Fodera Club Part III

[Just Thumpin']

Sorry that I have not answered yet, but you asked on Friday evening and it's Sunday morning and it is a question that I need to check with Vinny (and do not want to bother hm over the weekend). My personal recollection (having cataloged every Fodera ever built in a database) is "no," there have never been any Dovetail 6-strings. However in my database, there is one (1) listed and I really wanted to check with Vinny whether or not that was a record keeping mistake or an actual dovetail 6 that was built...in any event, we are not presently offering them...that I know.

Just Thumpin, sorry to be pushy and bump this, but it's something I've wondered about for a couple of years.

 

[Belka]

Sorry that I have not answered yet, but you asked on Friday evening and it's Sunday morning and it is a question that I need to check with Vinny (and do not want to bother hm over the weekend). My personal recollection (having cataloged every Fodera ever built in a database) is "no," there have never been any Dovetail 6-strings. However in my database, there is one (1) listed and I really wanted to check with Vinny whether or not that was a record keeping mistake or an actual dovetail 6 that was built...in any event, we are not presently offering them...that I know.

Sorry about that. I spent the whole of Saturday working and must have assumed that everyone else did as well.

If there is one out there, it would be cool to know that you were the owner of a very unique bass.

Out of interest, although you're currently not offering them, if a potential customer put an order in for one, do you think you would build it?

Thanks for all the info by the way. I think that thanks to you on this thread / forum Fodera is now one of the best represented companies out there.

 

[Belka]

+1, although as you probably know, the VAST majority of those who have strong opinions about the impact of a single design component on a bass are basing that opinion on a very small, non-matched sample (i.e., playing a couple different bases of each design with many more differences than just neck construction).

Over-emphasizing a single, relatively minor design component on tonal differences without taking into account all the other stuff is one of the classic cases of 'causal mis-attribution'... (i.e., neck throughs have more sustain, bolt-ons have more pop, longer scale results in 'better' B string, etc., etc.).

Anyway, for those who are at the top end of their budget but really like the look of a solid top on a Fodera, the Deluxe is a great option, and will save you the price of a Sadowsky

Yes. +100%

(On a quick thread hijack note, Ken, I just checked out your youtube channel. Cool recordings, but I have to say, that Sadowsky with single coils is brutal. Far too many high mids and treble frequencies for me to deal with there. Thank god he doesn't build them with with '70s jazz pickup spacing - that would be overkill. The Allevas sound awesome though - super authentic jazz sounds with a great B string, although interestingly, the gold '70s bass didn't sound brighter than the green 60s one - different, but in it's own way the '60s bass (LG) seemed to emphasize lots of treble frequencies, whereas the '70s (LM) had more upper mids. Maybe it's just me. Would love to hear your thoughts on the difference between the two (or see a side by side youtube comparison vid ) Hijack over).

 

[Just Thumpin']

Thanks so much! I will have your answer about the 6 Dovetail tomorrow...I completely spaced today!

Sorry about that. I spent the whole of Saturday working and must have assumed that everyone else did as well.

If there is one out there, it would be cool to know that you were the owner of a very unique bass.

Out of interest, although you're currently not offering them, if a potential customer put an order in for one, do you think you would build it?

Thanks for all the info by the way. I think that thanks to you on this thread / forum Fodera is now one of the best represented companies out there.

 

[KJung]

Yes. +100%

(On a quick thread hijack note, Ken, I just checked out your youtube channel. Cool recordings, but I have to say, that Sadowsky with single coils is brutal. Far too many high mids and treble frequencies for me to deal with there. Thank god he doesn't build them with with '70s jazz pickup spacing - that would be overkill. The Allevas sound awesome though - super authentic jazz sounds with a great B string, although interestingly, the gold '70s bass didn't sound brighter than the green 60s one - different, but in it's own way the '60s bass (LG) seemed to emphasize lots of treble frequencies, whereas the '70s (LM) had more upper mids. Maybe it's just me. Would love to hear your thoughts on the difference between the two (or see a side by side youtube comparison vid ) Hijack over).

Part of that 'zing' is my own personal preference on the Sadowsky (strings, tone settings on the amp, and wood spec.... ash/maple). +1 It is a grindy beast and just kills on a gig in a pop/funk context! Part of what you are hearing there is the unique combination of an ash/maple spec (big and aggressive sounding) with a 60's pickup position, which is the typical Sadowsky Vintage spec, regardless of wood combination... all the big, aggressive grind of ash/maple, with some realy growl from that bridge pickup... very aggressive sounding. This would be true across brands, which is why I'm mentioning it.

You are correct in describing the nature of the top end of an alder/RW 60's versus ash/maple 70's. Of course, you can tame that easily with string choice and EQ. The 60's spec is all about growl and a bit of sweet sizzle up top. the 70's spec is about big low end and aggressive upper mids/lower treble grind.

I'll PM you so we don't OT any more.

Thanks for the comment!

 

[Just Thumpin']

Okay, just finished speaking Vinny. He does not remember ever doing a 19.mm spaced 6-string Dovetail (he may have done one narrow-spaced 6). That said, we COULD do one, but he was clear that the top wood would need to be a solid, dense material (e.g. no Buckeye, Spalted Maple, etc.) so that under the tension of 6-strings there would be no risk of the material under the glue joint (on the top) pulling apart...

 

[j-raj]

Okay, just finished speaking Vinny. He does not remember ever doing a 19.mm spaced 6-string Dovetail (he may have done one narrow-spaced 6). That said, we COULD do one, but he was clear that the top wood would need to be a solid, dense material (e.g. no Buckeye, Spalted Maple, etc.) so that under the tension of 6-strings there would be no risk of the material under the glue joint (on the top) pulling apart...

What is a great example of a strong/dense top wood?


OT... Ken, from your video, it looks like your cat definitely digs the Alleva-Coppola 5'ver.

 

[KJung]

What is a great example of a strong/dense top wood?


OT... Ken, from your video, it looks like your cat definitely digs the Alleva-Coppola 5'ver.

My cat has become a little bit of a 'youtube' sensation He does not like when I have this gear in 'his space' for these video's

 

[KJung]

Okay, just finished speaking Vinny. He does not remember ever doing a 19.mm spaced 6-string Dovetail (he may have done one narrow-spaced 6). That said, we COULD do one, but he was clear that the top wood would need to be a solid, dense material (e.g. no Buckeye, Spalted Maple, etc.) so that under the tension of 6-strings there would be no risk of the material under the glue joint (on the top) pulling apart...

I would think the additional pressure would be more than distributed across the wider neck, and hence wider neck joint. I would think scale length and string gauge would have much more impact than number of strings (i.e., a 35" 5 string would probably have much more 'tension per square inch' on that neck joint than a 34" scale 6 string). Similarly, putting heavier gauge strings on a five string would easily result in more pressure on a smaller, 5 string neck joint than lower gauge strings on a 6 string.

Something not quite right here IMO.

 

[Just Thumpin']

Walnut, Flame Maple, Bubinga, Rosewood, things like that...

What is a great example of a strong/dense top wood?


OT... Ken, from your video, it looks like your cat definitely digs the Alleva-Coppola 5'ver.

 

[Just Thumpin']

Ken, you can always give us a call at the shop and talk directly to Vinny. With stuff like this, given his 30+ years of building experience, if his gut is to do things a certain way, I tend to just go with it...

Regards,

J

I would think the additional pressure would be more than distributed across the wider neck, and hence wider neck joint. I would think scale length and string gauge would have much more impact than number of strings (i.e., a 35" 5 string would probably have much more 'tension per square inch' on that neck joint than a 34" scale 6 string). Similarly, putting heavier gauge strings on a five string would easily result in more pressure on a smaller, 5 string neck joint than lower gauge strings on a 6 string.

Something not quite right here IMO.

 

[thepontif]

I would think the additional pressure would be more than distributed across the wider neck, and hence wider neck joint. I would think scale length and string gauge would have much more impact than number of strings (i.e., a 35" 5 string would probably have much more 'tension per square inch' on that neck joint than a 34" scale 6 string). Similarly, putting heavier gauge strings on a five string would easily result in more pressure on a smaller, 5 string neck joint than lower gauge strings on a 6 string.

Something not quite right here IMO.

Something....but what? Without that answer, where are we?

You'd think some of those things in your post. But just thinking isn't building basses. The practical realities come into play at some point and, as Jason said, Vinny has as good a sense for that as anyone in the world. Far be it from me, or you or almost anyone I dare say, to do much more than wonder how he knows what to and not to do.

On another note...a detail in your post, the idea with longer scale length is NOT to achieve greater tension! Why do people believe this?!? It is to achieve the SAME tension with smaller strings! A smaller string has less inharmonicity and hence a stronger fundamental than a fat string...i.e. better low end characteristics. If you compare a .130 on a 34" to a .125 on a 36" (I'm just using common numbers...haven't done any math here) you'd likely find the tension of the 36" long .125" thick string similar to that of the 34" long .130" thick string. But the .125 will likely sound MUCH MUCH better. Not because it's longer or tighter....because it's thinner and AS tight. There is so much misunderstanding about how strings work around here...and so much of it is unfounded belief. Drives me nuts. The "thump" in a short string is inharmonic crap that you hear along with the fundamental and a bunch of out of tune partials. The shorter and thicker the string, the worse the phenomenon. The longer and thinner the string, the less inharmonic crap, the less noise, the less thump, and the more tone. Longer, thinner strings achieve MORE FUNDAMENTAL and more nearly correct harmonic content. It's simple.

In an ideal world, a 36" bass should have strings on it that are of a gauge with which the tension is the same as a 34" bass. That's where you will get your maximum benefit from a longer scale bass. Why in God's name would anyone want to beat themselves up playing a giant stiff bass?

As for scale length having more impact than the number of strings, I have to point out that if the 5 string is tuned with a low B, the addition of a high C as the 6th string would have a more significant impact than if the reverse were true, as the high C is under much more tension than the low B.

 

[KJung]

On another note...a detail in your post, the idea with longer scale length is NOT to achieve greater tension! Why do people believe this?!? It is to achieve the SAME tension with smaller strings!

You are incorrect here. For 30+ years, the primary driving reason for a longer scale neck is to increase the tension of a B string on the typical .125 to .130 gauge. This is why you rarely see a 35" 4 string. Of course, it will allow you to use 'thinner strings' and maintain higher tension relative to a 34" scale, but in 30 years of playing 5 strings, this is the first comment I've ever heard of that being the primary driver of longer scale.

The 'technical' information coming out of the Fodera shop and from those who are associated with the brand continues to be... well... interesting...

I agree though, nothing wrong with going with 'Vinnie's gut feeling', per the post above. It's just the 'reason why' seems completely wrong. I guess if no one cares about such things, it is a non issue. I personally like to understand these sorts of issues.

 

[thepontif]

Ok...so why are you increasing the tension? Just because it's always been done to increase tension doesn't mean that's the main benefit. And the thought that increased tension is the reason you get a better result dismisses a lot of other factors that change and thus effect the way the string sounds. Nobody makes 35" or 36" four strings because everyone thinks the only benefit is the increased tension on the B. But they are wrong.

It's really offensive that you sit there and try to poo poo the "technical information" coming out of the Fodera shop when you have highly experienced people (who are smart too, whether you like it or not) who have been cranking out consistently superior results. We are not married to the notion that there is one reason for or benefit to any particular practice, nor are we determined to necessarily prove that there is ever some ultimate and inarguable technical bottom line as to why something works. We are willing to explore/entertain ALL of the possibile reasons...not just the ones everyone accepts as gospel truth (hence the backing off of the extended B adding tension argument for example).

By the same token, our results are almost always superlative. And that's a bottom line that's pretty hard to argue with. If I told you the reason Fodera basses sounded fantastic because of the oils in Vinny's hands would I be wrong? Maybe, maybe not, but who could possibly prove it? And why would you want to? Would the bass still be great? I'm sure it would. Does it warrant snide remarks? No. We know a million reasons why the basses are great. And at the end of the day we don't care as much about any of them as we do the results we get.

None of our technical info is flawed in any way and your insinuation that it is just sounds snotty to me. imHo.

 

[gre107]

Something....but what? Without that answer, where are we?

You'd think some of those things in your post. But just thinking isn't building basses. The practical realities come into play at some point and, as Jason said, Vinny has as good a sense for that as anyone in the world. Far be it from me, or you or almost anyone I dare say, to do much more than wonder how he knows what to and not to do.

On another note...a detail in your post, the idea with longer scale length is NOT to achieve greater tension! Why do people believe this?!? It is to achieve the SAME tension with smaller strings! A smaller string has less inharmonicity and hence a stronger fundamental than a fat string...i.e. better low end characteristics. If you compare a .130 on a 34" to a .125 on a 36" (I'm just using common numbers...haven't done any math here) you'd likely find the tension of the 36" long .125" thick string similar to that of the 34" long .130" thick string. But the .125 will likely sound MUCH MUCH better. Not because it's longer or tighter....because it's thinner and AS tight. There is so much misunderstanding about how strings work around here...and so much of it is unfounded belief. Drives me nuts. The "thump" in a short string is inharmonic crap that you hear along with the fundamental and a bunch of out of tune partials. The shorter and thicker the string, the worse the phenomenon. The longer and thinner the string, the less inharmonic crap, the less noise, the less thump, and the more tone. Longer, thinner strings achieve MORE FUNDAMENTAL and more nearly correct harmonic content. It's simple.

In an ideal world, a 36" bass should have strings on it that are of a gauge with which the tension is the same as a 34" bass. That's where you will get your maximum benefit from a longer scale bass. Why in God's name would anyone want to beat themselves up playing a giant stiff bass?

As for scale length having more impact than the number of strings, I have to point out that if the 5 string is tuned with a low B, the addition of a high C as the 6th string would have a more significant impact than if the reverse were true, as the high C is under much more tension than the low B.

Mike you are the man! +1!

 

[peterpalmieri]

Mike and Ken,

I wish you guys would find a way to make these points without taking jabs at each other as I find this information very interesting as I'm sure others do as well.

Please keep the debate light hearted and we all may learn a little bit today!

 

[harrybosch]

I agree with some of what Ken is saying. I have never heard mention that the reason a longer scale is used is so that one could use lighter strings to get better tone. Since tone is subjective, how can this be a factual statement? It might be one reason but not the driving reason as has been marketed for years. Further, it's been my experience that thinner strings, ie light guaged strings, sound thinner no matter the tension. I don't like the sound of thin strings. Whether the thicker guaged strings have a "thump" or poor fundamental is of no concern to me if it gets the tone I want.

 

[BassBoss]

I have played some 35" four strings, they were made by german luthier "Boerjes". You could use 95 and even 90s strings with smooth tension and great tone.

 

[spade2you]

LOL, the thing about Ken is that he's one of those science types. Longer scale lengths and thinner strings is a good thing. You'll generally have about the same overall tension, but where this becomes very useful is in the upper register.

Usually with boutique basses, the improved construction allows the bass to use a normal B without having to beef it up due to flaws, but heavier B strings tend to get a tad thick past the 7th position. My Conklin is 35" scale and uses a .127 taper wound string that is still useful in the 17th position, which used to amaze me until I figured out how/why.

 

[basses55]

I agree with some of what Ken is saying. I have never heard mention that the reason a longer scale is used is so that one could use lighter strings to get better tone. Since tone is subjective, how can this be a factual statement? It might be one reason but not the driving reason as has been marketed for years. Further, it's been my experience that thinner strings, ie light guaged strings, sound thinner no matter the tension. I don't like the sound of thin strings. Whether the thicker guaged strings have a "thump" or poor fundamental is of no concern to me if it gets the tone I want.

Its not strictly about "tone", the point is that it improved fundamental, whether or not that sounds like a better "tone" to anyone or not...and its possible it may not, or even make a difference to many people's ears. That does depend on taste


I have lighter gauge strings on my 35" Emperor exactly for the reason Mike stated.