Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Loar 500, 600, 700s peoples!

  1. #1

    Default Loar 500, 600, 700s peoples!

    Greetings,

    Mando newbie here bigtime, question...

    Is it true that the scale length of the LM-500 & LM-590 is 13-3/4" but the scale of the
    310F is 13 - 29/32"...as is the LM-600 & LM-700? Or am I just reading it incorrectly?

    TIA!

  2. #2

    Default Re: Loar 500, 600, 700s peoples!

    Well that settles that!

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Conneaut Lake, PA
    Posts
    4,147

    Default Re: Loar 500, 600, 700s peoples!

    Honestly, I don’t know, but I think maybe your lack of response might be because most of us wouldn't really stress that much over a 5/32” difference in scale length. For me it certainly wouldn’t even be a consideration with so many other more important factors in instrument selection. Materials workmanship build quality fit and finish tone quality...now, if it were a 13” scale length (like many bowl backs) or 14 1/12” scale length (like a relatively few Gibsons), that would be enough difference to be worth giving consideration.

    Additional: I just checked the specs and you are correct. You are not reading it incorrectly. I would assume since the more advanced models have the slightly longer scale length, that must be more desirable.
    Don

    2016 Weber Custom Bitterroot F
    2011 Weber Bitterroot A
    1974 Martin Style A

  4. #4

    Default Re: Loar 500, 600, 700s peoples!

    Hi Don,

    Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I get it for sure. I was more curious about the lower end 310 having the same scale length as the 600 & 700, but they skipped over the 520 for that. It seems peculiar. I am coming from trying to learn on an old Martin A and and yes the scale is tight. Not for nothing but I just played a 310 & 520 today and actually preferred the laminate 310. The neck was more comfortable & I thought it sounded better. I am certainly NOT claiming it's because of the longer scale length. As you say, so many factors involved, set up, room you're in, strings, etc etc.

    Thanks again.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Loar 500, 600, 700s peoples!

    I have a 520 and love the sound... I bought it a few years ago from a store known for good set ups. Honestly, I thought it played pretty well, but really had nothing to compare it to. A couple years ago I bought a Rogue A model from Musicians Friend and got Rob Meldrum's E-set up book. This E-book is just wonderful for the regular guy that just wants to know how to get the mandolin to play to its potential! Highly recommended!!

    Conclusions.... Both have good set ups.... My Rogue is much easier to play, but doesn't sound as good as my LM-520. I honestly think it is the neck profile. The 520 is chunkier than the Rogue. I don't know if you can compare the two neck profile's to see for yourself, but that would really help.

    I'll add this too... If this is your first mandolin, I've "heard" several of the veterans on here say not to over think it. Just get a decent mandolin and get to work. Your second mandolin will require more thought as you've developed some "chops" and an ear for what you want out of the instrument. Just get you something to play and have some fun!

  6. #6

    Default Re: Loar 500, 600, 700s peoples!

    Thanks bakerk, all good points! I hear people talking about the chunkiness of the Loar necks. I didn't really find that to be the case but one person's this is chunky is another's this is a tiny little mando neck! A group that I play with, her Gibson F5 definitely has a way more pronounced V than either of the two Loars I tried, still not chunky just pointed a bit.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •