- Apr 24, 2004
- 1,359
- 53
- Disclosures
- Designer Fodera Guitars/Michael Pope Design, Inc., Trickfish Amplification
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.
Maybe what you mean to argue is that ultimately, subjective results are what matter to you. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Facts and subjectivity are not mutually exclusive. The fact is, there is a huge benefit to using lighter strings on a longer scale bass. It doesn't mean it's better. My point is that to suggest that this has nothing to do with why you make longer scale basses is silly. So the marketing strategy has surrounded the notion that longer is tighter and that's why it's done...what does that mean? Nothing, really. Why would the industry bother trying to educate the market in the subtleties of stretched-string physics? "Tired of that floppy B string? Try our new extra-long scale basses!" Or maybe just try a different string. That might make as much difference.
Stringed instruments all work essentially the same way. There seems to be a school of thought that wants to suggest otherwise. Another part of why a longer scale bass sounds different, even with the SAME gauge strings, is the relationship between transverse and longitudinal mode vibrations. (been through this one already too) Tension does not effect the latter, only length does. Longer string = lower pitched longitudinal vibration and that can and does have a big effect on the sound of the string. This is the primary reason why the drop D tuning sounds the way it does. You're not changing the pitch of the longitudinal mode by loosening the string.
Once you get your result, all the rest of it is hypothesis, really. Some easily provable, and some not. There's no need to prove anything until you have to repeat the success. That's really the crux of it. But because someone doesn't BELIEVE in a certain factor based on a historical concensus is not an argument for the existence or absensce of an effect due to a phenomenon. The proof is in the result. The question of "why did that result happen" isn't really important to answer as long as you can get the result every time. But to theorize about is a perfectly appropriate thing to do if you do it in an educated way. The important thing in my mind is not to just assume what you've always assumed. That would be, in fact, the antithesis of scientific thinking.
As for taking jabs....honestly I don't think I am. Taking offense to someone's off color remark is in no way a "jab". I suppose the "snotty" remark might be on the cusp...sorry for that. It wasn't meant as in insult. It was just a bad word choice to describe how I perceived the tone of the comments. Maybe innapropriate or unnecessary would have been better.

