I've been reading some things on ctbasses.com about scale length. His basses are the only ones I've seen that go beyond the 36" mark (38" is common to CTs) - though I'm sure there are others. Now, I've read the discussions on 35" vs 34", but Carl flat-out says that anything less than 36" is pointless This was copied, btw, so spelling errors are the fault of the transcriber. What do you guys think? I think Carl is being closed-minded here (similar to the Hub thread in Misc.). IMO, scale is about preference. A lot of people really like the sound of a short scale, and obviously the feel. I, personally, have only played a Hofner short scale, and didn't like it, but I don't think it's a good barometer. I'd love to play an Alembic short scale. Anyway, I'm rambling... So, I can imagine how a 38" might sound really deep, but I think it's a bit much to say people shouldn't be playing 34s or 35s or short scales. Then he makes this big point about how scale makes a world more difference to sound than wood: Beyond the 38s, he made Anthony Jackson a 44" scale that AJ never played because it was so hard to play. I'm not a luthier, so Carl beats me in experience, so, rather than just saying "hogwash", I figured I'd let you guys opine. Is scale the most important single factor of a basses sound? Is a 35" or less scale just a long scale guitar? I'd like to hear your thoughts.