Extra Long Scale

[Zhangliqun]

Carvin has a line of basses called the XP's that are 35.25". Sounds like a great idea for low B basses because that B is a little too thick for its length and has all those weird overtones to it.

Anybody tried one? And are there some made at 36" or more?

[Bryan T]

Dingwall does a fanned fret model with a 37" scale length on the low B. I like the idea of using fanned frets, as it will keep the G string sounding more normal.

Bryan

[Zhangliqun]

On further review, at least Overwater does. They even have a 38" 7-string...

[Zhangliqun]

Dingwall does a fanned fret model with a 37" scale length on the low B. I like the idea of using fanned frets, as it will keep the G string sounding more normal.

Bryan

I've been thinking about the fanned fret thing a bit too.

[countandduke]

Carl Thompson basses have been made up to 38"...

www.ctbasses.com

Chris

[jzucker]

The longer scale is overrated IMO. My sadowsky's low B is thunderous and it's only a 34" scale. In general, the Low strings will sound tighter on a longer scale but it's at the expense of the upper strings sounding harsh. Tony Grey (www.tonygrey.com) sounds amazing on his 33" scale 5 and 6 string basses with a low B...

[Zhangliqun]

Not to me. I haven't tried a 5+ bass where the low B didn't have what sounds like "Strat-itis". But then again, to be fair I haven't tried a Sadowsky either.

[jzucker]

Not to me. I haven't tried a 5+ bass where the low B didn't have what sounds like "Strat-itis". But then again, to be fair I haven't tried a Sadowsky either.

Don't know what you've played but I've owned a lot of 5 and 6 string basses and only a couple of them had that problem.

Some of them were 35" scale though. However, the Sadowsky probably has the best low B. The worst that I've owned was the Tobias but I've played a few fender 5 strings that had a muddy low b.

[PB+J]

I've also played a lot of fives, both 34 and 35 scale, and the B strings vary a lot. Some are good, some are lousy.

I have a dingwall 5 string--the fanned fret concept is really great. It makes the B string feel and play exactly like the other strings, and it makes all the strings feel and play more alike. You don't have to vary your attack as much as you move across the fretboard, and the B feels a lot like the G. It's little hard to describe, but it's real--the Dingwall has the best B string I've ever played, by a mile, but the E and the A have more articulation and authority as well.


Most of the time I'm a no nonsense guy--I like cheap basses that get the job done, passive electronics, old school tone. Fanned frets are a significant innovation that makes a big difference

They're much easier to play than you think they'll be, but I do hit the occasional clam as a result of the fanned frets. It's a little harder to play chords above, say, the 14th fret. Other than that, it's painless

[jzucker]

dingwall does sound great and solves the problem of the higher strings sounding plinky. I don't like the way the frets go the "wrong" direction in the upper range. IMO, it violates the good ergonomics you have in the lower positions. Also, with only side dots, the dots appear to be a couple frets below the actual fret position in the upper register. It's also a little wacky for tapping in the upper register.

[lv]

The longer scale is overrated IMO. My sadowsky's low B is thunderous and it's only a 34" scale. In general, the Low strings will sound tighter on a longer scale but it's at the expense of the upper strings sounding harsh. Tony Grey (www.tonygrey.com (http://www.tonygrey.com)) sounds amazing on his 33" scale 5 and 6 string basses with a low B...

Just listened, very cool stuff. Can you or anyone recommend any bass-centric music?

[jzucker]

Just listened, very cool stuff. Can you or anyone recommend any bass-centric music?


Tony Grey's "Moving" is fantastic. Anything by Adam Nitti, Matt Garrison, Jeff Berlin, Victor Bailey, Victor Wooten, Oteil Burbridge, Richard Bona, Marcus Miller, etc.

But if you liked Tony Grey's site, I'd check out his "Moving" and Matt Garrison first.

[Cokemachine]

I don't like the way the frets go the "wrong" direction in the upper range. IMO, it violates the good ergonomics you have in the lower positions.

The fanning of the frets on the Dingwall was specifically designed to follow the natural progression of the average player's hand as it moves up the fretboard. This results in less strain and less fatigue on a player's hand. I'm not sure how you can consider that "violating good erogonomics"?

There are some other builders out there that take a really lazy approach to the whole fanned fret concept by keeping the bridge parallel and fanning up to the nut. There are no ergonomic benefits to be realized with this approach to fanned frets.

Also, with only side dots, the dots appear to be a couple frets below the actual fret position in the upper register. It's also a little wacky for tapping in the upper register.

Fretboard markers are standard on all Dingwall basses. A Dingwall with only side dots would be a custom option. I've seen hundreds of Dingwall basses over the past 15 years and have yet to see one with this option. Also, both the side dots and the fretboard markers on in the standard positions.

Are you sure you're not confusing a Dingwall with another bass?

[PB+J]

My dingwall has side dots but no fretboard markers--it's a standard afterburner V

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/magic/dingwall2.jpg

I don't find the position markers/lack of markers a problem a problem at all.

I did have a little trouble above the 14th fret, but only when chording and only at first--it's no problem now


I'm sold on the fanned fret idea, at least for 5 strings. It just makes a ton of sense

[Cokemachine]

My dingwall has side dots but no fretboard markers--it's a standard afterburner V

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/magic/dingwall2.jpg

I don't find the position markers/lack of markers a problem a problem at all.

I did have a little trouble above the 14th fret, but only when chording and only at first--it's no problem now


I'm sold on the fanned fret idea, at least for 5 strings. It just makes a ton of sense

I was specifically talking about the Artist, Prima & Z2 models as far as the fretboard markers go as I seemed to remember Jack saying that he had a Prima. I'm guessing that Jack actually has an Afterburner.

[jzucker]

i never said I had a prima. I have no problems with the 34" low B on my Sadowsky or my Bacchus basses. In fact, I just ordered a 6'er with a 33" scale though it's going to be E-E tuning...

[RickC]

I'm with Jack. 34" is my preference for a low B; they work great if done right.

I'd love to try a Dingwall though...

/rick

[Jim S]

The longer scale is overrated IMO. My sadowsky's low B is thunderous and it's only a 34" scale. In general, the Low strings will sound tighter on a longer scale but it's at the expense of the upper strings sounding harsh. Tony Grey (www.tonygrey.com (http://www.tonygrey.com)) sounds amazing on his 33" scale 5 and 6 string basses with a low B...
Ditto. It's not the scale length but how well the bass is contructed.

[PB+J]

Ditto. It's not the scale length but how well the bass is contructed.

I have to admit I have no idea what this means. What is meant by "well constructed?" A stiffer neck? a more or less resonant body? I've played MIM fender j-Vs that had terrible B strings and MIM fender J-Vs that had excellent B's, and all were constructed the same.

Scale length is a variable fixed by the laws of physics. If the length gets shorter, tension decreases. If you can play a low tension B string, great. I've always had trouble with short scale and low tension bass, but many players love them. But there's no magic trick of "good construction" that will make a B string play well.

The advantage of the fanned frets isn't simply long scale, its the way the tension is equalized across the neck--all the strings feel the same. it's a difference of construction and with my playing style it's a real advantage. But I never found simply going to a 35 inch B to have much effect. A 34 inch bass can have a good B string, but IMHO it always feels a lot different from the other strings. This is not true on the dingwall, which again IMHO is what makes it good

[ultra]

Maybe you guys should check out Michael Stevens Slant 5 bass. His 5 and 6 string basses have a 35" scale and have the tightest sounding low B of any basses I have played. He has has reverse angled pickups on his models since the dawn of time.

Roscoe Beck and Chris Maresh know something special about Stevens Basses.

http://stevensguitars.com/models/

[ultra]

Check out Stevens Slant 5 Bass pics here

http://www.PictureTrail.com/gid837025

and watch a video of Roscoe Beck playing a Stevens Slant 6 here

http://stevensguitars.com/artists/ Click on Roscoe Beck and download the video.

[RickC]

I have to admit I have no idea what this means. What is meant by "well constructed?" A stiffer neck? a more or less resonant body? I've played MIM fender j-Vs that had terrible B strings and MIM fender J-Vs that had excellent B's, and all were constructed the same.

You're right, I don't know either. But evidently guys like Sadowsky do; they can consistently build good sounding and good playing low B's on a 34" scale. Conversely, I've played plenty of budget 5's and 6's with 35" scales where the low B sounded like poo. Suggesting that the extra length isn't a "magic bullet".

My guess is there isn't any one secret to building a great sounding bass, consistently. Just a lot of little things done right.

/rick

[Gordon_Gecko]

Ditto. It's not the scale length but how well the bass is contructed.


No... and yes! Scale length GREATLY affects the tension of the string, which provides a more "tight" string. I play a 5-string 34"... the lo-B is super tight!

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e156/Mattwilliamson1/MWBassFinished020.jpg

My 7-string is 37"-33" with the string tuning of F#-B

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e156/Mattwilliamson1/obj313geo313pg11p20.png http://www.headguitars.com/custom7bass.html

[jzucker]

i just ordered a 33" scale 6 string. Matt Garrison and Tony Grey are both playing 33" scale 5 strings. I don't think they have any problem getting great tone. I think if you're playing any solos in upper positions on the high strings your're not going to like the sound of the 35+ scale lengths...At least that's my experience.

[jzucker]

i was looking at the fodera site and noticed that on the matt garrison model, the low string's tuner is at the top of the headstock and not the bottom. I've wondered why more builders don't do this. I suspect a certain amount of conservative players would complain that the tuners weren't in the right order but who cares??? It's about the tone.

Check out the headstock:

http://www.bassexchange.com/catalog/images/images_big/fodmgb%20copy_pic2.jpg

[PB+J]

Why in the world would that effect the tone? How can the length of the string behind the nut matter? I don't care what Mathew Garrison says, the length of the string behind the nut doesn't matter. Sure, the length and mass of the headstoik matters, but what possible permutation of the laws of physics allows the non-vibrating part of the string to contribute to tone?


IMHO--and of course it's my opinion, based on my experience--there's no reason a long scale won't sound good on the high notes--why would there be? The only difference is string tension. And it comes down to a simple matter of preference--some people prefer lower tension, some people prefer higher tension. Some people's attack works better with high tension, some with low.

I have a double bass with a 42 inch scale length--the high notes sound great. Would they sound "better" if it was a 40 inch scale length? Why?

[jzucker]

Why in the world would that effect the tone? How can the length of the string behind the nut matter? I don't care what Mathew Garrison says, the length of the string behind the nut doesn't matter. Sure, the length and mass of the headstoik matters, but what possible permutation of the laws of physics allows the non-vibrating part of the string to contribute to tone?

It effects the tension on the string which does effect the tone. Remember, you're stretching a wound section of wire and when it's wound tighter it will effect it's vibration in many ways.

IMHO--and of course it's my opinion, based on my experience--there's no reason a long scale won't sound good on the high notes--why would there be? Because the strings are tighter and don't vibrate the same way. Take a step back from the theoretical and think about the differences in tone between 24.75" scale instruments and 25.5" scale instruments. The longer scale gives you more "twang" and resonance but it's a balance with the string guage. Arguably the high note on your 42" upright bass are not as rich and resonant as they are on a cello which overlaps the high end of your upright bass but sounds more rich and resonant.

[PB+J]

I don't think either of these arguments make sense--the only length that matters is the stretched length between the nut and the saddle. A string could stretch 25 feet past the nut and saddle at either end, and it wouldn't matter. All that matters is the span between the stopped ends. If you took a 50 foot string, and put a saddle at one point and a nut exactly 34 inches away, you would have to bring the string to exactly the same tension to produce an "E" as you would if the string was only 34.5 inches long.

If your argument were correct, then you'd notice a difference in string tension if you wound twenty turns on the tuner post instead of 3. It's the stopped length that matters, not the overall length



Also by your second argument the shorter, the better. The ideal bass would be 2 inches long.

With acoustic instruments, longer scale/higher tension produces more volume, because it increases the forces on the sounding board. Whether it sounds better, it seems to me, has to do with the construction of the instrument--a stiffer top will respond differently to high tension than a more flexible top. Double bass players always notice that some basses like high tension strings, and some like low tension strings. With pianos, generally the longer they are the better they sound. A more heavily constructed guitar will sound different with higher tension strings than a lightly braced instrument. The same thing would be true, to a lesser degree, with solid bodies.

It doesn't seem to me there's a single rule about the relationship between tension and sonority or timbre.

[jzucker]

It doesn't seem to me there's a single rule about the relationship between tension and sonority or timbre.

I never said there was. This is a discussion group about tone and gear. I'm basing my thoughts on various lutheriers' opinions such as Hanewinckel, Fodera, etc., along with some great players like Garrison and Grey as well as my own experiences with close to a dozen 6 string basses with a mix of 34 and 35" scale. I trust real-life experience over raw physics in these discussions since rarely does anyone take all the variables into account when they start spouting the science of tone.

Just out of curiousity, do you think folks can hear the diff between a maple or rosewood fingerboard ?

[PB+J]

I trust real-life experience over raw physics in these discussions since rarely does anyone take all the variables into account when they start spouting the science of tone.

So do I--I guess my experience is different from yours

Just out of curiousity, do you think folks can hear the diff between a maple or rosewood fingerboard ?

I think people believe they can. But having made four guitars myself, from scratch, and made various parts guitars, and played thousands of guitars, I've concluded that wood is much too variable a material to generalize consistently about. I just play the thing, and if I like it, I don't worry about what it's made of. Lot's of people like fussing about maple vs ash vs alder vs pau ferro--there's surely no harm in it. I don't actually care what Mathew Garrison plays. He's a great player, a terrific musician, but I'm not him and have no desire to be him.

My original post argued that it's not necessary to have extra long scale length to have a good sounding low b, and I still agree with that. My point about the dingwall was that the fanned frets made all the strings relate to each other more consistently, and this was an advantage for anyone, while the higher tension on the low strings was an advantage for people like higher tension.

[jzucker]

So do I--I guess my experience is different from yours



I think people believe they can. But having made four guitars myself, from scratch, and made various parts guitars, and played thousands of guitars, I've concluded that wood is much too variable a material to generalize consistently about.


We'll have to agree to disagree.

[smallequestrian]

I trust real-life experience over raw physics in these discussions since rarely does anyone take all the variables into account when they start spouting the science of tone.


Well, raw physics will tell you that the tension is equal no matter where the tuner is on the peghead. In a double blind test you probably wouldn't be able to pick out which one had the extend B headstock.

[jzucker]

Well, raw physics will tell you that the tension is equal no matter where the tuner is on the peghead. In a double blind test you probably wouldn't be able to pick out which one had the extend B headstock.

Except that the headstock is angled so it puts it at a different angle over the nut which effects the slackness of the strings. Again, its a matter of looking at all the variables.

[PB+J]

Except that the headstock is angled so it puts it at a different angle over the nut which effects the slackness of the strings.

:jo

No, it doesn't. As long as the down pressure on the nut is enough to stop it from vibrating, there's no difference. And the angle is the same, regardless of how far back it goes--the angle doesn't increase as you go farther back, it stays the same, unless Fodera is tapering their headstocks so they get thinner towards the top, which some archtop makers do. And even they are tapering the headstock, it's hardly going to matter, because all you need to do is fix the string's vibrating length at the nut.

If you have a bass tuned to E at 34, and then you angle the headstock, you'll have to tune down to get to E--the string tension is the same regardless of the headstock angle. It has to be. Unless Vinnie Fodera has found a special warp hole where reality is suspended when you drop $5000 bucks in

An angled headstock may well sound different, because an angled headstock is a different construction method. It may feel different because it's vibrating differently. But string tension is the same.

Jack you're an excellent player and I've got nothing but respect for your skill, but you're off on this point, and I think that's not just my opinion, it's a fact like gravity is a fact!

[jzucker]

[quote=PB+J;2682657]:jo

No, it doesn't. [quote]

Yes it does. It's common knowledge that changing the angle over the bridge or headstock effects the tightness of the strings. Have you ever played a Godin Flat 5 with the strings going through the body? Though it's a 24.75" scale, there's an amazing amount of taughtness to the strings because of the headstock angle and strings going through the body. Compare that to a 25" PRS hollowbody. Huge difference. Your intellect is getting in the way of common sense here.

Just play the friggin' thing and quite harping about the theory. Oy...

[PB+J]

I'll stand by what I wrote :)

[jzucker]

I'll stand by what I wrote :)

So will I. Go play the two guitars I mentioned and tell me the physics of why they feel that way. :AOK

[EunosFD]

http://www.knuckleguitarworks.com/

39" scale length basses :D


Not to add more fuel to the fire, but in terms of break angle having an effect on string tension & tone...great example would be a Fender Jazzmaster vs. Strat/Tele. Very noticible difference in not only string tension, but tone as well. Granted, other factors such as electronics and bridge construction play into it as well. Just my $.02 on it that's all. ;)

[PB+J]

Maybe one of you guys can explain to me how, with the same strings, you can have an increase in tension that's not also an increase in pitch? I mean, how does that work? Because in all my experience, increasing string tension raises pitch. Apparently, there is a world of physics where you can increase string tension without raising string pitch

I don't doubt that different guitars sound and feel different, but just explain to me how changing the string angle increases tension without also increasing pitch.

[jzucker]

Maybe one of you guys can explain to me how, with the same strings, you can have an increase in tension that's not also an increase in pitch? I mean, how does that work? Because in all my experience, increasing string tension raises pitch. Apparently, there is a world of physics where you can increase string tension without raising string pitch

I don't doubt that different guitars sound and feel different, but just explain to me how changing the string angle increases tension without also increasing pitch.

Quit talking physics and go out and play the instruments. If all the physical characteristics of these instruments was well known it'd be easy to model and duplicate but we all know that has not happened yet.

I guess I'd challenge you to play a PRS hollowbody and a Godin Flat 5 and let me know why the strings are so much harder to bend on the Godin though it has bigger frets, flatter radius and a shorter scale?

[PB+J]

Quit talking physics and go out and play the instruments. If all the physical characteristics of these instruments was well known it'd be easy to model and duplicate but we all know that has not happened yet.

I guess I'd challenge you to play a PRS hollowbody and a Godin Flat 5 and let me know why the strings are so much harder to bend on the Godin though it has bigger frets, flatter radius and a shorter scale?

Well I've been practicing all day, bass and guitar--my wife and family are away, I'm getting lots of practice in. I don't need you to tell me to "quit talking physics and play."

I don't own a Godin flat five or a PRS hollowbody, so your challenge is going to have to go unanswered on that point--sorry. If I come across the two of them, I will surely try them both. I did have a p-bass with the fender combo bridge. I could never tell a difference between string-through and top-load despite really wanting to. I hear a tone diffence when I shim the neck and raise the saddles on my tele, but string tension doesn't change--it can't, or else I'd be sharp

My challenge, I noticed, is also going unanswered. Here in the reality-based community, when you increase string tension you raise pitch. You say that changing the headstock angle, or going to a string-through bridge, miraculously and against both logic, physics and my own common sense experience increases string tension without raising pitch. I just want to know how that's possible. Telling me to "stop talking physics and play" isn't an answer.

[Thor]

FWIIW, my bass instructor spoke with Mike Pope about whether or not he noticed a difference from having the B on a higher tuning peg, and he said no.

Cheers,

Edward

[RickC]

Interesting reading here, especially the part re Bob Benedetto's experiments. Kinda flys in the face of what I *thought* I knew about this.

http://www.liutaiomottola.com/myth/perception.htm

/rick

[jzucker]

Thanks Rick. PB+J should read that article. And besides...If you can't hear the diff between a maple and rosewood fingerboard... :)

Just a small quote:
Tension and Compliance As mentioned in the introduction above, string tension is completely defined by three factors: the pitch the string is tuned to, its vibrating length, and its mass (weight) per unit of length. Those interested in the formula by which these factors are related to pitch should take a look at page on this website about String Tension (http://www.liutaiomottola.com/formulae/tension.htm). Conventional wisdom has it that a number of other factors affect string tension. Some of these are (in no particular order):
The length of the string between the string anchor and the saddle of the bridge;
The length of the string between the tuning machine post or peg and the nut;
The breakover angle of the string at the bridge and/or the nut;
Once again, looking at the formula it is clear that none of these have any affect whatsoever on string tension. But it is both possible and in some cases likely that some or all of these can affect the compliance or elasticity of the string and this can affect just how taught the string feels to the player. It should be noted that the term tension has a specific meaning in physics and that it is a more restrictive meaning than that of the more vernacular use of the word. I don't want to be too geeky here, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out to both players and technical types that most of the disconnect here between the known physics of string tension and the perceived string tension of musicians is simply a matter of semantics. But just for the record, the quality which players generally refer to as string tension is really compliance or elasticity. I will use the term compliance for this from here on.

[PB+J]

I read that piece a long time ago--I'm not convinced, but it doesn't really matter--people who think they can hear the difference between a maple and a rosewood fingerboard will believe whatever they want!

Also wasn't it you who said to "stop talking physics and play?"

[jzucker]

I read that piece a long time ago--I'm not convinced, but it doesn't really matter--people who think they can hear the difference between a maple and a rosewood fingerboard will believe whatever they want!

Also wasn't it you who said to "stop talking physics and play?"

You ever hear SRV's Lenny? If you can't tell the diff between that and his rosewood strat, or Jimi's or any number of other players, then I don't know what to say other than I can understand the preoccupation with the attempt at reducing tone to physics but if you're going to do that, at least take all the variables into the equation.

I'm outta here. Have a nice time analyzing data.

[PB+J]

Umm, I'm not analyzing any data. I actually spent a good bit of time today throwing this together:

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/magic/leafs.mp4

It's my dingwall bass, first playing chord-melody style, then comping with a solo overdubbed, with a drum track added.

What do you think, rosewood or maple? I don't worry about it I just try to play well and have fun.

[jzucker]

tone is gorgeous. I'd say rosewood or wenge. :)

Your playing sounds very nice. On a constructive note, I don't hear you making the ii v changes. It sounds like you're just playing through the key centers. If you add some Bird ii-v licks to your repetoire, it'll be killer.

Jaz

[PB+J]

Thanks--that's a more than fair assessment. I fudged the ii-vs. I'm largely self taught and that's a place where it shows! :)

The tone is a monument to the magic power of reverb!

[jzucker]

Thanks--that's a more than fair assessment. I fudged the ii-vs. I'm largely self taught and that's a place where it shows! :)

The tone is a monument to the magic power of reverb!

I think you sound great. What preamp did you use to record that? A while back I sold my Epifani UL502 and am now using an EA Iamp800. I like the iAmp but it's direct output doesn't sound very good compared to the Epi. I was considering getting the Jensen transformer option for the EA but haven't found anyone who's tried it.

Thoughts?

[PB+J]

It's the bass into an Avalon U5 and then the XLR out of the U5 into the mic input of a Mackie Satellite. The U5 is for me just consistently excellent-sounding, and the Mackie preamps are really good for the money it costs--$199.

For a long time I used the U5 as a preamp at gigs and and was really happy
with it--it's got a big, rich, deep clean sound that's never brittle. I got tired of lugging it though and now I use it as a preamp/di for recording

[jzucker]

i've heard great things about the U5. I guess I'll have to spring for one.

I love the iamp800 though and I'm curious about the optional jensen DI transformer that you can install but haven't read any feedback on it.

[Gordon_Gecko]

I don't think either of these arguments make sense--the only length that matters is the stretched length between the nut and the saddle. A string could stretch 25 feet past the nut and saddle at either end, and it wouldn't matter. All that matters is the span between the stopped ends. If you took a 50 foot string, and put a saddle at one point and a nut exactly 34 inches away, you would have to bring the string to exactly the same tension to produce an "E" as you would if the string was only 34.5 inches long.

If your argument were correct, then you'd notice a difference in string tension if you wound twenty turns on the tuner post instead of 3. It's the stopped length that matters, not the overall length



Also by your second argument the shorter, the better. The ideal bass would be 2 inches long.

With acoustic instruments, longer scale/higher tension produces more volume, because it increases the forces on the sounding board. Whether it sounds better, it seems to me, has to do with the construction of the instrument--a stiffer top will respond differently to high tension than a more flexible top. Double bass players always notice that some basses like high tension strings, and some like low tension strings. With pianos, generally the longer they are the better they sound. A more heavily constructed guitar will sound different with higher tension strings than a lightly braced instrument. The same thing would be true, to a lesser degree, with solid bodies.

It doesn't seem to me there's a single rule about the relationship between tension and sonority or timbre.


You are correct, sir! The "extra" distance of movin the B tuner higher on the headstock... an illusion. Scale length is the only way to "tighten" strings.

[PB+J]

Hey--we're all at peace here! Don't stir the pot!

[walterw]

strange, in that to me, a strat with a reversed headstock feels very different than one with a normal headstock. yes, the "tension", i.e., lbs. of pull between the tuner and the bridge is by definition the same, but they bend very differently. the string with little length past the nut and bridge feels tighter but bends to a higher pitch sooner than the string with lots of excess length. in many ways, the reversed strat headstock is actually better, in that the high strings bend up faster and yield wider vibrato, while the low strings feel more stable and in-tune.

i would think that extra length past the "witness points" would make a low B less likely to be pushed out of tune, and thus maybe have a better feel and sound than one with short excess length.

i've heard 34" music man's (music men?), tobias's (tobaii?), and others, that had a pretty good sounding low B, but to me, the B is still never as good as the other strings, requiring a different attack and different EQ to sound right. even then, it's still never as good. (by the same token, high C strings sound hideous regardless, especially through hi-fi rigs.)

the 35" scale does give a better low B on a good bass, like a roscoe, but
there's still a compromise compared to the other strings. the harmonics are still a little bit off, like the string is not in tune with itself.

there was an article in bass player mag a few years ago about how the top nashville producers have to jump through hoops to compress and EQ low B strings to sound like the other bass strings on a track.

[PB+J]

but to me, the B is still never as good as the other strings, requiring a different attack and different EQ to sound right. even then, it's still never as good.

the 35" scale does give a better low B on a good bass, like a roscoe, but
there's still a compromise compared to the other strings. the harmonics are still a little bit off, like the string is not in tune with itself.

there was an article in bass player mag a few years ago about how the top nashville producers have to jump through hoops to compress and EQ low B strings to sound like the other bass strings on a track.
This is exactly what the fanned fret scheme on the Dingwall basses is supposed to avoid, and in my experience, it works. It's not so much thhat it's longer, it's that all the strings vary in length and tension as they go down in pitch--they play and sound more the same. It's especially true if you use the original Dingwall strings, which were gauged for the bass. I don't because they're too bright and zingy for my tastes, But other string sets work almost as well. IMHO fanned frets are a great innovation for bass players.

[jzucker]

This is exactly what the fanned fret scheme on the Dingwall basses is supposed to avoid, and in my experience, it works. It's not so much thhat it's longer, it's that all the strings vary in length and tension as they go down in pitch--they play and sound more the same. IMHO fanned frets are a great innovation for bass players.

I agree though I found my dingwall to be a bit cumbersome to play in the upper register. Maybe I would have gotten used to it. I think having the smaller scale for the higher strings really makes sense. They just have a beautiful singing quality to them which your clip demonstrated.

[knuckle_head]

If I may be so bold; chiming in late on several points made here.

A string of a specific gauge tuned to specific pitch will have the same tension between the nut and the saddle regardless of how much distance there is between the ball end and saddle or nut and tuner. Period. If there is longer distance beyond either nut or saddle adding to the overall length of the string the string is more apt to flex, and will 'feel' as though it has lower tension but it does not.

Sheldon's instruments are awesome - and part of what he accomplishes with the fan can actually be accomplished to a degree by selecting appropriate string gauges. A balanced string set where a B is .135 and tension increases only a pound or two per string as you go higher will yield a similar feel on a parallel fret bass.

There is no fudging the benefit of a longer scale length - it has its greatest benefit in very low registers, but has a profound affect across the fretboard. The best advantage a longer speaking length provides is the use of thinner gauges to reach standard notes as you give the string more ability to vibrate and vibrates more freely if there isn't as much string to move.

I build basses and have had the chance to play with most of these variables.

[jzucker]

If I may be so bold; chiming in late on several points made here.

A string of a specific gauge tuned to specific pitch will have the same tension between the nut and the saddle regardless of how much distance there is between the ball end and saddle or nut and tuner. Period. If there is longer distance beyond either nut or saddle adding to the overall length of the string the string is more apt to flex, and will 'feel' as though it has lower tension but it does not.

The feel is a very important factor though.

Additionally, adjusting the string thickness for tension isn't practical. For example, on my 6 string Bass, I tune it E to E. I'm already using a wound .025 for the high E string and it's extremely tight. (try doing SRV bends on that!!!) I could go to an .018 to get less tension but try finding a wound .018 string that is long enough for 34" scale. The lightest I found was a .020 plain string. That felt great but the plain string sounded like @ss. The complexion of the instrument changed greatly going from the high B (.028) to the high E string (.020). I ended up going with the .025 for the high E which feels tight but at least sounds a bit more uniform (still thin sounding).

The fanned fret neck solves those problems but unfortunately creates others...

[knuckle_head]

Getting a two octave E spread on a bass AND getting to use bass strings to do it are nearly impossible if you want to be wound on top - I know you know that.

The .022s that I have used are touchy - more stable is around .025. That said, and you are committed to that breadth, coming down from 34" is viable (think Ric or shorter) as there is nothing wrong with a .110 E string on bottom.

I work toward the other end of things, and my limits fall to strings being made not thick enough or are wrapped once or twice too often.

Longer scale lengths benefit even contemporary tunings, but shine where one begins to explore contra work (anything below E). Given your parameters a longer scaled bass just ain't for you.

[jzucker]

by the way...After reading this thread I bought a used Dingwall ABII 5 string. The sadowsky's low string smoked it in every way.