• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Strap wideness - an interesting discussion

The widest goes with the softest and most flexible for me.

I have many Levi’s straps made of neoprene and they are rather flexible thus applying pressure uniformly on my shoulder and not cutting my neck. They are the most comfortable I found.

My second best is the Kliq with some kind of air bubble applying the pressure on my shoulder. Not as smooth as the Levi’s but more flexible laterally so no pressure at the base of my neck.

Generally speaking, a strap is a flat and straight piece of leather or other material but my body is made in such way that I would need a concave portion around my neck to avoid cutting it, do strap manufacturers get it ?

I have a Contour Strap that does curve around the upper part of my back and shoulder to where the weight of the bass is redirected a bit more onto my back. Overall I’m pretty happy with mine, but will likely get another in a different color with a wool pad under the large part of the strap for extra comfort.

IMG_1170.png
 
I wonder if, aside from the weight difference between most basses and guitars, the fact that bass necks are longer factor into the ideal strap width.

When playing guitar, I barely lift my upper arm. I can reach the first fret just by rotating my shoulder outward. My elbow remains very close to my body. So vertically, my arm is pretty much in resting position.

On bass, I have to lift my upper arm and move my elbow away from my body to reach the lower frets. That’s when I feel the strap the most, and where having a wide, soft strap really makes a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikewalker
When I started playing bass – I'm a guitarist and organist – I used Minotaur straps, Greek ones, handmade by Paul. They're beautiful and very comfortable, and I used the wider ones. I used Levi's cotton straps when I played guitar because I don't like the straps slipping off my shoulders, I like them to stay firmly in place. I started using them on bass and also noticed that they're more comfortable, even though they're much less wide. Cotton, not leather, is what's best for me.
 
Pressure on the trapezius muscle and bass movement as a result of arm movement are independent variables. Yes, a thicker strap will predispose to a little bass movement when the fretting arm is raised, BUT the idea that it's better for the trapezius (and just as significantly the uppermost rotator cuff muscles and tendons, supraspinatus and infraspinatus) to compress them over a smaller surface area with a narrower strap is wrong. Pressure=force/area. A thinner strap will exert more force on those vulnerable structures, and will do more damage by diminishing local blood flow. If you're dancing around so much while playing that the bass movement is critical, so be it, but a wider strap (optimally made from a material with a bit of elasticity like neoprene) is better for muscle/tendon health.
 
Jeri Hart makes all the straps I use, and they measure 2.75 inches wide. The critical difference with her straps is the straps run the full width from pin to pin, which I believe supports the lower back. Our arm muscles do not end at our shoulders.

The 3 inch cotton Levy's in black or brown is what I recommend to inquiring students. It's affordable; runs 3 inches from pin to pin to support the lower back, has no metal; the cotton strap does not slide around; the cotton breathes; and the strap conforms to the clavicle instead of pressing on top of it like so many padded straps I tried.

I gave the last one of mine to a student, and she's quite happy with it after many discussions about posture etc.
 
Last edited:
I need help with this joke. Can anyone explain?
The speed of light is the same no matter what. If you're standing still? It's the speed of light, relative to where your standing. If you're going 50% of the speed of light, the speed of light should look like it's going 50% of the speed of light relative to you, right? Wrong. It's still the speed of light. If you move 99% of the speed of light, light still doesn't look like it's moving 1% of the speed of light, it still looks like it's moving at 100% of the speed of light.

The speed of light is fundamental; it does not change. In essense, we have no way to measure the speed of light compared to anything else, if we make such a measurement, the second thing is compared to the speed of light. It can't be the other way around.

So, what this is saying is that any scale we use is relative. Meters are relative, we measure them using the speed of light. That's not a figure of speech, it's literally true. And what is a second? Well, not getting in to the can of worms that is whether or not time exists (it doesn't, by the way,) any way we would measure it has to be in comparison to a fundamental constant. When you dig deep enough, that's the speed of light.

The speed of light is a fundamental constant, it defines its own scale, and any other scales only exist relative to that scale. So the speed of light is 1.
 
The speed of light is the same no matter what. If you're standing still? It's the speed of light, relative to where your standing. If you're going 50% of the speed of light, the speed of light should look like it's going 50% of the speed of light relative to you, right? Wrong. It's still the speed of light. If you move 99% of the speed of light, light still doesn't look like it's moving 1% of the speed of light, it still looks like it's moving at 100% of the speed of light.

The speed of light is fundamental; it does not change. In essense, we have no way to measure the speed of light compared to anything else, if we make such a measurement, the second thing is compared to the speed of light. It can't be the other way around.

So, what this is saying is that any scale we use is relative. Meters are relative, we measure them using the speed of light. That's not a figure of speech, it's literally true. And what is a second? Well, not getting in to the can of worms that is whether or not time exists (it doesn't, by the way,) any way we would measure it has to be in comparison to a fundamental constant. When you dig deep enough, that's the speed of light.

The speed of light is a fundamental constant, it defines its own scale, and any other scales only exist relative to that scale. So the speed of light is 1.
Mr. Gopherbassist is essentially correct. It was theorized, and proven experimentally that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. In physics publications, the meters per second number is called c, as in E=mc^2 (squared). You could call it anything, as long as you define it. All of relativity theory is based on this fundamental fact, and dozens of experiments have been performed over decades confirming that relativity theory is indeed correct. Does God laugh at us mere mortals for calling it a number or c, when they call it 1? I dunno.
If there’s more to this please tell us.
 
The first thing I do to any bass I buy is install strap locks and get a Levy's 4.5-inch-wide padded leather strap.

Nothing feels heavy, zero discomfort, but I am about 6-4, 220, so I have plenty of surface area with which to work.

I have never had masses of adoring crowds to wave at, so I don't anticipate having Keith's issues to deal with.
 
The speed of light is the same no matter what. If you're standing still? It's the speed of light, relative to where your standing. If you're going 50% of the speed of light, the speed of light should look like it's going 50% of the speed of light relative to you, right? Wrong. It's still the speed of light. If you move 99% of the speed of light, light still doesn't look like it's moving 1% of the speed of light, it still looks like it's moving at 100% of the speed of light.

The speed of light is fundamental; it does not change. In essense, we have no way to measure the speed of light compared to anything else, if we make such a measurement, the second thing is compared to the speed of light. It can't be the other way around.

So, what this is saying is that any scale we use is relative. Meters are relative, we measure them using the speed of light. That's not a figure of speech, it's literally true. And what is a second? Well, not getting in to the can of worms that is whether or not time exists (it doesn't, by the way,) any way we would measure it has to be in comparison to a fundamental constant. When you dig deep enough, that's the speed of light.

The speed of light is a fundamental constant, it defines its own scale, and any other scales only exist relative to that scale. So the speed of light is 1.
I get it, you are talking relativity. Light does change speed depending on what space it is traveling in. Slows down in our atmosphere, more in water, even more in diamonds, which is the reason they sparkle so much. Gravity affects it, as it is a bend in space/time. Even more interesting, light can interact with light and change its frequency, but only under certain conditions, and with certain types of light (super intense coherent, such as a laser).

Oh, here's the best one. A tightly focused laser beam can actually grab and hold matter in its beam, move it, like a tractor beam from Star Trek. Fun, fun, fun.

But no matter how fast or tricky it is, light cannot learn how to play bass, yet.
 
The speed of light is the same no matter what. If you're standing still? It's the speed of light, relative to where your standing. If you're going 50% of the speed of light, the speed of light should look like it's going 50% of the speed of light relative to you, right? Wrong. It's still the speed of light. If you move 99% of the speed of light, light still doesn't look like it's moving 1% of the speed of light, it still looks like it's moving at 100% of the speed of light.

The speed of light is fundamental; it does not change. In essense, we have no way to measure the speed of light compared to anything else, if we make such a measurement, the second thing is compared to the speed of light. It can't be the other way around.

So, what this is saying is that any scale we use is relative. Meters are relative, we measure them using the speed of light. That's not a figure of speech, it's literally true. And what is a second? Well, not getting in to the can of worms that is whether or not time exists (it doesn't, by the way,) any way we would measure it has to be in comparison to a fundamental constant. When you dig deep enough, that's the speed of light.

The speed of light is a fundamental constant, it defines its own scale, and any other scales only exist relative to that scale. So the speed of light is 1.
Yeah I know all about that. In special relativity the speed of light is often treated exactly that way - as a unitless constant. It makes solutions more elegant and insightful. The joke still doesn't make sense or it just isn't funny. Or I still don't get it (not the physics behind it, but the whole point of the joke).
 
Yeah I know all about that. In special relativity the speed of light is often treated exactly that way - as a unitless constant. It makes solutions more elegant and insightful. The joke still doesn't make sense or it just isn't funny. Or I still don't get it (not the physics behind it, but the whole point of the joke).
The joke is about perspective. The guy is asking why C is this random figure in meters. God is telling him, essentially, that the arbitrary units of the meter and the second aren't relevant. Plus, the god character is written in an irreverent style. Dismissiveness and a familiar, contemptful tone are not associated with portrayals of an Abrahamic god.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bass player 53