[Lynk]

Sup.

So I've been playing bass for a little over two years now, and now I find myself craving more low-end goodness. So I'm looking into buying a 5 string.
But I find myself a bit torn when choosing a bass, as I've been told that really I need a 35" scale length to accomodate the low B string. I'd come across a nice bass, with some decent features, then I'd see the 34" scale length and be put off it.

I guess what I'm asking is, exactly how essential is the 35" scale length to a 5 string bass? Would I be terribly screwed over if I went with the 34" scale?

I'd pretty much be playing in drop A aswell, if that makes any difference, I'd rarely be tuning standard. Would I need ridiculously huge strings to make it playable? Or can it be done with only a minor increase in string guage?

Thanks.

[techjsteele]

I have a 34" scale 5 string, and its fine for regular 5-string tuning (BEADG) or drop A tuning (AEADG). I use 45-130 gauge strings, and the tension seems fine to me.

[TomAwesome]

For B? Not half as necessary as some people make it out to be, or they wouldn't make so many 34" 5-strings . Unless you're tuning down more than a step or so, 34" should be fine.

[Loserchief]

You can work with 34" but for me 34" on the low B(or A) is kind of flubby And i'd have to use something like a 145 to make it feel good. But that's personal preference.

[Apophis]

It thimh if you can have bass with 35" go for it Lower string will be good even with smaller gauge.

[angus]

Total BS. I'm a bass player despite showing up around here. There's always a lot of discussion going on about this, and usually the people who say "you NEED a 35" scale!" are the ones who've only played $500 pieces of junk at Guitar Center.

I've played just about every brand you can imagine and have owned over 20 instruments, and I've played 35" scale basses with terrible, floppy B's and 34"'s with a B that would blow you away. It has way more to do with the quality of the construction and the wood than the scale length, and I'll defend that to the death.

Just to add fuel to the fire, I should mention that the best B I've ever heard was on a 33" scale bass with a .125" string.

Then again, I'm a big fan of 36" scale, but that's more for the effect across all the strings. 35", to me, is a complete waste. 33", 34" or go to 36" and take full advantage of it (and get the full disadvantage of the extra stretch!).

Loserchief, I'm surprised you like the .145"'s for a B, as most of the ones I've tried intonate really, really poorly tuned to B on a 34/35" scale.

[Lynk]

Thanks for the replies guys, I guess a 34" scale should be fine then for drop-A tuning, as long as I don't go below that. Which I don't anticipate doing anyway.
What kind of string guage would I need?
0.135?

[mgood]

Originally Posted by angus

. . . I've played 35" scale basses with terrible, floppy B's and 34"'s with a B that would blow you away. It has way more to do with the quality of the construction and the wood than the scale length, and I'll defend that to the death.

I agree with all that 100%.
But, all else being equal, there is some advantage to the longer scale length. I'll say that I have compared, side by side, two basses which were virtually identical except for scale length. Same manufacturer, same materials, one with a 34" scale and the other with a 35.25" scale. I didn't really think I heard a difference in the sound of the B string. But the B felt tighter on the extended scale bass. It felt more authoritative, more like the other strings and less, well, floppy. Like after I plucked it, when I wanted to pluck it again I didn't have to go chase it down. Maybe if I was doing fast runs that jumped between the B string and other strings and back, this might be an issue. But not likely. I don't have large hands, and the 34" scale has always seemed just fine for me. I can play the longer scales, and I would not rule out buying one, but the long reaches are a tad easier on a bass with a shorter scale.