Your thoughts on 33" scale 5 string basses?

[Mike]

Thank you everyone who has contributed to this thread, it's been extremely interesting and helpful. I found there was more people against the 33" than I thought. However, after reading reviews of people with 33" 5's and 6's I think I'm going to go for it. Please keep the comments coming if you have any more!

[bassjamm]

Just to second what Geoff said, Janek's is a 33" 5 string strung E-C as is Matthew Garrison's and Tony Greys, Tony Grey also uses 6 string Fodera's, not sure of the scale length!

One thing that can be done to counteract the scale length on the B string is to re-arrange the tuning pegs so that the B string has the peg furthest away from the neck, that obviously depends on headstock deisgn a lot, but i've seen this done before in order to increase B string tension on shorter scale basses!!!

[urb]

[quote name='Mike' post='172818' date='Apr 9 2008, 08:06 AM']Thank you everyone who has contributed to this thread, it's been extremely interesting and helpful. I found there was more people against the 33" than I thought. However, after reading reviews of people with 33" 5's and 6's I think I'm going to go for it. Please keep the comments coming if you have any more![/quote]

Cool Mike - I think you'll dig the feel of it - like I said above it's all down to what suits you and your style - there are so many variables i.e. choice of woods, electronics - graphite - these all play a part in creating a good tone and feel - but the 33 scale a cheeky little twist in the design that just makes it feel great to play.

Go for it

M

[alexclaber]

[quote name='bassjamm' post='172846' date='Apr 9 2008, 08:53 AM']One thing that can be done to counteract the scale length on the B string is to re-arrange the tuning pegs so that the B string has the peg furthest away from the neck, that obviously depends on headstock deisgn a lot, but i've seen this done before in order to increase B string tension on shorter scale basses!!![/quote]

This cannot increase the tension though it can have some bearing on the feel - as can neck stiffness, break angle at witness points, action, etc.

Before making a decision I strongly recommend experimenting with the effects on tension and stretch on your exisiting bass, using retuning, shifting positions and/or capos. There is nothing like actually trying before buying!

Alex

[mcgraham]

Regarding the physics there is definitely no reason for it to increase tension. Some claim that it provides a more secure anchor i.e. reduces stretching experienced beyond the nut.

However I was speaking to Mark from BassDirect about the extended B headstock; he'd mentioned to Enrico (at Wood&Tronics who offer/offered this feature) that he felt it didn't make a blind bit of difference. Well, Enrico and his crew sat down over a whole weekend playing basses to try and prove or disprove this with and without the extended B headstock, they even went so far as to use a spectrum analyser. Even they had to concede that they really couldn't tell the difference and may even stop offering it as an option.

I'll be checking out a 33" scale bass for the first time in a week or so. I'll let you know how it goes/feels.

Mark

[matty589]

[quote name='bassjamm' post='172846' date='Apr 9 2008, 08:53 AM']Just to second what Geoff said, Janek's is a 33" 5 string strung E-C as is Matthew Garrison's and Tony Greys, Tony Grey also uses 6 string Fodera's, not sure of the scale length!

One thing that can be done to counteract the scale length on the B string is to re-arrange the tuning pegs so that the B string has the peg furthest away from the neck, that obviously depends on headstock deisgn a lot, but i've seen this done before in order to increase B string tension on shorter scale basses!!![/quote]
This is a common misconception. At a given scale length, pitch and string mass the tension is fixed. The extra string length past the nut might change the feel, but it doesn't change the tension at all. I believe Gary Willis started this idea on his Ibanez sig as he thought it improved the sound and definition of the bottom B (which I think it does - the cheap Korean GWB35 has an excellent B-string).
As you said, a lot of players that have shorter scale 5's actually tune them E-C, I've never heard a short scale bass that sounded good with a B unless it was a huge string (which reduces playability). The players mentioned above also have a somewhat guitaristic style.
As for scale length, well unless the OP has absolutely tiny hands a shorter scale is not a great idea as it makes all the frets at the top closer together which makes fingering awkward (should you ever get to play up the dusty end!). Get a bass that is not too heavy with good balance and a comfortable neck. You could then have even a 35" or 36" scale with few fingering problems, and you won't have to use obnoxiously thick strings to maintain tension. I also find that string spacing is more important than scale length for comfort. I used to like tight spacing at the nut and found playing bass lines in the lower register a little uncomfortable. I now prefer a wider nut with a thinner neck depth.

[tauzero]

[quote name='bassjamm' post='172846' date='Apr 9 2008, 08:53 AM']One thing that can be done to counteract the scale length on the B string is to re-arrange the tuning pegs so that the B string has the peg furthest away from the neck, that obviously depends on headstock deisgn a lot, but i've seen this done before in order to increase B string tension on shorter scale basses!!![/quote]
As other have said, that won't affect the tension directly - regardless of the overall length of the string, it'll need to be under 25lbs or so of tension (for a .130) to tune to a low B. The only difference it might make is that it would take marginally less effort to fret a string which is longer overall, as the displacement would be a smaller proportion of the overall stretchable length of the string. That might make a noticeable difference with a high action (although "noticeable" might be one of those things like the difference in sound between using $50000 speaker cables and a bit of mains lead), but I suspect it'll be a difference in theory only.

[gypsymoth]

try finding a medium scale 135 - let me know if you do.
the overall longer length will allow the taper portion of the string to go in the tuning peg slot, rather than a big chunk of steel cable, which really doesn't want to bend or rotate around the shaft.

[OutToPlayJazz]

My KingBass Artist 5-string had the 32" scale & the B had no tension problems at all. Sounded amazing, so I'd guess you'll have no problems with a 33" instrument. Would the almost guaranteed straight/flat graphite neck of the Status be a reason for it, or is scale length usually more of a problem on wooden basses?

[Count Bassy]

Several people here have said that you simply get used to a longer scale.

I play a 32", and can fairly comfortably play the classic 12 bar blues thing starting at the seventh fret (its a stretch, but doesn't actually hurt) i.e. first finger at the 7th fret on the A string third finger at the 9th fret on the D string and little finger reaching to the 11th fret on the D string as required. (Think "Bang a gong", steamroller etc).

I can also do this at the based at the fifth fret, but it really is a stretch and starts to get painful.
Below the fifth fret I really am struggling to do it at all.

My point is that if I went to a 36" scale (effectively adding three and a bit frets on the end ** EDITED: Actually its only 2 and a bit as has been pointed out below - please adjust examples below as accordingly **) then to play it rooted at the seventh fret would be similar to playing it at the 4th fret on the 32" scale, which from above you will see that I would find very difficult.

I can see that if what you're playing allows your left hand to move about then, yes, you can just move it a bit further, and you'd probably get used to it, I've played 34" scales in this way with no real problem. If one of your fingers has to be anchored at a particular place, as in my example, then "getting used to it" is not so simple. (assuming that your fingers must remain attached to the end of your hand during the performance).

I only play a four string so I can't comment on the tone a B string at different scale lengths, but the general consensus seems to be that the longer the better. If this is the case then why aren't we all playing 40" or 42" scales, cos wouldn't that sound better again? Surely it can't be a problem of reach because according to most people thats something you soon get used to.

Sadly it is true that the choice of 32" scale strings is limited, I've always stuck to four strings and off the shelf options, but if I were to go to 5 strings and stay with a 32" scale, then, thankfully, there are pretty reasonable custom strings available (eg Newtone). As it happens my favourite bass of the moment (a USA Fender urge Mk1) is string through the body and consquently will take most standard length strings anyway.


Clive.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Clive Thorne

[mcgraham]

[quote]My point is that if I went to a 36" scale (effectively adding three and a bit frets on the end)[/quote]

Actually it'd only be two and a bit. I thought it'd be a lot more too!

Point taken though, it isn't a definite rule that 'everyone' can get used to a longer scale.

Mark

[Count Bassy]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='174198' date='Apr 10 2008, 10:34 PM']Actually it'd only be two and a bit. I thought it'd be a lot more too!

Point taken though, it isn't a definite rule that 'everyone' can get used to a longer scale.

Mark[/quote]

Yes you're right of course - my mistake. I measured it on my bass and got 2 and a bit, but by the time I'd walked to the PC it had magically transformed to 3 and a bit!

Thanks for noticing and pointing it out!

Clive

[alexclaber]

[quote name='Clive Thorne' post='174187' date='Apr 10 2008, 10:12 PM']I play a 32", and can fairly comfortably play the classic 12 bar blues thing starting at the seventh fret (its a stretch, but doesn't actually hurt) i.e. first finger at the 7th fret on the A string third finger at the 9th fret on the D string and little finger reaching to the 11th fret on the D string as required. (Think "Bang a gong", steamroller etc).[/quote]

Just tried this on my 36". For starters I'd normally play this on 7th fret A string, 9th fret D string and 6th fret G string! But I have no problem playing it your way and I think my hands are barely larger than average. However I do play with my thumb on the back of the neck and my hand pivots about this so I can cover more frets without actually shifting my thumb. If I wasn't pivoting around my thumb it would be more challenging.

[quote name='Clive Thorne' post='174187' date='Apr 10 2008, 10:12 PM']I only play a four string so I can't comment on the tone a B string at different scale lengths, but the general consensus seems to be that the longer the better.[/quote]

Not the longer the better, the longer the truer and more pure the tone.

Basically as you increase the scale length for a given tuning and string gauge, you gain harmonic content at both ends of the spectrum (low and high harmonics), the overtones become more in tune with each other and the note stays more in tune during the note envelope, and the pitched content of the note becomes more significant, and timbre changes less through the attack, decay, sustain and release phases. Conversely as you decrease the scale length you lose both lower harmonic content (particularly the fundamental) and high harmonic content due to the string vibrating less like an ideal string. Clang tones (vibrating bar modes) become more significant as does percussive content (thump). Also the overtone content diminishes more quickly.

Now the question is, do you want more thump and midrange or do you want more tonal content, depth and clarity?

Your choice of course will not just be determined by the sound you want but also your tuning and where you tend to play. The Novak fanned fret approach makes a lot of sense because you can keep the high strings sounding 'warm' enough whilst making the low strings clear enough.

My decision to go for 36" scale was because I've not been impressed by any 34" scale low B strings and I wanted more note and less thump, plus I play a lot of chordal stuff so clarity on the high strings is nice too. And if I want more thump I'm happy to use muting techniques to get it.

Alex

[matty589]

Great post Alex.

Clive, how big are your hands? My left hand is 22cm span tip of thumb to tip of little finger (fully stretched L-R), and 20cm from tip of middle finger to wrist joint. I can do 1-finger per fret at the first fret on a 36" scale 6-string with no problems (as long as the neck is fairly slim). If you have very small hands of course then there is no choice but to get a shorter scale length, but if your hands are similar in size then it is a stretching/technique issue (unless you have had hand injuries in the past that limit your tendons' ability to stretch).
As to very long scale lengths, they haven't caught on because above 36-37" players with even medium to large hands will struggle to fret comfortably at the 1st position. In addition it makes the neck very long and makes balance even worse. it also distorts the shape of the body (and if the body matches the scale length it would become huge).
I have 2 Warwicks - Thumb NT 5 and Corvette Ash 6-string. Both have 34" scale and have tight, well-defined B-strings as well as warmth and clarity. The appeal of a longer scale length to me is the little bit of extra space between each fret above the 12th, as it is easy to get tangled when the frets get closer together.

[Count Bassy]

Matty,

Thumb to little finger , very tip to very tip is about the same as yours, ie 21.5 cm.
The wrist joint isn't that specific, but I guess thats also about the same as yours.
Stretch from the middle of the first finger tip to the middle of the little finger tip, which I guess gives you your nominal span for fretting, is about 14.5cm.

Maybe it is a stretching issue. I can certainly reach things now that I couldn't when I started to play half seriously, about two years ago. However if I were to go to a 34 or 36" now I would be in the situation, in the short term at least, where I couldn't play stuff that I am currently playing out with the band.

At least you seem to accept that a smaller hand (whether mine qualifies as one of these or not) can limit/influence one's choice of scale, which not every one does.


Alex - a very informative post, thanks. I'll try your fingering for that pattern and see how I get on with it. However with my current method I might just be able to do it on a 34", but can't see how I'd manage on a 36" (i've never tried cos I don't know anyone with a 36").

I play with the end pad of my thumb pretty well in the middle of the neck. Is this what you also do Alex. certainly I've never played with the thumb wrapped round the neck as some people do.


Has anyone here actually played a short/medium scale 5 stringer, such as the birdsong or Landing that I mentioned earlier, - If so I'd be interested in some feedback on them, although to be honest my standard of playing would in no way justify that sort of expenditure.


And finally....
I just want to make it clear that I have absolulety no problem with any scale neck, or indeed number of strings, that anyone wants to play! 'Vive la difference'


Clive

[alexclaber]

For me, fretting hand:
Thumb to little finger t2t: 23.5cm
Stretch from index to little finger c2c: 17cm

Plucking hand (same size, just not used to stretching between frets):
Thumb to little finger t2t: 23.5cm
Stretch from index to little finger c2c: 15cm

Personally I don't think one can say that your hand size alone should affect your choice of instrument but I think it's one of a number of contributing factors. So for instance I've never really come up against limitations in terms of how fast I can play - yes, there's stuff I can't do because it's too quick but I wouldn't actually choose to play that stuff - in fact I think I still play more notes than ideal so an instrument that slows me down a little isn't a bad thing. I'm very tone-centric and care hugely about how every single note sounds from start to finish, so I wanted a very responsive instrument that would give my hands maximum control of that and the longer scale does help with that. Also I wanted an instrument with a very large dynamic range in real world situations - from my one gig I've played on this 36" scale I've already noticed the benefits vs my old 34" scale that I've played for years and years. If you're a fusion player like Matt Garrison that plays very quick stuff and has a light touch then I can totally see shorter scales being beneficial. I guess I'm more neanderthal than that...

I know Mike Watt prefers to play a short scale (30") live because it's less tough on his joints but always records with a 34" because he gets a better recorded tone.

Regarding the left hand thumb position, yes roughly the middle of the neck. However, pivoting thumb technique involves your fingers reaching larger stretches without straining and without your thumb moving up or down the neck but just rotating around the thumb pad. Hopefully one of the teachers on here can explain how to work it into your technique, I'm not sure when or how I started doing it!

Alex

[Bilbo]

I really think the size of your hands has nothing to do with any of this. I have always played with what is usually called a 'one finger per fret' technique on my left hand (fretting). However, because I am on a fretless, the accuracy required for all four fingers to actually HIT the exact spot where the correct note lays is simply not there physiologically so you have to make small adjustments depending on where you are on the neck but also where you are in the phrasing of an idea.

In addtion, depending on the line you are playing, you sometimes need to play the next note on the same string as the last one whilst, at other times, you need to play it on a different string. All of this changes the position of both of your hands and your fingers quite significantly. Having it all under your hands in one position is a technical ideal but not always possible or desirable in practice. It is your ability to move your hand between positions without losing the internal integrity of a phrase that counts not the size of your hand. I suspect this is not really any different on a 36" scale to a 33".

Small hands, big hands. I think its a red herring.

Edited April 11, 2008 by bilbo230763

[BigBeefChief]

I much prefer my women to have small hands.

[matty589]

[quote name='Clive Thorne' post='174569' date='Apr 11 2008, 02:30 PM']Matty,

Thumb to little finger , very tip to very tip is about the same as yours, ie 21.5 cm.
The wrist joint isn't that specific, but I guess thats also about the same as yours.
Stretch from the middle of the first finger tip to the middle of the little finger tip, which I guess gives you your nominal span for fretting, is about 14.5cm.

Maybe it is a stretching issue. I can certainly reach things now that I couldn't when I started to play half seriously, about two years ago. However if I were to go to a 34 or 36" now I would be in the situation, in the short term at least, where I couldn't play stuff that I am currently playing out with the band.

At least you seem to accept that a smaller hand (whether mine qualifies as one of these or not) can limit/influence one's choice of scale, which not every one does.[/quote]

Hi Clive,
It's all in the hands. Fretting with your left hand isn't just about stretching the fingers apart. It is also about how you use the fingers, where you place your thumb, how much you use your thumb to pivot, and how you execute the +1 technique (which is where you use one finger per fret but stretch with the index finger or little finger 1 extra fret lower or higher before snapping back into position).

How much effort are you using to hold the strings down? A well setup bass should require little or no "squeeze". Try playing a line and fretting with your left hand but float the thumb off the back of the neck - you should still be able to hold the strings down, but now you're using much less pressure as you're not squeezing with the thumb. Also there is the buzz technique, where you hold a note down with the left hand then lift off just enough so the note starts to buzz. Just before it starts to buzzes is the max pressure you need to fret a note (Two tips that are thanks to Gary Willis). Also if you fret right behind the fret or slightly on top you need less pressure. Then use your thumb to slightly pivot between notes that are, say 3-4 frets apart (fingered index-pinkie) - this give you more reach without over-stretching. Finally you can extend your fretting range by rotating the wrist and slightly straightening the index finger. I learnt most of this in the first 10 years of playing (when I used to practice 5 hours a day 6 days a week) and have spent the last 12 years trying to master it (when I only practice specific musical and technical things) so keep at it, your technique will always improve!

I agree, there is no one right solution for everyone. Your hands are plenty big enough for 33"-36" scale though. As you say, you're gigging now (btw were does your bass hang? high, mid or low?), so I wouldn't go jumping for something that is much longer or shorter in scale. it can sometimes be difficult to get strings for very short/long scale basses too.

[matty589]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='174611' date='Apr 11 2008, 03:19 PM']If you're a fusion player like Matt Garrison that plays very quick stuff and has a light touch then I can totally see shorter scales being beneficial. I guess I'm more neanderthal than that...[/quote]
I don't want to hijack the thread but in my opinion Matt Garrison, whilst a very accomplished and celebrated player, has a thin, scratchy guitar-like tone that does nothing for me (33" scale). AJ (36" scale) rules!

[matty589]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='174649' date='Apr 11 2008, 04:12 PM']I really think the size of your hands has nothing to do with any of this. I have always played with what is usually called a 'one finger per fret' technique on my left hand (fretting). However, because I am on a fretless, the accuracy required for all four fingers to actually HIT the exact spot where the correct note lays is simply not there physiologically so you have to make small adjustments depending on where you are on the neck but also where you are in the phrasing of an idea.

In addtion, depending on the line you are playing, you sometimes need to play the next note on the same string as the last one whilst, at other times, you need to play it on a different string. All of this changes the position of both of your hands and your fingers quite significantly. Having it all under your hands in one position is a technical ideal but not always possible or desirable in practice. It is your ability to move your hand between positions without losing the internal integrity of a phrase that counts not the size of your hand. I suspect this is not really any different on a 36" scale to a 33".

Small hands, big hands. I think its a red herring.[/quote]
I disagree. The ability of your fingers to work together or to stretch apart from one another, depending on the phrase you are playing, directly correlate between scale length and hand size. If you have small hands and play a long scale you will struggle to do 1 finger per fret because you won't physically be able to reach common spans in the lower positions - you'd have to flatten your hand and distort your wrist to reach. This only really comes into play in the first 4-5 positions as above that the frets are close enough at and reasonable scale length for it not to be a problem. Poor technique would result, and poor technique often equals poor phrasing (buzzing, missed notes, sloppy rhythm). If you can't reach the notes how are you going to phrase them or keep their integrity? Also, one finger per fret is just a general starting point in left hand technique, not the be-all and end-all.

[Count Bassy]

Alex, Bilbo and Matty,

Thanks for your helpful replies. What's this thing called a technique that you all refer to? I've checked in my bass case again, but I don't seem to have one!

Seriously though I take all your points on board.

As I said in an earlier post I can see that if what your playing needs or allows your hand to move around a bit then the disrtance betwen the fets is less critical, but in my example the first finger has to sat on the seventh fret while the little finger stretches up to the 11th fret on the next string, otherwise you can't play the two notes together.

I've had a quick go at using the 7th on the A, 9th on the D and 6th on the G and yes it does work without the stretch, and allows you to go to the 7th on the G as well if you wnat. But, on a 4 string at least, you can't move it up a string in the classic progession, and if you slide it all up 5 frets then you havn't got the root note on the open string anymore. It's a useful idea and I'll start to incorporate it, but it doesn't solve everything.

Regarding the fretting pressure, I think i've got that about right, I've not tried to lift my thumb off, but suspect I probably could. One of the problems I have with the stretch in this regard, is that when I'm playing the example I gave, the little finger won't reach as far as just behind the 11th fret, so I do have to press a bit harder than ideal in this case.

I really do appreciate all your ideas and thoughts and will give them all a try. I am a young player (well I'm 50, but you know what I mean), so am more than happy to take as many hints and ideas as I can on board.


Clive.

[Count Bassy]

ADDENDUM:

Just come back rom band practise and played all of you really got me going with my thumb clear of the neck - a little bit of extra strain in the forearm by the end, but apart from that I didn't notice much difference.

also, in answer to someone's question I play with the bottom of the body about an inch above the belt, and a such an angle so taht the bass head is about level with my own.

Clive.

[matty589]

[quote name='Clive Thorne' post='174939' date='Apr 12 2008, 12:41 AM']ADDENDUM:

Just come back rom band practise and played all of you really got me going with my thumb clear of the neck - a little bit of extra strain in the forearm by the end, but apart from that I didn't notice much difference.

also, in answer to someone's question I play with the bottom of the body about an inch above the belt, and a such an angle so taht the bass head is about level with my own.

Clive.[/quote]
That strain is because you are used to pressing too hard - when you can do it with no strain then you're using the right amount of pressure. I use it just as a brief exercise from time to time to make sure I don't fall back into bad habits.
Your bass seems to be worn a little high, why not drop the bass a little and angle the neck up a bit more? It should feel more natural to your left wrist. If you look in a mirror, the neck should be angled about 45 degrees (a good starting point at least) and both arms should be reasonably close to your body and relaxed. Also check your wrists - if there is significant bend you're asking for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome or something else nasty in a few years - keep them relaxed, slightly bent but not too much.
I'll shut up now

[WishICouldWalk]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='164283' date='Mar 27 2008, 09:50 AM']Personally I wouldn't go shorter than 34" with a low B string, the tension is poor enough at 34". However, lot of people are happy with 34" B strings, which I'm not! Before you make any decisions I would recommend finding out how a 33" scale low B feels - you can simulate this fairly accurately by tuning a 34" scale B down by about 2/3 of a semitone. I did the opposite with testing a 36" scale (tuning up by a semitone) and really liked the result.

The other issue is one of technique - I calculated that playing a 36" scale is like playing a 34" scale a fret lower down (so a 33" scale will be like playing a pattern not quite a fret higher). To me that seems an almost imperceptible difference and I don't think I have big hands, pretty average in fact - I do have quite nimble left hand technique though. I actually find my 36" scale 5-string easier to play than my 34" scale 4-string, despite having played that four for almost nine years and the five for only six weeks. The wider neck (though nothing like a six) has a flatter profile and the combination of width and flatness makes my left hand technique much more fluid, with thumb almost always in the 'right' place and hand pivoting around that elegantly. I am amazed by this, I expected the 36" five to throw up some big challenges but it hasn't at all, apart from a bit of muting fun when strumming chords (not an issue for 99% of bassists!)

The tone is a whole other thing - for my tastes I hugely prefer the BIG sound of the longer scale but some people like the tone of 30" scale basses, so horses for courses and all that.

Alex[/quote]

I sort of second what you're saying here - I have a DJ5 with a 35" scale and due to the slim profile it's not difficult to play even with girly little hands like me.