Matching string weights to bass weight/build

[swingingoodtime]

Hi all,

I’ve noticed that some basses seem to be more ‘solid’ (weighty?) than others, whether it be in terms of density of timber/ply used, thickness of plates, amount of bracing & general build ‘robustness’ (ie, think Merc vs Hyundai…).

Accordingly, is there any general rationale/argument/science (or black art!) for matching string weights to the weight of your bass? ie, does a heavy bass work better with heavier or lighter strings (and same again for lighter basses)? Or does the variety of the above-mentioned reasons for bass solidity/weight make that too generic a question to ask?

My apologies if this has been discussed previously; I went looking but couldn’t find anything. Thanks!

[Gearhead43]

It depends on the bass.

[ChuckCorbisiero]

With companies like D'Addario changing and improving the technology in seventies of string making, the required gauges and tensions of bass strings have changed. This is also a issue in piano construction and the required gauges of the lower octaves. It is no longer necessary to have 5,000 pounds of pressure on the harp of smaller piano's. The old " railroad tie" thick bass strings required alot more stretch in tuning to get the partials to sound good when tuning and tempering the pianos. Maybe the upright bass behaves this way also..... with the partials laying down differently from bass to bass?..maybe not?...depending on the way the fundementals behave on the strings in relation to the construction(thickness of tops,sides and backs) of the basses. Is this what your getting at? Also, on what many of you think is an unrelated subject that I contend is very much on topic...the string scale of the upright bass seems to be becoming shorter.....look at the rebuilds that Samuel Kolstein & Son Ltd. have done...a 1 1/2 to 2 inch reduction in string scale length seems to be a trend with even the 7/8 basses. Many basses that they are selling and rebuilds have new string lengths of under 40.75 inches....reduced from 42-43.5 inches. It is no longer necessary to have huge string scale lengths for volume and depth of sound. I challenge all of you to take a blindfold test and tell me you can hear the difference of "quality" of sound and volume of a shorter scale bass.This would not have been feasable 50 years ago with the old technology of string making.

[swingingoodtime]

Originally Posted by ChuckCorbisiero

...depending on the way the fundementals behave on the strings in relation to the construction(thickness of tops,sides and backs) of the basses. Is this what your getting at?

Pretty much; although there are a likely gazillion factors to consider, key factors such as build, bracing & material density will have a major influence upon the resonant frequency (or range of frequencies) of the bass. I realise that internal volume, f-hole size/location and scale length/string tension will also have a major bearing, but assuming those latter aspects are equal, would the general 'density' have a bearing on how the instrument reacts to different gauge strings?

For instance, if a top plate of one bass is made of denser (heavier) wood than an identically shaped bass with a lighter top, then the former bass' belly resonant frequency (Fo) will likely be lower (although the increased density could result in a lower compliance/flex, which may in turn raise the Fo, but let's assume for a moment that it is in fact still lower than that of the lighter bass).

Lighter gauge strings may impart less energy into the instrument (less mass & lower tension, am I correct?), so would this imply that a larger string would work better on a heavier top plate of lower Fo due to the energy imparted?

(Does that all make sense? )

[ChuckCorbisiero]

I think the overall STRING size (diameter) does not always reflect the amount of tension produced by the string depending on the construction and materials used of the string. And string length differences from 40 to 43 inches may not produce detectable differences in quality and volume either, especially with large basses. Only bass builders and prototype designers could probably approach an answer for you as to the correlation of thickness of tops, backs,sides, braces etc. Maybe, the lack of consistency of final bass design and the thickness has something to do with this. It is a well known fact that the old families of Italy(Guarneri, Stradivari) who made stringed instruments, passed down information TO FAMILY MEMBERS ONLY about thickness of wood (tops)and materials(varnish) but much of it is still unpublished or secret. I'm not sold on the idea that all instruments are constructed with a specific tuning in mind either. Do you really think we all tuned to A440 2oo years ago? (A )was more like 435 then ....maybe even flatter. And many instruments tuned to the piece being performed ie. Harpsicords,claviers and even pianos were tuned, up to as late as ww2 to slightly different temperments depending on the composer and keys of the composition. Some violin makers used to put sand on the tops and backs while shaving and sanding them and try to create certain wave type patterns which they thought indicated desirable outcomes for their instruments. This could be misunderstood as the actual pretuning of the chambers....I don't think that was what they meant by that process. I think you may be on to something with regard to string tension........look at the changes in gauges of bass strings on the newer piano's the last 35 years with relation to the construction.. there is significant change(less tension) with the lighter weight harps and lighter laminated woods. But, heavier, longer and more tension doesn't always mean better.. thats my point...ie. these newer lighter constructed pianos sound great and have tons of volume.