Yamaha BB 5 string owners

I played a used BBG5S last night. and was pleased to find it had
wwwwiiiiiiiide string spacing (normal?). Is this common for the entire BB 5
string series of basses? The Yamaha web site doesn't have this important
data.
Yamaha is the only mass production company I know of that uses Standard
Spacing on some of their 5's and 6's. Definitely on the TRB 5/6 and the
Signature models.
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid.
but most stupid people are conservatives."
- John Stuart Mill

ideally 5 and 6 string basses are SUPPOSED to have the same spacing as a
regular 4 string bass. which is why the necks are "wider". yet still easy to
play. AFAIK this was Anthony Jackson's vision when he had the first 6
string "contrabass" made.
It's a combination of cost considerations and consumer skittishness that
keeps most companies from making them that way. It also prevents a lot of 4
string players from migrating to a 5 or 6 IMO.
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid.
but most stupid people are conservatives."
- John Stuart Mill

3/4' string spacing or thereabouts (center to center of string at the
bridge) is generally regarded to be "standard" spacing. chief. Tell a
luthier you want "standard" spacing. and they will know exactly what you are
talking about.
It follows then that these would be the most comfortable instruments to
play. as they have the same string spacing that you started playing on. The
reason they don't is because it's cheaper to mass produce smaller necks. and
because many people look at a full size spacing and freak out. when it is in
fact easier to play than the smaller one - which they would find out if
manufacturers made full width basses.
Now you are welcome to build whatever the hell you want. but people won't
necessarily use it. Outside of Paul McCartney and a few Beatles tribute
bands. how many bassists primarily gig with a Hofner Violin? Exactly. Seems
like the P Bass is still the template for any really successful bass.
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid.
but most stupid people are conservatives."
- John Stuart Mill

Exactly. Nobody mentioned 17mm. flat out. Take a survey.
We (as a community) would have much less posts about "I can't slap on a 5
cause the strings are too close" if it were not the case.
Better yet. Normal spacing can be defined within one company. Apples to
apples. Take an Ibanez Roadstar from the 80's. and compare that to any
Ibanez 4 today. Close enough the same to consider that their standard 4
string spacing. Then grab all of their SDGRs and EX 5's and 6's from the
90's and forth. WOA! And why did they come out with wide
spacing on the BTB series? How about Rickenbacker. Making 4's for a while now. They established their
string spacing early on. Then came their 5s. Would you consider their 5s
to have had "normal spacing" by Rick standards? Not by Washburn or Alembic
standards. And on an personal note: I honestly like flatter and wider necks to
"proportionate" necks. I believe there HAS to be some "give" somewhere. If
you make a neck that is 7" wide. you can't make it proportionate. we all have our likes.

I believe you but it's odd. because it doesn't feel like the RB is
"standard" spacing - and I've played more than a few over the years. I think
it must be that tree trunk neck that makes it feel different.
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid.
but most stupid people are conservatives."
- John Stuart Mill

Not in my experience. I've had Carvin. Hamer and possibly a few
others. My fretless (Noguera) and Lakland are the first five strings
I've owned that had nice/normal/wide/.75" string spacing. Skinny
spacing caused me to sell all of the others. In my experience. too
skinny is the norm (although the times may be a-changing).

The RB is supposed to be. but I haven't touched one in years either. and
it's SUPPOSED to have an asym. neck. Maybe they put the thick part at the
bottom :-)

but it might have been confusing to read. I do that
a lot. I talk and type too passive-aggressively. :-/

I would have disagree with the idea they are cheaper to produce with less
that the 3/4 spacing. In most cases the head stock will be wider than the
heal anyway. so nothing really to save unless your talking about the fret
board. Quite honestly I think it is more of a trend and that you see more
and more players in main stream rock using picks... in which case the narrow
spacing makes them easier to play. For the record I started out playing
with a pick. playing main stream rock with narrow spacing (Ibanez 405) and
it lended itself well for drilling out 16th & 32nd notes for long periods.
But as I had gotten more and more into 70's rock (when bass was really bass)
it was difficult to play with a pick. As much as I wanted to be mainly a
finger player. I was only able to really make that transition after I picked
up a Carvin LB75 with the 3/4" spacing. I have pretty small hands but even
that being the case the wider spacing is just more comfortable to play with
fingers.
I still have the 405 and actually used it on gig when I was having some sort
of tendon issue with my right hand about 2 years ago and had to revert to
playing with a pick. Other than that it sits in the closet. Bit of a shame
because in the right hand it has a great neck. but I just can't deal with
the narrow spacing unless I use a pick.

the fretboard is what I mean. I remember when the first mass
production 5's came out - they went from the ":standard" spacing of the
boutique basses to the weird "in between" spacing they have now.
a) the neck with used is the maximum that will fit on their 4-string
equipment. and they don't want to upgrade for a limited appeal instrument.
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid.
but most stupid people are conservatives."
- John Stuart Mill

and they don't want to upgrade for a limited appeal instrument.