• 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

#41
Currently planning a Warmoth 32" Jazz with Variax electronics, and when that is done, I'd love to build a passive 32" Warmoth Jazz also.
I have a really rough Yamaha Motion B, and briefly had a Fender Urge (too much neck dive, didn't care for the fatty neck either) But a medium scale bass just feels right. Sound-wise, I don't notice a difference really, maybe a 5 string might be a little floppy, but, maybe not. I feel taller when I play a medium scale bass!
 
#42
Change is bad m'kay

Sometimes it's a case of "Fix it already". I'm just shy of 6ft. I would think that my stature is a good match for a regular scale bass, but I've never really been totally comfortable with one, even after 25 years. I tweak the strap, strings, action etc. Fixing it for one thing usually means upsetting something else, but my guitar always feels pretty good. I've thought about building a short , but it'll have to wait. Capo-ing a de-tuned bass might be a choice. It'd at least allow one to test the sensation of a shorter neck.

Another choice would be to get a rear tuning system. The string length wouldn't matter since they would be clamped at the nut and the excess cut. If David King is who I think he is, aren't his basses just this sort of thing?

Instruments are formulas, not rules. You don't look at an ukulele and say 'Gee, what a terrible sounding guitar.' (and it's missing a few strings) The formula for a short scale bass will not be all that different from a long, but can anyone say it's really been fully explored. It shouldn't be treat as the same. If it sounds different, so be it. It doesn't have to be a bad thing. It's all 'eye/ear of the beholder/listener' stuff anyway. If there truly aren't any good short-scales then it an opportunity for someone to truly address it.
 
#47
We expect our basses to sound different if we change our strings, from flat to rounds, from one brand to another, from one material to another, even from old to new.

Why? Because different strings with even slightly different properties vibrate differently and thus produce different sounds. Most of us believe and understand that (despite the claim that physics doesn't matter enough to be related to audible differences and the fact that sting vibration is a matter of physics).

String length is an important property of strings that effects their sound, and if you really believe that 2 inches out of 34 inches isn't enough to make a difference in the sound produced, think about the difference a much smaller change makes when your intonation goes off.

The differences between 32 and 34 inch basses are real, but whether you prefer the sound of one or another is both a matter of taste and the product of several factors. Some of us own both and prefer one or the other according to the style of music we are playing at the moment.

If nothing else, this thread displays a lot of common sense about personal tastes, some nonsense about the reality of physics, and bit of the inferiority complex that makes a lot of bass players think that there indeed is something inferior about playing a smaller bass, unless you are Paul McCartney. Whatever "prejudice" there is with respect to basses with scales shorter than 34 inches used to come from their popularity as starter basses for kids. Now, some of it comes from our defensiveness.

We could just play well and shut up about the bass. Some of us might be better off if others of us stop acting like the bald guys who talk about how it's okay to be bald when nobody was thinking about their being bald until the bald guy brought it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Green Knight and John McDiarmid
#48
BassHappy said:
Hey All

I posted a version of this in the Medium Scale Bass Thread and it was suggested to me that I post it here as well.

I know this will be controversial to some, probably to most, but I feel compelled to get a dialog going on this.

I don't have much experience with standard short scale basses, (except my Rob Allen Mouse) but I have a pretty interesting collection of medium scale 32" scale basses, including PRS #11, two Roscoe Midi Basses, a nice selection of custom MIJ Fenders, a Warwick Alien and what I believe is a prototype Stu Hamm MIM.

They are here:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

I have been hearing all about the superiority of long scale 34" basses most of my natural life and frankly, I am sick of it. The physics guys will explain all day why the medium scale is inferior - string isn't long enough, vibrates slower (or faster), tension is more (or less) longer string length creates more overtones or more harmonics, blah blah blah. I have heard them all over the years. My point is simply that all things being equal, no one in the room could tell the difference between the two in a blindfold test. In the end it's all about ears, not physics.

What I would like to see, for example, is a standard Fender Jazz 34" scale bass vs a medium scale 32" Fender Jazz from the same era, same pickups, same strings, same body wood, same fingerboard, same control settings - in a studio somewhere, run through the exact same electronics signal path - in a blindfold test. My contention is that not a person in the room could tell the difference. My good friend and favorite drummer, Ron Riddle toured with Stu Hamm, in addition to playing with me in "Happy the Man" and other projects, and I would love to hear Stu's take on this. For example, what is the REAL REASON for moving the Urge from medium to long scale? I would suspect, if the real truth were exposed, (it won't be) it was a marketing decision based on Fender wanting to sell more basses to the much bigger market - the long scale crowd. On that note, why not do the blind test with a long scale and medium scale Stu Hamm? That would work fine as long as all things were reasonably equal.

Let me support my position. When Keith Roscoe finished my first 32" scale bass he was overwhelmed with how amazing the bass sounded the first time he plugged it in. When I got to North Carolina to pick it up he had this funny look on his face and he said: "I have heard so much over the years about this 34" vs 32" scale length thing, but let me tell you - this is one of the best sounding basses I have ever heard, period!" I believe at the time that my first Roscoe was his first 32" scale bass, although he made another "twin" for me later on and may have made a few since. Keith if you see this feel free to weigh in.

I know the reviews are mixed at best on PRS Basses, but Paul Reed Smith's standard bass neck was 32" scale for years. When I was in the Studio with Ken Scott producing our first record at A&M Studios in Hollywood, Stanley Clarke was sharing the studio with us; we working noon to midnight, he working midnight to noon. We befriended each other via Ken Scott and he offered to let me use any of his basses that were laying around in the studio (he took the Alembics with him). I particularly liked a certain vintage Jazz bass he had, so I brought it in strapped it on, plugged it in, hit four or five notes - Ken only smiled, shook his head "No" and without saying a word, he pointed back to the PRS and smiled. For those in the know, Ken Scott probably has ears in the top .1% of the world, as evidenced by his work with Jeff Beck, Billy Cobham, Supertramp, The Beatles, Elton John, David Bowie, etc. Here he was, preferring my PRS medium scale to the full scale Jazz Bass. I realize that we are talking apples and oranges here, but the story still sticks. We had recorded one of our bass tracks with the PRS and Ken asked me to "double" portions of it. 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 and Paul was a complete unknown - he then wanted to check out this bass made by this unknown luthier from Maryland. There are many more stories; I really want to bust this incredible myth that medium scale basses are somehow inferior to long scale basses. Quite simply - they aren't

By the way, I am doing a Line 6 Variax transplant into a custom Viola Bass using a Stradivarius as a template:

Three bass projects for Rick

I am looking to buy another 4 String Variax Bass 700. Any for sale out there? Not interested in cosmetics, only need the guts which need to be working flawlessly.

Best,

BassHappy
Click to expand...

To me it's real easy. I use 36' basses because they sound different than shorter instruments and the sound of a 36' scale works for my style of playing.
I really like short scale basses(34 and less) as well-but I like them for different things. I think certain things sound better on them.

If I had to only have one it would be a 36 because I could get closer on that to the sound of a 32 (depending on where on the neck I play) than I could to the sound of a 36 on a 32.
 
#52
Let's not forget that Les Claypool's Carlthompson 4 strings with a kahler tremolo is a 32" scale and his rainbow bass is a 36" scale.

He plays both end of the spectrum and it doesn't seem to change something.
 
#53
smcd said:
+1

Short scale basses are part of a very small niche market that includes the retro-crowd, obscure boutique mfg's, and small children.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more.

In history, Many short scales never reached beyond a small market because they had been built with lower quality than most larger basses.

Will short scales ever sell More than regulars? I don't know - I guess probably not. But the short scale market is far beyond a niche market. Well built short scale models sell very well.

A very large percentage of bass players who dismiss short scales because of this conventional nonwisdom, and then actually try a good short scale, are usually surprised and amazed. And very positive about using the bass.
 
#54
I's say Faraday's comment is spot on.
Every bass has it's own sound, sometimes even 2 basses from the same model by the same manufacturer sound or play different.
No one should argue if a 32" can sound just like a 34", course not!
34 is the standard and I believe there are good reasons for it being so. I'd never choose a 36 incher as my main or only bass (although such a long scale sure works great at the lower registers), but that is a matter of ergonomics, technique and personal taste.
Some shorter scales sound great too, in their own particular way. It is just a matter of personal preference within the context and type of music that you're playing and the sound you're after.
There are advantages and shortcomings in each bass and scale. The right set of strings also adds to the equation, the right amp and EQ also.
I say it's cool to have different basses to choose from, it is like a painter having a wider tonal palette.
To each his own. I would not want to find myself ever without my preferred 34 inchers, just as much as I would hate not having around my smaller scale basses.
Just for the record, it is true Jack Bruce now plays a Warwick but he spent years playing a Gibson short scale EB0 or EB3.
It really doesn't matter.
Tone resides in the fingers of the player.
 
#55
SBassman said:
I couldn't disagree more.

In history, Many short scales never reached beyond a small market because they had been built with lower quality than most larger basses.

Will short scales ever sell More than regulars? I don't know - I guess probably not. But the short scale market is far beyond a niche market. Well built short scale models sell very well.

A very large percentage of bass players who dismiss short scales because of this conventional nonwisdom, and then actually try a good short scale, are usually surprised and amazed. And very positive about using the bass.
Click to expand...

Very very low sales numbers pretty much define what a niche market is. The recent "SG" reissue notwithstanding, Gibson short scales were high quality and didn't sell. And most people, correctly IMO, think they sounded bad. I can't think of one short scale bass that's been in constant production since the 60's. Or 70's. Or 80's. Or 90's.


Excepting the expensive Birdsong brand, what are the other good short scales??
 
#56
Majority of posts hyping 34" scale seem to be in response to posts hyping <32" scales. Go figure.

Never done anything remotely resembling an AB testing to see how much difference an inch makes. My only input is that I went from a decent 34" to a 35" that I love to this day. But given how much other less obvious details allegedly change the sound (wood/frets/bridge/string-thru/neck-thru), it would be ludicrous to assume a scale change doesn't alter behaviour as well. Whether it's for the better or worse, that's where the subjectivity starts.
 
#57
I don't have a lot of experience with 32" basses. But I do own a Rob Allen Mouse, which has 30 greeat sounding inches. Surprisingly enough, it compares well to my upright (43") bass in terms of punch and power. The tension is a little looser than on a 34". I actually asked Rob if he could make a 5-string Mouse with a B-string and he said: "Sure, but it'll cost you and I have never done it before. I fear the B-string will be too floppy to be useful...". I guess tension is a concern regarding scale lengths.

My main 'scale' experience has been with 34, 35 and 36" basses and there is as much 'voodoo' in that department - especially regarding whether the B-string sounds better at 35 or 36. Having tried loads of 5-stringers, I preferred 35" for years (Celinder), but now I am back at 34 (Stingray and a Fodera Emperor).

Based on that experience, I would not claim to be able to tell the difference between a 32 and 34 inch bass in a blind test. But I would probably prefer to play a 34... Old fashioned, I guess :-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: John McDiarmid
#58
smcd said:
Very very low sales numbers pretty much define what a niche market is. The recent "SG" reissue notwithstanding, Gibson short scales were high quality and didn't sell. And most people, correctly IMO, think they sounded bad. I can't think of one short scale bass that's been in constant production since the 60's. Or 70's. Or 80's. Or 90's.


Excepting the expensive Birdsong brand, what are the other good short scales??
Click to expand...

How about -
- Stanley Clarke's Alembics
- Paul McCartney's Hofners
- Fender Mustangs
- In recent times, Landing customs
- In recent times, Fender SS Jags
- In recent times, Kala UBasses now used by a ton of pros
 
#59
Also:
Kubicki X-Factor (32")
Cliff Bordwell and Chris Stambaugh have build lots of 32 inchers and are amongst the best Luthiers around. Expensive? Yes but totally worth it IMHO.
I have two 33" Nordstrand 5-string basses, and don't need to tell you about the amazing instruments Carey builds...
There are others, but it is true that shorter scale basses are demanded and built in much smaller quantities than 34 inchers.
There are a zillion threads regarding this topic in TB.
 
#60
smcd said:
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.
Click to expand...

No doubt a good number of serious players, particularly studio players, were playing Fenders in the 60s. But it would not be too hard to come up with a very large, Hall-of-Fame roster of bands whose bassists primarily used shorter scale instruments at that time. For example, aside from the Moody Blues and early Led Zep, I can hardly think of a single all-British band of that era whose bassist used full 34" basses exclusively. Most used Gibsons, Bass VI, Rickenbacker, Harmony, or Danelectro, or else European brands like Burns, Vox, Framus, and Hofner.

If 34" was the "industry standard" in the 60s, how come Fender was the only manufacturer in US or Europe who made their primary basses in that scale? Perhaps Hagstrom, Burns, Hofner, Vox, Harmony, Danelectro, Kay, Framus, Eko, Egmont, Kapa, and Mosrite, along with their many Japanese imitators, all made basses we would consider "junk" nowadays. Certainly they were cheaper than Fenders. But they were surely all part of the "industry"? Were they all just trying to save money by making shorter basses? Fender was the exception, not the rule, at that time, however much hindsight might make things seem otherwise.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back