So why fanned frets?

[mongo2]

Fanned fretless. BOOM! Next?

Unlined fanned fretless?

 

[BurningSkies]

I think they look awesome and I’d love to play one someday. I’m skeptical that the 2-3” difference in scale length is enough to get more than a sniff of any real improvements different scale lengths could have.

There's a net improvement across the neck with the fanning. While the B string gets the most comment, the effect of multiscale is truly across the entire neck. With a fan of 34-37 you get the feel of a 'fender scale' G string then as you go across the neck the strings get longer and you end up having balanced tone and timbre that matches across the entire neck. To me the big difference is in the clarity of what the bass presents and the overall 'speaking voice' definitely has more authority. That translates well live and in the studio.

The even tension across the neck means you don't have to address the different strings differently when you're playing.

In the end it just sounds different and feels different. Either you like that, or not.

 

[BurningSkies]

Fanned fretless. BOOM! Next?

You rang? I'm playing one as we speak.

I also know a guy with two unlined fanned fretless basses, one that's 32-35 and another that's 34-37.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

I mean that the low b-strings low B pitch stops, but that's the one. The harmonics - no matter how you dampen - reside between the last point and the bridge node. The space between the last spot and the bridge. I e if you try to angle your finger, like an upright bass player and lay it all down ALONG the string you may stop the fundamental note. It's greater finger surface touching and muting the string. However, even at the end of the finger and the bridge there exists a harmonic node. That harmonic is still heard, and I've found it more pronounced on fanned frets basses low b-string since the low B is more taut, and has more tension. The video above is just an example in SLO MO, where it's shown that the fundamental doesn't stop immediately. On the higher strings no problem. On the g-string it works as on any other bass, basically.

To really be nitpicking and get anal about this, I find more problems with this harmonic muting, on low B if the string has taper, or open core design. If they are thick gauge all over the bridge there's less of "harmonic ringing" while finger muting. Still there, but less.

 

[Need Gigs]

I am puzzled. No low B ever sounded tighter and more inline with the other strings then that of a Warwick Thumb NT or Dolphin Pro1, and those are 34" scale.

Please explain to me why fanned frets are an improvement for their purpose eludes me right now.
I want to experience GAS for a Dingwall.

I own both a Warwick (Corvette $$) and a Dingwall
To me, the Dingwall low B is a significantly clearer and more tonally consistent with the other strings on the bass. However, the Warwick low B is much beefier.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each.

 

[MYLOWFREQ]

So that you have fans

 

[Jefenator]

The worst part about fanned frets for me is having to explain them to someone after the set - for the 30th time.
The next worst thing is trying to do certain chord shapes above the 12th fret.
After that, it's ALL gravy.
I've been through the mill of low Bs. The neck-through 34" Warwick is pretty good. The 35" Roscoe is also right up there in its own way.
But IME 37" on the Dingwall is in a league all its own. If you want to know how clear and well-defined the lower register can really be, IMHO you owe it to yourself to at least try it.

 

[Sheldon D.]

What has dawned on me very slowly during the 10+ years I have been into fanned frets, is that it is mainly on the low end things starting to happen. The lowest strings. Now since more and more brands are jumping into the multiscale bandwagon there are a lot more to do comparison to, and not just the Dingwall cream of the crop things. For example LTD/ESP and Ibanez makes great FF/Multiscale basses too. But still, I have trouble with the very same idiosyncrasies that plagues all other basses. Neck diving, dead spots here and there, and a number of other things.

1. If one now has to reach 37" string length on the low B, before they sound any good, and those basses, why not doing them headless from the start on? Then I think ALL string sets would fit, since you have to stop the strings and cut them short, just right after the zero fret, or the nut, and clamp them down. No excess waste length. At the headpiece. Then one would not have to hunt around for super extra long scale sets, of a few brands, just to make the low B fit. I can very well understand that double ball end sets wouldn't be produced for this.
2. I have had always problems, with right hand (picking hand) dampening of any string of thicker gauge and lower pitch. Especially the low B, and it is - actually - exacerbated on any bass with fanned frets. The thing that is happening is that you happen to land your fingers (with rest stroke) on a harmonic node. With loud volumes, and if compressor used, it will still ring afterwards, at a certain harmonic node pitch. Not so on the g-string and much lesser on all the others. I e the fingers aren't broad or thick enough to stop that harmonic from lingering. Not to speak of the open B-string rumbling around when playing other strings, since it mechanically resonates. At that low B frequency.

On some other basses I have with zero fret (metal) and metal nut (very few), there's a tendency to make upper harmonics to ping out more loud at the 3-4th frets. On any other bass with bone, plastic, graphite nut, these "harmonic pings" are not as pronounced. Even impossible to "chime". I think it works the same back at the bridge side of things. Near the bridge, those harmonics are more pronounced, and could be mitigated if the low B string bridge where made of other material, or had a larger dampening surface at the witness point. All other harmonics up the neck 12th,7th,5th fret would still sound good. I think it's the same with too small and narrow frets, like the banjo frets used on Dingwall basses. All of them. Basically, I don't think thick gauge strings combined with their low pitch should reside on the same small surface that Dingwall bridges has, as well as the small surface like the banjo frets has. The LTD/ESP I owned had larger frets and wider. It was less harmonics there.

So I don't know if a bone/plastic/micarta solution back at the bridge would mitigate this somehow. My solution now, is that I have 4 string FF basses tuned BEAD, and the low B ends at 36.25" which I think is enough for a good low B. More string sets will fit, and not so narrow range of brands to choose from, and I do have changed out the bridge saddle for something else to be able to end the ringing harmonics when trying to dampen the low B while playing. Let's just say it's the same material as the nut.

And if I have to play in regular tuning, I'll put a capo on 5th fret, and off I go. Tune down half a step to play SRV, Hendrix, and brass/horn tunes? Just move it down to 4th fret. No retuning to alter tension. Works a charm.

Something to chew on, sir Sheldon?

Some good points mentioned.

Headless bridges have a lot of length to accomodate the tuners. This moves the witness point of the bridge closer to the center of the body which pushes the scale further out. If we did that, it would make the reach to the first position on a 37" scale feel more like a 39" or 40" scale.

I've always thought the presence of those 3rd and 4th fret harmonics was a sign of a well intoned string. I assume it's a mass plus flexibility combination. A string that damps those harmonics with brute force stiffness would not play well in tune in the upper frets. There are other ways to design strings that self damp but I haven't looked into them too deeply yet.

I think you're right that a more precise witness point has less of a damping factor on upper harmonics as does a solidly coupled saddle, high mass bridge, stiffer neck structure, heavier body etc. My experience with smaller frets though is that they warm up the tone. Even with a larger diameter top surface, larger frets sound brighter to me.

I think that your experiements with saddle shape and materials will be very interesting. There's a lot of room to shape tone and response at the saddle.

 

[smeet]

I recently got a Payson Supercharger, which is a 5 string 37” - 34”, same Novax fan as a Dingwall. I’m really enjoying it, and there’s no doubt the low B is more usable than on a 34”. I can play melodies in that low range and they don’t sound ridiculously low, because of the harmonic content which is missing on shorter scales. It doesn’t sound as fat as a shorter B, but I’ve never wanted extra fat down there, it tends to interfere with perceiving the pitch IMO.

I love my 34” basses, and now I also love my fanned fret bass (all are 5 string). It doesn’t sound or look like a Fender, and that may be either a plus or a minus for you.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

My experience with smaller frets though is that they warm up the tone. Even with a larger diameter top surface, larger frets sound brighter to me.

Yes yes, one thing's for sure, but so it is on all other basses and or guitars too, the more material of steel on the frets, be it wider, taller, stainless steel (believe it or not), fret buzzing is more pronounced, so you can actually have slightly lower action, the smaller and narrower frets you have. The problem for me is when they turn too low, and become like "fretless wonders" even if they have frets, but that has to do with how tall they are, not narrow. The problem with too worn down frets, or too low, is not really the warm sound, or lack of fret buzz, or when fretting the string. It's when the fingers lifts off there's a short "brr", like you haven't fretted enough hard. only heard when lifting off the finger, and you don't do it fast enough, with exagerregated movement.

Scale/shape the frets ACROSS the neck, as they will be hit by a thicker gauge? Tall and narrow at the G-string, and railroad track width, girth, at the low B? Gradually going "fatter" ? Or the other way around?

I just wanted to put this with dampening on scrutiny, because fanned fret basses and multi scale instruments lends and borrows a lot from piano stringing. And if you look at low bass strings on a piano, they need to double up the green felt padded dampers that dampens the bass strings with the sustain pedal, as opposed to the high treble strings. They are wider/longer and resides along the strings surface at greater length. That's what I meant I feel with low B's on FF basses, too, not only Dingwalls. Regardless that one can learn and adapt playing and dampen with 3 fingers, it's still behind the pinky towards the bridge somethings still ringing. And this is while fretting too, so none of those "string wraps" out there will mitigate this. Those are mostly to kill open strings while tapping.

You see, otherwise it would be sufficient with one small spot dampening along the string. Granted the harmonic nodes here resides on one spot since it is one note always on open strings, but I think you'll catch my idea. Our fingerpads are way narrower than any felt pad that stop a piano string. And the thicker the string, PLUS lower the pitch, that small harmonic spot resides at a greater surface along the string, so there's not sweet 1 millimeter spot, it's like 1 centimeter or something like that. One needs more surface to kill it. But that you can see on my Slo Mo video I showed above. One finger isn't enough.

 

[BurningSkies]

Some good points mentioned.

Headless bridges have a lot of length to accomodate the tuners. This moves the witness point of the bridge closer to the center of the body which pushes the scale further out. If we did that, it would make the reach to the first position on a 37" scale feel more like a 39" or 40" scale.

I've always thought the presence of those 3rd and 4th fret harmonics was a sign of a well intoned string. I assume it's a mass plus flexibility combination. A string that damps those harmonics with brute force stiffness would not play well in tune in the upper frets. There are other ways to design strings that self damp but I haven't looked into them too deeply yet.

I think you're right that a more precise witness point has less of a damping factor on upper harmonics as does a solidly coupled saddle, high mass bridge, stiffer neck structure, heavier body etc. My experience with smaller frets though is that they warm up the tone. Even with a larger diameter top surface, larger frets sound brighter to me.

I think that your experiements with saddle shape and materials will be very interesting. There's a lot of room to shape tone and response at the saddle.

My 'travel' bass is a Steinberger...and you're right about that bridge design. In my case it's also further exacerbated by not having a strap anchor far enough left...but the 34" Steinberger has a first position reach that is really fatiguing to me and feels way longer than any of my Dingwalls.

I had to work harder at playing that bass...in fact learned a whole pick-up set on that one alone since I was regularly landing a full step up the neck since the neck position is radically different. It also made me realize why so many guys used to play steinbergers by laying their right forearm along the top of the body like an armrest across their bodies...to get their plucking hand closer to where it would be on a standard bass.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

Now we're digressing a bit, but I think the headless "reach" and the whole scale length has been moved left can be mitigated. The thing exists mostly on those paddles where they're made like just a neck beam, and no body. if you separate body and neck with bolt on, and have a REAL body (like Klein K-bass, NS-4, NS-5 basses) the "askew" is somewhat mitigated. That the construction of the bridge and tuners should make this, is totally b***locks. There are numerous other regular basses where there are much wood, like several inches BEHIND the bridge system until the actual body ends, and then comes the strap pin. So it's even more moved leftwards there. They often use this space to show off the flamed maple (PRS guitars anyone?) I like instruments that are no longer than the strings scale length actually.

If you have a separate bolt on neck to a separate body, you could do just as well with a elaborate bridge/tuner design that takes care of this "extra space" with doing it with through body stringing and the tuner knobs facing upwards (like on NS-5 and NS-5). Then all the distance from the back of the bodys surface up to right behind the bridge saddle should be ample length to tune and even moreso than a regular headless bridge. In fact, the movement/re-location ability of the ball end of the string, can be important especially if a string has open core or is tapered. Tapered is what has bothered me most. It has been many time that the exact sweet spot for intonation has been right where the taper border is between two different wraps/gauges of the same string and you have to move the saddle back/forth so the string resides fully in its slot but then intonation gets slightly askewed. And one just have to live with that. If you moved the ball end back, then you can leave the bridge saddle at its spot and the strings witness point will not be exactly at the border where the tapered string changes gauge.

On another note, which is a gaffe no one has thought about. Some headless basses with bodies, they have always a recessed "bay" with the tuner knobs to not make it stand out and exposed to bump into things and protect it from scratches and wear. Now I would build this totally opposite with actually that part protruding out from the body, and that will mitigate this "askewed to the left" even further. Why they - all of a sudden, for no reason - wants to protect the tuner knobs there, when they never have done on ANY Fender J or P bass beats me. If some tuner mechanism is exposed to be knocked or bumbed into something it's those Fender butterfly tuners at any headstocked bass. Accident waiting to happen. Beats me. Even in padded gig bag, it gets jinxed and retuned, and you bump the headstock into things. This beats me big time. Headless designed bridge tuners doesn't have this "lever" effect anyways, so they are not as prone to damage if exposed to bumping into things.

So headless design and "neck-not-too-far-out-to-the-left" is actually a no-brainer. I think anyways, that me myself even has problem with 6 string basses today, that are not fanned fret, to reach each and every tuner up there. Not to say on all these multi-stringed extended scale 7-8-9 string mongrels of bass/guitars. And it is exacerbated with fanned frets, if they have full scale length. I think Sheldon has mentioned that a 6 string Super P or J bass isn't in the works as of yet, due to the reach would be impossible on the headstocked. Even if the fan fret scale is smaller on these. My tip is to go all in with headless design then, I have yet to hear of anyone not being able to reach tuners on a headless design no matter the amount of strings on it...

Or if anyone wants to keep the headstock, make just cavitites there and bring the ball end in there, it looks traditional then, and wind it up at the headless bridge tuner design, just like Kubicki did/does. No biggie.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

So verdict: Even the low E-string on a 4 string fanned fret bass is harder to tame in terms of dampening with the finger (mind you, one finger only) ,at 36.25" scale, than its equivalent on a 34" scale. You need 2-3 fingers in order to mute it completely with no harmonic ringing. And of course, the low B is even worse.

So, when people are discussing how hard, or how little effort it takes to adapt to fanned frets at all (any), one shouldn't forget that it takes even more to adapt the right hand (or plucking hand) for muting the lowest strings properly. You have to change your muting, or dampening style somewhat with incorporating 2-3 fingers. Floating thumb technique will not be enough. The good thing is that, if you re-learn that and hone it, you can of course apply that technique on regular scaled basses (the old ordinary ones) too, without problems. Those low strings will get muted there too, and then some.

But everyone doesn't play with just the fingers all of the time, they pop, thumb and slap, and some plays with pick, too, so palm muting will not be sufficient enough either.

Just: be wary of this.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

I play with funk fingers sometimes. The red "sausages" stuck onto your fingers. Can't dampen/mute anything but my fretting hand. Two edged sword. The tension of a fanned fret bass gives me the best bounce for these, which is a real trait. The muting, not... can't have it all it seems... Concessions with everything in life.

 

[ElectricBass72]

I was indifferent about fanned frets until I saw the new Spector NS Dimension 5. I've been gassing for a Spector anyway... so might as well go with multi-scale.

 

[Showdown]

My Dingwall 5 has by far the best B string (37") I've ever played. Better than Lakland and other "good" 35" B strings by a lot. Distinct and even punchy all the way down to the open B. I've never owned a 5 string before (and I've had a lot of them) where I was completely happy with the notes below low D. That is why I play fanned fret basses. Every note on the bass sounds good, and all even from the B to the G.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

My Dingwall 5 has by far the best B string (37") I've ever played. Better than Lakland and other "good" 35" B strings by a lot. Distinct and even punchy all the way down to the open B. I've never owned a 5 string before (and I've had a lot of them) where I was completely happy with the notes below low D. That is why I play fanned fret basses. Every note on the bass sounds good, and all even from the B to the G.

Yes, the thing is that all other strings should also sound good. On FF, I think the high G-string sounds just the same as on all other basses, bass-ically. Dingwall Combustions do have the same idiosyncrasies as some other basses too, with dead spots around C# at G-string (5-6th fret), and - actually - lots of neck dive on some select models. Those with added preamp and a truckload of knobs and 2 9 volt batteries in the body have less neck dive.

The thing with B-string isn't only that it sounds good, and awesome at the 4 notes only below open E, you can play above 12th fret on the B-string too, and it doesn't sound "sour" (out of tune) or decaying too quickly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
What slightly rubs me off in the wrong way, is that Dingwall (and Sheldon in his v-logs and blogs and postings) flaunts that the main trait of the fanned frets basses, especially 5 strings at 34-37 inches doesn't require any EQ at all, or compression, just because of the fanned frets (or really multiscale of the strings). FOH engineers, and studio engineers loves these traits of fanned frets basses. They don't need to tame it. But yet, still, they crowd their basses full with posh active circuitry of EQ, preamps, boost, and even limiters in some cases (not Dingwall perhaps) knobs dime-a-dozen. If it anyway evens out all the EQ spectrum I would think that less EQ is needed. Anywhere. And if you should need it, outboard gear is better off. Think Occams Razor in this case. Less is more, because it isn't needed. I have not needed anything fancy EQ shaping on any Dingwall, I am quite satisfied with tone knob only, less treble for vintage tones, or full up for modern funky, sizzling, pop slap, and so on. So I think that most EQs (Darkglass, EMG) on any FF or Dingwall is kind of - very - overkill, and superfluous.

 

[BurningSkies]

Yes, the thing is that all other strings should also sound good. On FF, I think the high G-string sounds just the same as on all other basses, bass-ically. Dingwall Combustions do have the same idiosyncrasies as some other basses too, with dead spots around C# at G-string (5-6th fret), and - actually - lots of neck dive on some select models. Those with added preamp and a truckload of knobs and 2 9 volt batteries in the body have less neck dive.

The thing with B-string isn't only that it sounds good, and awesome at the 4 notes only below open E, you can play above 12th fret on the B-string too, and it doesn't sound "sour" (out of tune) or decaying too quickly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
What slightly rubs me off in the wrong way, is that Dingwall (and Sheldon in his v-logs and blogs and postings) flaunts that the main trait of the fanned frets basses, especially 5 strings at 34-37 inches doesn't require any EQ at all, or compression, just because of the fanned frets (or really multiscale of the strings). FOH engineers, and studio engineers loves these traits of fanned frets basses. They don't need to tame it. But yet, still, they crowd their basses full with posh active circuitry of EQ, preamps, boost, and even limiters in some cases (not Dingwall perhaps) knobs dime-a-dozen. If it anyway evens out all the EQ spectrum I would think that less EQ is needed. Anywhere. And if you should need it, outboard gear is better off. Think Occams Razor in this case. Less is more, because it isn't needed. I have not needed anything fancy EQ shaping on any Dingwall, I am quite satisfied with tone knob only, less treble for vintage tones, or full up for modern funky, sizzling, pop slap, and so on. So I think that most EQs (Darkglass, EMG) on any FF or Dingwall is kind of - very - overkill, and superfluous.

There's a big difference between 'evens out the EQ spectrum' and having a tone that fits a song or type of music. Even or flat frequency response isn't necessarily what people want...it's a starting point so you can more easily sculpt the sound without having to deal with initial unbalanced areas.

Also, I've never seen a Dingwall with a limiter onboard. 99% have industry standard preamps in 2 or 3 band configurations with passive bypass switches...and you can certainly opt for most Canadian built models to be entirely passive.

 

[Bass Viking]

I am puzzled. No low B ever sounded tighter and more inline with the other strings then that of a Warwick Thumb NT or Dolphin Pro1, and those are 34" scale.

I just want to say that my Thumb bolt on has a great low B too!

 

[Sheldon D.]

Yes, the thing is that all other strings should also sound good. On FF, I think the high G-string sounds just the same as on all other basses, bass-ically. Dingwall Combustions do have the same idiosyncrasies as some other basses too, with dead spots around C# at G-string (5-6th fret), and - actually - lots of neck dive on some select models. Those with added preamp and a truckload of knobs and 2 9 volt batteries in the body have less neck dive.

The thing with B-string isn't only that it sounds good, and awesome at the 4 notes only below open E, you can play above 12th fret on the B-string too, and it doesn't sound "sour" (out of tune) or decaying too quickly.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
What slightly rubs me off in the wrong way, is that Dingwall (and Sheldon in his v-logs and blogs and postings) flaunts that the main trait of the fanned frets basses, especially 5 strings at 34-37 inches doesn't require any EQ at all, or compression, just because of the fanned frets (or really multiscale of the strings). FOH engineers, and studio engineers loves these traits of fanned frets basses. They don't need to tame it. But yet, still, they crowd their basses full with posh active circuitry of EQ, preamps, boost, and even limiters in some cases (not Dingwall perhaps) knobs dime-a-dozen. If it anyway evens out all the EQ spectrum I would think that less EQ is needed. Anywhere. And if you should need it, outboard gear is better off. Think Occams Razor in this case. Less is more, because it isn't needed. I have not needed anything fancy EQ shaping on any Dingwall, I am quite satisfied with tone knob only, less treble for vintage tones, or full up for modern funky, sizzling, pop slap, and so on. So I think that most EQs (Darkglass, EMG) on any FF or Dingwall is kind of - very - overkill, and superfluous.

My point about EQ is that multi-scale takes care of evening out the tone differences between the strings so that the EQ is only needed to compensate for the room or as Bill pointed out the needs of the song. This is one of the things engineers like so much. They EQ for a single range of tone instead of a varying range of tones per each string.

Regarding installing pre-amps on our basses: we build to order. All of our custom basses are priced as passive to start. Clearly most customers want a pre-amp. I'd agree that it's better to adjust EQ at the amp but a lot of players like the flexibility to be able to adjust on the fly.