• 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.

Multi-scale or "fanned fret" basses

What do you think of multi-scale basses?

  • They're a game changer. Never going back to "regular" frets again!

    Votes: 41 17.2%

  • They're pretty cool. I like them but don't love them.

    Votes: 71 29.7%

  • Carrots (or "no opinion")

    Votes: 20 8.4%

  • Not a big fan (no pun intended).

    Votes: 19 7.9%

  • Hate 'em. I'd break every one with a hammer if I could.

    Votes: 5 2.1%

  • Don't know. Never tried one. (But I want to.)

    Votes: 58 24.3%

  • Don't know and don't care.

    Votes: 25 10.5%
  • Total voters
    239
#81
Nolan Tremblay said:
Hmmmm… PhD in physics here. This isn't true and even if it were, in a practical system (i.e. a real bass guitar) it would need to account for every part of the system, so changing any variable of the neck, body, bridge, etc would affect this. It's simply untrue that 37" is the "mathematically correct" scale length for a B string.

Sheldon didn't work out 37" with complex math, it was done with a jig and what sounded good to him. This doesn't discount that it sounds good, it simply is not mathematically optimal and without evidence that it is I don't think anyone's going to buy that.
Click to expand...

I'll start by saying I'm not a physicist and yield to your field knowledge here. I have a lot of interest in engineering and physics concepts, and little stomach for the arithmetic classes. I sure am glad someone else has the stomach, so I don't have to.
To be clear I don't think Sheldon Dingwall sat down with a calculator and worked out the correct speaking length of a .130 Gauge string. He built the jig, 'stumbled' upon the speaking length, and expanded from there.
We both know that a real world application of physics, with gravity, atmosphere etc, is rife with variables that make it difficult, if not impossible to come up with the 'perfect' model to any complex motion.

Many years ago I attended a lecture at the Lockheed ATC discussing the 'Physics of the Violin'. Can't remember the name of the lecturer (this was in the late 90's) but he was an aerospace professional (engineer maybe) who also liked building violins. Harnessing frequency and nodes of vibration was a big part of the topic. Found a paper with similar information - this does not discuss scale length but the talk I attended did. The paper is worth looking at, interesting stuff here even if it doesn't directly relate.
My point is: yes with the variables in materials, contact points etc, one could not build a model to make the perfect scale length down to 0.xxxxxx". But getting a model that works to say 0.25" variance (huge and sloppy by physics standards)seems pretty possible.

Not really trying to argue, would like your thoughts
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snake101st and TeeSee
#82
getBAK said:
I'll start by saying I'm not a physicist and yield to your field knowledge here. I have a lot of interest in engineering and physics concepts, and little stomach for the arithmetic classes. I sure am glad someone else has the stomach, so I don't have to.
To be clear I don't think Sheldon Dingwall sat down with a calculator and worked out the correct speaking length of a .130 Gauge string. He built the jig, 'stumbled' upon the speaking length, and expanded from there.
We both know that a real world application of physics, with gravity, atmosphere etc, is rife with variables that make it difficult, if not impossible to come up with the 'perfect' model to any complex motion.

Many years ago I attended a lecture at the Lockheed ATC discussing the 'Physics of the Violin'. Can't remember the name of the lecturer (this was in the late 90's) but he was an aerospace professional (engineer maybe) who also liked building violins. Harnessing frequency and nodes of vibration was a big part of the topic. Found a paper with similar information - this does not discuss scale length but the talk I attended did. The paper is worth looking at, interesting stuff here even if it doesn't directly relate.
My point is: yes with the variables in materials, contact points etc, one could not build a model to make the perfect scale length down to 0.xxxxxx". But getting a model that works to say 0.25" variance (huge and sloppy by physics standards)seems pretty possible.

Not really trying to argue, would like your thoughts
Click to expand...

There are absolutely interesting physical principles to be applied within instrument design. I've been particularly fascinated with some of the laser interferometry measurements of violins and other acoustic instruments that can reveal some interesting information on the way in which the soundboards vibrate in response to string vibration. I have seen a number of acoustic makers who attempt to reverse engineer this in their craft using a loudspeaker to induce various modes in the top of the instruments. Using a light medium such as tea leaves allows the nodes to be visualized and then the guitar soundboard and bracing is tuned to alter the shape of the nodes, adjusting the mode response of the top.

Where I think some of this falls short in application to the real world is in describing what is optimal. The tone we hear from a bass string is the sum of the modes of the vibrating string, affected by the physical properties of the instrument (string, body, neck, fret, nut, bridge physical properties) and then the transfer function of the pickup into the electrical domain and then finally back into the acoustic domain through the preamplifier(s), amplifier and speaker system. Then we have to account that different people have differing concepts of what tone is "good".

I think that last part is a key part in claiming that a certain instrument parameter is ideal or optimal for tone. Tone is subjective and therefore I don't see how we can optimize one parameter of an instrument mathematically to have an ideal tone. Surely we can construct an accurate model of a vibrating string using mathematical physics and then alter various parameters to engineer a certain mode response, but who is to say that a certain response sounds best to a particular person. The fact that different players prefer pretty different tones would indicate we don't have an optimal tone model to engineer string parameters to match.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snert and getBAK
#85
The biggest reason I'm not a fan of multiscale/fanned-fret basses is that I'm notorious for having "gotta try 'em all" (like pokemon) string GAS, and since available string sets that work for multiscale/fanned-fret basses are limited, I cannot feed my string GAS.

These days, my favorite/ideal basses are 34" scale, 24-fret, 4-strings with Hipshot Xtenders. Not only are they most enjoyable for me to play and give me all the range I need (being able to easily click into drop-D is awesome), but they allow me to indulge my string GAS, because there are more strings available for 34" scale 4-strings than anything else. The world is my oyster.

Maybe string GAS is a silly reason for me to say no to multiscale/fanned-fret basses, but it is my legit reason and I own it.

EDIT: One thing to note about multiscale/fanned fret playability is this: Those where the most straight/perpendicular fret is the 9th fret will play differently than those where the most straight/perpendicular is the 12th. After all, the 9th fret is the "center" of the neck and not the 12th, so the fan in first position may be less intense/aggressive (and easier to play) if your straight/perpendicular fret is the 9th.

And scale length is not the end-all-be-all for B strings. I spent the majority of my bass playing time on 5-strings (including some 35" scale ones), a few years on 6-strings, and my absolute favorite B in terms of feel and sound being most even with the other strings was on a 34" scale boutique/hand-built 6-string with parallel frets. I've played great B-strings on 35"+ scale basses and I've played ploppy B-strings on 35"+ scale basses. Same with 34s. I think overall construction (particularly at the neck joint) is what determines the goodness of a low B.
 
Last edited:
#90
crguti said:
What about strings? Do you need to buy special strings for fanned fret basses?
Click to expand...

39 inch winding length for long scale Dingwall, tapered on the B and E ideally atleast for the mono rail bridges. Not sure about the single piece bridges on the Canadian models.

That limits your options drastically enough which I actually kind of enjoy, outside of custom gaugings.
 
#91
I have two. Both have a two-inch difference from top string to bottom string.

I don't even have to think about it. I approach them exactly as I do my parallel-fret basses. They feel completely normal.
 
#92
I have tried several fan fretted basses but have a harder time playing chords on either end of the neck. For that reason I have decided to stay with normal basses. I really tried to like them though.
 
#94
I understand the idea and functionality behind them. But I don't like the aesthetics of them or how they feel. I'm used to my frets and pickups being straight and not slanted. In other words, they look weird.

With these basses, the "box method" becomes the "trapezoid method". I can't imagine having to keep track of how far away to spread my fingers while fretting. It's hard enough to fret properly on some songs.
 
#95
I haven't jumped into the world of multiscale basses yet, but I am curious to try. However, I play a lot of both fretless and fretted basses, and I kind of worry that introducing multiscale (fretted) basses would mess up my intonation on single-scale fretless. Do any of you have experience with this?
 
#96
I just got back from a trip to Music Go Round Kenosha Wisconsin.

I wanted to test out a fan fret.
They have a used EHB1265SM 5 on the floor.
(It was on a stand next to a Strandberg Boden 8!!!!)
I drove up there with this one purpose.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

My assessment.
Playing it in the lower frets makes no difference to me.
The angle does not throw me off.
40112-S000169372-14.jpeg



The center of the neck the frets are practically the same as a regular bass.
40112-S000169372-11.jpeg



Now.
I discovered that the angle of frets at the twentieth fret make fretting chords like a minor add 9 chord easy.
Because your hand wants to angle back that way anyway.
40112-S000169372-2.jpeg


My assessment is....that if you play chords and barre across the frets in the upper frets like I do...go for it!
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back