Is scale length important to you?

[Angel]

I've had 8 basses over the years. A modest number, but a reflection of the fact that I see myself as someone who plays bass occasionally rather than a bass player. Anyway, it occurred to me that I have no idea of the scale length of any bass I have owned, including my current ones. I see the odd post where someone doesn't want to buy a bass because it's this scale or that scale, does it really make such a massive difference?

Am I the only person that doesn't even consider it around here, or are there more like me??

[andydye]

I've had lots of 34" scalebasses (fender, g&l, stingray - 4 & 5 string, rick...) and a couple of 35" (5 string warwick nt thumb and my current Lakland 55-02), I love the feel and sound of my Lakland but my hands to start to ache after a while with the increased stretching over the more usual 34" scale, I'm looking forward to trying a couple of 34" ACGs this next week (one 5 and one 6 string) to see what they're like with the slightly reduced tension and much easier scale length over my 35"ers.

The basic difference is in the feel of how the bass plays...

the frets are further apart (slightly) on a 35" bass which down at the nut end makes quite a difference on stretches, this is currently making my hands ache on long sessions

a longer neck tuned to the same notes gives a slightly firmer feel to the strings somehow (taut b is what folks usually go on about), this can be got over by using different strings on a 34" bass so isn't necessarily a reason to have one or the other

Edited October 26, 2012 by andydye

[paul torch]

I started on a short scale (30") then switched to long scale, now after 20 odd years have switched back to short scale.

I find it more comfortable to play though there is a difference in tone and sustain. In fact I'd say it has made me more disciplined regarding timing, don't ask me to explain as I'm sure I would struggle.

[crez5150]

I'm really comfortable on the Kingbass 32" scale... especially on the 5 string.... I can't see myself switching again

[Lord Sausage]

I don't even know what mine are. I just know some are easier to play than others. I like that, keeps me on my toes. i read this thing once that said Richie Blackmore switched to Fender because he thought they were more difficult to play than what he was using. I liked that!

[simwells]

I don't really notice the difference between a 34 and a 35 other than the better low B but I also have a 30 short scale that I absolutely hate playing as it's such a big difference to the others that my hands are always in the wrong place!

[benthos]

[quote name='Angel' timestamp='1351248624' post='1849176']
Am I the only person that doesn't even consider it around here, or are there more like me??
[/quote]
Scale length is not something I consider. I'd add neck profile, fingerboard radius, fret gauge and a host of other features to that list

I must admit I'm slightly bemused when I hear comments like 'I just can't get on with a scale length of x', or I can't work with a radiussed/flat fingerboard' or even 'I can't switch from 4 to 5 strings'.

I can see there may be a brief period when folks first pick up a 'new' bass that some aspects of it's build might feel unfamiliar, but I struggle to see how that can make a lasting difference. If it still feels unfamiliar, spend more time with it.

I've come to the conclusion that either I'm lucky that I find it easy to adapt to different basses or I'm just not that picky.

[Dr Chocolate]

Absolutely, there is more to it than just scale length. Personally I love with 33" scale basses, I'm lucky enough to own one (as well as currently having one built by Mr Letts).
When I first tried a 33" it felt so natural and I can play it all night without getting "stretchy finger syndrome"

If I was 7 foot tall with large oven-mitt hands, I'd probably prefer a 36"

horses for courses and all that

[chris_b]

Scale length isn't important to me for either sound or technique.

I didn’t like the 34" SR5 for many reasons, but my 5 string Wal was a 34" and it played well and sounded great. No problems there, so I tend to favour the theory that the sloppy B string syndrome is down to the way the bass is made.

All my other 5 String basses have been 35" scale, which I prefer. I find a larger instrument fits me better and is more comfortable to play.

[krysh]

I'm not so tall, so almost every bass above 34" feels uncomfortable.

[thisnameistaken]

All my basses have been 34". I think if I had a regular bass guitar gig now though I would look at buying a 32" due to my rubbish wrist tendons.

My DBs are both 41.5". Doesn't seem to bother my wrists at all. Bass guitar is just a bad idea I reckon.

[Conan]

No idea! The only bass I've ever owned that wasn't a 34" scale was a Carvin, which was 35.25". I can't honestly say that I noticed the difference in scale length so much as the differences in neck width and depth, fret wire size, fretboard material, action height and a dozen other factors!

I do wonder if some people make more of this than there is... or maybe I'm just not as discerning as I like to think!

[redstriper]

I like shorties for their weight and playability, but the strings seem slacker and rattle on the fingerboard, so it's standard 34s for me.

[Count Bassy]

My scale of choice would be 32", based on one I built myself years ago, which led to a Fender urge MK1s, which is beautiful. However I'm mostly playing 5 string these days, and 32" 5 strings tend to be too expensive for me to justify (given by level and frequency of playing) .

32" just makes everything easier for my little hands. Especially if wanting to fret two notes at once.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Count Bassy

[thodrik]

What I like generally depends on the neck shape rather than the length. So probably not.

[gapiro]

Yeah i hate 30 inch short scale

I dont know why but i find Damned near impossible for me to play on. It may be down to the fact my main two basses are both 35 " lakland 5 stringers but just never got on with them (have owned two short and played a couple more £

[Kongo]

Scale length is a boon for me all the damn time. 35" scale does take a bit more to play, but once used to it you know no difference...IF you don't play a 34" scale. Soon as you do that your brain goes "Hey, isn't this so much easier to play"? Then you start to question haha.
Personally I do prefer the way the frets are on a 35" scale, more so for 5 and 6-string. Tension? Meh, best string tension I ever had was on my Ibanez RD605, that's a 34" scale. But then again, I don't like too much tension.

I dunno, it's that million pound question. Best bet is to just play what feels good to ya.

[casapete]

I regularly use both 34" scale Fender and a 30" scale Danelectro, and don't have problems swapping between the two.
Probably as they are such different instruments, so I can never forget which is which! I personally love the short scale
Dano, its just ideal for the country/roots band I use it for. Not sure how it would be for the other stuff I play though,
as it is quite 'thumpy'. Never tried a 32" scale, so would be interesting to see how that compromise would work.

[Cat Burrito]

Having only owned 34" scale necked basses I bought my Hofner Verithin bass a couple of years back (30.5") and it is the only bass I use now. So, no

[steve-bbb]

what is this finger stretching everyone is talking of? you are allowed to moved your whole hand at the same time as wiggling your fingers dontchaknow

i have a 35 (bright active and modern) and a 34 (nice soft passive dull thump) and use them more according to the sonic needs of the song rather than any personal preference (except when my back is really aching then i'll just dump the big beast in favour of the lighter one)

in response to the OP imho the main difference is really in the immediate feel and response of how they play string tension general wobbliness of strings etc etc and depending on your playing style and repertoire some things might 'feel' easier to negotiate on a 34 compared to a 35 - i do tend to practice a bit more on the 35 than the 34 for that reason - if you can nail something fiddly on the 35 it does make it feel a bit easier when you try it on the 34

edit- taking it to the extreme... i dug my old 6 string acoustic out of the cupboard a little while back and found it difficult to the point of appearing like a fumbling noobie trying to finger even the most basic chord shapes on its teenie weenie 24 inch scale and puny thin strings

Edited October 27, 2012 by steve-bbb

[fretmeister]

I like 32 and 34. I have fairly small hands so I find 35 painful for low stretches.

[Muzz]

I love the Dingwall multi scale, 34 to 36.25, all in four strings! No problems changing mid-gig to a normal 34", either.

[Mikey R]

Agree with the above - scale length is only one part of the equation. Personally, I find an uncomfortable action to be the biggest problem, followed by neck width, then profile.

My guitarist played bass in another band, and I find his 5 string unplayable due to a wide, shallow neck and super high action - but he dislikes my 4 string as its a toothpick by comparisson.

[BigRedX]

I own basses with scale lengths from 25½" to 36" so AFAIC the only time I'm bothered about scale length is when I'm buying strings so I get the correct length for the bass I'm restringing.

I am suspicious of 35" scale basses since IME the extra inch is used by manufacturers at the cheaper end of the market (sub £1k) to try and get a decent sounding and feeling B string when they would be better off making a more stable neck and (if applicable) neck joint.

[Lozz196]

Doesn`t concern me, I`ve had Thunderbirds, Les Paul Basses, Stingrays, and have found all of them fine.

I`ll probably find out now that they`re all the same which is why