Lowendtech
Happily trending in my own peculiar direction.
I liked it better when they had the numbering system. I knew exactly what the specs were based on the #'s.
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.
My SB-2 has a 1 1/2 nut and a C profile. It's thinner than I'd like.
So I guess that's what they "slim C" (?)
So I guess that's what they "slim C" (?)
USA Bass Options
Current neck options are listed there. Hope that helps.
I have an SB-2 and it's not as thin as say a Geddy Lee jazz neck, but it's not at all fat.
Interesting. Some statements are clearly subjective, but there are some interesting comments about geometry. If the strings spacing wasn't smaller at the nut than at the bridge, that does mean the strings don't follow the precise geometry of the neck, so his "conical" comments make sense.
I suppose you could prove the difference mathmatically; so now I wonder about the practical impact of that. I would think the A string would be least affected.
If you mean on a 5-er with a low B, then yeah, and possibly not at all affected.
Thanx for your comments, WV! I had missed that the strings are wider apart at the bridge than at the nut, and thought the comments about "conical" were describing the space occupied by vibrating strings. Makes more sense now...
I didn't show my work, but I did learn a new word. Essentially what those pages show is that the string has to cross over the rise or the curvature of the fingerboard. My new word is sagitta, which is the height of the arc.
I may be way off base with my math, but I calculated that on a bass with 9mm string spacing at the nut and 17mm at the bridge, the maximum effect on the action on a bass with a 9.5 inch radius is 0.13mm. This is based on a radius of 241.3mm and the length of the arc being 8mm.
I'm trying to decide if that doubles for the outer strings, resulting in the effect being 0.53mm. I think this might be the case.
I am always surprised how neck radius make such a big difference for some players in that I barely notice the difference at all. Can you guys feel the difference or is it more about set up?
The radius of the back of the neck is far more important to me.
The radius of the back of the neck is far more important to me.
I can certainly feel the difference, but I've played everything from 7.5" to 22" and it all feels fine.
But I do agree that my hand gets a little cramped with a neck that's too narrow or too thin front to back. Big hands, I guess.
40 years later, I'm still trying to figure that out. Most days, I *think* that the thickness of the neck matters most, but I also used to think I liked wider string spacing on a five string, and now my 3 most recent fivers ar 16.5, 17, and 17.5. Basically, I'm not sure about anything anymore.
I find that radius and nut is really about how much time I spend with that particular bass. Eventually, I don't notice anymore.
The whole point of playing, anyways, is to make the instrument disappear. To just be able to flow and groove. When I reach that point, radius and nut width are very far away in the rear view mirror.
The whole point of playing, anyways, is to make the instrument disappear. To just be able to flow and groove. When I reach that point, radius and nut width are very far away in the rear view mirror.
Appreciate all the responses. I think what I was trying to ask, was 'does anyone know the difference in thickness of these two'? I've looked everywhere, including G&Ls website with no luck. Will email them.
For me it's the opposite. If I want to forget the instrument, it's of paramount importance that I don't get one or more tendinitis, something I'm very prone to, and not just when playing the bass.
That's why everything, the shape of the neck, the width and length of the strap, the height of the stool etc. have to be carefully balanced.
Are the neck radius and width more important a criterion? No, but having to change involves more money. So kind of.
Huh. I never thought of it that way, but I know what you mean. Some basses you just end up fighting with, and that is probably the opposite. I think what you are saying follows Marcus Miller's advice to find an instrument and stick with that one instrument so that you become familiar and comfortable with the nuances of that one specific bass. I don't really live that way, though.
Also, I played a headless bass once, so I guess you could say I was partially successful at making the instrument disappear. (Dad jokes are still okay, right?
)Yup. It can be done by playing just one instrument for a very long time.
My experience, though, is that even if I am not use to a particular kind of instrument, if I play it enough, the nut and radius will eventually not be a problem. I adjust, sort of automatically. It's not a skill. It just happens. It's like my body eventually wraps around that particular bass.
I see that this may not be an option for people who have physical difficulties like tendonitis and so forth. I can clearly understand why.
You know, this is what happens with me. I respect the fact that it may not happen for everybody and it's fine. Bodies are different. And while we all adapt (it's a human trait), we can adapt to some things that others can't and the reverse is also true.
My experience, though, is that even if I am not use to a particular kind of instrument, if I play it enough, the nut and radius will eventually not be a problem. I adjust, sort of automatically. It's not a skill. It just happens. It's like my body eventually wraps around that particular bass.
I see that this may not be an option for people who have physical difficulties like tendonitis and so forth. I can clearly understand why.
You know, this is what happens with me. I respect the fact that it may not happen for everybody and it's fine. Bodies are different. And while we all adapt (it's a human trait), we can adapt to some things that others can't and the reverse is also true.
Yes, over time I've developed a clear preference for flatter fretboards on basses and guitars. On four-string basses and guitars, I like at least 12", but some of mine are 9.5", and provided I like the neck otherwise, that's fine. For example, I love the necks on my 2003 Jazz and 2004 Strat, which have 9.5" radius fretboards. But I do prefer the 12" radius fretboards on my SB-2 and JB over my Fender J's.
On five-string basses, I want at least 12", as on my M-2500, and I'd happily go much flatter. For me, this provides less of a "hump" to reach over to access the lower strings, and helps playability in general. Last year I bought a used JB-5 with the standard 9.5" radius, and the neck is shaped so wonderfully otherwise that I enjoy playing it--but it just makes me think how much more I'd enjoy it with the 12" radius. I'll probably sell it for this reason.
Backstory: When I resumed playing in 2002, I knew nothing about bass specs, and just played my old Peavey from 1988. After a couple of years, my herd stabilized at my 2003 Jazz, a 2004 MIA Precision, and a DiPinto Belvedere semi-hollow. I loved the Fenders, but noticed I could get lower action on the DiPinto, and play a little better on the DiPinto when sitting (i.e., when the long reach to first position when standing wasn't a factor). I loved the feel of that neck. Eventually I asked Chris DiPinto about the radius, and it was 14".
This was my first clue that radius was a factor, and it was confirmed when I got #8 necks on an L-1500 and my SB-2 in 2006 and 2007 (1.5" nut, 12" radius). Even then, the Fender necks felt more natural at first grab, but I soon realized I could play more easily on the G&L basses, just like the DiPinto. I've strayed a couple of times, as with the JB-5, but those instances have just confirmed my preference. When testing basses in shops, I've also noticed I prefer the flatter fretboards, like those on Yamaha fives.
This is largely my experience too. I can get comfortable on many basses (and guitars), but then when I go back to one the fits my preferences, I think "ahhhh....much better." For example, I adapted well to my 2008 Fender Jazz V and played it regularly, but whenever I moved over to my M-2500, I felt much better. The Fender didn't last long after the M showed up.
Some of this is because I've had hand and finger issues over the years. I want my instruments to be as easy to play as possible, which, for me, means wide nut widths, vintage curvy fretboards, and wide string spacing (on fives) are out of the question. Undoubtedly, it's the opposite for others.
Chef
In Memoriam
"fretboard radius" "neck depth"
I've played so many things over time I kinda don't notice too much anymore.
I guess I prefer "flatter, but not flat" finger boards, and wider, shallower neck profile.
I've played so many things over time I kinda don't notice too much anymore.
I guess I prefer "flatter, but not flat" finger boards, and wider, shallower neck profile.
ASAT bass.
interested in hive mind thoughts.
owners, what makes it special?
interested in hive mind thoughts.
owners, what makes it special?
