| Author | Message | ||
| chrisalembic
Member Username: chrisalembic Post Number: 91 Registered: 3-2009 |
I was wandering what string spacing you guys prefer? Especially on 5+ String basses. Personally I really prefer tighter spacing, I think playing is much more effortless and efficient, espeicially on the right hand. It seems though that nowadays the standard has become wide spacing. Even with Alembics. They seem to come standard in wide spacing these days, instead of the classic taper they had in the 70s & 80s. | ||
| dannobasso
Senior Member Username: dannobasso Post Number: 1151 Registered: 3-2004 |
At this point I have them all and I view them all as useful to different purposes. It takes some time and effort to play the wider spacings but the benefit is now I can play on any bass I come across. The next challenge is the 10str in build. To play clean without too much pressure and fatigue will be another hurdle to overcome. Each Alembic (and others ) I have are approached differently based on their characteristics. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 12 and soon 10 like different children with different looks and personalities keep me on my toes. But yes the trend seems to be wider. The invisible hand must be getting bigger. | ||
| jimmyj
Intermediate Member Username: jimmyj Post Number: 129 Registered: 8-2008 |
Hey Chris, I'm with you on the tighter spacing idea but it's completely up to the individual. Most people who are used to Fender style spacing will just add the additional width to keep that spacing intact when they add strings. Going to 6 strings or beyond with this approach can lead to a huge plank of a fingerboard. My 5-string basses are all very tight, essentially 5 strings on a standard width 4-string neck. That's how my first one came in '76 and I'm so used to it that anything else feels weird. But most players who try my bass think it feels crowded. I might feel different if I played thumb style, might need that extra room, but I'm just a fingers guy so this works for me. The correct size is the one that YOU like! And Alembic can build whatever you dream up. Jimmy J | ||
| room037
Advanced Member Username: room037 Post Number: 300 Registered: 9-2003 |
Hi, I was often talking about it. I also prefer very tight spacing as Jimmy said. Any other basses can't be replaceable for playability and sound. I started to play it because my small hand. Now I choice it for chordal play. When I play thumb style, I use my 1PU Distilate bass. It's so FUN ! Eiji | ||
| bigredbass
Senior Member Username: bigredbass Post Number: 1325 Registered: 9-2002 |
It's all subjective, but I think in general the market norm seems to be wider. I had a collection of three successive versions of Yamaha's BB5000. The first two were as Jimmy's axe, the 4-string BB3000 subdivided for five strings instead of 4. Spacing was like a Ric, very narrow. Perfect for finger picking. The last was like current Yamaha fives, over 3" wide at the 24th fret. Any wider they could have put in cup holders between the strings after the last fret ( . . . . hmmmm, could I patent that?). Both my Alembic fives are their standard five-string 'classic' taper: 2" by 2.5", nut to 24th fret. I like this as the strings are almost parallel top to bottom. I never minded the nut width one way or the other, but I never warmed up to that big fan-out as I went up the neck. Interesting in that most ads tout the width as making slap/pop easier as the reason: Stanley Clarke (a large fella with big hands) wrote the book on the form with a short-scale Alembic with a VERY skinny neck! But it's all personal taste, so here's to whatever floats your boat . . . or your fingerboard. J o e y | ||
| edwin
Senior Member Username: edwin Post Number: 472 Registered: 5-2002 |
Stanley has long fingers but I don't think they are as fat as mine. I like a wider spacing for slap, but everything else works fine with a narrower spacing. I only own one bass that has decently wide spacing (a Lakland JO5), so I'm used to the narrow spacing and put up with beat up cuticles from popping with little room between strings. | ||
| chrisalembic
Member Username: chrisalembic Post Number: 92 Registered: 3-2009 |
Thanks for the answers. So lets see, at this point all of you prefer, or at least are fine with the narrow spacing. I guess it is also a matter of what you are used to. I had both, narrow and wide string basses, and after a while was able to play both. Its just that with a classic taper it seems much more natural and more relaxed to me. Also Joey mentioned the strings running almost parallel from top to bottom on the classic taper. Now that is something that I really like too. It seems the most logical feeling for both hands. Never liked the "fan.out" neck either. So in the end different hands like different necks. Nonetheless I think that such details like string spacing can have quite a big impact on your technique and tone. If you were to ask me for advice I would recommened you to try out a narrower spacing. (Message edited by chrisalembic on November 22, 2009) | ||
| 82daion
Advanced Member Username: 82daion Post Number: 215 Registered: 5-2005 |
My current bass (a Skjold 6) has 18mm string spacing at the bridge, but tapers to a 2" nut width. It's very comfortable to play, and the taper of the neck keeps it from being too much of a "plank," as Jimmy alluded to. It's probably my favorite bass of all that I've been through, ergonomically speaking, so I guess you'd say that I prefer a wider spacing, with the caveat of a greater taper towards the nut. I've owned one other 6-string (made by STR), and it also had 18mm spacing, but the neck tapered to a larger nut (2.25", if I recall correctly). Combined with the profile of the neck (which was very thin front-to-back and relatively flat), the width of the neck made it uncomfortable to play for long periods, even with proper technique. When it comes to extended-range basses, it seems as though small changes to any of these specifications can make a big difference to the end comfort of the player, and very few big manufacturers have been able to get it right, IMO. I haven't ever played an Alembic 6, but it seems as though my preferences would work better with one of the more modern body designs (Rogue, Europa, etc.). I can't imagine having the wider spacing and six strings on a Standard Point or one of its variations-the size of the body would make it unmanageable from an ergonomic perspective, especially given my experience with the (much) more compact body of my Skjold. Also, given the changes in my right-hand technique since owning my '75 SI, I don't think I could do what I do now with the "classic" spacing. | ||
| jakebass
Member Username: jakebass Post Number: 94 Registered: 7-2007 |
It's the only thing I miss about my Warwick thumb which I sold when I got the Alembic five. I would prefer if my strings were a little tighter but I have learned to live with what I have. If i ever ordered a build I would specify narrower than the standard. Jake |
