Neck ”depth”

[dmccombe7]

1 hour ago, Basso said:

 why a BASS neck with depth is preferable 

Your statement states "preferable depth for proper hand technique". Is that your preferable depth or do you have stats or evidence to support this preferred theory other than your own opinion on it.

Yes i am curious and enjoying this thread but unless actual facts and evidence to support are provided then its simply an opinion.

 

Your hand has a natural relaxed resting position. If you measure the distance between your thumb and index finger tip that should be the perfect neck depth.

Neck depth increases on most basses as you move up the neck, does that mean you need to play at the nut end of the neck to play faster. ?

 

With a shallower neck the fingers simply close in a touch more to their natural relaxed resting position. With a deeper neck you tend to push the fingers out and away from that natural relaxed hand position. 

 

Dave

[itu]

I have read the whole story. My background in some research shouts me: we need absolute numbers instead of relative talk. So @Basso what thickness is thick, what is thin, where are the limits, and what is optimal? Or had Leo it right in the first place with his bass playing friends?

 

Shall we move to scale lengths soon?

So sorry, I forgot string spacing, gauge and material, # of strings, neck profiles et al. I think this discussion will last some time. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by itu
additions

[martthebass]

9 minutes ago, itu said:

I have read the whole story. My background in some research shouts me: we need absolute numbers instead of relative talk. So @Basso what thickness is thick, what is thin, where are the limits, and what is optimal? Or had Leo it right in the first place with his bass playing friends?

 

Shall we move to scale lengths soon?

So sorry, I forgot string spacing, gauge and material, # of strings, neck profiles et al. I think this discussion will last some time. 

This.

everyone is different. On a 4 string I find a vintage P 1.75” nut a tad too much but a modern 1.625” fine. I’m comfortable on a 1.5” but if the neck depth is too slim somehow I can’t get comfortable.

in terms of ‘speed’ neck finish is important to me, a nice wax/oil finish like on an EBMM I find faster than a gloss neck if hands are sweaty. Lots of variables here with one of the biggest variables being the bassist, one mans meat is another’s tofu. On this basis this topic is bound to be subjective rather than objective and dominated by opinion rather than dimensional facts.

[Woodinblack]

Indeed - that is why there is only one correct size of shoes. Everyone else is wrong.

[dmccombe7]

5 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

Indeed - that is why there is only one correct size of shoes. Everyone else is wrong.

yep 100% agree............one size fits all

 

 

[Paul S]

I think I have worked it out, combing this thread with other similarly proscriptive nonsense.  Thin, shallow necks are fast, but only if you use a pick and a music stand and play once a month.  If you wear a hat you can play a narrow but chunky neck finger style every other weekend as long as you only take occasional prompts from an iPad.  But it is only wide, chunky necks that allow the correct technique employed by proper, regularly gigging musicians who either sight read or memorize 300 songs, with or without a waistcoat. 

Did I miss anything out? 

[BreadBin]

Basso = Grimalkin with a new account.

Different name, same old boring shite.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Paul S said:

Did I miss anything out?

 

VINTAGE RADIUS ffs 🙄

[Kev]

“…fatter necks actually are better suited for proper playing technique (thumb in the middle of the neck, playing with tip of curved fingers)."

 

Define fatter?  And what shapes are these necks?  As C/D/V/Asymmetric etc all have very different feels as far as the thumb goes.  Are slimmer necks better suited for certain carves? And how does nut width enter into it?  Take a 6 string bass, how fat are you wanting that neck, as they are usually very flat in comparison to a 4?  As a standalone sentence, your claim here isn't substantiated.

 

"The distance from the pushing fingers gets smaller to the string and the hand gets a better grip or “strength” thanks to a more solid contact to the actual neck."

 

I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here to refute it.  If you can reword it I'll have a go!

 

"Less “air playing” equals less distance, more strength, less movement with the resulting increased control…thin necks are not “faster” or “smoother” or “better” for anyone but someone with REALLY small hands aka: children” "

 

Again, for me the nut width/width of the neck and the carve shape has a much greater impact on all of this than the depth of the carve.  How "fast" a slim neck feels is entirely subjective to the person and their playing style and technique.  Certainly not just for people with REALLY small hands.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Kev said:

proper playing technique (thumb in the middle of the neck, playing with tip of curved fingers)

 

I always knew power chords were improper, good to get an official explanation as to why they — and all music containing them, I trust? — need to be exterminated.

[DTB]

We need one of those - 

“Tick all the boxes with ……”

checks to make sure Basso isn’t an AI entity sent to destroy us all. 

[Waddo Soqable]

Did someone say radius? 

Seeing as it's going off at tangents anyway.. I find radius more of a "thing" when it comes to guitar (not that I dabble with git that much).. now, I had an old injury to the left forefinger which makes it impossible to fully straighten it, so bar chords if done in the approved manner have a few non-note clunk's in the middle somewhere. A very curvy roundy radius however works OK. I've not found many guitars have this tho, I had a nice old Hofner f hole acoustic thing that did, but unfortunately and unwisely flogged it as I reckoned I wouldn't use it much so...  

[neepheid]

F me, this is a disappointing thread.

[BreadBin]

2 minutes ago, neepheid said:

F me, this is a disappointing thread.

Ahem 

3 hours ago, BreadBin said:

Basso = Grimalkin with a new account.

Different name, same old boring shite.

😉

[tauzero]

4 hours ago, BreadBin said:

Basso = Grimalkin with a new account.

Different name, same old boring shite.

 

He hasn't mentioned Noah Chimpsky yet.

[Waddo Soqable]

1 hour ago, neepheid said:

F me, this is a disappointing thread.

And it's on page 5 already... 

[Dad3353]

6 hours ago, dmccombe7 said:

yep 100% agree............one size fits all

 

 

 

Are they Inti's feet..? 

[dclaassen]

To me, the most disappointing thing is that there are some really thoughtful replies that had to take a backseat to the op’s issues. I’d love to revisit this topic. There’s lots of meat left on the bone…

[dmccombe7]

56 minutes ago, dclaassen said:

To me, the most disappointing thing is that there are some really thoughtful replies that had to take a backseat to the op’s issues. I’d love to revisit this topic. There’s lots of meat left on the bone…

I thought so too. It could have been a lot better had the attitudes been left out and we discussed in a more friendly and open manner.

Shame but that's BC for you.

Dave

[Ricky 4000]

7 hours ago, Paul S said:

I think I have worked it out, combing this thread with other similarly proscriptive nonsense.  Thin, shallow necks are fast, but only if you use a pick and a music stand and play once a month.  If you wear a hat you can play a narrow but chunky neck finger style every other weekend as long as you only take occasional prompts from an iPad.  But it is only wide, chunky necks that allow the correct technique employed by proper, regularly gigging musicians who either sight read or memorize 300 songs, with or without a waistcoat. 

Did I miss anything out? 

 

Yes - your nipples are exactly the same distance apart as your earlobes.

 

Not just yours, I mean everybody's.

 

Relatively.

 

👍

[dmccombe7]

I always thought that might be the case.

[Ricky 4000]

1 minute ago, dmccombe7 said:

I always thought that might be the case.

 

I thought it was so for men, but I was surprised it's the same for women too.

 

Spooky.

[Ricky 4000]

And dogs, probably.

[dmccombe7]

6 minutes ago, Ricky 4000 said:

 

I thought it was so for men, but I was surprised it's the same for women too.

 

Spooky.

I thought you were joking and googled it. Its true enough. Now that's a fun fact. 

[dmccombe7]

3 minutes ago, Ricky 4000 said:

And dogs, probably.

Do dogs have earlobes ? the 4 legged ones i mean. 

Edited February 11, 2023 by dmccombe7