Post your tips for solid B on a short scale

[JustForSport]

Re:
"Incorrect. This is a misinterpretation of compound beam theory. In a multi-material beam in flexture, putting the stiffer materials on the outer regions and the less stiff materials (generally centrally) at the neutral plane will result in the stiffest beam, given those materials; but, if you replaced the central less-stiff material with the same amount of high-stiffness material, the beam would be even stiffer. Or, taking the reverse direction, imagine a uniform-material beam, with a certain stiffness; replacing any part of it with less-stiff material will result in a less stiff beam. The reduction in stiffness will be least if you put the less-stiff material surrounding a central neutral plane, but it will still have reduced stiffness."

Could be- I'll have to look into that further, I'm certain you're right about at least most of it- so much for plywood...
Great explanation, tho.

 

[iiipopes]

It's not just the gluing in of graphite rods. It is making sure the ends are secure against neck wood at either end, or the neck can't take advantage of the structural benefits.

Yes, we agree walnut decreases overall stiffness. That may actually be preferable as an alternative to mahogany in guitars, but I agree with you, not necessarily basses.

As far as pipe organs, your statement is valid for those ranks which are purposefully mis-tuned, usually a celeste stop. But in the larger ensemble, if they are close, they will draw in tune. I've spent way too many hours working on them over the past thirty years. If you want something "fun," try spending the afternoon in an unconditioned pipe chamber against a wall that is not insulated in July regluing leather pneumatics with fish glue all day.

Of course it's not that simple. But this is a forum with limited bandwidth. I may have oversimplified to preserve bandwidth. I'm not trying to restate Hemholz in its entirety.

Now, from re-reading all the above, we probably agree more than we disagree. You obviously have a penchant for insisting on technical accuracy. I usually do, but this is a player's forum, and 99% of the players just want to know what to do to figure out why their basses have dead notes and what to do about it. I offer practical solutions, not a strictly physics based exhaustive tome on describing everything with minute detail in precise jargon. When I was a young man, I would have taken your position and proffered every statement with its reference to a standard text on the matter and mathematical formulae to show how it works. I'm now too old to care. If the bass has a dead spot, I tweak the truss rod. If that doesn't work, I sell it. I like the way maple/purpleheart/maple looks. The shedua stripe in my Rickenbacker 4002 (that's right - 2, not 1 or 3) has been good to me. I don't give a damn about graphite, except that my elbows hurt, so now I have graphite shafts in my golf clubs instead of the traditional steel. Bring me a bass that has been properly set up with the rods press fit and glued in both laterally and at the ends to render as a single unit with the truss rod, addressing both flex and stiffness, and I will reconsider my position. I'm not so reactive as Andre Segovia, who would only let a slightly arched rod of ebony serve as a truss rod in his classical guitars, but I think that in spite of what has progressed in the last decade of bass building, there is still a long way to go to learn how to integrate graphite properly to the best effect. As a mere weekend warrior who has gotten lucky, I have had the privilege of playing on three continents and national network TV. So if you insist that I am wrong, it is probably because I told my high school counselor that I was not going to take calculus, because with what I was planning as a day job, I would be in a position to pay for the expert witness to explain it to the jury. You are my expert witness. The more technical you get, the more I get the benefit of it without having to pay for it. Thanks for your time.

 

[flameworker]

yep, fatter string, 140 or so, less deep nut slot for higher action. or vary your tuning, maybe low c instead?

 

[Ryan Martian]

If I were building a 30" 5 string bass for a client concerned with the low B ringing tight I would first suggest adding one inch to the desired scale length right off the bat. If not, I would soak my rulers in water, let them swell and continue recommending the following;

A 5pc. thru neck, preferably of Maple and accented with a couple thinner laminates of the desired fretboard species. A steep headstock angle, 13-15 degrees and the B tuner would be closest to the nut. I'd go with a zero fret, a bone nut and a very dense fretboard of either Cocobolo, Ziricote, Ebony, Purpleheart or Bloodwood. I'd suggest tall frets and plan for moderate neck relief hopefully more so on the bass side of the neck (fingers crossed). I would plan to use large core, high tension strings like DR's and run them through the body directly behind the 2 piece bridge which is constructed of the fretboard species with a bone saddle. Hopefully my customer is an active pickup enthusiast. Active pickups use weaker amplified magnets which would minimize the effect of strings being pulled to rest.

This short scaled 5 string with the right amount of compression and a properly equalized full range system of ample wattage should shake you and your bandmates balls, no problem. There might be a learning curve till the player becomes accustomed to the looser string feel and extra neck relief.

I'm imagine the most common advantage of the short scale bass is ease of playability due to closely spaced frets. Personally, I enjoy the quick decay of short scaled instruments but that's just me. It takes a lighter touch but I much prefer the sweetness of a note that is lush, concentrated and less drawn out.