Neck-thru or 35" scale = greater effect on tone?

[roller]

Pianos and spinets are acoustic instruments. Electric bass guitars are not. So your analogy is comparing apples to oranges.

I can take a short scale bass and likely give you a subjectively bassier sound than I can get from my 35" scale Spector. Because when it comes to solidbody instruments, the magnetic pickups and strings you've got installed combined with the amp and cab you're plugged into will make up virtually all of that you'll be hearing. There may be some small additional contributions to the tone and timbre resulting from the construction and materials used in the bass. But at normal performance levels - and especially at stage volume - it's doubtful they'll be noticeable.

Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed.

Hands down, I think neck construction style is a greater contributor to tone than scale length.

I owned a Modulus Quantum once. I bought into the whole "longer scale... that's why grand pianos sound so much better... blah, blah, blah." Personally, I didn't think the longer scale was all that it was cracked up to be. The low B certainly wasn't anything special.

I recently picked up an '84 Ibanez Bean Bass... first fretted thru-body I've had in years... wow, what a tone monster! It's a 34-inch scale... and compared to my other Fender-style basses, it simply sounds different. It's just got this sweet Spector-ish growl to it! My Fender-style basses are killer in their own way and I love them just as much.

Bolt-on vs. thru-body = different construction styles = things vibrating differently = different tones.

For me, bolt-ons have more bite/cut while thru-bodies have more sweetness/warmth. Neither one's better. It all depends on your taste and/or the tool needed for the job.

Something to think about -- if the 35-inch scale was something so special the Modulus gang hung their hat on for years, why did they start making 34-inch scale Quantums? Hmmmm???

 

[scuzzy]

Pianos and spinets are acoustic instruments. Electric bass guitars are not. So your analogy is comparing apples to oranges.

I can take a short scale bass and likely give you a subjectively bassier sound than I can get from my 35" scale Spector. Because when it comes to solidbody instruments, the magnetic pickups and strings you've got installed combined with the amp and cab you're plugged into will make up virtually all of that you'll be hearing. There may be some small additional contributions to the tone and timbre resulting from the construction and materials used in the bass. But at normal performance levels - and especially at stage volume - it's doubtful they'll be noticeable.

Pianos are coustic instruments where tones are poduced by striking a string.

The conversation isn't "bassy". It's harmonics. My 30" SS is the bassiest bass I own. It has great fundamental and little else.

99% of debates on this forum are pointless at stage volume.

If 99% of an instruments timbre is a result of strings and electronics, how can 2 basses from the factory with identical components and numerically identical setup sound so much different? Why are some 70's fenders great and some horrible?

 

[MCS4]

I'm sure the Aguilar pickups and zero fret have something to do with it as well, but the richness of tone and sustain seemed to be more of a physical thing that I could feel in the vibrations of the instrument, even when unplugged.

In my opinion, this particular component (the "physical thing"/unplugged factor) is much more a factor of the instrument being well-designed and well-manufactured, and/or the particular instrument just having that extra "mojo," rather than an inherent characteristic of neck-through versus bolt-on.

In my experience, the average neck-through might have slightly more sustain than the average bolt-on, although a well-constructed instrument of any kind will have enough sustain that this is irrelevant. I believe there are minor differences in tone on the average, but IMO nothing that would fall under the category of "richness."

I don't believe there is any inherent difference in either "sustain" or "richness" based upon scale length. I do believe that scale length will generally impact tone more than neck construction. However, my opinion is that the differences in tone based upon scale length arise mainly due to the fact that a longer scale length will result in a higher level of string tension versus a shorter scale length if you use the same gauge of strings. Any inherent difference between 34" and 35" can probably be reduced or entirely eliminated based upon string choice. It's much more obvious if you do something like trying to compare 30" and 34" based at lowered tunings, where getting a decent tone out of the 30" will require such thick strings that it starts to have an unusual impact on the tone

 

[scuzzy]

Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed.

Hands down, I think neck construction style is a greater contributor to tone than scale length.

I owned a Modulus Quantum once. I bought into the whole "longer scale... that's why grand pianos sound so much better... blah, blah, blah." Personally, I didn't think the longer scale was all that it was cracked up to be. The low B certainly wasn't anything special.

I recently picked up an '84 Ibanez Bean Bass... first fretted thru-body I've had in years... wow, what a tone monster! It's a 34-inch scale... and compared to my other Fender-style basses, it simply sounds different. It's just got this sweet Spector-ish growl to it! My Fender-style basses are killer in their own way and I love them just as much.

Bolt-on vs. thru-body = different construction styles = things vibrating differently = different tones.

For me, bolt-ons have more bite/cut while thru-bodies have more sweetness/warmth. Neither one's better. It all depends on your taste and/or the tool needed for the job.

Something to think about -- if the 35-inch scale was something so special the Modulus gang hung their hat on for years, why did they start making 34-inch scale Quantums? Hmmmm???

If neck construction is more important, than it's a debate of graphite vs wood?

 

[roller]

If neck construction is more important, than it's a debate of graphite vs wood?

For me, it certainly isn't.

Bring the timber!!!

 

[40Hz]

Bolt-on vs. thru-body = different construction styles = things vibrating differently = different tones.

Except there was an experiment where they built a neck-through bass, then cut the neck off, routed the body and bolted it on, and finally glued it in as a set neck to minimize the number of variables in materials and core construction to isolate as best they could the effect of the neck join method.

End conclusion was that subjectively it had no noticeable effect on sustain and no audible effect on overall tone. And the electronic test equipment they used verify their subjective impressions confirmed differences so small as to not be audible.

Interestingly enough, they went into it thinking the audible and measurable differences would be significant. So that pretty effectively leaves possible "researcher bias" out of the equation too.

Hmm…

(Note: I used to be firmly convinced a neck-through was better than a set neck. And a set neck was better than a bolt-on for both tone and sustain. But eventually what my ears were hearing overrode what my brain was insisting must be true.)

 

[40Hz]

Pianos are coustic instruments where tones are poduced by striking a string.

The conversation isn't "bassy". It's harmonics. My 30" SS is the bassiest bass I own. It has great fundamental and little else.

99% of debates on this forum are pointless at stage volume.

If 99% of an instruments timbre is a result of strings and electronics, how can 2 basses from the factory with identical components and numerically identical setup sound so much different? Why are some 70's fenders great and some horrible?

Glad to see we're in complete agreement. Except where I say "bassy" you say "harmonics." I think we're talking about the same thing however in this context.

It's also my understanding it's not so much harmonics as harmonic amplitude relative to amplitude of the fundamental when it comes to a bass. No notes on a stringed instrument are pure. Every plucked note generates a fundamental plus a series of harmonic overtones at very precise and predictable intervals from the fundamental. But with a short-scale bass the amplitude of the upper harmonics are lower relative to the fundamental so you perceive more of the fundamental and less of the overtones with each note played. Which is why although it sounds like you're hearing more bass, you're actually hearing less harmonic overtones in the mix of frequencies we think of as a single note. So it sounds bassier.

 

[roller]

Except there was an experiment where they built a neck-through bass, then cut the neck off, routed the body and bolted it on, and finally glued it in as a set neck to minimize the number of variables in materials and core construction to isolate as best they could the effect of the neck join method.

End conclusion was that subjectively it had no noticeable effect on sustain and no audible effect on overall tone. And the electronic test equipment they used verify their subjective impressions confirmed differences so small as to not be audible.

Again, I don't think either one is "better"... it just depends on the player's (or producer's) taste and what type of sound needs to be achieved.

It's like we're comparing a lion's growl to a tiger's growl. Both animal's growl... and each has their own characteristics... but is one "better" than the other? No... that would be an ignorant thing to say.

YMMV.

 

[scuzzy]

Spectrum analyzers are great. This is good discussion. Novax Guitars: Information: Technical Lecture

Interesting. If I'm reading this correctly, it says that longer scale length produces an audibly noticeable increase in upper harmonics....

 

[scuzzy]

Again, I don't think either one is "better"... it just depends on the player's (or producer's) taste and what type of sound needs to be achieved.

It's like we're comparing a lion's growl to a tiger's growl. Both animal's growl... and each have their own characteristics... but is one "better" than the other? No... that would be an ignorant thing to say.

YMMV.

I'm tracking with you. Neck through, bolt on, short scale, extra long scale, light gauge, heavy gauge..... They all sound different. I believe they also all sound good. If not, they'd be gone from my collection.

Folks should read up in the luthier's forum more often. Some of those guys/gals do some really amazing stuff regarding tonality and voicing, that *gasp* isn't related to strings or electronics! They are actually altering the sound by altering the construction. Crazy, most of TB says that's impossible.

 

[40Hz]

Again, I don't think either one is "better"... it just depends on the player's (or producer's) taste and what type of sound needs to be achieved.

It's like we're comparing a lion's growl to a tiger's growl. Both animal's growl... and each have their own characteristics... but is one "better" than the other? No... that would be an ignorant thing to say.

YMMV.

I didn't think you were saying one is better. All I'm saying is "it is what it is." And that whatever sonic differences there may or may not be, in all likelihood they have very little (or nothing) to do with the method chosen for the neck join. And I found that experiment to be interesting.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Dunno. It sustains for days. When playing, the whole thing just vibrates like it has some kind of energy. I have a Gretsch hollow body that does the same thing but doesn't sustain like the 800. Just an amazing feeling.

If it is vibrating then energy from the string is being diverted, and it will sustain less than would otherwise be the case.

 

[lz4005]

Why do large orchestras use grand pianos instead of spinet?

Because they're louder, easier to maintain and easier to tune.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I'm tracking with you. Neck through, bolt on, short scale, extra long scale, light gauge, heavy gauge..... They all sound different.

Is that objective, based on a spectrum analyser?

 

[roller]

I didn't think you were saying one is better. All I'm saying is "it is what it is." And that whatever sonic differences there may or may not be, in all likelihood they have very little (or nothing) to do with the method chosen for the neck join. And I found that experiment to be interesting.

We're square... we can hang.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Because they're louder, easier to maintain and easier to tune.

and the pianist can see over it, so you can wave your arms and get them to stop.

 

[Mechanical]

Interesting. If I'm reading this correctly, it says that longer scale length produces an audibly noticeable increase in upper harmonics....

Yep. It's why a short scale bass sounds "thumpier" than a 34"

 

[GMC]

Personally speaking, 35" is too much of a hand stretch near the nut for my tastes and the tonal / sustain difference is marginal. Why do you think a lot of 6 string guys are choosing 33" scale sixers these days?
All though tend to sound more laid back than bolt-ons, there is a difference in their note attack for sure...but it's not a huge as some people make out. It's not a big deal and as long as a bass is well made that tends to be a bigger contributer to the tone and sustain.

 

[bassdude51]

IMHO...........35" improves the sound of the Low B on a 5 banger but messes up the sound of the other four strings by making them sound a bit more twangy.

Answer

Dingwall Bass

It's a strain enough trying to play a 34" scale and a large percentage eventually get carpel tunnel and tendinitis.

I do not have a Dingwall although I played one, one time. The fanned frets are almost instantly easy to get used to.

Don't quote me but the Dingwall goes from 30" for the G and up to 36" for the B. Giving each string it's best length.

Dingwall now makes an over seas line that is somewhat affordable. The Canadian line is their flagship.

Worth checking out, eh?

 

[40Hz]

We're square... we can hang.

You betcha! I got the first two rounds.