Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by SGT. Pepper, Feb 19, 2006.
This thing is DYN-O-MITE! In standard tuning too.
Those used to have a reversed headstock, which I really liked.
For a second there I got kind of dyslexic and thought you wrote " Very Tirdish "
Some of those with the reversed stocks were tuned BEAD when they first came out . The reason they were reversed was to add stiffness to the B string. The distance between the bridge and the tuner was further than a 35 inch scale bass. It really was a good design if you think about it. If you liked the BEAD tuning you got it in a 34 inch scale plus a tight B string. They switched to standard tuning due to popular demand. In fact, there is no longer a BEAD bass listed on their website. You gotta admit though, that new headstock is bangin!
that wouldn't have done anything to increase tightness!!!! there are only two way to do that, to increase the scale length or increase the string guage. increaseing the over all lenght or the string is useless and anyone that says different doesn't know physics
It looks like a Thunderbird all puffy after a weekend bender.
...as well as the bass verison of Robert Smith's Ultracure signature model. Given Simon Gallop's penchant for T-birds as well as the "Ultrabass" name I can easily see him moving to this model.
I like that one!
It is the bass version of the Ultracure. Well, actually, it's the bass version of the standard production guitar version of the Ultracure.
Im not a physics major or scientist but why then are string sets for 35 inch + basses longer than your standard 34 ? It sounds like a contradiction to me saying the string length has nothing to do with stiffness. It just seems ironic that the longer the scale length, the longer the string legnth as well. Seems that it goes hand in hand wouldn't you say Professor?
If that were the case, 30 inch scale basses would be more popular due to the easier to handle shorter neck. The reason why they died is because of the floppiness of the strings when everyone was switching to roundwounds.
exactly they were floppy, you can have a 30" bass with a string length of 60" and it will still be floppy. after all its still the same tension
30 inch scale with 60 inch long strings.....HMMM....very interesting.
Let me have some of what you are smoking. WOW! It must be really good stuff.
overall length, aka from the bridge to the tuning head
WOAH! i used to think that looked like crap but the new headstock makes it sexy as hell! it looks likle a t-bird on steroids
My point exactly! You just proved what I had originally posted is true then. With the B tuning head last in line it is equal to or actually exceeds a 35 inch scale with the B tuning head first in line.
ya but it doesn't mean that it will be tighter. the sounding length will still be the same length, that is the length that will have an effect on the tightness. the overall length has no bearing on the tightness
He meant bridge to nut, aka the speaking length of the string. This is the scale length of a bass- any distance behind the bridge or nut is inconsequential to scale length and does not add tension. You can have a 34" scale bass where the string attaches to the tuning pegs three feet away, and it will still remain a 34" scale bass.
There coming to take me away oh no.... there coming to take me away...... to the funny farm, where life is good!
thats what i have been saying all along.
You said bridge to tuning head, which confused him into thinking the further away the tuning head was, the longer the speaking length of a string was. I was clarifying.
BTW, your username iamlowsound kinda negates the need for you to sign your posts lowsound.....if you were signing with your real name it would be one thing, but..
As for the pictured bass, I'm not a fan of the non-continuous pickguard at all.