• 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.

Fodera: 34" w/ Extended B, or 35" Regular B???

#21
I'm still happy with my 35" fodera. I have fairly small hands, but I've been playing 35" scale for a little while now and it's begun to feel just as natural as 34" used to. I'm kind of skeptical about the extended peghead and string through body theory. It may have some effect but I don't think it's a night and day difference. Are you ordering a new bass???
 
#23
From the Fodera website:
. . .and the new special "Extended B" peghead design. The B string is exceptionally tighter and more responsive on this model.
Click to expand...

Seems like, if it was that much better, they wouldn't do it any other way.

While I won't say it has no effect, the whole "tighter" thing definitely sounds like a myth to me.
 
#24
Originally posted by funkycarnivore
I've got the 34" extended B and the B is kinda floppy. It sounds fine through an amp though. It makes the bass look like Gumby and it confuses me when I'm tuning another bass.

I'm not sure if it's a marketing thing, as there's no upcharge for the extended B peghead.
Click to expand...

i was hoping you'd chime in FunkyC.

have you tried a Fodie 35" lowB? how'd it fare? would you have gone with that?

btw, yea Beth, i'm *thinking* of ordering one. but only if i can sell some stuff i have pending this week.

besides, i got a fatty raise, and also, did "Joker's Ebay'athon" this past week, and finally got a HUGE chunk of loans and bills paid off. the leftover windfall presented themselves for such an opportunity. Mwahaha... ;)
 
#25
Hi!

I've had both. A 34" Fodera deluxe(set neck) and a 35" Fodera neckthrough. I thought they were both better that average. Both had good definition and not too floppy. I still prefer a Roscoe B or an F bass B. Funny thing, they are both bolt on construction. Go figure:)

Rob
 
#26
To those folks who think it makes no difference, do yourself a favor: take your jazz bass, replace the E string with a G string (so the nut slot doesn't need to be cut wider) and tune both G strings to pitch. What you'll find is that the G on the longer saddle-to-tuner run will absolutely be tighter than the standard G.

It's basic physics. Yeah the nut is stopping ths string from viabrating BUT longer strings still need to be tuned tighter to achieve the same pitch.
 
#27
Originally posted by Joelc73

It's basic physics. Yeah the nut is stopping ths string from viabrating BUT longer strings still need to be tuned tighter to achieve the same pitch.
Click to expand...

You are right that it is basic physics, but what you're saying isn't what the physics says. If the distance behind the nut had some effect on the tension, however you figure it would, it would be terrible to have to fret this bass. That would mean that the note produced at every fret would be not only a function of the distance from the fret to the bridge, but also of the distance from the fret to the tuner. This would throw the formula used to calculate fret placement out the window. Also, every unique tuner position would require a unique placement of the fret on the fretboard. This would also mean, that unless the tuner placement was calculated, which it isn't, the frets couldn't be parallel across the fretboard. A single fret would have to be in different places under each string.

What you are saying is not true.

Geoff
 
#28
More questions, cause it does not sound like there is a lot of evidence as to why people are making their opinion.

disclaimer. I don't necesarily think I am right, but 20 basses into it, I have seen things, and therefore have some beliefs, that physically make sense unless I am given a decent explanation otherwise.

The problem, played to many 34 with floppy b's played too many 35" with tight b's, usually it is almost like clockwork. What throws it off is my R bass which has the same scale length as a ken smith, but the position os the b is near the effective position on my mtd, and the headstock is angled, one of those should be the deciding factor in why the tension is real close to the MTD.

To people who say neck stiffness plays a part, I can't say you're wrong, but I see no (and some nerdy guys I have talked to agree) reason why that would be the case over what is said here.

The question I need answered: What is the difference is a 34" inch scale with an extended B string, and a 35" scale with a capo on the first fret.

Just tried it, my mtd still has a tight b.......
 
#29
Originally posted by Geoff St. Germaine


You are right that it is basic physics, but if what you are saying were true, fretting wouldn't change the pitch of the string.

What you are saying is not true.

Geoff
Click to expand...

?????

Fretting , and the nut, strictly impacts the wavelength produced out of the string, which is ALL about the note. That, as I see it, is the only real factor in nut placement.

Nut placement, in physics, really doesn't sound like it has much to do with the initial tension.

You said what he was saying is not true. What are the factors in producing string tension?
 
#30
Originally posted by lamarjones


?????

Fretting , and the nut, strictly impacts the wavelength produced out of the string, which is ALL about the note. That, as I see it, is the only real factor in nut placement.

Nut placement, in physics, really doesn't sound like it has much to do with the initial tension.

You said what he was saying is not true. What are the factors in producing string tension?
Click to expand...

Factors in producing string tension? String tension is whatever you set it at. I am not sure what you are asking, but for a given vibrating string length and a given fundamental frequency of vibration, there is only 1 tension on the non-vibrating string that will accomplish this.

Nut placement has everything to do with the initial tension required to get a string to vibrate at a given frequency or pitch. The frequency of the fundamental is a function of the linear mass density of the string,the length of the string and the tension on the string.

Keep asking away, I will try to clear up any questions you have for me on this.

Geoff
 
#31
Originally posted by lamarjones
More questions, cause it does not sound like there is a lot of evidence as to why people are making their opinion.

disclaimer. I don't necesarily think I am right, but 20 basses into it, I have seen things, and therefore have some beliefs, that physically make sense unless I am given a decent explanation otherwise.

The problem, played to many 34 with floppy b's played too many 35" with tight b's, usually it is almost like clockwork. What throws it off is my R bass which has the same scale length as a ken smith, but the position os the b is near the effective position on my mtd, and the headstock is angled, one of those should be the deciding factor in why the tension is real close to the MTD.

The tension may be close, but it isn't the same. Also, an angled headstock doesn't increase the tension required to tune the string to a B. It may reduce energy loss through the headstock, by reflecting more of the incoming wave from the string.

To people who say neck stiffness plays a part, I can't say you're wrong, but I see no (and some nerdy guys I have talked to agree) reason why that would be the case over what is said here.

No one that I have ever seen has said neck stiffness changes the tension required to tune a string. All the arguments I have heard is that it reduces dead notes and choking, probably because the neck deflects less when the string vibrates thus there is a greated energy loss, causing a less desirable note decay.

The question I need answered: What is the difference is a 34" inch scale with an extended B string, and a 35" scale with a capo on the first fret.

I am assuming you retuned the string, so you detuned the MTD. In fact in this case, the string on the MTD would be less tense, as it would be an approximately 33" string, required less tension to get it to vibrate at a B.

Just tried it, my mtd still has a tight b.......
Click to expand...

It may still have a tight B, but that tight is relative. The string isn't at the same tension as it was before, I am sure that you realize that you had to detune it from a C to B, reducing the tension on the string, and there would be a lot of string behind the capo too.
 
#32
Originally posted by Geoff St. Germaine


Nut placement has everything to do with the initial tension required to get a string to vibrate at a given frequency or pitch. The frequency of the fundamental is a function of the linear mass density of the string,the length of the string and the tension on the string.

Keep asking away, I will try to clear up any questions you have for me on this.

Geoff
Click to expand...

this was my earlier question...

"The question I need answered: What is the difference is a 34" inch scale with an extended B string, and a 35" scale with a capo on the first fret. "

I think you havea point, although I am not totally convinced on your comment backs up what you say about 'increasing scale length means you need to inscrease tension in order to achieve the same pitch". One thing to note, if the 'tightness' of the string is not necessarily due to tension, that I amy be arguing the wrong cause, but for now that is what I beleive. The wavelength produced is determined by the two resonating ends, and also based on the tension on the string.

Example, an e string on a 34" in scale bass has a given amount of tension, and the same tension occurs all over even though you are hitting different frets to achieve different notes.

tuning down makes you achieve a different note on the same scale length, and all the frets respond with different notes as well. Now, the same tension after tuning down will be the same tension on a shorter scale bass in order to achieve the initial E you were wanting.

So the point is, tension + scale length + string gauge = note . But that does not say that tension is a result of the placement of the ends of the vibration. Tension is the same, no matter where you fret on the bass.

I am not a hundred percent convinced this is right either, but logically it sounds as if the nut simply acts a fret, providing an end of vibration. Is that totally off?

BTW, I am still siding with physics, cause it is what enabled the instrument in the first place.
 
#33
Originally posted by Geoff St. Germaine


It may still have a tight B, but that tight is relative. The string isn't at the same tension as it was before, I am sure that you realize that you had to detune it from a C to B, reducing the tension on the string, and there would be a lot of string behind the capo too.
Click to expand...

I didn;'t detune it. My goal wasn't to get a different note, is was to see if it woud have the same tension regardless of where it was fretted.

If I detuned it, then I would have different tension.
 
#34
"No one that I have ever seen has said neck stiffness changes the tension required to tune a string. All the arguments I have heard is that it reduces dead notes and choking, probably because the neck deflects less when the string vibrates thus there is a greated energy loss, causing a less desirable note decay.
"


http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65202&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

Sorry peter, but is this what you were talking about?

Once again, please don't think I am attacking, but this scientifically fascinates me...
 
#35
Originally posted by lamarjones


this was my earlier question...

"The question I need answered: What is the difference is a 34" inch scale with an extended B string, and a 35" scale with a capo on the first fret. "

I think you havea point, although I am not totally convinced on your comment backs up what you say about 'increasing scale length means you need to inscrease tension in order to achieve the same pitch". One thing to note, if the 'tightness' of the string is not necessarily due to tension, that I amy be arguing the wrong cause, but for now that is what I beleive. The wavelength produced is determined by the two resonating ends, and also based on the tension on the string.

If you change the definition of tightness to something other than tension, then fine, believe what you want. Yes, the fundamental wavelength is based on the tension, string mass and distance between the to fixed ends of the string, which in this case is the nut and bridge saddle. The wavelength of a fundamental B (30.9Hz) on a 35" scale bass, is 70", just FYI.

Example, an e string on a 34" in scale bass has a given amount of tension, and the same tension occurs all over even though you are hitting different frets to achieve different notes.

Exactly, though the act of fretting changes the tension, why the 1st fret often sounds sharp compared to the rest.

tuning down makes you achieve a different note on the same scale length, and all the frets respond with different notes as well. Now, the same tension after tuning down will be the same tension on a shorter scale bass in order to achieve the initial E you were wanting.

So the point is, tension + scale length + string gauge = note . But that does not say that tension is a result of the placement of the ends of the vibration. Tension is the same, no matter where you fret on the bass.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, the note is a function of the length of the vibrating string (only scale length for an open note, but I used this as I was referring only to the open B), the tension of the string, and the linear mass density of the string.

I am not a hundred percent convinced this is right either, but logically it sounds as if the nut simply acts a fret, providing an end of vibration. Is that totally off?

Yes, the nut is acting exactly like a fret, which is why the nut to tuner distance makes no difference to the tension of the string.

BTW, I am still siding with physics, cause it is what enabled the instrument in the first place.

Actually physics says exactly this: "increasing scale length means you need to inscrease tension in order to achieve the same pitch". So you are arguing against physics. Trust me, I did this stuff in my 2nd year university and I am referencing my notes as we go so I don't make any incorrect comments. If you don't believe me, get a university level waves and vibrations text, they generally treat vibrating strings quite well.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that I never said that the nut to tuner length has no effect on anything, only that it doesn't affect the tension of the string.

Geoff
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back