Thick sounding G and C on a 35"?

[smeet]

I don't get a fat, bassy tone but I do get a full-bodied tone.


It could be something as simple as how you play... I know I get a fuller sound depending on how I pluck; the angle of my finger striking the string, how hard I pluck (softer tends to get a fuller sound IME) both play into what I get out of a bass. Muting too.

What kind of bass are you using? Have you tried cutting some of the high end? Typically if you do that, you can then turn the bass up louder and get a fuller sound... the highs tend to signal our brain that we're loud. Bring them down a little, bring the signal level up for your bass and you'll probably end up with the highs you had before, but this time better matched (not overpowering) to the lower frequencies.

I have pretty good right hand control, I can play with a very light or medium-heavy touch, fingertips vs. pads, strike vs. pluck, mute, finger angle, etc. Like I said, my Fender has a full-sounding G string. My old Alembic and current bass both don't, even though all the lower strings sound full. They sing in a guitar-y way, but don't sound round and full. I guess you could say the sound "tight", so maybe the lower-tension strings will help.

My bass is a Ransom, it is not very bright, it's actually on the warm side. It's a 35" 6-string with an ebony fingerboard, graphite-reinforced neck, bolt-on (very tight, 6-bolts). Pickups are Big Singles, preamp a 4-band Audere. Both pickup positions are somewhat close to the bridge, I've been told it is similar to a Roscoe.

I previously had Bartolini soapbars and pre in this bass, and it had the same "problem" then.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I have pretty good right hand control, I can play with a very light or medium-heavy touch, fingertips vs. pads, strike vs. pluck, mute, finger angle, etc. Like I said, my Fender has a full-sounding G string. My old Alembic and current bass both don't, even though all the lower strings sound full. They sing in a guitar-y way, but don't sound round and full. I guess you could say the sound "tight", so maybe the lower-tension strings will help.

My bass is a Ransom, it is not very bright, it's actually on the warm side. It's a 35" 6-string with an ebony fingerboard, graphite-reinforced neck, bolt-on (very tight, 6-bolts). Pickups are Big Singles, preamp a 4-band Audere. Both pickup positions are somewhat close to the bridge, I've been told it is similar to a Roscoe.

I previously had Bartolini soapbars and pre in this bass, and it had the same "problem" then.

I immediately thought of my Ambush when I saw that name.


I'd try the strings first. Your fingerboard is a red flag for me... I can't recall an Ebony board that sounded full up top. Clear and tight, yes. Not full or thick. I have a friend who liked a bass of mine (Ash with Maple neck/board Brubaker six) so he ordered a bass "like it"... with a Walnut body / Maple neck and Ebony board. It sounded nothing like my bass and had the type of highs I'd expect from that board... thin. I think he was surprised.

He did pickups closer to the bridge and IME that doesn't help either.

Have you tweaked the capacitance on the Audere? Did the upper mid control help?

Good luck.

 

[smeet]

That might be it, my Alembic also had an ebony fingerboard...

Great, so I probably have to get a new bass to get the response I'm looking for.

I haven't tweaked the Audere yet, I'll try that tonight.
The upper mid helps, the lower mid helps. The problem is that if I thicken up the upper strings, the lower strings get too thick sounding.

 

[Brad Johnson]

pickups will play a role in what youre hearing as well. with my 35" fodera, started with aero duals. thin c string. went to big splits-a little better c string at the expense of all the other strings. now-duncan duals. nice thick sounding g and c strings with great mids.

My 36" scale Fodera six has Lane Poors and a HAZ Labs pre and is one of the coolest sounding basses I've come across in having highs on the low strings and lows on the high strings. That's why I doubt the issue here is scale length.

 

[Brad Johnson]

That might be it, my Alembic also had an ebony fingerboard...

Great, so I probably have to get a new bass to get the response I'm looking for.

Sorry, just giving you my experiences with that wood on fretboards. I like thicker sounding upper strings (moving more air) so experience has taught me to stay away from it. I've had better luck with Maple, Rosewood, Bubinga, Zircote, even Cocobola. Something about Ebony on fretted basses and me. And Ash necks/boards too... like Ebony on steroids (great for some poeople, not for me). OTOH I have a gloss finished Ebony board on a five string fretless but so many other factors come into play; very vibrant body (Catalpa), pickups spaced more evenly, different pickups and pre (Bartolini).

I wouldn't give up on it based on just what I'm saying. Strings aren't cheap but they're relatively cheap to experiment with vs. getting another bass.

 

[narud]

My 36" scale Fodera six has Lane Poors and a HAZ Labs pre and is one of the coolest sounding basses I've come across in having highs on the low strings and lows on the high strings. That's why I doubt the issue here is scale length.

well, my thing wasnt as much with the scale as with the pickups. ive had three different sets of pickups in my fodera strung e-c and the difference in heft on the high strings was much more dramatic than with any string change.

 

[peekster]

Lone dissenter here, I guess.

OP: you shoulda stayed with 34". I made the 35" mistake with a Modulus 6, struggled for years to lose the 'twang', and finally learned my lesson.

Result: I'm back to the fat sound--no complaints about my low notes, live or in studio. Even more important, it's less work for the fingers. And finally, one less decision when I shop for a new instrument.

Life is much better now.

 

[Brad Johnson]

well, my thing wasnt as much with the scale as with the pickups. ive had three different sets of pickups in my fodera strung e-c and the difference in heft on the high strings was much more dramatic than with any string change.

I agree with you, Joe. That last sentence of mine was referring to a fanned fretboard as a fix, not anything you said. I get the results that I want with an even longer scale length than the OP's.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Lone dissenter here, I guess.

OP: you shoulda stayed with 34". I made the 35" mistake with a Modulus 6, struggled for years to lose the 'twang', and finally learned my lesson.

Result: I'm back to the fat sound--no complaints about my low notes, live or in studio. Even more important, it's less work for the fingers. And finally, one less decision when I shop for a new instrument.

Life is much better now.

Just curious how you determined the scale length was the culprit vs. composite neck, electronics, etc.?

 

[peekster]

Just curious how you determined the scale length was the culprit vs. composite neck, electronics, etc.?

Sorry I took so long to respond. Several things were involved, really--

First, the simple and inescapable physics relationship of pitch, scale, and string tension: longer pitch means higher tension to achieve the same pitch. Directly to your question: this is always a culprit, whether or not it's 'the' culprit. "Twang" is all about string tension--the obvious example is playing any note on an open string vs. fretted on any lower string.

And it's something you can discern right away by playing an instrument--or comparing two instruments--unamplified. Which is why I invariably spend a few minutes in a store playing a bass unamplified before I ask to plug it in.

Still, as I was shopping for my last bass--which turned out to be a used Conklin Groove Tools 7-string, 34" scale--the concepts I mentioned above remained vague intuitions until I read something that crystallized it all. It was on the site of a formidable competitor, I'd say, to Brubaker: Matt Pulcinella. His point was, if you want what he referred to as 'growl', stay at 34".

And suddenly it all clicked.

I'm kind of 'old school' in terms of tone: I think the great sounds were achieved long ago, and can be tweaked but not supplanted. James Jamerson had something going on for the Motown era [although I've never joined the Church of Jamerson; someone else could have and would have done the same had he not existed]. John Entwistle's brilliant performance and sound on 'Live at Leeds' was a clear wake-up call to bassists with a clue. Chris Squire of Yes was on a parallel path and showed us all how bass could drive a song. Stanley Clarke was ripping on upright bass with Chick Corea and--as very few seem to recall--condemned electric bass! he wouldn't play it!--for a while, until he picked up a--surprise--32" scale Alembic--and proceeded to establish another distinctive voice. Again, as few are aware: originally he was playing thru an Acoustic 360 amp with a lo-fi 'woofy' tone that somewhat echoed his upright sound. That's when I saw Return to Forever--twice--a life-changer for sure. His early electric sound was captured on, for my money, the best RTF recording Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy.

Finally, Jaco came along, and as a bandmate of mine about thirty years ago pointed out, sounded closest of any bassist to the timbre of the human voice. The rest, as they say, is history.

--and all of this at scale length 34" max. I rest my case.

 

[knuckle_head]

FWIW - I get plenty of growl out of my 39.5" 4 string

 

[pickles]

If you think 35" can't do old school growl, then you have not tried an alder/rosewood USA Joe Osborne 5.

The effect of scale length is overstated by fans of each.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Sorry I took so long to respond. Several things were involved, really--

First, the simple and inescapable physics relationship of pitch, scale, and string tension: longer pitch means higher tension to achieve the same pitch. Directly to your question: this is always a culprit, whether or not it's 'the' culprit. "Twang" is all about string tension--the obvious example is playing any note on an open string vs. fretted on any lower string.

Again, to my question... does neck composition matter?

I disagree that longer pitch is always a cuplrit. You're oversimplifying this to an the usual degree. What you did was leave out string composition and even worse, string size. tension is not determined by length alone... is it? of course not. If it were, you'd get the same tension with a .050 G as using an .080 or .030. Put a .045 on a 34" scale and put a .030 on a 35". The 35" is longer, so the tension will be greater? Nope.

Not that this was originally about twang

And it's something you can discern right away by playing an instrument--or comparing two instruments--unamplified. Which is why I invariably spend a few minutes in a store playing a bass unamplified before I ask to plug it in.

So did you play otherwise identical 34" and 35" scale Modulus back to back? If not...

BTW I do the same thing in general when I check out a bass... but I also look at the other factors that make it what it is. I can be entirely unimpressed with a bass with it's current setup and then love that same bass when I string and set it up for myself.

Still, as I was shopping for my last bass--which turned out to be a used Conklin Groove Tools 7-string, 34" scale--the concepts I mentioned above remained vague intuitions until I read something that crystallized it all. It was on the site of a formidable competitor, I'd say, to Brubaker: Matt Pulcinella. His point was, if you want what he referred to as 'growl', stay at 34".

And suddenly it all clicked.

I've played several and owned a couple of Matt's basses over the years, going back about ten years. If you want growl out of one of Matt's basses of course you should take his advice. To think that somehow applies to all basses makes no sense. Unless he could explain why my 36" Contrabass has ridiculous growl.

And just an FYI... reading anything on a site is no substitute for experiencing it in real life. Again, I've played a bunch of basses including his and have found the idea that 34" helps growl to not even be close to being true. For example, Brubakers are 34 5/8"

In this case it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. You think 34" is better so it will be. If you're ever in Md stop by and I'll show you the error in your ways. It's neither better nor worse... it's just a scale length. There's nothing magical about 34" being the sweetspot... so why wouldn't 33" be even better and 28" nirvana?


It's not even a playabilty issue... it depends on the overall design of the instrument. I had to stretch much farther playing first position on my Alembic Series 34" 4 than on ANY 35" I've owned other than my Clover Basstard 5.

I'm kind of 'old school' in terms of tone: I think the great sounds were achieved long ago, and can be tweaked but not supplanted. James Jamerson had something going on for the Motown era [although I've never joined the Church of Jamerson; someone else could have and would have done the same had he not existed]. John Entwistle's brilliant performance and sound on 'Live at Leeds' was a clear wake-up call to bassists with a clue. Chris Squire of Yes was on a parallel path and showed us all how bass could drive a song. Stanley Clarke was ripping on upright bass with Chick Corea and--as very few seem to recall--condemned electric bass! he wouldn't play it!--for a while, until he picked up a--surprise--32" scale Alembic--and proceeded to establish another distinctive voice. Again, as few are aware: originally he was playing thru an Acoustic 360 amp with a lo-fi 'woofy' tone that somewhat echoed his upright sound. That's when I saw Return to Forever--twice--a life-changer for sure. His early electric sound was captured on, for my money, the best RTF recording Hymn of the Seventh Galaxy.

I'm 51 and came up listening to all of those guys. Know what it proves? NOTHING

How did they sound on 35" scale basses? How did Jamerson sound with roundwounds? How did they sound with the current crop of amplification? Pickups? Etc.

That's right, we don't have a clue how they would've sounded back then with any of that so to think that they sounded BETTER because they didn't have any of that stuff makes no sense. Does it?

Finally, Jaco came along, and as a bandmate of mine about thirty years ago pointed out, sounded closest of any bassist to the timbre of the human voice. The rest, as they say, is history.

--and all of this at scale length 34" max. I rest my case.

No offense but that hardly amounts to a case.. I can go even further point by point to amplify where the holes are if you'd like. What you're saying in some respects amounts to talking about a race track that no longer exists and contending that 70 series tires are best because that's what the best times were posted on... back in the 1960's. As if you wouldn't get other results with things that became available much later on.

 

[Altitude]

Ancient thread and don’t ask me how I stumbled upon it today. Brad would argue about anything with anyone but I bet he didn’t realize he was arguing here with Steve Morse’s bass player.

 

[smeet]

OP here. I had forgotten about this thread. I also didn’t realize that Jerry Peek had replied. And man, I liked Brad but he could have an argument with a wall if it looked at him funny.

All these years later, I just realized that I came to the same conclusion as Jerry. For the tones I like, 34” scale is where it’s at. And C strings ain’t. So now I play a Nordstrand 5 string with P and MM style pickups (both with blades), and flexible strings (fat beams), and I get the fat response on all strings without losing the modern tones.

 

[Arthur U. Poon]

I’ll chime in for any 35” scale 6-string players who click on this thread. I own three different 35” scale 6-string basses. One’s C and G strings definitely sound a bit thin and hi-fi, although I personally like that particular sound, because it reminds me a little of John Patitucci’s sound playing his Yamaha signature bass.
The bass I’m mentioning is my Roscoe SKB3006, which has Roscoe’s custom wound Bartolini’s and a Bartolini 3-band preamp.

Through trial and error, I’ve found that I get a thicker, fuller sound across in my choice of strings. I’m currently stringing my Roscoe with the D’Addario XL-170 six string set. I believe this particular set produces the thinner sound that my G and C strings produce. If I ever choose to change that, then I’ll start using GHS Pressurewounds on it.

Pressurewounds are my string of choice on my Ristola Exotic-6. It has Bartolini Original Series deep tone Quad Coils, with an Aguilar OBP-3. It’s always had a thicker tone than my Roscoe, regardless of my choice of strings. But once I tried Pressurewounds, I instantly knew I found the perfect strings for that bass.


And, lastly there’s my Spector Euro 6LT. It has active EMG PX/JX pickups with an EMG BTS eq system. It was shipped to me strung with D’Addario XLs, which IMO are pretty bright for a nickel plated roundwound string. But it’s “G” and “C” had a tonality that matched it’s lower strings, however I found the overall tone of the bass was just a smidge too bright for what I like. So, strung it up with GHS Bass Boomers, and Bingo! I ended up with a slightly warmer sound. And my G and C strings still have a tonality that match up with it’s lower strings.

 

[Deltatim]

Bass construction, pups, pre, strings, fingers. All variables that affect tones. Finding the combination that works for YOU is the trick. Fingers and EQ easiest to play with (and cheapest). I found my BTB675 with Chromes gives me the best variety and can make it work with any genra.

 

[markanini]

Did tuning down a half step get you in the ball park? Asking because I'm considering a 35" bass down the line.

5 string with P and MM style pickups (both with blades), and flexible strings (fat beams), and I get the fat response on all strings without losing the modern tones

That sounds like the right recipe to me. There's a 5 page long thread about weak or thin top string on Stingrays with poled pickups.

 

[smeet]

If you were asking me, I didn't tune down, although I assume that would fatten things up, kind of like using lower tension strings.

I can highly recommend the Fat Beams though, since they are bright steel strings that don't get brittle on the high strings, even with the tone all the way up.