• 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.

Medium Scale vs. Long Scale Basses

#21
It's not my opinion, it's the market's opinion.
Many companies have made short scale basses in their history and they never attained the popularity of long scale.
Long scale has proven to out-sell short scale by a very large margin. That is why so many more of them are made. If there was a high demand for short scale, there would be many more of them built, sold and played.
DeanT said:
This is your opinion. There is no proof "most" people think 34" scale sounds better than short scale.
Click to expand...
 
#22
The specific issue here is really whether 34" sounds better than 32". Unfortunately, there are relatively few 32" basses out there for people to make a meaningful comparison. The interesting question is WHY are there so few 32" basses out there? It stands to reason that a 32" will not sound drastically different from a 34". And they would also be easier to play for many people. So my guess is that the 34" norm has a lot less to do with tone or sound than with other factors like marketing, "conventional thinking," and "tradition."
 
  • Like
Reactions: BassHappy
#23
I'm not sure this is exactly true either–at least for some companies. How do Hofner basses stack up sales-wise against other brands for instance?

I'm not a marketing expert, but I don't think the popularity of long-scale basses is due to them sounding "better" than a short scale. If that were the case, then upright basses would be very, very popular and outsell Fender.

I'm still sticking with my notion that long-scale does not sound "better" than short-scale, just different.

I play mainly short-scale basses. But I also play long-scale. All my basses sound different. I would say that no bass on the planet sounds better than my Birdsong bass. And it's a short scale. It also does not have floppy strings and it definitely doesn't sound muddy (all things that are said generally about short-scales).
 
#25
I'm 57 (actually today) and I've been playing bass for 43 years. My David King Custom 32" Four, "Model Passive C", is my main bass for the last decade. I have about 20 others but I keep coming back to this bass. My 34" DK Basses are spectacular! Why would I lie? None of my 4 DK basses were bought new and I get NOTHING from David. He is simply a genius of bass lutherie.
 
#26
I agree there is a difference in sound. But I don't agree that difference makes long-scale "better" than short-scale. It just makes it different. It's personal preference. And yes, there are a lot of factors that go into a bass's sound, not the least of which is the player.

By the way, Happy Birthday Ken!
 
#27
I've had a Fender Urge I (MIM) and it was 32" scale. I liked it for its playability but ultimately sold it after building myself a 33.5 to 31.5 scale fanned fret jazz. Fanned frets seem to fall into place under my fingers better than anything else I've used. After all my fingers are fanned.

When I had both I compared them to my standard 78 Jazz and all sounded close to identical. I concluded that if there is a difference between 30", 32" or 34" scale it probably has more to do with pickup type and placement and strings than scale length in most cases. I say in most cases because every 5 string Dingwall I've heard has a great B string and their B is 37" scale.

Btw, I'm an admirer of Fano guitars and I love to get one of his basses. It is 32" scale because he's a bass player and that's what he likes. Check it out
Invalid Link Removed
 
#28
I am returning to bass-playing after being away for 30 years. I am searching for a thread in which I can express my impressions of the Jazz bass I recently purchased. Perhaps I will simply start a thread. Anyhoo.......

My bass is a Gibson SG-EB3. Played it in several bands back in the day. Mostly rock, but some funk (yeah, disco). That bass can hold its head high in a room full of long scale basses. It lacked for nothing. In fact, I'd say it will still be my bass of choice for songs that require a very deep, solid tone. The tonal equivalent of a brick wall. The attack is quicker. Hard for me to explain, but I'm trying. The Jazz is softer-toned. The SG is more hard-toned. The Jazz does some things better than the SG and vice versa. The SG does a better BANG-tone.
 
#29
I'm frankly a little surprised that 32" didn't end up being the standard, "regular" scale for a bass, with 34" being considered extra-long. To me, it seems the perfect scale for someone with medium-sized hands.

What I suspect has happened, though, that decades of bass players have gotten used to the necessary hand-shifting and other compensations necessary to survive on a 34"-scale instrument, and it feels weird to them not doing that when they are given a 32"-scale bass to try.
 
#30
I think it may have to do with string gauge and tension. Tuning an E string a full octave lower than on a guitar requires either a very thick string or a pretty long neck. I think making thicker strings was both expensive and difficult "back in the day", and I guess 34" was found to give a good balance between gauge and tension for that EADG tuning.
 
#31
Sometimes one sees comments where a certain builder's 'genius' is proven by pointing out how the b-string sounds so tight on a 32-inch bass...

I have a 36 inch 5 string boutique thing and two 32 inch SD Curlees, which in themselves are great designs. I really think the difference in tone quality between them is because of the quality of the materials (woods) used, not the scale length; I am now restoring one of the curlees and stripped it and the quality of the maple in the 3-part neck is quite soft; no wonder those Curlee necks are always so floppy, and lots of them have truss/twist issues. The hardware on them is great but the woods rather crappy. Still fun basses.

1 difference i believe i did notice, is that the required build standard regarding exact fret placement and setup is considerably higher on a shorter scale than a longer scale instrument; or in other words, high up the neck it is relatively easier to play chords in tune on a longer scale instrument than on a short scale, generally speaking, in similar setup situations - I guess it can be done on a shorter scale, but one would need a really high quality instrument. I never played a 32 inch Alembic or Carl Thompson, but I would expect those to be as clean in the upper registers as my 36' Overwater. I suppose from a manufacturing point of view it is easier to reach a certain minimal quality consistency with a longer scale...?
 
#32
BassHappy said:
When Stanley arrived at the studio that day, Ken grabbed him right away and played it for him. He simply smiled and congratulated me with VERY wide eyes; as he KNOWS the sound, power and value of a quality medium scale bass via his Alembics. Although, this was 1977
Click to expand...


Cool story bro

...except, in 1977 Stanley Clarke's Alembic basses were all 30" scale length.
 
#35
It really is just a matter of wording. Some people refer to 34" as long scale (check a pack of strings!). For some anything below 34 is a short scale. And that's OK.
Many of us feel any scale from 31 to 33" could be referred to as a medium scale being that they feel, play and are different from a 30" or 34".
But again, it is really a matter of wording.
 
#36
EduardoK said:
It really is just a matter of wording. Some people refer to 34" as long scale (check a pack of strings!). For some anything below 34 is a short scale. And that's OK.
Many of us feel any scale from 31 to 33" could be referred to as a medium scale being that they feel, play and are different from a 30" or 34". That is why I started this thread... :D
But again, it is really a matter of wording.
Click to expand...

So a CarlThompson 36" fretless rainbow bass ( les claypool,s fretless 6 ) is a f***ing long scale and a DB is just a aircraft carrier.
 
#37
bassobrutto said:
Either way, it's worth remembering that 34" did not become the "normal" scale length until the early '70s. Most manufacturers were making mostly shorter scale basses up to that time. Where it not for Fender's eye-catching designs, production and marketing muscle, and usable tones, the history of the instrument could have been quite different.
Click to expand...

34" was "normal" scale since the Precision became the industry standard in the 1950's. Fender dominated the electric bass market with 34" scale basses exactly because it had "usable tones". Most other manufacturers were producing short scale low-budget junk, and are, thankfully, long out of business. If Fender didn't come up with a 34" scale bass, someone else would have and as a result, that company would dominate the bass guitar market.


I've only owned one medium scale instrument, and it is absolutely great. But I dont' know whether that's because it's a 32" scale bass, or because it's an Alembic.
 
#38
Bigjohn said:
It's not my opinion, it's the market's opinion.
Many companies have made short scale basses in their history and they never attained the popularity of long scale.
Long scale has proven to out-sell short scale by a very large margin. That is why so many more of them are made. If there was a high demand for short scale, there would be many more of them built, sold and played.
Click to expand...

+1


Short scale basses are part of a very small niche market that includes the retro-crowd, obscure boutique mfg's, and small children.
 
#40
My personal opinion on this is "dont fix what isnt broke". 34" scale basses work fine for me and many others, they are very common on the market, accessories and parts for them are common, and they sound just fine. I mean i suppose to could go out of my way to track down a medium/shortscale that i would love, but i dont think it would be really worth the effort when there are plenty of awesome 34" scale basses around.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back