Stanley Clarke 5 String?

[wideload]

Just thinking ahead...After my fall, my left arm doesn't want to reach as far as it used to, making even getting to the first 2 frets of my Rogue impossible. I may improve with therapy, but my left will always be weaker than before. Any thoughts on a 5 string SC? Will the short scale support a low B? Would ebony lams help the low end response? And how does the small standard body balance? This is the dreaming thread, right? I'm just so used to that low B now that I can't give it up!
 
Larry

[bsee]

I wouldn't select the SC body shape for a five string.  The extra neck width would add further weight so that balance would be more of an issue.  You could still go short scale, but I think you would be better served to use a body with at least some upper horn.  Essence, Europa, or Balance K would all be better, as your aesthetic sense dictates.  In fact, you would benefit most from a long upper horn to bring the nut closer to you at any scale length.
 
As far as tone goes, I have a 32 scale five with standard purpleheart neck laminates.  It is fine, though I am not sure I would want to go shorter on a B string.  I have heard both 32 and 30.75 scale fives with maple necks (with or without the walnut pinstripes) and neither sound good to me.
 
Is your Rogue a 34 or 35 scale?  I thought that 35 was the standard for those at one point.  If so, then a 32 would be about the same as cutting the first two frets off your bass.  Try tuning your bass down a full step and put a capo at the 2nd fret.  The fret markers won't be at the right places, but you'll get a feel for playing a shorter scale instrument and see the difference you'll end up with in string tension.
 
-bob

[bob]

Hmm... I don't think there has every been a 35 scale as standard for any model. So we're probably talking about going from a 34 to less. Without ever having played the shorter scales(!), based on what I've read here I would be fairly confident of getting a good low B on a 32, neck through, with ebony lams (or maybe purpleheart), but I would be skeptical about 30.75.
 
As Bob says, horn length is really important, as well as how close the bridge is to the end of the body. If you get these things right, you can easily bring in those low frets by a couple of inches.
 
But as for tension, I'm not quite sure I agree with Bob's suggestion. Maybe the technique would yield a fair approximation, I just don't understand the math in this case. Presumably, you would be buying strings for a shorter scale length, and they might well be designed for a different tension.
 
What is your right hand technique? If you're mostly a finger plucker, then I think you can afford to slide the bass right at least six inches, and maybe more is better. That brings the low frets within easier reach, and (for me at least) makes your right hand more comfortable, and also compensates nicely for the difference in length between your first two fingers.
 
So you might consider an unusual strap configuration to help bring things in reach, and pick or specify a body style that has the bridge relatively close to the end of the body, with a fairly long horn. You can also get the end of the neck closer by wearing the body low, with more angle on the neck, but again this depends on your style and what feels comfortable.
-Bob

[bsee]

Bob,  
If you look at the product pages, the Rogue spec says 34 or 35.  When you pull it up for a custom quote, 35 is the default.  Finally, 35 scale is a $300 option on any model other than the Rogue, for which there is no extra charge for 35 scale.  The Rogue was a model that appeared around the time when >34 scale lengths became the in thing.  The extra long upper horn was perfect to support the longer scale.
 
As far as tension goes, it relates to the speaking length of the string, its mass, and the pitch you're tuning to.  If you take a string tuned to E and drop it to D, the tension goes down.  Capoing  up a couple frets won't change that new tension and you've effectively created a 22 fret bass of about 3 shorter scale.  The alternative to lower tension in shorter scale is heavier strings, which may or may not suit the player.  If heavier strings are preferable to lower tension, then that's another relatively easy experiment to try compared to building a new bass.
 
I agree, though, about your raising the issue of right hand technique relative to how far the bass can be comfortably shifted.  A slapper wouldn't be able to move it much without dropping to 21 or 22 frets, but a pick or finger player has more room to adjust.
 
-bob

[bob]

Interesting... you're right, of course, and I pulled out an old spec sheet from when I ordered my Rogue, which also says 34 or 35. I still have this feeling that I would have gotten a 34 if I hadn't said anything, but who knows.
 
You're also right about the tension (sorry, I was getting pretty sleepy). Certainly, using the same strings on a shorter scale will result in lower tension, and you would have to use heavier strings to get the same tension. Your capo technique is a good way to experiment.

[valvil]

Hi Larry,
 
a 5 string SC would not be good for you.
It would balance badly and 1st postion would be a more challenging reach than on your Rogue.
The short scale idea is good, so maybe I'd be thinking about a short or medium scale Rogue or Balance K. I've heard very good B strings on medium scales, but not so good on short scales.
 
Ebony lams do help out with shorter scale lenghts, although of course they also make the instrument heavier.
 
Valentino

[wideload]

Thank you all for your help! I'm going to pursue the physical torture route first, to see if I can get some strength back. My wife said I could order a new bass this winter...well, she said it would be a cold day!
 
Larry

[the_8_string_king]

Larry, here is the solution to your problem:
 
get a short scale Balance K with a REVERSE (backwards) IN-LINE peghead.
 
By reversing the peghead, you suffer only the minor downside of tuning being a little (and only a little) harder AT WORST; (you might not find it any harder, or even possibly EASIER as the tuning pegs would actually be a little closer to the ground if they were reversed/upsidedown.
 
On the other hand, a TREMENDOUS upside would be that the length of the B-string -by which I mean the distance from the bridge TO THE TUNING PEG- should be as long IF NOT LONGER than the standard position/distance/length (of the string) from the bridge to the tuning peg.
 
Having a reverse in-line headstock -where the lower strings are longer (from bridge to tuner) and the higher strings are shorter should yield a short-scale bass that has low-B punch equal or even greater than a long scale.
 
A strong case could be made that this is in fact THE logical way to do... well, certainly 4 and 5-strings... probably even 6-strings could work well without neck dive or adverse consequences, although little comprimises might have to be made (like smaller tuners and/or tuners closer to each other than standard).
 
Good luck with everything Larry.  Hope this idea inspires you.
 
Oh yeah... usually on the short-scale Alembics... if you look... you'll notice that (due to the scale) the bridge is usually FURTHER AWAY from the (bottom) edge of the body (so the upper frets aren't buried)...
 
You could ALSO consider lengthening the string by having either a DIAGONAL tailpiece or, alternatively individual string-holders/tailpieces -one for each string- placed progressively closer the the bottom edge of the bass (with the lower string-holders being closest, of course -again to increase the length.)
 
These simple ideas should address your concerns, making it possible for you to have a short-scale bass that has all the advantages -the focus, tightness, clarity, and punch- of an extra-long scale instrument... with the ease of playing of the shorter scale basses!
 
Hope this helps, sir!

[the_8_string_king]

Larry, here is the solution to your problem:
 
get a short scale Balance K with a REVERSE (backwards) IN-LINE peghead.
 
By reversing the peghead, you suffer only the minor downside of tuning being a little (and only a little) harder AT WORST; (you might not find it any harder, or even possibly EASIER as the tuning pegs would actually be a little closer to the ground if they were reversed/upsidedown.
 
On the other hand, a TREMENDOUS upside would be that the length of the B-string -by which I mean the distance from the bridge TO THE TUNING PEG- should be as long IF NOT LONGER than the standard position/distance/length (of the string) from the bridge to the tuning peg.
 
Having a reverse in-line headstock -where the lower strings are longer (from bridge to tuner) and the higher strings are shorter should yield a short-scale bass that has low-B punch equal or even greater than a long scale.
 
A strong case could be made that this is in fact THE logical way to do... well, certainly 4 and 5-strings... probably even 6-strings could work well without neck dive or adverse consequences, although little comprimises might have to be made (like smaller tuners and/or tuners closer to each other than standard).
 
Good luck with everything Larry.  Hope this idea inspires you.
 
Oh yeah... usually on the short-scale Alembics... if you look... you'll notice that (due to the scale) the bridge is usually FURTHER AWAY from the (bottom) edge of the body (so the upper frets aren't buried)...
 
You could ALSO consider lengthening the string by having either a DIAGONAL tailpiece or, alternatively individual string-holders/tailpieces -one for each string- placed progressively closer the the bottom edge of the bass (with the lower string-holders being closest, of course -again to increase the length.)
 
These simple ideas should address your concerns, making it possible for you to have a short-scale bass that has all the advantages -the focus, tightness, clarity, and punch- of an extra-long scale instrument... with the ease of playing of the shorter scale basses!
 
Hope this helps, sir!

[flaxattack]

ever think about going to a medium scale 32 inch
i dont have any issues with the b string other than tuning is very precise.. its not floppy at all
i know val is not fond of short scale 5 strings and does not recommend it-

[bsee]

Mark, This topic was discussed a couple months ago.  At best, you could say there was no resolution.  No one made either an empirical or scientific case to say prove that non-speaking length of the string matters.  
 
Personally, my logic circuits tell me that extra length doesn't tighten up the B string any, and may even do the opposite.  Let's not rehash the argument here, but just point out that one should do some research before building an instrument based upon this theory.
 
-bob

[adriaan]

About the length of string behind-the-nut, I'm pretty sure it makes some difference in case you're bending strings on the lowest frets. Not sure if it's the old wheelbarrow principle, or plain elasticity.

[bsee]

Adriaan, that was my view, but it is the opposite of tight.  Again, if we want to have that discussion, let's take it to the Miscellaneous board and leave this thread alone.

[bassman10096]

Don't underestimate the effect of having the bridge basically 1/3 of the way up the body (like the standards, K's, small standards do, but the modern designs don't-or don't as much).  My 32 K style required more reach than my 34 Jazz bass.  It's very nice to have soooo much access to the higher tones, but the reaching (to where I, at least, spend most of my time playing) was a big adjustment.