No reason why a 34" bass cannot have a good B string

[spector_boogie]

I have and play both 34 (Spector NS5) and 35 (Lakland 55-94) and to me being a pretty much exclusive 5 string player for the 11 of the 13 years I've been playing it way more comes down to setup and string choice than actual scale length.
However I will say that bass construction has a part in it too- I don't like 34" scale "Fender style" B's nearly as much as say my 34" Spector. My Lakland is 35" though and does way better on the low B than I expected and has become my go-to player at this point.
Dingwall, Modulus and MTD are the best B's for me, in that order.

 

[El-Bob]

To that end, I've found that it pays to get an instrument with a neck that is as rigid as it can possibly be - whether all-graphite composite, or with inlaid graphite reinforcement rods, or built of multi-laminate construction - or what have you. The "B" string, tuned to pitch, puts enormous stress on any neck. A super-rigid neck that can stand up to all of that stress allows every bit of that string's vibrations to occur freely - without any dampening - such that the pickups can then pick up every bit of its signal. That's what makes a great-sounding "B" string - at least a great open "B" (the quality of fretted notes has somewhat more to do with the quality of the strings).

As I've made the transition from playing four-strings to playing five-strings, I've also transitioned from instruments with one-piece necks, to instruments with five-piece laminated necks - in my case either maple/walnut or maple/maple. In my experience, it really has made all the difference. I simply would never own a five-string or six-string instrument that has only a one-piece unreinforced wood neck.

MM

About the B putting enormous stress on the neck... In most string sets, the B actually has the least tension when tuned to pitch, does it not? Would this not make it the least stressful of the strings for the neck? I do agree though that a sturdy neck is much more important than scale length. I am just not sure about the reason you suggested for that.

 

[KingRazor]

The "B" string, tuned to pitch, puts enormous stress on any neck.

I find this odd considering the average B string has anywhere from 10 to 20 pounds less tension than the average D string.

A .065 D string is 51.3 pounds of tension, while a .135 B string is only 36.1 pounds of tension.

So is a low B that light really putting that much stress on a neck?

EDIT: El-Bob beat me to it...

 

[Mike M.]

The SR505 I played at GC the other day had a great low b and it was 34" and had a super skinny neck.

I also have an SR505 and yes, the low B (.130) has no flop what so ever. It came with Elixir Nanowebs and I continue to use those strings because they work.

On my Fender Am Std Jazz 5'er it took a while to find what B string worked for THIS particular bass. After going thru numerous sets with a 130 I've settled on D'Addario's with a 135 for the B.

 

[Mulebagger]

No doubt that a 34" can have a good B string. My Fodera Emperor has a great B at 34". However, my Modulus 35" B strings sounded better, or at least were clearer and spoke better. Would you notice in a band context? Maybe, maybe not. My Zons at 34" have also had terrific B strings. So I'd think it has more to do with the design, components, and construction, rather than just the scale length.

 

[bgavin]

Warmoth makes mention of doing through-body stringing to tighten up the B string.
I have plans to build a Warmoth Deluxe5 with a Hipshot-A string-through bridge.
Warmoth says you can string the higher strings through the bridge, but run the B string through body for a tighter B.

 

[Ric5]

I can get a good low B on my Rickenbacker 5 string basses and they are 33 1/4" scale.

 

[Mystic Michael]

About the B putting enormous stress on the neck... In most string sets, the B actually has the least tension when tuned to pitch, does it not? Would this not make it the least stressful of the strings for the neck? I do agree though that a sturdy neck is much more important than scale length. I am just not sure about the reason you suggested for that.

I find this odd considering the average B string has anywhere from 10 to 20 pounds less tension than the average D string.

A .065 D string is 51.3 pounds of tension, while a .135 B string is only 36.1 pounds of tension.

So is a low B that light really putting that much stress on a neck?

EDIT: El-Bob beat me to it...

You have a point...

I will just say that the additional tension of the added "B" puts significantly more overall stress on the neck, than is the case with a four-string bass, with conventional EADG tuning. At least enough so that the rigidity of the neck becomes a crucial factor with respect to the quality of the "B" string.

MM

 

[Munjibunga]

I'm looking to buy a new 5-6 string bass because a lot of new songs I'm learning have lower notes than E. I have a Hipshot Xtender on one of my bass and it's working well for songs in drop D (a bit sloppy although).

So before spending some cash I decided to try BEAD tuning on another bass, a 78" BC Rich Mockingbird USA. So I bought a new 5-string set of DR Hi-Beam with 130 B string. Surprise the B string is rock solid, same as other strings. It's also easier to play (mentally) than I would have thought.

My conclusion: 34" scale bass can have as good a B string as a 35" scale bass.

A lot of people like Roger Sadowsky and Vinny Fodera would agree with you. A lot of my fivers have 34-inch scales and play and sound just as good as my 35s.

 

[DonaldR]

My goal was to test if a 34" scale bass can have a good B string. All other parameters apart since it is already a good 4-string. If I go and test any other 34" scale bass I would end-up with too much different parameters to make a judgement (as you said: strings, constructions, pickups, wood, builder, ...).

I didn't meant to start a 34" vs 35" debate (they all have their pros & cons), it was just an observation strictly based on changing the strings and tuning to BEAD.

 

[nostatic]

I've certainly had 34" scale basses with "great" b strings (and 35" with ok b strings) but it depends on your criteria. If you are looking for a piano like b, all other things being equal, longer scale is the way to go. But all instruments are engineering compromises so you pick the best middle ground. There are so many variables both for playing and construction it gets hard to make any universal statements.

 

[jeffbrown]

I noticed the concept of running the B and E strings through-body, if given the option, in another thread. I have this option on my Fender V, but not on my SR505.

Is the idea that the index point will be sharper *and* get a better vibration with added contact with the body? Will lighter gauge strings improve with this method even more than lighter strings going to the bridge only? Has anyone actually done a comparo that can be quantified?

So many questions. I'm no acoustician (LOL is that a word?) so any input here is appreciated.

JB

 

[KingRazor]

You have a point...

I will just say that the additional tension of the added "B" puts significantly more overall stress on the neck, than is the case with a four-string bass, with conventional EADG tuning. At least enough so that the rigidity of the neck becomes a crucial factor with respect to the quality of the "B" string.

MM

Now that I can agree with. After all you're adding some 30 pounds of tension overall just by adding that string.

 

[FunkHead]

I did the Bead on a MIJ Power Jazz Bass Special 34" Using the 4 fattest strings from a 5 string set of Slinkies. I didn't even have to adjust the truss rod. It was great except the loss of higher notes. IMO 34" 5 strings are crisper, Clearer and less muddy than 35" scale basses. I base this on a Sadowsky 5'r and a Lakland 5'r compared to Warwick Corvette standard, Active and also a Corvette $$.

 

[Immigrant]

Wha?

This thread is blasphemous! I've been brainwashed by TB to believe that in order to have a tight B the bass must be at least, let's say, 48" scale on the B side.

My 32" is as punchy and tight as I need anyway.

 

[FunkHead]

Wha?

This thread is blasphemous! I've been brainwashed by TB to believe that in order to have a tight B the bass must be at least, let's say, 48" scale on the B side.

My 32" is as punchy and tight as I need anyway.

I not an expert but have owned mostly 34" 5'rs and they have been nice & tight and punchy. I really don't think Sadowsky would stick with 34" if 35" would be better. He's be leaving a simple improvement "On the table"

 

[drTSTingray]

I would agree with you. I tried lots of 5 strings at one time and ended up with a striaght choice (for my taste) between a Warwick, a Fender and a Musicman and I ended up with the Musicman because it was the most comfortable for me to play and I like the Stingray sound anyway. I have to say I didn't consider the scale length in the choices and all of the basses I tried had good balance in sound. I was not considering 'boutique' territory but I also also rated the Yamahas and Lakland when I was trying them out.

Since then I've bought a Bongo 5 which is also a very good 5 string with a 34in scale - fact is I actually prefer the SR5 but the Bongo sounds phenominal and has a great B string also.

I know technically and theoretically it should do but in reality does the 35in scale bass sound that much different?? Maybe it's my hearing or something but I can't really hear it. As I say, I've not tried anything of the boutique type, so maybe there's a more discernible difference when you get to that level.

 

[awilkie84]

I use a 132 on my Fender Jazz V, and it's solid.
It doesn't have the clarity of the B on my Spector Rebop with a 125, though.

 

[azureblue]

beginning with a Carruthers mod P bass, and then to a 1st model Yamaha BB5000. I've used round would half wound, wound up wound down, , about every string imaginable and I think I can say a few things from firsthand-

The larger strings give more attack, but less secondary harmonic, and that is what we generally hear, not the fundamental. The large strings are prone to odd overtones, due to a resonance traveling up and down the string, I think, related to the bigness of the strings. The size of the string has something to do with tension, but not always. To my experience, anything above .128 starts to sound thuddy, and, as the string ages, the string loses overtones, and I have gone up to a .132. String tension is hard to gauge, but larger does not always equal higher tension. Stiffer, maybe, but I think that is due to the large string's resistance to vibrating, . Most of my experience was with D'ad flats, btw, but no exclusively. I tried other brands, as well. I settled on Fender 9050 flats, and they use a .125 for B and it is taper wound. On paper, it should not sound as good as a bigger, regular wound bass string, and it should be a bit floppy, but it's near perfect. It has tonal issues mid - neck and around the tenth fret- but it's nicely balanced and very playable.

 

[conqr]

You know what, even as a devoted bass player I get weary sometimes how picky we can be. Ime, within reason whatever 'floppines' down low or overtones up high are irrelevant because the fundamental is still present and accounted for in the live or recorded mix. In fact, sometimes what we call horrific can be unique and entertaining to an audience - 'emperor floppy' Fieldy's giant rumbling clickety alien spider tone anyone?

No one is saying we ought not to strive for perfection or buy the best built basses around, just that sometimes a bit of average audience perspective can't hurt. I've found it liberating as I do my best to improve what I can afford.