Short-scale 5 string

[Merton]

Anyone got any examples of any short-scale 5 strings (low B )?

How do the sound and feel vs a full scale 5er?

Considering getting Alan (ACG) to build me a shorty her based on the Graft basses at some point in the next year, so interested to know experiences of how successful the reduced scale-length is with the floppy low strings

Edited March 27, 2013 by Merton

[Geek99]

I tried a low b on a shortie and it was simply too floppy to use.

[Merton]

Fair enough, that's the sort of comment I need before I commit to anything! That was my concern, I like quite high tension in my strings...

[tubbybloke68]

Hi, never played one but check out birdsong guitars. Based in texas.apparently they specialize in shortscale basses and have a model called a hy5. Looks really nice.think they have a through body stringing arrangement to give extra tension to the b string etc .would love to try one myself !:-)

[BigRedX]

The Birdsong HY5 is still 31" scale - it seems that even they couldn't make a usable 30" 5-string bass.

BTW the stringing arrangement of the low B doesn't change the tension - that is fixed by the unit mass of the string, the note it is tuned to and the [b]vibrating length[/b] - what their system does is to change the compliance to make it feel stiffer. Their method is also patented, so it's not currently copyable. And it means that you have buy a standard 34" low B to get enough length to fit.

[mcgraham]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1364455336' post='2026641']
The Birdsong HY5 is still 31" scale - it seems that even they couldn't make a usable 30" 5-string bass.

BTW the stringing arrangement of the low B doesn't change the tension - that is fixed by the unit mass of the string, the note it is tuned to and the [b]vibrating length[/b] - what their system does is to change the compliance to make it feel stiffer. Their method is also patented, so it's not currently copyable. And it means that you have buy a standard 34" low B to get enough length to fit.
[/quote]
Re: through-body stringing - you're spot on. it's worth bearing in mind that HOW the string vibrates will also be affected by how securely it is anchored at each end. As such, even though the tension required to tune it to pitch when non-oscillatory will be the same, the consistency of that maintained tension when the string is vibrating is going to be improved on the one with e.g. through body stringing, extended B headstock etc.

Re: patent - I couldn't see anything on their site, but it's also worth pointing out patents are territorial. IF they don't have one in UK or Europe, Alan is very much free to go and make them here. Selling into a territory with a patent on an item infringing that patent is a no-no, but he would be free to make them here.

[pete.young]

I seem to recall that Paul Rose made a fan-fret short scale bass, not sure what the length of the 'B' ended up as though.

[Geek99]

Mine was a Paul rose, and with thru stringing

He warned me the string tension wouldn't be up to much, and was right

[BigRedX]

[quote name='mcgraham' timestamp='1364457675' post='2026658']
Re: patent - I couldn't see anything on their site, but it's also worth pointing out patents are territorial. IF they don't have one in UK or Europe, Alan is very much free to go and make them here. Selling into a territory with a patent on an item infringing that patent is a no-no, but he would be free to make them here.
[/quote]

The reason you most likely couldn't find the patent is because the HY5 basses now have their own separate [url="http://www.hy5basses.com"]web site[/url]

However I just looked up the [url="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=20080229895&OS=20080229895&RS=20080229895"]patent[/url], and discovered that it claims this method of stringing increases the tension of the string, which it most definitely does not (the only change is to the compliance of the string, not its tension) so a brave and wealthy man should be able to challenge it.

The problem with getting a good sounding low B on short scale basses can be illustrated by looking at the sorts of gauges you would need to compensate for the decrease in scale length. Assuming that a 125 gauge B is the minimum acceptable on a 34" scale instrument, reducing the scale length to 31" would require the gauge of the string being increased to 131 to give the same tension. This why manufacturers play with compliance instead to try and give the same feel even though the actual string tension is much lower.

Edit I forgot the square root in my calculations.

Edited March 28, 2013 by BigRedX

[mcgraham]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1364460014' post='2026675']
The reason you most likely couldn't find the patent is because the HY5 basses now have their own separate [url="http://www.hy5basses.com"]web site[/url]
[/quote]
Thanks.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1364460014' post='2026675']
However I just looked up the [url="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=20080229895&OS=20080229895&RS=20080229895"]patent[/url], and discovered that it claims this method of stringing increases the tension of the string, which it most definitely does not (the only change is to the compliance of the string, not its tension) so a brave and wealthy man should be able to challenge it.
[/quote]
Yes and no. It's a complicated point both in terms of physics AND patent law, and so not black and white by any stretch. In any case it doesn't matter. From a quick search you can see they ONLY have a US patent granted, so anyone anywhere else in the world can make it and not infringe, regardless of whether the patent is sound.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1364460014' post='2026675']
The problem with getting a good sounding low B on short scale basses can be illustrated by looking at the sorts of gauges you would need to compensate for the decrease in scale length. Assuming that a 125 gauge B is the minimum acceptable on a 34" scale instrument, reducing the scale length to 31" would require the gauge of the string being increased to 131 to give the same tension. This why manufacturers play with compliance instead to try and give the same feel even though the actual string tension is much lower.

Edit I forgot the square root in my calculations.
[/quote]
I understand the principles of string gauge and the difficulties with scale length. What most people fail to consider when spouting out against such systems is that things change dynamically when the string is oscillating. Anchoring the string in this way as you say makes it feel stiffer, but it should also ensure a more consistent string tension through the string's movement than a normal arrangement.

[eude]

As you know I play 33" basses, ACGs as it happens, 4, 5 and 6 string, no problems with floppy strings here.
I reckon you could go to 32", or possibly even 31.5" without it being noticeably floppy, unless you play VERY hard.
How short are you thinking of going?

There's likely to be all sorts of arguments about how scale length effects string vibration etc., some substantiated with physics and some just plain insane, it's been done to death a million times, so I'm not going to bother chiming in on that, but one thing you can try to tighten things up is change to a string that's a little tighter in feel, I've always found hex wound DRs tighter than their round wound ones. You can also go up a string gauge too. I went from 0.125 0.100 0.080 etc up to 0.130 0.105 0.085 etc. when I first started on 33" basses, but I've pretty much gone back now.

I know Alan would build you an amazing shorty if you choose to go with ACG.
If you want to try out a 33", you're more than welcome to pop over, I'm in sunny South Croydon/Sanderstead.

Cheers,
Eude

[Geek99]

[quote name='mcgraham' timestamp='1364460655' post='2026684']

Thanks.


Yes and no. It's a complicated point both in terms of physics AND patent law, and so not black and white by any stretch. In any case it doesn't matter. From a quick search you can see they ONLY have a US patent granted, so anyone anywhere else in the world can make it and not infringe, regardless of whether the patent is sound.

[/quote]
Not quite true, they can sue you for infringement and you'd have to defend yourself in a US court. Whether they can afford to take action, or would bother, is another question
I did this for my dissertation in my law degree. Also US patents are famously lax in their view of prior art and also the kind of things that can be patented - see diamond v chakrabarty for instance

[BigRedX]

And this is why IMO, terms like short and long scale have been largely rendered meaningless.

Back in the 60s when there were far fewer basses and far fewer manufacturers scales lengths were easily definable. Short scale meant 30" (±½"), medium scale 32" (±½") and long scale 33½ - 34", and that was that. These days you can find basses being built with pretty much any scale length from sub 30" to over 39", so instead of using vague terms like short scale which seems to mean different things to different people (a lot of the time it's anything 33" or less), go with the actual scale length instead. Then there's no ambiguity.

And Eude, no wonder you went back to your original gauge strings. Purely to compensate for the reduction in overall mass of the string from 34 to 33" you'd only need to use a 127 instead of a 125.

Edited March 28, 2013 by BigRedX

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Geek99' timestamp='1364464495' post='2026753']
Not quite true, they can sue you for infringement and you'd have to defend yourself in a US court. Whether they can afford to take action, or would bother, is another question
I did this for my dissertation in my law degree. Also US patents are famously lax in their view of prior art and also the kind of things that can be patented - see diamond v chakrabarty for instance
[/quote]

And what happens when one of the main claims for the patent is technically wrong? As in the case of the patent mention earlier.

[Geek99]

Well, they must have submitted some evidence but obviously you can't expect a civil servant to be expert in all areas that come up when reviewing patent applications. The US PATENT office is chronically underfunded.

[mcgraham]

[quote name='Geek99' timestamp='1364464495' post='2026753']
Not quite true, they can sue you for infringement and you'd have to defend yourself in a US court. Whether they can afford to take action, or would bother, is another question
I did this for my dissertation in my law degree. Also US patents are famously lax in their view of prior art and also the kind of things that can be patented - see diamond v chakrabarty for instance
[/quote]
Uhhh.... not quite. A patent is territorial. Unless you conduct an infringing act in a territory with patent, they can do nothing. If someone was to make in the UK and import into the US, that would be infringement. If they made in the UK, and sold/imported into the UK, or Germany, or anywhere else in the world that didn't have a patent, there is nothing the patent holder can do, as the patent rights are restricted to that territory.

And I did this for 6 years, as a qualified European Patent Attorney.

[Geek99]

Duly corrected, there would have to be an attempt to import or distribute the item itself, or an item containing it into the US

My point about laxity is still there though, I believe.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Geek99

[Merton]

[quote name='eude' timestamp='1364463959' post='2026742']
I know Alan would build you an amazing shorty if you choose to go with ACG.
If you want to try out a 33", you're more than welcome to pop over, I'm in sunny South Croydon/Sanderstead.
[/quote]

Ah cool, I forgot you were so close! Thanks for that d(e)ude, I may just have to take you up on that offer and show off my incredibly poor ability!

33" might be OK, I was thinking more 32" or even 30.5"....

[ikay]

How about 28.6" - http://www.notreble.com/buzz/2012/11/09/ibanez-introduces-5-string-mikro-bass/

[mcgraham]

[quote name='Geek99' timestamp='1364469329' post='2026836']
My point about laxity is still there though, I believe.
[/quote]

Tell me about it! Having to deal with US Patent Examiners (and US attorneys) was a painful experience.

As it happens, a few years this very complaint resulted in a change of procedure for the USPTO to 'raise quality of patents granted', but the system was set up in such a way that even patents that should have reasonably been granted, e.g. the arguably stricter EPO would grant it after some years, but the US Examiner would just keep dragging it out and raising lame objections, then when they were overruled, they'd (put simply) raise the same objection again but in a different formal guise, so the process just kept on for years and years and years.

Not sad to have left that profession behind!

[eude]

[quote name='Merton' timestamp='1364473655' post='2026918']
Ah cool, I forgot you were so close! Thanks for that d(e)ude, I may just have to take you up on that offer and show off my incredibly poor ability!

33" might be OK, I was thinking more 32" or even 30.5"....
[/quote]

Don't stress man, I'm SO out of practice since I became a Dad, I imagine you plodding out Smoke On The Water would have me in tears...
Send me a PM if you fancy a visit at some point.
If you're only looking for something more compact rather than specifically a shorter scale, I think you'll be very pleased if you have a shot of my ACG Finns...

I have to say I think 30.5" might be pushing it a little, unless you adjust your technique a little. I know Roscoe made a 30" 6er recently and Gard, who makes them, said it had a pretty good low B, if you make some playing adjustments, which I assume he meant playing a little lighter.

Eude

[bassist_lewis]

http://www.callowhillbass.com

Short scale 5 string bass with a low B. The builder (Tim Cloonan) claims that the B string is excellent (slight bias) as does its co-designer, ex-Roots bassist, Owen Biddle.
Somewhere on FB Tim Cloonan puts it down to the break angles at the nut and bridge.
Kind of related is the subject of Inharmonicity, which is where the harmonics of a note are not an exact integer of the fundamental (eg non-tuned percussion is made of a lot of inharmonicity). Inharmonicity increases proportionally to string diameter (not quite as simple as that but as much as I understood) and is inversely proportional to string length. So getting a heavier gauge B string to compensate for a shorter scale will actually increase inharmonicity :0 in moderation it adds warmth to a sound... but I haven't a clue how much is too much :S

Still, someone believes it can be done

[eude]

[quote name='bassist_lewis' timestamp='1381263902' post='2236782']
[url="http://www.callowhillbass.com"]http://www.callowhillbass.com[/url]

Short scale 5 string bass with a low B. The builder (Tim Cloonan) claims that the B string is excellent (slight bias) as does its co-designer, ex-Roots bassist, Owen Biddle.
Somewhere on FB Tim Cloonan puts it down to the break angles at the nut and bridge.
Kind of related is the subject of Inharmonicity, which is where the harmonics of a note are not an exact integer of the fundamental (eg non-tuned percussion is made of a lot of inharmonicity). Inharmonicity increases proportionally to string diameter (not quite as simple as that but as much as I understood) and is inversely proportional to string length. So getting a heavier gauge B string to compensate for a shorter scale will actually increase inharmonicity :0 in moderation it adds warmth to a sound... but I haven't a clue how much is too much :S

Still, someone believes it can be done
[/quote]

Having heard Owain's stuff, the low B on his basses certainly sounds amazing, would be inetersted to see what it feels like!
The OBS model is insanely expesnive though, but Callowhill are doing a cheaper bass based on some of the same principals, a kinda P Bass style thing called the MPB, they start at $1950 with a passive jobby with a single pickup, with upcharges from there. There's more details on the Facebox page, the Callowhill website is always behind the times a bit...

I spoke to a guy at length who has a Nordstrand 6 string 30" Bass with a low B, a one off.
He said that the break angle at the nut was the most important thing, so the headstock angle on his bass was steeper than normal, the construction was also through neck with a lot of Ebony in the neck to keep the wood under the "speaking length" of the string as stuff as possible.

Ulimately, I think most good luthiers would be able to put something together that would get you a resoanable B string. Owain Biddle has a fairly light touch, which will certainly help get the best out of a shorter scale B string. The 33"ers I play are close enough to 34" as far as feel goes, and as I mentioned before, you can always compensate with going up a gauge in strings, making a 30" feel like 34" might be a bit trickier.

My vote still goes for ACG

Eude

[bassist_lewis]

[quote name='eude' timestamp='1381310952' post='2237229']

I spoke to a guy at length who has a Nordstrand 6 string 30" Bass with a low B, a one off.
He said that the break angle at the nut was the most important thing, so the headstock angle on his bass was steeper than normal, the construction was also through neck with a lot of Ebony in the neck to keep the wood under the "speaking length" of the string as stuff as possible.

[/quote]

I've seen the MPBs, very interesting. How steep is the headstock angle on an ACG ?

[eude]

[quote name='bassist_lewis' timestamp='1381323328' post='2237546']
I've seen the MPBs, very interesting. How steep is the headstock angle on an ACG ?
[/quote]

I believe its 15º as standard on ACGs, or at least it certinaly was when I originally discussed it with Alan when he built my first ACG back in 2009.
Obviously, the Graft and J Type basses have a non angled, i.e. more Fender style headstock, but string retainers can be used to improve the break angle on that kind of design anyway.

Hope that helps!