Short scale sound?

Hey guys.
I'm not a bassplayer, but i have a couple of questions:

Really, really generally speaking - I mean if you would take a bass guitar and just swap to a different neck - does a short scale bass sound any different? Do a shorter scale result in looser or tighter strings?

Thanks.

Longer scales mean more string tension. For standard EADG-tuned basses, this isn't too much of a big deal, IMO. Short-scale (30") bass players may use slightly thinner strings than long-scale (34"), as thick strings need more tension.

If you have a 5-string, or tune down from E to D, C, or B, scale becomes more important. On a short-scale bass, the low strings may have too little tension to be playable (they'll be very floppy). Five-string basses often come in 35" scale, to give even more tension to the super-thick low string(s).

For everyday use (4-string, standard tuning, regular strings), it don't think there's much of a difference, though others may disagree. Some of the greatest songs of all time were played with a short-scale bass (i.e. McCartney's Hofner).

Many short scale players do use lighter strings, especially on more fragile basses like Hofners. But you actually need heavier strings on a short scale to approach the tension of a long scale. A friend from another forum uses 50-115 Boomers on his short scale 70s Les Paul bass.

Yes, there's a definite difference in short scale sound. All else being equal, there are fewer highs, less complex overtones and a sound that is sometimes described as "tubby" in comparison with long scale sound. Most noticeable to me is that most short scales don't have the punch of long scales, and this is especially noticeable on the E string. This isn't a matter of good or bad, just different.

Thank you both!

short scale basses can have a punchier lo end because the strings vibrate in a slightly wider pattern over the pickup when plucked.

Yes, there's a definite difference in short scale sound. All else being equal, there are fewer highs, less complex overtones and a sound that is sometimes described as "tubby" in comparison with long scale sound. Most noticeable to me is that most short scales don't have the punch of long scales, and this is especially noticeable on the E string. This isn't a matter of good or bad, just different.


The guys at Sweetwater would disagree with you:


http://www.sweetwater.com/expert-center/techtips/d--06/10/2004



I can't speak directly about short scale basses but I only play medium scale (32") and they sound fine ... highs, lows, whatever.

As others have made a point here - strings are the low man in the tone chain.

The greatest bass player in the world (IMHO) pictured in the avatar and below obtained his notoriety while playing on a short-scale Guild bass and no one was able to create a greater palette of tones than Jack. :!:


PS: If you have a short scale bass - buy short scale strings.


http://www.sunrising.it/images/jefair03.jpg


http://www.altmanphoto.com/jack_casady.jpg

The guys at Sweetwater would disagree with you:

http://www.sweetwater.com/expert-center/techtips/d--06/10/2004


I don't disagree with what the Sweetwater tech tip says, but it certainly doesn't tell the whole story about differences in sound between different scale lengths.



The greatest bass player in the world (IMHO) pictured in the avatar and below obtained his notoriety while playing on a short-scale Guild bass and no one was able to create a greater palette of tones than Jack. :!:

He abandoned that Guild for a long scale bassin the early 70s and hasn't looked back.

It has nothing to do with creating a palette of tones other than the fact that a long scale and short scale will sound somewhat different from each other, all else being equal. There's no right or wrong about it, but there's also no doubt that long scale basses are much more popular and much more widely used in the studio and on stage.

As I've said before, I don't think there's a huge (or even particularly noticeable) difference tonally between 34" and 30" scale basses. I've owned and gigged with P-Basses, J-Basses, a Gibson EBO, a Rogue Hofner copy, and Fender Musicmaster and Mustang basses, and I think body (solid vs. hollow) and pickups have a lot more to do with the signature tones of each instrument.

And just to confound "conventional wisdom" further, the bass with the biggest, most resonant bottom end I've owned was the hollow body, 31" scale Rogue Hofner copy.

The 34" scale length was a somewhat arbitrary choice by Leo Fender in 1951 (upright basses tend to have a 42" scale!). For years, folks didn't say "electric bass", they said "Fender Bass", because, if you were a bass player, you were either playing a REAL bass (an upright) or you were playing a Fender. That kind of success tends to lock in certain characteristics as standard, and certainly scale length was one such...

Cheers, Tim

Thanks!

Tim nailed it 100%.

As I've said before, I don't think there's a huge (or even particularly noticeable) difference tonally between 34" and 30" scale basses. I've owned and gigged with P-Basses, J-Basses, a Gibson EBO, a Rogue Hofner copy, and Fender Musicmaster and Mustang basses, and I think body (solid vs. hollow) and pickups have a lot more to do with the signature tones of each instrument.

And just to confound "conventional wisdom" further, the bass with the biggest, most resonant bottom end I've owned was the hollow body, 31" scale Rogue Hofner copy.


Every difference matters to some extent. But all else being equal, there will be a noticeable difference in tone between long and short scale. You should read Ralph Novak's published paper on the noticeable differences between guitar scale lengths.

If you have the opportunity to play a Gibson Grabber (with its sliding pickup), play it with the pickup at the frontmost position. Then capo at the second fret, which will give you a 30.3" effective scale length, move the sliding pickup to the rear to compensate for the change in its relative position, and tune down to E. You'll hear the difference.


The 34" scale length was a somewhat arbitrary choice by Leo Fender in 1951 (upright basses tend to have a 42" scale!). For years, folks didn't say "electric bass", they said "Fender Bass", because, if you were a bass player, you were either playing a REAL bass (an upright) or you were playing a Fender. That kind of success tends to lock in certain characteristics as standard, and certainly scale length was one such...


Somewhat arbitrary, and somewhat not. They chose the minimum scale that sounded right to them. There were dozens of short scale competitors prior to the 70s, and almost all of them fell by the wayside. No offense, I like short scale sound too, but it's not a matter of availability, it's a matter of what tone most players have come to prefer.

And just for the record, since you're a kid compared to me :mrgreen: , it was called a "Fender bass" inside the Los Angeles studios, but hardly ever in the rest of the world. I started playing in groups in the early 60s and I never heard anyone call it anything other than an electric bass or a bass guitar.

If you have the opportunity to play a Gibson Grabber (with its sliding pickup), play it with the pickup at the frontmost position. Then capo at the second fret, which will give you a 30.3" effective scale length, move the sliding pickup to the rear to compensate for the change in its relative position, and tune down to E. You'll hear the difference.

Well, if I saw a Gibson Grabber, I'd think I was either dreaming, or that I'd eaten some moldy bread. :mrgreen: I haven't seen one in years.


Can you describe the difference you think we'd hear, please?

And just for the record, since you're a kid compared to me, it was called a "Fender bass" inside the Los Angeles studios, but hardly ever in the rest of the world. I started playing in groups in the early 60s and I never heard anyone call it anything other than an electric bass or a bass guitar.


This is a very minor point in the overall focus of this thread but ....

Tim and I are almost the same age. And I've never been within 2000 miles of a Los Angeles studio. But I recall several times back "in the day" the term "Fender bass" used ... just like "Q-tips" and "band-aids."

Just one example - On Vanilla Fudge's (a NY band, by the way) live album ("Near The Begininng") lead singer Vince Martell says, after the bass solo: "Tim Bogert ... on the Fender bass!"

Yeah, it's not a particularly huge issue to me either, but that terminology was common in NYC and Nashville, too...

Cheers, Tim

Yes, it's a side issue, but i'm 61 and I never heard of it until I read what Carol Kaye said about it in the early 90s.

I've had hundreds of vinyl albums, not a single one of them said "Fender bass."

Well, if I saw a Gibson Grabber, I'd think I was either dreaming, or that I'd eaten some moldy bread. :mrgreen: I haven't seen one in years.


Can you describe the difference you think we'd hear, please?

I've seen about a half dozen Grabbers in local shops in the past 4 or 5 years, they're not rare.

If you look at my first post in this thread, that's the difference you'd hear. And if you recorded two clips and dropped 'em into a track with guitars and drums, the difference in the E string's prominence would be much more apparent. But even standalone, you can hear the difference in harmonics.

Again, not better or worse, just different.

Generic terms like "Kleenex" and "Fender bass" may be used in small samplings of individuals quite often and never or almost never in another equally small sampling. For the record, I first heard it in the early '60's (NYC) and then its' usage died out, probably because a larger selection of good and affordable electric basses from other manufacturers came along. I'm sure there's lots of common names of things particular to a region or group that I've never heard of.
Back to the subject, I'd love to get me a Starfire! My MM Sterling is fairly light, but I like the look of a smaller bass. My son has an Epiphone EB0 which I've never tried out, even at rehearsal. I think I may just do it!

If you have the opportunity to play a Gibson Grabber (with its sliding pickup), play it with the pickup at the frontmost position. Then capo at the second fret, which will give you a 30.3" effective scale length, move the sliding pickup to the rear to compensate for the change in its relative position, and tune down to E. You'll hear the difference.

I don't doubt that you would hear a difference, but I'd note that you'd have to change the strings to a lighter gauge to accurately reflect how a 30" scale bass would sound. Or at least how MY 30" scale basses sound! :mrgreen:

I'm not saying there's no difference, I'm saying that the difference is slight at best (or worst), and other factors like strings, pickups, construction style, etc, all have a much bigger effect on tone than scale length. In my opinion, based on my experience...

Cheers, Tim