Why DON'T you play a short-scale?

[Stranger Danger]

I play a 69 Mustang, a Classic Fender Japan Mustang and a Gibson SG Reissue. I play them because they are light, easy on the shoulder, easy to carry and are fun to play. Mate any one of them with a Micro Bass amp and you have one small, easy to transport set up.

Like mine:

 

[DrSpunkwater]

I already have a Pawnshop Mustang. I'll either add a Squier VM Mustang or an Epiphone Allen Woody. Assuming I can find a Woody to try.

Good luck finding a Woody. Stores around me don't even carry Thunderbirds. It's a wonder that one of them carries SG basses. That's about as good as it gets.

 

[Stranger Danger]

Good luck finding a Woody. Stores around me don't even carry Thunderbirds. It's a wonder that one of them carries SG basses. That's about as good as it gets.

I see plenty of SGs, EBs, Thunderbirds. Just never see Woodys or Cassadys.

 

[edpal]

BAck on thread....
Floppy low B on 5s, which is all I play other than 6's, no 4s.

Few decent quality short scale 5s & 6s in the good-better price range, which for me is $800-1600.

Longer neck fits my ape-length arms well.

Fingers feel less scrunched in upper register while doing double/triple stops,soloing, chording.

 

[Zentner]

No there is not "a fundamental that you don't get from a shorter scale instrument."

The longer your scale, the more harmonically rich the note will be.

Big, open piano sound is exactly right. You are mistaking the full sound as being the fundamental.

The fat, mushy bass sound you refer to is More fundamental without the luxurious overtones.

Enjoy what you enjoy, but we should at least keep the facts straight.

Can you explain to me why my 38" scale sounds deeper and more full with more sustain than my 30" scale? Maybe you're right, and what I'm hearing is the harmonics surrounding the fundamental, but why is it that my 30" scale has less bottom end if the majority of why I'm hearing is the fundamental?

I think we all understand that a longer scale typically equates to a more 'tight' lower register- but does less fundamental = tighter bottom end, because this is what I'm hearing from you.

Cheers,

Kev

 

[edpal]

Maybe you're right, and what I'm hearing is the harmonics surrounding the fundamental, but why is it that my 30" scale has less bottom end if the majority of why I'm hearing is the fundamental?
Kev

The underlined part is the commonly accepted theory - the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. Your short scale doesn't produce the same harmonics and most of us really can't hear the fundamental low E let alone a low B that well. Unlike a tuner our brains have to do a lot of sifting through on low notes and sometimes our sense of touch chimes in and says, "hey, that feels deeper, it must sound deeper too".

 

[topo morto]

The devil is in the detail with perception of timbre. The strength of each harmonic varies differently with time, and the initial transient is very important in the overall perception of the sound.

 

[DrSpunkwater]

A short scale produces deeper lows. This is a fact.

 

[Mike M.]

Way back when...my first basses were short scale. Started with a 2 pickup hollow body Crestwood, then onto a Gibson EB-3. For a kid starting out back then it was good. That EB-3 was a blast to play!! Still wish I had it.

 

[lunarpollen]

I have both 30"- and 34"-scale basses. I generally default to my Yamaha 34"-scale bass. Why? Because of the lovely pre-amp it has built in, and how the instrument sounds for most of the music I've been playing recently. But if I started playing more music that called for the sound of a short-scale bass, I could easily switch to using one of those most of the time. When it comes down to it, I like the feel of 30" scale better, and I enjoy the way the note shape is, as far as attack, decay, sustain, etc. It feels more meaty and bass-y. I would love to have an old Harmony H-22 with some Pyramid Gold flats on it... But it wouldn't really sound great in most post-punk applications. But for other types of music that I enjoy, hell yes.

 

[BassHappy]

ACCORDING TO FENDER

I don't think anyone in the know would argue with the fact that Fender was the true pioneer in the creation of the first high quality bass guitar. Leo Fender nailed it on the first go round with the Precision Bass in 1951 and certainly added to his legacy with his subsequent introduction of the Jazz Bass.

For my nickel, I wish the original Fender designs would have been medium scale. But, scale length aside - with a variety of tweaks, modifications and innovations over the years - Fender continued to set the bar high. They became the industry standard, and even today skilled luthiers use the Fender Jazz and Precision basses as a yardstick to measure the sound and quality of their basses against.

The paragraph below was excerpted from Fender's "Tech Talk" article, on short and medium scale bass guitars. After a thorough search, this is the only tech article I was able to find on the subject from Fender. The article is here:

Invalid Link Removed

AND IT CLEARLY STATES:

"Is there a tonal difference? Yes, definitely. For one thing, short scale basses sometimes use a heavier string gauge than their long scale brothers, which imparts a thicker and more bass-heavy tone than lighter strings with more brightness and snap. Further, shorter scale strings require lower string tension for proper intonation, which imparts not only a looser, "more floppy" feel to the strings, but also results in fatter sounding low notes."

ACCORDING TO LUTHIER ROB ALLEN

"Many studio pros know the secret of how unique short scale basses sound. The lower string tension provided by the short scale has several benefits - easy playability, sweet upper register tones and fat blooming low end, not to mention the added nuance that comes naturally when playing this type of bass. The lower string tension means less attack, but more “bloom” on the end of the note. The lower string tension also produces a slightly fuller low end. To demonstrate this, detune a string one whole step on any bass and hear the tone thicken as the string tension is dropped."

BassHappy
www.innertainment.net

 

[Bredian]

This conversation is beginning to circle every few pages, but the information is necessary.

 

[theJones]

I have small hands, and have played 35-odd years mostly on short-scales... Beatle Bass, Rickenbacker 3000, various customs.

Last few years I've noticed they just don't record as well as I like. Something pretty subtle, but definite! Found that for me, a 32 inch scale length is the PERFECT trade-off between the "open-E" sound I like best, and a comfortable playing feel.

 

[mtsens1]

I say to each their own. To put down one or the other usually comes from those who cant play well. If you have short fingers, arms, both, or just dig less weight and a great sound, go for a medium or short scale. These famous players did;

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[blue4]

One thing I've noticed talking with other players (not on TB, I've no way of knowing whose played what) that say short scales sound bad, intonate bad, etc. They pretty much have one thing in common. Ask what long scale they play and it is a MIA or a Musicman. Ask what short scales they've played and its Epiphone EB0, or a knockoff beatle bass. I always ask "have you ever played one over $200?" "Or tried one since the turn of the century?"

 

[edpal]

a looser, "more floppy" feel to the strings, but also results in fatter sounding low notes."“bloom” on the end of the note.

I guess one man's fatter is another man's floppy. I'm struggling to keep this above the border

 

[edpal]

Ask what short scales they've played and its Epiphone EB0, or a knockoff beatle bass. I always ask "have you ever played one over $200?" "Or tried one since the turn of the century?"

You may have hit on a statistical truth here blue - many beginners instruments are geared toward youths, with their naturally smaller hands & stature. So statistically there may be more crappily built short scales, leading to a common perception that they are all crap. I personally suspect that those 2-4" inches aren't a deal killer on tone if everything else is equal or better.

Our local go-to music store carries a lot of short-scale pos instruments, and a few high end long scales. Nothing in between.

 

[DrSpunkwater]

Once you play an SG Bass, your idea of short scale quality changes. It's obvious that Gibson took some care redesigning the bass.

 

[edpal]

Once you play an SG Bass, your idea of short scale quality changes. It's obvious that Gibson took some care redesigning the bass.

..that's the one I generally think of when I think I don't like short scale basses. Just don't feel it, body feels small, neck feels cramped. YMMV

 

[blue4]

You may have hit on a statistical truth here blue - many beginners instruments are geared toward youths, with their naturally smaller hands & stature. So statistically there may be more crappily built short scales, leading to a common perception that they are all crap. I personally suspect that those 2-4" inches aren't a deal killer on tone if everything else is equal or better.

Our local go-to music store carries a lot of short-scale pos instruments, and a few high end long scales. Nothing in between.

That and the fact that string choice plays a very large role for shorties from what I've seen. A 34" you can pick up in a store and get a good feel for the bass even with horrid strings. A short scale to me will sound like two completely different basses just switching gauges a little bit. Much more than a 34".