Request help/info from members about my 2cnd custom

[the_8_string_king]

Hmmm.  I'm not sure what to say.  On the one hand, I'd say the tone isn't too bad; but it's noticably inferior in tone, and noticably wobblier.
 
On basic test is that with the standard tuning, if I pluck and let ring the low B and my second fret B on my high B flat string, you can clearly hear the 2 notes are the same, even though they're 3 octaves apart.  But when I played the 2 open B flat strings together, the crystal-clear unison was not as clear.  The low B flat was significantly less defined.
 
It's been a while since I've heard or played another 6-string... heard another B string up close.  So I'm not sure how it's sound compares to another; but compared to usual, the 1/2 drop in tuning results in a noticable switch from clarity to muddiness, from focus to floppiness.
 
The open low B flat was the worst.  However, the 1st and 2cnd fret B and C were not as bad -though they, too, were less defined and focused than normal.
 
So... is this a simulation of a 34 inch scale, 33 inch scale, or something else?  I already know I'd never want to tune it down a whole step... just the half-step was unsatisfactory.
 
Anyway, thanks again for your help, Bob.  I did what you said... now what does it mean?

[bsee]

That would be simulation of 33 scale.  The distance from the nut to the first fret on a 35 scale bass should be very close to two inches.  When you tuned down a half step, the B note moved from being 35 from the bridge to being about 33 from the bridge.
 
I suppose that if you had a feature-laden tuner, you could try to tune your bass to be a quarter step flat and that would approximate a 34 scale instrument.  
 
As far as what it actually means, it seems that you are hearing that difference in tension.  The only way to shorten the scale and maintain tension is to increase the density of the string.  Ideally, someone would identify the string that has the highest density while still maintaining excellent flexibility.  If there is a better string than what you are using, it may be the answer for you.
 
Personally, I am no expert in strings in general or B strings in particular.  I can't say that I have ever really liked the tone of a B string when amplified, at least not below the D note or so.  That massive cable just never has a tone that integrates with the rest of the instrument.  The point, I guess, is that I don't have any recommendations for different strings to try.
 
One last thought for you is that Jeff's 32 tribute bass is nearing completion.  A well-timed factory visit might get you the opportunity for a sound/feel test.

[cozmik_cowboy]

Having no experience whatsoever with basses of more than 4 strings, I'll stick to the headstock questions:
If our 2 hypothetical basses had the same the scale and the same strings and were tuned to the same pitch, the tension on the corresponding strings would be the same (and if I've helped you decide on a cone, I'm sorry - but that's just me; Paul TBO would buy a cone before I would.  But then, I'm not buying this one either, so what do I care?  )

[bigredbass]

THIS is exactly why I stay here . . . I wouldn't take a million bucks for the things Bob and David make me think through.  I've always hated the BS involved in instruments;  the mystery of them is OK, just don't tell me it's beef when I smell bacon !
 
I'd agree that after Ebony laminations and cocobolo, I wouldn't get too crazy with extra cold cuts in your sandwich.  I played Will Gunn's 'Cocobolo Fantasy':  Believe me, you don't need ANYTHING else for big focused bass. Plus, I'd really consider weight:  Lots of coco and ebony is gonna add up fast, so you might want to consider that part of the equation.  Bubinga is NOT light.  I love mahogany, the best choice for the interior.
 
I'm not fond of any scale (for regular sized people) other than standard long scale from the standpoint that your string choices start dwindling for short, medium, and XLong scales.
 
I've accepted that B-strings will always feel a bit different, but it varies greatly from brand to brand.  I've played fives for so long now, it's a non-issue for me.  I find however 'indistinct' it may sound has more to do with me and the amp, than the string itself.  Once I added a compressor, the low Cs and Ds tightened up a bunch, and a big dose of EDEN finished that job.
 
I think anything outside the bridge or nut is just window dressing.  I see no difference in strings through the body, longer heads, etc.  I certainly hear no difference.  The really important thing is the angle over the nut and bridge, and since ALEMBICs have bent heads and separate bridges, that's a done deal.
 
In a perfect world, I prefer a 'straight pull' over the nut to the keys . . . since this is NOT a perfect world, I HATE cone headstocks ! !  I'd only worry about the angled pull to the keys with other than brass nuts, so that's no problem.
Not likely to saw out your slots in brass.
 
I appreciate your thinking this through, will enjoy seeing what you finalize on.  And do NOT underestimate what Susan and Mica think:  They REALLY know this stuff.
 
J o e y

[keith_h]

Quote
The really important thing is the angle over the nut and bridge ...  
 
Which is one reason I could see reversing the strings on a Fender instrument. By reversing the strings you would get more angle due to the string trees. I have always had issues with the neck to tuner angle on the E string of my JB since I have to be sure to have the wraps go completely to the bottom of the peg. If I don't the strings tuning tends to slip. With the angled head stock, as Joey points out, getting enough wraps to maintain the angle over the nut is not an issue.
 
Keith

[dfung60]

The string tension for a particular string at a particular scale length and pitch will be the same regardless of how much the string extends beyond the nut or bridge.  And, as has been mentioned above, the string tension between the nut and tuner is pretty much the same as between the bridge and nut, otherwise you're about to have a pitch shift when you play!  
 
You actually can test this yourself.  You need a small postal or food scale that measures the weight of something hanging from it.  Take off the A, D, and G strings, then tune the E string to some pitch around E.  Then, hook the scale on the string around the middle of the string and pull it to the side for some significant amount (maybe 1).  This is a rough measure of string tension.
 
Now, take that string off and move it to the other side of the neck (the G-string position).  It won't sit all the way down in the nut, but that doesn't really matter.  Tune it to the same pitch, hook on the scale, and deflect it the same amount.  You will see the tension is the same (or very close).  
 
This is a little bit of a funny test because you have to play around with strings off and pitches, but it's qualitatively (as opposed to quantitatively) meaningful.  You might add more meaning by testing first at pitch and with all strings on, then reversing the E and G strings and retuning everything to pitch.  The chances are quite high that this will be the last time you use that G-string however since it will get kinked after being tuned up in the wrong slot.
 
The tone of medium vs long scale will just be different - it may be hard to characterize the differences in any meaniful way.  As I said above, I don't think you can beat the physics of the long scale bass.  If a string of a certain diameter has a stiffness that negatively affects vibration and intonation, that effect will extend a certain distance from the fixed ends.  The longer you make the string, the lower the percentage error in intonation you'll have and I think that will translate to a clearer, more solid sound.
 
If you're willing to go with a smaller, lower tension string on the shorter scale, you may be able to equal the flexibility of a bigger string on the longer bass.  The feel may be a lot different, but the sound might not be.  With less string mass, you find that the shorter scale bass has a quicker attack, which may be a factor as well.  
 
I think the problem here is that you know you like the low B response of your 35 bass more than the 34.  There are many factors affecting the tone, but it seems pretty unlikely that you're going to make things better with a 33 scale.  
 
The best info on this sort of thing is probably people at the factory as they have a much better chance of seeing instruments that are identical except for scale length, etc.  Part of the interesting part of building guitars is that each one is a surprise when you string it up for the first time.  You can influence the flavor of how and instrument will turn out with things like wood choices, but you won't know how harmonious the result will be until it's all done.

[the_8_string_king]

Bob, Bob, Adriaan, Peter, David, Joey, Keith, thanks again you guys, for all your detailed comments and thoughts.  I REALLY appreciate it.
 
I REALLY wanted to be able to have 2 things at once: the benefit of the shorter 33 inch scale, while having the crystal clarity of the 35 inch scale string.
 
But the combined consensus (aargh, I hate that word) is that it's either/or.
 
The reverse headstock seemed like a perfect solution, but I now accept that this is an error in my intuitive reasoning.  I don't really want to monkey around with swapping strings and altering tensions.  I actually thought about putting the B string on the D tuner and routing it around the E and A strings... to experiment... but I just don't wanna do that to my bass and it's strings.
 
So in the absence of anyone supporting my theory and uniform agreement that it is incorrect, I accept that this is so -and I thank you all for setting me straight.
 
I still haven't dismissed the possibility of the 33 inch scale.  I'd still like to hear from anyone who has a medium B bass and a long B bass.  I've heard 3rd party claims that medium scale 5 and 6-string short scale Alembics sound good... but compared to what?  How do they compare to long and extra long scale Alembics?
 
The tone on my 8-string, the tone and clarity of the low B is far superior to any I've ever heard, period.  I can tell ebony is a large part, but so is the long scale.  I can hear and feel the difference.
 
My final decision will be after another talk with Mica and possibly some of the builders.
 
But at this point I think I'll comprimise and just get a standard long scale, or possibly something just slightly longer for a little greater tension, like a 34 & 1/3rd inch scale.
 
Thanks again, gotta go!

[tbrannon]

Mark-
You're in Vegas right?  Southwest Airlines runs some awfully cheap flights from Vegas to Oakland.  A trip to Santa Rosa wouldn't cost much and you could probably lay your hands on the basses there that would answer any and all questions you might have.
 
Good luck and keep us informed.
 
(Message edited by tbrannon on October 26, 2006)

[bigredbass]

AMAZING . . a cat from New Zealand knows our geography well enough to give you the best advice in this thread:  I'd DEFINITELY jump a southwest to the Bay Area, go 'hands on' and nail it down.  Terrific advice , TB!
 
Just to muddy the waters a bit more . . . my vintage Yamaha BBs were made with a 33 7/8 scale ! ! (No doubt some conversion of the original length in cms)
 
J o e y

[tbrannon]

Joey-
 
Born and raised in San Diego with a 12 year stint in Orange County- two of my sisters went to UC Bezerkley and one to UCSF-  I've got some serious time logged in and around the bay area.  
 
I've been in NZ for about 3 years now.  Life is about 1/3 pace here.  Good times.  Funniest part of the whole thing is that I lived no more than an hour plane flight from Santa Rosa for the majority of my life, but I didn't get my first Alembic until I moved here....
 
Toby
 
(Message edited by tbrannon on October 27, 2006)

[the_8_string_king]

I DID visit the factory when I commissioned 8 Strings of Power, and it was a pleasure to meet the fine folks there and get a tour of the factory.  It is quite a thrill to be at Alembic and to see whatever awesome masterpieces happen to be being constructed and/or finished.  I saw some pretty mind-boggling basses, including the unique doubleneck with the concentric controls -quite a thing to see up-close.  (And it's not at all my cup of tea, but then neither is my custom for most people, blah, blah, blah, etc.)
 
My money is REAL thin, though, so it's unlikely I'll have the time and money to go there.  Any and all funds will go to the bass... to getting options.  The sad and simple truth is I'm just not going to be able to get everything I want.  As it is, I've tried to keep it as simple as possible, and the list of options as short as possible.
 
Boiled down to the minimum, my bass will be a 6-string Europa with 29 frets, a BTC coco bolo top with a mahogany body and integrated outer body/neck laminates, an added mid-range quick change/boost/cut switch, and either a 3 or 4 position Q switch, with 2 ebony laminates.
 
I've got an original and pretty cool neck concept that should be little to no upcharge other than the upcharge for the ebony, and whatever hopefully-not-too-hideous upcharge for the integrated mahogany neck/body pair/feature.  (This is an important aesthetic feature for me, and one that pleases me no end on 8 Strings of Power.)
 
My neck will look really cool, and original, but I kinda wanna keep the specifics secret and have it be a surprise that everyone sees when it's done.
 
That's the minimum spec'ing I've got my heart set on.  From there, my top three options would be, in order of preference:
 
Virtually tied for 1&2 are the Balance K Omega body, which I would LOVE, and continuous wood backplates, which I think make the instruments look MUCH better.  I love the Europa body, but I think the Balance K Omega is even cooler, and exudes the slickest neo-classic Alembic look.
 
The third option would be back laminates.
 
A wild card option I asked them to give me a quote on are the super-cool electronics Bob got on his custom Rogue.  I'm talking about the (1/2 of a) superfilter that's assignable to either or both pickups, with bass and treble controls.  It's a pretty cool set-up, and I've asked them for a quote... how much to duplicate Bob's electronics on the bass.  But I'm assuming in advance that I won't be able to consider it.  But you don't know if you don't ask.
 
I asked about a couple other things, like the upgraded welded palladium jacks, a zero fret, and a couple other minor things, I think.
 
 
There's simply no way I'll be able to get all these things.  I view Bob's electronics as the biggest long-shot, and least likely option.  It's quite likely I won't be able to afford any of the other options, or perhaps I may be able to get just one.
 
So I'm just anxiously awaiting getting the quote from Susan, and hoping that at least the most essential stuff I've got my heart set on doesn't move the price up too much.
 
I'll keep you guys informed!  And thanks again for your input.  It's super-cool how all of us can share our experiences to benefit each other.
 
Mark
 
(Message edited by the 8 string king on October 28, 2006)
 
(Message edited by the 8 string king on October 28, 2006)

[ampeglb100]

I don't know if this is too late, but I thought I would chime in a few things...
 
I had a 4 string Europa built this year and recieved it a few months ago.  Coco bolo top and back, mahogany core, 32 scale length, chrome hardware, std. Europa electronics, purple heart laminates, etc.  The build link is: http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/29697.html?1156515905
 
As far as the back laminate goes I would say get it if you can and make it coco bolo as well.  Sound-wise to me this bass is incredibly great.  I won't try to describe it in words, but I am very glad that I opted for the back laminate both for looks and for the extra tonal characteristics.  To me to have a back lam. in another wood seems... odd, and I think that matching it with the top really helps augment the tone of the body core wood.  Anyways, just my two bits, but if you are already spending the money you might as well get what you want and do it right...
 
As far as scale length I have to say the 32 scale, on a std. tuned 4 string, is absolutely awesome.  I have always played lighter strings and have a lighter touch, but having the shorter scale really makes getting around so much nicer, especially with Alembics great neck shapes and especially with a 24 fret neck.  Tonaly I think it sounds phenomenal and for me it works well with my playing style, which is to say that I play much more chordally and melodically in the upper registers and much less so in the lower end... sometimes not even using my E string for more than a thumbrest.  If you want the best of both worlds as far as scale length, ease of play, and tone is concerned then the only way around it is to look at a Dingwall, but that is a whole other can of worms...
 
Anyways, I really enjoyed that technical end of this thread and hope your new bass works out for you.
 
Andy

[ampeglb100]

I don't know if this is too late, but I thought I would chime in on a few things...
 
I had a 4 string Europa built this year and recieved it a few months ago.  Coco bolo top and back, mahogany core, 32 scale length, chrome hardware, std. Europa electronics, purple heart laminates, etc.  The build link is: http://club.alembic.com/Images/631/29697.html?1156515905
 
As far as the back laminate goes I would say get it if you can and make it coco bolo as well.  Sound-wise to me this bass is incredibly great.  I won't try to describe it in words, but I am very glad that I opted for the back laminate both for looks and for the extra tonal characteristics.  To me to have a back lam. in another wood seems... odd, and I think that matching it with the top really helps augment the tone of the body core wood.  Anyways, just my two bits, but if you are already spending the money you might as well get what you want and do it right...
 
As far as scale length I have to say the 32 scale, on a std. tuned 4 string, is absolutely awesome.  I have always played lighter strings and have a lighter touch, but having the shorter scale really makes getting around so much nicer, especially with Alembics great neck shapes and especially with a 24 fret neck.  Tonaly I think it sounds phenomenal and for me it works well with my playing style, which is to say that I play much more chordally and melodically in the upper registers and much less so in the lower end... sometimes not even using my E string for more than a thumbrest.  If you want the best of both worlds as far as scale length, ease of play, and tone is concerned then the only way around it is to look at a Dingwall, but that is a whole other can of worms...
 
Anyways, I really enjoyed that technical end of this thread and hope your new bass works out for you.
 
Andy

[the_8_string_king]

Andy, thanks for your added thoughts.
 
Mica suggested I look at your bass several weeks ago, in the FTC.  She was particularily pleased with your bass and said it sounded like the older series basses -or some similar such thing.
 
She suggested looking at it 'cause I'm planning on getting a replacement/additional Europa, too, and was considering back laminates.
 
Thanks again for your thoughts, especially about the back laminate.
 
I actually don't have a preference, as such, either having matching front and back laminates, or not.  I've seen LOTS of fine examples of both from Alembic, plenty of which can easily be found right here in the custom archives and in the showcase.
 
Clearly, matching front and back laminates are more common; but I've seen lots of different ones that look REALLY great.  Last month's Balance K with walnut top and birdseye maple back is a great example, but I've seen a guitar or two with coco bolo on the front and quilted maple on the back, that looked really great.  I saw someone actually has an Alembic guitar with (quilted or flame) maple on the front, and coco bolo on the back!  (This is backwards of how I'd do that combo, but different strokes...)
 
Anyway, I money were no issue, I would almost certainly get coco bolo for the front and back... or actually, I'd prefer to have coco bolo on the top, and TULIPWOOD on the back.  Tulipwood is from the same family, and Mica sez it yields the same sound.  And I'd like the contrast.
 
That's what I'd prefer.  But sadly, it's unlikely that I'll be able to afford a back laminate at all.  I'm going to likely have to make some hard choices when I get the quote, and get only the most essential things.
 
If I can actually manage a back laminate, I'll probably have to settle for a standard wood.  So the questions become, which STANDARD woods would SOUND best/worst with the coco bolo top, mahagony body, and mahogany/maple/ebony/purpleheart neck, and which STANDARD woods would LOOK the best/worse.  The former question is the most important.  Right now, as it stands, I'm leaning towards bubinga for the back -in the event I can afford it.  But, depending on what I hear from other Alembic owners with experience in this area, and of course Mica's thoughts, this may change.  SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, PRO/CON REGARDING A BUBINGA BACK FITTING IT AS A BACK LAMINATE -especially soundwise- ON A COCO BOLO TOPPED BODY?
 
So far, I've been told that, with my coco bolo top, the back laminate would be a decoration.
 
Of course, soundwise, it seems that the ideal would be to have the back laminate be either coco bolo, or one of the other rosewoods.  But that is, again, a big $ issue...
 
Thanks again, everyone.  I'll probably make a decision fairly quickly, when I get the quote, so I'll let you guys know what I decide on!
 
(Message edited by the 8 string king on November 01, 2006)