Scale length and string vibration

[Gamble]

A longer scale length will inrease string tension, therefore strings will flap about less, am I right?

This is what I've always believed, but a book about guitar building that I've been reading tells me that a longer scale means the string will vibrate more and therefore needs a higher action. Now that's pretty much contradictory to how I've always thought of it, so I was wondering if anyone here can tell me definitively which is correct.
I don't usually question the written word, but this book also says that a shorter scale length with give a brighter sound which I'm not sure I understand either.

Any views on this are welcome so we an find a conensus, and if anyone knows for definate then all the better!

Cheers guys!

[planethead]

[quote name='Gamble' post='314369' date='Oct 25 2008, 09:51 AM']A longer scale length will inrease string tension, therefore strings will flap about less, am I right?

This is what I've always believed, but a book about guitar building that I've been reading tells me that a longer scale means the string will vibrate more and therefore needs a higher action. Now that's pretty much contradictory to how I've always thought of it, so I was wondering if anyone here can tell me definitively which is correct.
I don't usually question the written word, but this book also says that a shorter scale length with give a brighter sound which I'm not sure I understand either.

Any views on this are welcome so we an find a conensus, and if anyone knows for definate then all the better!

Cheers guys![/quote]

Hope this doesn't confuse the issue but : [url="http://www.flyguitars.com/gibson/bass/EB0.php"]http://www.flyguitars.com/gibson/bass/EB0.php[/url]
might add context (or not?)

ttfn

[bnt]

I suspect this book is assuming that you'll use thinner strings on the longer scale instrument. For the same strings, however, I think you're right. Here's my slightly academic take on this, thinking in terms of energy: the string doesn't act on its own, it vibrates according to the work (energy) you put in to it from your finger. The displacement (how far it moves off-centre) is at its maximum as you hit the string, and it only goes down from there (neglecting odd effects from resonance or harmonics).

When the string is tighter, you will need to put more work in (as you pluck it) for a given displacement. This is because you have to use more force to move it, and work energy can be expressed as force times distance*. You'll have a more energetic string for a given level of movement. Or, to look at it from the other side: if you put in a fixed amount of plucking energy, I can predict the tighter string will vibrate less (in displacement terms). You can see an extreme case of this if you stick your hand inside a piano: those strings are much longer and tighter, and make a decent noise while barely moving at all.

So, I would not be concerned. I'm not a robot - I set the bass up as best I can, and naturally adjust my playing to the instrument.

* that assumes the force is constant: if not, you have to find functions and integrate them, which is a bit more awkward, but the relationship is still the same.

Edited October 25, 2008 by bnt

[SteveO]

Don't forget that there's a balancing act between frequency and amplitude here. Increasing tension will mean lower amplitude (as bnt explained above) but will also increase frequency. Longer length will lower the frequency but increase amplitude. To keep the frequency at 41Hz for an E sting (for example) if you increase the string length you also have to increase it's tension. OK so far. The clincher is that the increased amplitude from longer length is [u]more[/u] than the decreased amplitude for having a higher tension. The result is that longer strings = more amplitude = higher action. Having said all that, I believe that we're talking tiny amounts here. I would guess that the difference between 32" and 36" scale length will be less than 0.1 mm.

[Edit] Oh, and on top of that you've got the effects of string gauge, so if you're that bothered, use lighter strings . [/Edit]

Edited October 25, 2008 by SteveO

[bass_ferret]

Try it for yourself. Nick your guitarists capo, tune down a tone and stick in on the second fret. I recon the difference will be so small you wont practically notice any.

[bnt]

[quote name='SteveO' post='314406' date='Oct 25 2008, 10:44 AM']Don't forget that there's a balancing act between frequency and amplitude here. Increasing tension will mean lower amplitude (as bnt explained above) but will also increase frequency. Longer length will lower the frequency but increase amplitude. To keep the frequency at 41Hz for an E sting (for example) if you increase the string length you also have to increase it's tension. OK so far. The clincher is that the increased amplitude from longer length is [u]more[/u] than the decreased amplitude for having a higher tension. The result is that longer strings = more amplitude = higher action.[/quote]
Sorry, I just don't see where you get that conclusion from. Why does a longer string length automatically mean a higher amplitude / displacement? I was trying to explain where the amplitude comes from in the first place: from the energy your fingers put in. The longer neck might help to preserve that energy for longer, but the neck does not put any energy in to the string.

In questions like these, it helps to look at the energy. It always has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. Nothing happens without it!

Edited October 25, 2008 by bnt

[SteveO]

[quote name='bnt' post='314412' date='Oct 25 2008, 11:55 AM']Sorry, I just don't see where you get that conclusion from. Why does a longer string length automatically mean a higher amplitude / displacement? I was trying to explain where the displacement comes from in the first place: from the energy your fingers put in. The longer neck might help to preserve that energy for longer, but the neck does not put any energy in to the string.

In questions like these, it helps to look at the energy. It always has to come from somewhere, and go somewhere. Nothing happens without it! [/quote]

yup you're right, you will need to put more energy in to get more displacement, but (to go off on a slight tangent) as there is more string mass to move from a longer string, you will need more energy to move it anyway. I'm coming at a slightly different angle in ignoring the energy going into the string as in practice we'll change that constantly to get the same volume of tone at different frets. I'm getting to hunch teratory here but I'd be interested to see the equaions for tension, length, frequency, mass, amplitude etc and how they change. I would guess that with constant frequency and changing tension, length and mass, it would be unlikely that the amplitude will remain constant, but I'm prepared to admit my error if that's the case.

ps. edited my 1st post whilst you were replying, but I don't think anything significantly changed with the bit you're on about

[Beedster]

Bloody physicists

[EssentialTension]

Apparently, there is often confusion amongst players (but not physicists) between tension and compliance:

[url="http://liutaiomottola.com/myth/perception.htm"]Human Perception of String Tension and Compliance in Stringed Musical Instruments[/url]

There was a long discussion about this at one of the old Dudepits - IIRC, the question was never resolved.

[bass_ferret]

[quote name='Beedster' post='314440' date='Oct 25 2008, 11:40 AM']Bloody physicists [/quote]
Wow! What happened to the hat?

[bnt]

[quote name='SteveO' post='314424' date='Oct 25 2008, 11:15 AM']yup you're right, you will need to put more energy in to get more displacement, but (to go off on a slight tangent) as there is more string mass to move from a longer string, you will need more energy to move it anyway. I'm coming at a slightly different angle in ignoring the energy going into the string as in practice we'll change that constantly to get the same volume of tone at different frets.[/quote]
OK so far - and of course I know that you vary your playing to get the desired volume. I think we're talking at cross purposes here, since you made what looks like a simple scientific statement with no qualifications, no reference to playing style or anything like that. ("Longer length will lower the frequency but increase amplitude.")

To answer a question like this, I was thinking in terms of an experiment: you change only one thing at a time, keep everything else the same, and measure the effects. Change the scale length [i]only[/i], change [i]nothing else[/i] while doing the experiment, and see what happens. You would have to decide whether your pluck has a fixed amplitude or fixed energy, over the experiment: that would change how the results look, but not the underlying physical relationship.

If you want some general equations for string tension and frequency, try [url="http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/hs/gtb/LectureNotes/7/7.htm"]this[/url] (from MIT). When you pull a string to one side, you're increasing its length a little, which is why the tension increases and resists the pull.

[SteveO]

[quote name='bnt' post='314481' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:10 PM']I think we're talking at cross purposes here[/quote]
yup.

[quote name='bnt' post='314481' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:10 PM']...you made what looks like a simple scientific statement with no qualifications, no reference to playing style or anything like that. ("Longer length will lower the frequency but increase amplitude.")[/quote]

yup, I was thinking about an arbitary string. I think we'd agree that without changing the tension, if you play a note at the 1st fret it will vibrate at a lower frequency than if played at the 12th fret. Lets ignore the effects of string mass for the moment and assume that the string is played with the same force. We're saying that we have three variables. to consider - Frequency, Amplitude and the energy of the vibrating string. If in our thought experiment we keep the energy constant and the frequency decreases then the amplitude will increase, hence the unqualified "Longer length will lower the frequency but increase amplitude."

[quote name='bnt' post='314481' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:10 PM']To answer a question like this, I was thinking in terms of an experiment: you change only one thing at a time, keep everything else the same, and measure the effects. Change the scale length [i]only[/i], change [i]nothing else[/i] while doing the experiment, and see what happens. You would have to decide whether your pluck has a fixed amplitude or fixed energy, over the experiment: that would change how the results look, but not the underlying physical relationship.[/quote]

I see where you're coming from, but we're talking about two seperate things at the same time - the theoretical physics of a vibrating string and the practical application on a bass guitar. These thought experiments only work on paper. I'd agree that on a longer string with the same mass vibrating at the same frequency with the same energy put into the vibration and ignoring all other factors as insignificant (momentum, air resistance etc. etc.), then the amplitude of vibration will be the same, however in practice you cannot increase the scale length only. as mentioned earlier you will increase the string mass by using a longer string. you could of course stretch the string to increase it's length, but this increases the tension. I suppose that you could decrease the string gauge by the exact amount to compensate for the increased scale length so that the string mass remains constant. In this case would the amplitude of vibration be exactly the same? I would guess that it probably would. To get back to tho OP though, I would say that when building a bass guitar with a longer scale length you should assume that the bassist will use 'normal' gauge strings, and so you should build it with a higher action than a shorter scale bass with the same 'normal' gauge strings. How much higher? I dunno. probably easier to build it and see rather than spend ages messing with a calculator, but i'd guess that increasing the length by 10% from 32" to 36" is gonna increase the action by 10% from 2-3mm to 2.2 - 3.3mm

[quote name='bnt' post='314481' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:10 PM']If you want some general equations for string tension and frequency, try [url="http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/hs/gtb/LectureNotes/7/7.htm"]this[/url] (from MIT). When you pull a string to one side, you're increasing its length a little, which is why the tension increases and resists the pull.[/quote]
Interesting, but no mention of the energy of a vibrating string or amplitude, which of course is at the centre of this. Until we find it i'm gonna continue to assume that the energy is a function of Frequency multiplied by Amplitude multiplied by Mass, and that all other effects are minimal.

[Gamble]

[quote name='SteveO' post='314529' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:47 PM']I would say that when building a bass guitar with a longer scale length you should assume that the bassist will use 'normal' gauge strings, and so you should build it with a higher action than a shorter scale bass with the same 'normal' gauge strings. How much higher? I dunno. [b]probably easier to build it and see rather than spend ages messing with a calculator[/b], but i'd guess that increasing the length by 10% from 32" to 36" is gonna increase the action by 10% from 2-3mm to 2.2 - 3.3mm [/quote]

Easier to build a bass than use a calculator? You should read the manual mate!

Seriously though, thanks for all your input fellas! It's making an interesting read! Plenty of stuff I hadn't considered so far, good stuff!

[SteveO]

[quote name='Gamble' post='314541' date='Oct 25 2008, 04:08 PM']Easier to build a bass than use a calculator? You should read the manual mate! [/quote]
lol. thank's for reminding me... what's the book? any good? and while we're at it, how much more action does the book say you'll need?
While all this theory is interesting, It's a safe bet that the bass builders out there know the answer from trial and error (OK, not easier to build it and see, but at least your measurements aren't gonna be wrong cos you didn't take into account something that you thought would be insignificant (what about the effects of the earths magnetic field ? )

[bnt]

I'm not going to quote your whole post in reply, otherwise it just gets longer and longer.

[quote name='SteveO' post='314529' date='Oct 25 2008, 02:47 PM']I see where you're coming from, but we're talking about two seperate things at the same time - the theoretical physics of a vibrating string and the practical application on a bass guitar. These thought experiments only work on paper.[/quote]OK, but how else do you imagine finding out the actual effect of the change, other than an experiment? I wasn't just doing a "thought experiment", I was imagining how a real experiment could be done. Yes, I [b]know[/b] an experiment is not "real world", but if you really expect to define the relationships between variables, as you did, it pays to be rigorous about what changes or not. Otherwise, you can not expect people to believe you when you make sweeping statements about "how it is". That's all I was saying.
[quote]I'd agree that on a longer string with the same mass vibrating at the same frequency with the same energy put into the vibration and ignoring all other factors as insignificant (momentum, air resistance etc. etc.), then the amplitude of vibration will be the same, however in practice you cannot increase the scale length only. as mentioned earlier you will increase the string mass by using a longer string. you could of course stretch the string to increase it's length, but this increases the tension.[/quote]
On a guitar, no, but I was talking about an experimental situation in which you would control tension and scale length independently. The frequency formula I quoted covers mass, length and tension. You don't need to talk about compensating one thing for another - why introduce more variables in to the problem? I'm happy that the formula works. When I tried it earlier (spreadsheet [url="http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/85261/stringtension.xls"]here[/url]) on a solid steel string, it gave me results extremely close (< 0.5%) to those quoted by D'Addario.
[quote]Interesting, but no mention of the energy of a vibrating string or amplitude, which of course is at the centre of this. Until we find it i'm gonna continue to assume that the energy is a function of Frequency multiplied by Amplitude multiplied by Mass, and that all other effects are minimal.[/quote]
I would modify that assumption a little: I'd say that the energy goes up proportional to half the square of the amplitude, not linearly. I'm basing that on the energy equations for [url="http://ccrma.stanford.edu/realsimple/lab_inst/Background.html"]damped strings[/url]. Again, these are ideal theoretical calculations, so don't bother complaining that they are not "real world". I'm in no position to fully analyse the complex movement of a chunky bass string attached to a piece of wood, and I doubt anyone is. Hence, the idea that you'd want to run experiments - but if you're OK with guesswork, I'm not bothered either.

[alexclaber]

Your book is definitely wrong is making such a black and white statement, pretty wrong full-stop in fact.

Increasing scale length for a given pitch and mass per unit length makes the string act more like a perfect string - i.e. more fundamental and more even distribution of harmonic content. You might call this the 'piano sound' - that huge rich open sound with tons of top but also tons of bottom. Doing the opposite effectively bandpasses the tone, reducing the content of the lowest and highest harmonic. You can easily test this by tuning your A-string down say four semitones and comparing the tone between a 1st fret A# on the standard tuning and a 5th fret A# on the drop tuning.

The greater the mass per unit length and the tension, the less the excursion for a given pitch and energy input. So longer scale high tension strings will exhibit less excursion than shorter scale low tension strings for a given player. However the reduction in fundamental and lower harmonic sustain on a shorter scale could mean that by the time the string vibration has rotated from parallel to perpendicular to the frets that the lower frequency content has diminished so much that you can use a lower action without buzzing. Note that the most low frequency energy in a string the more that it moves, and also that when a player with good technique plucks a string it starts moving in the same plane as the frets.

Alex

[SteveO]

[quote name='bnt' post='314588' date='Oct 25 2008, 05:52 PM']OK, but how else do you imagine finding out the actual effect of the change, other than an experiment?[/quote]
yeah, hence the comment on it being easier to try it and see rather than trying to calculate it


[quote name='bnt' post='314588' date='Oct 25 2008, 05:52 PM']I wasn't just doing a "thought experiment", I was imagining how a real experiment could be done. Yes, I [b]know[/b] an experiment is not "real world", but if you really expect to define the relationships between variables, as you did, it pays to be rigorous about what changes or not. Otherwise, you can not expect people to believe you when you make sweeping statements about "how it is". That's all I was saying.[/quote]
fair enough. If i was posting on a physics forum I'd be as rigorous as I thought neccessary, but in trying to shed some light on why the info in gambles book goes against his intuition I don't see the need.

[quote name='bnt' post='314588' date='Oct 25 2008, 05:52 PM']The frequency formula I quoted covers mass, length and tension. You don't need to talk about compensating one thing for another - why introduce more variables in to the problem? I'm happy that the formula works. When I tried it earlier (spreadsheet [url="http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/85261/stringtension.xls"]here[/url]) on a solid steel string, it gave me results extremely close (< 0.5%) to those quoted by D'Addario.[/quote]
Hmmm. OK, maybe I should clarify my point about compensating. I'll use your calculations to illustrate if you don't mind (I'm not trying to be condacending here ) The string mass in your calculations [b]does[/b] change with the length the string (cell H11), so if you want to "Change the scale length only, change nothing else while doing the experiment" then you're going to have to change the string diameter to keep the 'mass of string' constant, (or the density of the metal in the string). hence me saying "...however in practice you cannot increase the scale length only..."

[quote name='bnt' post='314588' date='Oct 25 2008, 05:52 PM']I would modify that assumption a little: I'd say that the energy goes up proportional to half the square of the amplitude, not linearly. I'm basing that on the energy equations for [url="http://ccrma.stanford.edu/realsimple/lab_inst/Background.html"]damped strings[/url]. Again, these are ideal theoretical calculations, so don't bother complaining that they are not "real world". I'm in no position to fully analyse the complex movement of a chunky bass string attached to a piece of wood, and I doubt anyone is. Hence, the idea that you'd want to run experiments - but if you're OK with guesswork, I'm not bothered either.[/quote]
half the square of the amplitude... yeah, sounds about right, but the point was that the equations on the MIT page don't deal with amplitude (and neither does your spreadsheet), which of course was the whole point of this thread. I'm not complaining that an equation is not real world - no physics equation is, yet i'm happy to use them as close approximations to reality if they can be used as such. So, to try and use all this info to answer the question "What is the relationship between dispacement at the centre of a vibrating string and the length of a string at t=0 given that the vibration frequency, the force applied to the string at the moment of plucking and the diameter and density of the string all remain constant?". 'Buggered if I know, It goes up a bit' is as close as i'm going to commit to without taking time to reduce the equations properly.

I'm also in no position to analyse the complex movement of a chunky bass string attached to a piece of wood, and also advocate trying it and seeing. (do I really need to requote the "probably easier to build it and see" bit again?)

[SteveO]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='314593' date='Oct 25 2008, 06:05 PM']...The greater the mass per unit length and the tension, the less the excursion for a given pitch and energy input. So longer scale high tension strings will exhibit less excursion than shorter scale low tension strings for a given player...[/quote]

yes, thicker strings and higher tension will mean less excursion (displacement/amplitude) we can all agree with this from experience of playing, but how do you make the leap from that statement to say that longer scale length and higher tension also equals less excursion.

lets try to be a bit practical here. Is there anyone out there still reading this who has both a long and a short scale bass? do us all a favour and try to measure the maximum displacement whilst you're playing.

I've never modded a bass so I have no idea about this, but when you buy bridges, do you buy a special one for longer scale basses which allows you to set a larger maximum action than a regular bridge does? I suspect not, which would imply that the difference is really not worth worying about.

[Gamble]

In fairness, bridge height can be altered by a few variables (fretboard height from body, sinking the bridge into the body, etc) but I see your point.
You've actually reminded me that I own a Gibson EB lookalike with a 30" scale, so once I've sobered up (it is 10 past midnight on Saturday, I mean, c'mon!!?) and I've remembered to bring my digital vernier calipers home from work (not joking, I work in QA at an engineering comapany) I'll try and find a pair of similar gauge strings and comapare the string excursion on 30" and 34" scale basses, although I'm not sure holding a steel rule up to a vibrating string will yeild very accurate results! When I say it like that it kinda puts things in perspective.....


You boys need to chillllllllllll....................




Honestly tho, I really appreciate you getting involved in my query. It's shed a lot of light for me, so cheers!

[alexclaber]

[quote name='SteveO' post='314710' date='Oct 25 2008, 08:08 PM']yes, thicker strings and higher tension will mean less excursion (displacement/amplitude) we can all agree with this from experience of playing, but how do you make the leap from that statement to say that longer scale length and higher tension also equals less excursion.[/quote]

Higher tension equals less excursion however you achieve it, be it through higher tuning, heavier strings or longer scale. Bear in mind that as the string vibrates it transfers energy back and forth between kinetic and potential (as in a spring) states and the higher the tension of the string the less the string has to be stretched to achieve a given rise in potential energy.

Once you understand this you start to see why claiming that tension is fixed for a given tuning, scale length and mass per unit length isn't totally correct - static tension is fixed but dynamic tension (i.e. feel) varies significantly depending on how energy moves around the string/bass guitar system.

Alex

[Gamble]

SteveO:

The book is "Building Electric Guitars" by Martin Koch (hehehehehehe............ I said I've been drinking, right?)

I've only got as far as the general info on bits and bobs so far and I haven't been reading it in page to page order (only got it a couple of days ago and was going to a sawmill for a scout mission today so was mostly brushing up on the woody side of things (hehehehehe....... woody)) so it might make a bit more sense when I get more stuck-in. So far it hasn't stated any dim's whatsoever for action height etc, just that longer scale would need a higher action.

Check out how many brackets I'm using............... This must be why I never get to finish any of my stories when I'm down the pub!






Also, someone remind me about comparing my short scale to regular scale basses - I'd forgotten about it in the time it took me to write this post!

[SteveO]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='314808' date='Oct 26 2008, 12:24 AM']Higher tension equals less excursion however you achieve it, be it through higher tuning, heavier strings or longer scale.[/quote]

OK, to take this to an extreme, you're saying that a 1cm length of string at a tension of say 75N will vibrate at a higher excursion than a 100m length of the same string under a tension of 76N?. I take it that we're assuming that the same force is used to vibrate the string (the strength of the pluck) and we're ignoring the fact that the string is heavier? (cos it's longer - there's more string being vibrated) and assuming that all other factors are also insignificant?

You know what, with those assumprions you're probably right. however longer bass strings [i]are[/i] heavier than shorter ones of the same gauge, and you can't just ignore the effects of string mass and say [i]higher tension equals less excursion[/i], and nothing else matters. check out the MIT link from bnt, or the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrating_string"]Wiki[/url] on vibrating strings. From those you can see that even a small change in mass has a significant change on the vibrational properties. You can see from the same equasions that it has a greater effect on the vibrating string than tension does.

Now let's have a coffee and see if we can come up with an equasion that includes maximum amplitude/excursion/displacement, as well as frequency, length, mass and anything else that might be significant, and see how they interrelate to each other.


Have you measured that string yet Gamble?

[quote name='Gamble' post='314807' date='Oct 26 2008, 12:16 AM']You boys need to chillllllllllll....................[/quote]
lol. I thought we were quite chilled. We're just throwing ideas around to see what sticks. you wanna see what we're like when we're arguing about the folding of multidimentional space in the [i]other[/i] string theory when common sense goes right out the window. I'm quite enjoying this, I didn't realise just how much classical physics i'd forgotten

[SteveO]

Hmmm. maybe this is where I eat humble pie.

I can't find any specific equations relating the Energy of a vibrating string to it's displacement, and I can't be arsed to derive from first principles, so lets assume that the displacement of a vibrating string will increase as the energy going into the string increases. (seems reasonable, if you pluck harder the string will move more)

From this, we can say that the displacement is directly proportional to the energy put into the vibration (the strength of the pluck)

Putting that aside for the moment, we can also say that a long string vibrating at the same frequency and displacement as a short one will have a greater energy content due to it's greater mass (in the same way that a 10 tonne truck traveling at 30 mph has more energy than a mini traveling at 30 mph)

Putting these together, it follows that if we have two vibrating strings with the same Energy input and the same frequency of vibration, the one with the greater total mass (i.e. the greater length) will have a smaller displacement.

So, Gamble. Ignore everything I've said. I think you're right in so far as that a longer string should mean a smaller action, not bigger. Apologies bnt, you were on the right track after all

But.... (I'm not doing this on purpose, honest ) here's something else to throw into the mix...Can we agree that the output level of the bass depends on how much string displacement there is over the pickup and that the player will pluck the string however hard is necessary to get it to generate a set output level?

I'm gonna assume that the pickup position on a longer scale bass is in the same relative position to the scale (i.e on a 34" p-bass the pup is about 1/4 of the way up the 34" string. I'm assuming that on a 36" scale the pup is about 1/4 of the way up the 36" string this may be a big assumption to make, please correct me if this is wrong)

If the displacement at 1/4 of the length of the string is the same (at the pup), then the displacement at the centre of the string will be the same, regardless of how long the string is. The displacement at the pup will always be equal to sin 45 X the displacement at the centre. If the displacement at the pup is 1mm then the displacement at the 12th fret will be 1.41mm regardless of whether the string is 34" or 34 miles long. So now you don't need more action with a longer string.

So, we now get into the specific harmonc content of the vibrating string. as Alex mentioned, the fundamental is relatively stronger in a longer string, which is the greatest contributor to the maximum displacement at the 12th fret, so more fundamental should equal more displacement. Maybe this is why your book recomends a higher action? but calculating that is gonna be a real brain-ache, and I've got a gig to go to.

[Gamble]

[quote name='SteveO' post='314866' date='Oct 26 2008, 07:23 AM']Have you measured that string yet Gamble?

I thought we were quite chilled. We're just throwing ideas around to see what sticks. you wanna see what we're like when we're arguing about the folding of multidimentional space in the [i]other[/i] string theory when common sense goes right out the window. I'm quite enjoying this, I didn't realise just how much classical physics i'd forgotten [/quote]


Yeah, I can see you guys are playing nice, I'm just joshing ya! I've seen all too many threads on forums kick off over the smallest disagreement or misunderstanding before so I like to play referee sometimes.

I'll try and remember to bring my verniers home from work this week and give that experiment a go, I'll let you know how I get on! That EB copy is a bit oif a heap though, so it might not be entirely conclusive!

[Gamble]

Right, sorry for the late reply but I've been stacked out this week with working lates and rehearsing (read as "desperately trying to write interesting basslines and THEN rehearse them") for the studio this weekend.

I've strung up my 30"scale Gibbo copy with similar gauge (not exactly because I use Warwich red labels and as they're cheap the sizes are a little varied), left it a few days to settle and compared it to my 34" scale Ibanez. The Gibbo copy is an absolute heap, so it can't be used to compare sustain/tone/action/playability but I have had a look at how far the string is moving when played.

It's pretty hard to say, but I think the string to moves further on the 30" scale. There's really not much in it, and it changes each time I pluck but I'm pretty sure there's a small difference between the 2 basses. I'll spend a bit more time comparing the 2 basses soon but I'd better get some kip soon!

Cheers gents!