets the TB record for it.

I have a Gretsch, Hagstrom, Guild, Epiphone, 2 Squiers Jags, Rogue. All are shorties, and everyone either has flats or tapewounds on it. Each and every one has the intonation set up properly.

I just can't buy into the short scales inherently have intonation problems that can be proven by physical science. I'd love to see the tests, criteria used, results, etal. Not happening.
 
#46
Some folks just don't want to admit that it could be them and not the bass or strings. But here's something someone very wise once told me...if you think it's the bass, 999 times out of 1000 it ain't the bass.
 
#48
DavyR said:
I agree with you! Physics proves that short scale basses do not intonate correctly, or as well, as long scale basses. That's why basses have long scales. That said, I am a short scale player and I know exactly what you mean about flats on short scale basses. I've stated this out here before. Something just doesn't sound right with flats on a short scale bass! That's one of the reasons why I switched to rounds and the tone world opened up for me. Wow! I couldn't believe it. I used RotoSound Swing Bass 66 rounds sets for over a decade and recently switched to LaBella Deep Talkin' rounds. If you want a deader sound, palm mute and tear away. Best of both worlds and more versatile. I seldom look back to flats but do have a 3rd bass set up with flats for fun, etc. But, my go-to bass has rounds!
Click to expand...

You do realise a 34" scale electric bass is already "short scale", if you look at a double bass?

:rolleyes:
 
#50
Hi again dear bassfriends,

Well I eventually ended up finding what was wrong: it was the strings ! (too old and too worn). I thought it was a relatively new set of Daddario Chromes, but in fact they were old GHS flatwounds (with purple wraps at their end). So I put a fresh set of Daddario Chromes, did some intonation settings and now the bass just sings ! It's downright perfect.

Goes to show what I already knew: strings do not age homogeneously across their length: there are sections that age faster than others (micro cracks, sections of permanent plastic deformation...) and as a result it turns out as if the string's gauge wasn't regualrly distributed across the string anymore. This means, depending on which fret you play a note, the string won't be consistent in terms of intonation, and the overtones won't fit to the fundamental and between them anymore - hence the ugly out-of-tune sound although the tuner says the note is right.

So here's the rule in case your intonation is wrong:
- set the action right (truss rod & saddles height)
- set the intonation right (saddles axial position)
if the intonation is still wrong to the ears ...CHANGE YOUR STRINGS and go thru the process again.

At least, it worked perfectly for me. Hope this helps....

cheez :D
 
#52
mcnach said:
You do realise a 34" scale electric bass is already "short scale", if you look at a double bass?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Of course, and if you would read, and think, a bit you would see that this is part of the whole point. One of the articles above talks about how the scale length had to be lengthened to accommodate the addition of a low "B" string, for example.
 
#53
fjadams said:
Pseudo science is one thing I find extremely annoying, and this thread probably sets the TB record for it.

I have a Gretsch, Hagstrom, Guild, Epiphone, 2 Squiers Jags, Rogue. All are shorties, and everyone either has flats or tapewounds on it. Each and every one has the intonation set up properly.

I just can't buy into the short scales inherently have intonation problems that can be proven by physical science. I'd love to see the tests, criteria used, results, etal. Not happening.
Click to expand...
Tough crowd out here! LOL! If this gets you that 'annoyed' then about 90% of all posts out here must also. Lighten up!
Are you a scientist, BTW?
 
#54
Pilgrim said:
The statement I responded to was "Physics proves that short scale basses do not intonate correctly, or as well, as long scale basses."

There are three clear assertions in this:

First, that short scale basses do not intonate correctly. I disagree, and the quotations above do not support the statement.

Second, that short scale basses do not intonate as well as long scale basses. This may be the truth, but the quotations above do not support it, and there is also a meaningful question of whether any difference in intonation is audible or meaningful.

Further, the statement clearly asserts that Physics (and I assume this means either the laws of physics or tests which can be performed based on the principles of physics, and from which evidence can be generated) PROVES both of the other assertions.

None of the links you provided cite more than opinion. There are no measured tests, no evidence based in physics, no scientific evidence at all. There is opinion, yes. That's not proof based in physics.

And none of the text cited indicates that the authors said "Physics proves that short scale basses do not intonate correctly...".

The text cited does say that longer scale basses are easier to intonate, but that's not a statement that short scales do not intonate correctly. In fact, the first quotation says "On short scale models, the G string will sing out and the tonal quality is perfectly acceptable."

The quotations provided don't even support the second half of the original statement: ""Physics proves that short scale basses do not intonate...as well, as long scale basses."

If you want to assert that "In my opinion based on experience, short scale basses do not intonate correctly, or as well, as long scale basses," I won't argue with your opinion. However, you have presented no evidence based in physics, so your statement is not supported.

These are the kinds of unfounded, unsupported assertions for which I return papers.

I realize I may be over-reacting. However, when someone makes claims in a public forum which purport to bear the weight of science but which lack any supporting evidence, it bothers me and I feel that it's important to point out the unsupported nature of the assertions.
Click to expand...
Right, the "G" string's tonal quality is perfectly acceptable (as opposed to the other strings!!!). Since it's the highest pitch it should!!! This supports the topic and is one piece of evidence.

So, you have a science degree? Great! As a true scientist, however, wouldn’t you want to pursue this topic? There MUST be something to it if players, luthiers, etc. believe so. And, there is some evidence. Nothing like being on the cutting edge of a new discovery or definition of a phenomenon.

I’m still looking into this and hope to add more, later. Is this going to turn me away from playing the 5 short scale bass guitars that I own? No. Peace man!
 
#56
DavyR said:
Right, the "G" string's tonal quality is perfectly acceptable (as opposed to the other strings!!!). Since it's the highest pitch it should!!! This supports the topic and is one piece of evidence.

So, you have a science degree? Great! As a true scientist, however, wouldn’t you want to pursue this topic? There MUST be something to it if players, luthiers, etc. believe so. And, there is some evidence. Nothing like being on the cutting edge of a new discovery or definition of a phenomenon.

I’m still looking into this and hope to add more, later. Is this going to turn me away from playing the 5 short scale bass guitars that I own? No. Peace man!
Click to expand...

No, he's just some random internet dumbazz. Probably a new or puppet account :rolleyes:

Also, people believing something doesn't necessarily make it true. See: de-tensioning strings before shipping, pliability vs. scale length vs. "tightness", under powering et. al.
 
#57
DavyR said:
Of course, and if you would read, and think, a bit you would see that this is part of the whole point. One of the articles above talks about how the scale length had to be lengthened to accommodate the addition of a low "B" string, for example.
Click to expand...

B string works fine on 34" scale for me.
I can read, so don't accuse others of being smartarses when you do exactly the same, my friend. LOL.
 
#60
PSPookie said:
No, he's just some random internet dumbazz. Probably a new or puppet account :rolleyes:

Also, people believing something doesn't necessarily make it true. See: de-tensioning strings before shipping, pliability vs. scale length vs. "tightness", under powering et. al.
Click to expand...

Interesting theory in sentence one, since I know that you and I have seen each other's posts on here for some years.

I agree with sentence two. That sword has two edges, one of which is the original thread title: "Flats do not work on shorties." People believe this even when it's wrong. Being humans, players and luthiers are all subject to the same behavior of believing something whether it's true or not.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back