(Basses with modified) scale length

[Johannes Felscher]

Hi everybody,

there are some things regarding string length I was recently wondering about, and I just wanted to ask for everyone's opinion and / or experience:

There are many basses out there with a reduced scale length, achieved either by moving up the bridge by 0.5-1" or by using a fake nut (or both). I have never had such a conversion done to any of my basses so I was wondering, what your experiences are in terms of how the response / tone of the instrument changes - if at all. I know this is a very general question and each bass is different after all, but maybe there's some sort of bottom line here.
I personally have relatively big hands and feel comfortable playing basses with 42-43" string length, so instead of shortening I was actually wondering sometimes, if the response of an instrument could improve (especially on the E string) by re-converting it.

Any input is welcome, just though I throw it out there.

Best,
Johannes

[Ken Smith]

Hi everybody,

there are some things regarding string length I was recently wondering about, and I just wanted to ask for everyone's opinion and / or experience:

There are many basses out there with a reduced scale length, achieved either by moving up the bridge by 0.5-1" or by using a fake nut (or both). I have never had such a conversion done to any of my basses so I was wondering, what your experiences are in terms of how the response / tone of the instrument changes - if at all. I know this is a very general question and each bass is different after all, but maybe there's some sort of bottom line here.
I personally have relatively big hands and feel comfortable playing basses with 42-43" string length, so instead of shortening I was actually wondering sometimes, if the response of an instrument could improve (especially on the E string) by re-converting it.

Any input is welcome, just though I throw it out there.

Best,
Johannes

How is your intonation on a 43" string length?

I have made some false Nuts and moved a few bridges up myself. I have also had a few basses shortened with a Block Cut and deeper neck set or neck graft. Some of the basses were not playable before so I don't know the change.

Those that I never played before sounded fantastic afterwards but they were also fully restored as well in the process. These were also high end older basses.

On the ones with the false Nuts I made, I heard a slight improvement on the focus of the sound but a huge improvement on the playability for hand stretch. The notes were also moved up the neck in the process. This is not always good but in the case of an Eb neck, doing this got it to a D which was an improvement.

On moving the bridge, one has to make sure of the post position, bass bar shape and bridge feet width as it's relative to the F-hole eyes width/spacing. A bridge too wide for itself can help the top sink at the f-hole areas. I have seen that on at least 2 basses that I can recall right now.

41.5" is the norm, +/- 1/2". Stay within that and you will be fine.

[Thomas Erickson]

how the response / tone of the instrument changes - if at all

Assuming we're talking about the string length, that is the distance from nut to bridge - it isn't modified to change the tone or response of the instrument; it is modified (shortened) in an attempt to make the instrument easier to play, by bringing the notes on any one string closer together.

[Johannes Felscher]

True, that might be the initial idea, but I was just wondering how it affects tone (if at all), if it doesn't it would be worth asking why anyone builds a bass with above-average string length anyway. And yes, nut to bridge of course.

Johannes

[Ken Smith]

True, that might be the initial idea, but I was just wondering how it affects tone (if at all), if it doesn't it would be worth asking why anyone builds a bass with above-average string length anyway. And yes, nut to bridge of course.

Johannes

I don't know why anyone would make a bass over 42" s.l. today with what we have learned thus far to date. I think some lower end imports are made long on occasion out of mistake or ignorance copying an old bass that if used by a normal human would have since been cut down by now. That being provided the bass itself was worth the expense and the owner could afford it as well.

My old bass in question (the cornerless at 44.5") was left as-is for many reasons I assume. With the sloped shoulders it was not all that hard to get around. Also, 2.5" overall is only 1.25" longer for the first octave where most of the music was played.

If this was the only bass I had and could not afford to have it fixed or shortened, I would have done what the previous owner did, leave it as is and just deal with it. In the case of this bass though the sound was so superior to most any other bass at any price, the romance of the tone outweighed the stretch of the fingers. Mind over matter I guess.. lol (or love over pain?)

After playing my first concert with it a few days after buying it and doing the solo in the Pulcinella suite as well that night, I knew when the concert was over that it had to be shortened. My fingers were screaming louder than my brain heard the applause if you can imagine that.:eek: It was just too freaking long..:mad:

Playing the double bass is hard enough as it is with today's demands. Why injure or kill yourself in the process?:confused:

[Johannes Felscher]

Well, I perfectly get your point - I wasn't thinking of extreme length like 44.5" and I was actually trying to discuss sound / response more than playability. I bet a bass with 41.5" scale length would be even easier to play down there if brought down to 39" - but how would that sound?
Let's put it differently: I might for whatever reason not be able to stretch my left hand very far (for whatever reason: size, injury, missing finger....) and I felt like I needed to shorten the playing length of my strings - how would it affect the tone - you know what I mean?
You might be playing lots of orchestra, I'm playing mostly in a jazz environment where a majority of parts don't contain playing octaves down on low f and f on the d string most of the time. I wasn't trying to convince anyone of any loss or gain in playing comfort, just curious about the effect the change in tension etc. might have on the instrument. I understand why you wouldn't want to play anything too long (and I was talking scale length 42-42", not 44,5"!) and I might not even recommend a student of mine playing such a bass, but still that wasn't really what I was trying to explore...

[Ken Smith]

Well, I perfectly get your point - I wasn't thinking of extreme length like 44.5" and I was actually trying to discuss sound / response more than playability. I bet a bass with 41.5" scale length would be even easier to play down there if brought down to 39" - but how would that sound?
Let's put it differently: I might for whatever reason not be able to stretch my left hand very far (for whatever reason: size, injury, missing finger....) and I felt like I needed to shorten the playing length of my strings - how would it affect the tone - you know what I mean?
You might be playing lots of orchestra, I'm playing mostly in a jazz environment where a majority of parts don't contain playing octaves down on low f and f on the d string most of the time. I wasn't trying to convince anyone of any loss or gain in playing comfort, just curious about the effect the change in tension etc. might have on the instrument. I understand why you wouldn't want to play anything too long (and I was talking scale length 42-42", not 44,5"!) and I might not even recommend a student of mine playing such a bass, but still that wasn't really what I was trying to explore...

Well, if you are asking then here is what I suggest. If the bass is between 41"-42", leave it alone. Even if it's 40", do nothing more then move the bridge up. What you might want to do is find a 1/2 sized Germanic style bass (aka 5/8ths) and leave the 41-42" bass alone. It is more valuable for re-sale that way. As a matter of fact, smaller basses run less money, way less than Orchestra sized 3/4 models.

Sound? Well as I was talking about the bass becoming more focused when shortening I was referring to LARGE bodied 44" or so basses. These are deep and often organ like in tone. Shortening them tightens up the sound and response. With smaller basses like you describe, they are already smaller chambered instruments. So, a similar difference will occur in the sound when you shorten it. For jazz, especially amplified, thinner sounding basses are often more desirable. For me, I like them thick and full sounding so don't go by me on that.

A longer string on the same bass will be deeper sounding and visa versa.

[Johannes Felscher]

There we go - I like em thick and full, too, "even" in Jazz - check out Drew Gress on Marc Copland's CD "Haunted Hearts (and other ballads)" if you stop by the iTunes store the next time, one of the most pleasing bass sounds I know on any recording. He seems to be playing a pretty big bass too, I was always wondering what it might be, it's just got everything, the deepest lows and crunchy bite (he's a main ingredient of that sound recipe for sure):

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/85005310.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA548FF58ED47FE16F1ED DFAF1ED5D6B185CE7D4E9696E16C8566

(that link looks pretty sketchy, it's just a JPEG found on Google pictures...)

[Johannes Felscher]

oops, seems like this link isn't working anymore (I guess the word "cache" said it all)....either way, any picture of Drew from recent gigs would do..

[Thomas Erickson]

A longer string on the same bass will be deeper sounding and visa versa.

Isn't this like what bass guitarists say about long scale guitars sounding "tighter"? I've played them and I'm pretty sure it isn't the case; there are a lot of factors involved, most of which seem pretty arbitrary. Not to be argumentative, of course - just sayin'... ;)

[Ken Smith]

Isn't this like what bass guitarists say about long scale guitars sounding "tighter"? I've played them and I'm pretty sure it isn't the case; there are a lot of factors involved, most of which seem pretty arbitrary. Not to be argumentative, of course - just sayin'... ;)

I think longer being deeper is not equal to being tighter. Longer is more flexible, therefore maybe NOT tighter. There are many factors that go into 'tighter'. With all the basses of the same length have you played over time I am sure you found some tighter and some looser. Length was not the issue there. Also, some were deeper and some were not.

[Thomas Erickson]

I think longer being deeper is not equal to being tighter. Longer is more flexible, therefore maybe NOT tighter. There are many factors that go into 'tighter'. With all the basses of the same length have you played over time I am sure you found some tighter and some looser. Length was not the issue there. Also, some were deeper and some were not.

It was not a direct comparison.