40-135: am I the only one??

[ZolkoW]

I'm relative new in the world of 5 stringers, but even with my fours I didn't understand, why the string manufacturers make string sets with high tension G and D strings, followed by lighter A and E strings. can't imagine, who is using 55-105 sets.
while my virtual ideal string set would be like 40-60-85-105 (and now, with an additional 135 B string).
of course, now I have to buy single strings, and that's not as easy in my country...

is there any reason, why the string tension is not equal across the string sets? Daddario writes the tension on the packages, and they have a D string (.065) with about 19 kg, while the .130 B is 14 kg of floppiness. their .135 B is better, but still only 15 kg. why?
my right hand asks for a more equal tension. its playable, of course, but i know, that there must be a better solution.

the only manufacturer is the Ritter basses, who makes "progressive tension" strings, less tension on the G, and higher on the B string. it's more logical for me.

/i know, the diameter only doesn't tell the tension, but in the same factory, they are quite proportional to each other/

am I alone?
the Ritter strings say, that I'm not, but we're still minority or not?

[castleshade13]

i used 40-60-85-105

but with my new Attitude Billy Sheehan bass i also use his signature strings and the tension is very similar over all strings

its 43-65-80-110 (he uses a Hipshot de-tuner)

thats what i used i had a set of sheehan strings after 3 weeks of playing as i got given some by my teacher as they were all he had when i was playing bass in school and needed some new strings, i've used them or swing bass 66 strings ever since but i usally switch to a 40 G unless i'm using the Sheehan set as i like tro bend lol

hope that helps

so USE BILLY SHEEHANS STRINGS! =D

and add a low B unless you don't like round wounds

so your not alone you have me and billy sheehan!

[SwamiRob]

My only problem with the light treble side strings is the sound thin, I'd prefer lower tension but ideally I like the power slinky gauge setup of 110-90-75-55. The sound is really nice on the top side and the feel of the size of the strings is really nice, but the tension is really hard work sometimes and although the depth is nice the difference in tension makes them sound a bit unbalanced.

[Jim Nazium]

I'm with you. I don't know why the "standard" string sets aren't more equal tension. On my 5-string, I'm using GHS Boomers gauged 40-55-75-95-126. The 40-95 are available as a set and are pretty close to equal tension; then I just have to buy the single B string.

I don't know if juststrings.com will ship to the EU, but you might try them. They have a large inventory of single strings.

[ZolkoW]

sadly, they don't ship Elixirs outside the US, and my hands are killing any uncoated strings very fast

another good alternative seem to be to buy a 45-135 set, and a 40-100 set (Warwick Red strings are the cheaspest here - they are uncoated, but cost five times less, than Elixirs...), then use the 40-100-135 set on my fiver in normal tuning, and the heavier gauge strings on my 4 stringer, tuned down (or in normal tuning, but actually my cover band plays in Eb).
Anyway, the Warwick Red (45-135) set is much more balanced in tension, then any 45-130 set I've tried so far.

okay, I see that I'm not alone :-)

[LowB-ing]

Most string sets DON'T have high tension D and G strings. They have high a tension D and low tension G! Generally you get the highest tension on the D, the lowest tension on the E and G, with the A somewhere inbetween. Oh, B strings are usually even lower tension than the E. I really hate the feel of that tense D right next to the floppy G. .040 G with .060 D are the WORST. .045 and .065 are slightly less bad.

The reason Bs (and to some extent Es) are low tension is that the thicker you make them, the more they lose flexibility, wich causes dull muddy tone. So a B string is always a compromise between tension (floppyness) and midrange response (dullness).

I'm partial to heavy strings which of course makes it even harder to find a good sounding B that blends in with the others. The best compromise I've found so far is:

.048, .065, .085, .110, .145.

I do sacrifice tone a little bit on the B for a tension I can live with. With this set the tension is higest on the D and G, and then drops off gently towards the B. I wouldn't mind equal tension, but the B would just be to muddy.
</rant>

[groovenut57]

Here's what I wrote in another thread regarding my NON-EXPERT theory on why most strings in packages don't have equal tensions:

"First off, just as an example, compare this:
http://store.daddario.com/category/1...g_Scale_45-100

With this:
http://store.daddario.com/category/1...g_Scale_45-105

As you can see, in terms of "tension", the 45-105 seems a little more balanced than the 45-100.

So, why do so many people prefer the 45-100?
I think it has to do with the other factor (i.e. "stiffness") in determining what feels right and comfortable. G and D are by nature easier to play than A and E. So, by having the bottom two strings (E & A) not quite as "stiff" as the top two (D & G), it actually improves on playability. At least, this is my theory as a non-expert.

I do prefer the 45-105 (for rounds) personally as I don't like the bottom two too floppy. For flats, I'm more comfortable with 40-60-80-100 due to their increased stiffness."

Does this make sense at all?
I guess the point is there's more to it than just the tension (linear pulling force) of the strings that affect the overall playability.

[ZolkoW]

I didn't notice that the D string is sooooo much stiffer, only from the data... I can live with it, the E and B was more of a problem for me. yes, a .040 G is thin sounding, but the Elixir .045 set has quite high overall tension, higher than average, so it may work...

I still didn't notice that the 135 B is duller sounding than a 130 B, I felt that the higher gauge had better fundamental, which sounds good to me.
I felt the 45-65-85-105-135 (cheap WW red) set more consistent in tone, than the 45-65-85-100-130 Daddario - the E and B sounded more like piano than bass guitar, while the high strings were a dream.. maybe the best sounding strings ever, for me.

thanks for the replies, I continue the searching of the perfect strings!
I'll take care of the G... maybe 45-60-80-105-135 is even better than my previous custom set.

LowB-ing: what brand are you using? .048 and 0.145 isn't a common gauge..

[LowB-ing]

There are of course other factors involved in sound than just string gouge. But in general thicker strings are duller IME.

By WW do you mean warwick? If so I can only agree. They have very good brightness in relation to their gauge. I used to use their Black Labels for many years with a .145 that was among the best I've tried. Also experimented with their .135 (Both Black and yellow label), but preferred the tension of the .145.
I stopped using them because I never really liked the D and G strings. Weak and tinny sounding. It really was that .145 B that made me keep using them as long as I did.

For the las few years I've been using custom wound sets from a small brittish manufaturer called newtone: http://www.newtonestrings.com

The B might not be quite as bright as I remember the Black Labels being, but overall tonal balance is better.

I'm currently awaiting another custom set from another small manufacturer

Regarding stiff D-strings. I definately notice. It has always irked me since way before I had access to any string tension data. Some "models" are better than others, though. There are other factors involved than just the gauge, as mentioned above. For example, I have an unknown set on a bass right now that I just bought used. They are quite good for a standard set. Then again, what do I know, it might be a custom set.

EDIT: Regarding my preference for heavy gauge strings. I should mention that I frequently tune down a half step. Occationally a whole step.

Originally Posted by ZolkoW

I didn't notice that the D string is sooooo much stiffer, only from the data... I can live with it, the E and B was more of a problem for me. yes, a .040 G is thin sounding, but the Elixir .045 set has quite high overall tension, higher than average, so it may work...

I still didn't notice that the 135 B is duller sounding than a 130 B, I felt that the higher gauge had better fundamental, which sounds good to me.
I felt the 45-65-85-105-135 (cheap WW red) set more consistent in tone, than the 45-65-85-100-130 Daddario - the E and B sounded more like piano than bass guitar, while the high strings were a dream.. maybe the best sounding strings ever, for me.

thanks for the replies, I continue the searching of the perfect strings!
I'll take care of the G... maybe 45-60-80-105-135 is even better than my previous custom set.

LowB-ing: what brand are you using? .048 and 0.145 isn't a common gauge..

[LowB-ing]

Heh, I just measured the unknown set. Lo and behold, the former owner put a .050 G on it! That explains why I liked it so much I guess.

[HogieWan]

http://www.circlekstrings.com/

[rakirksey]

Originally Posted by HogieWan

http://www.circlekstrings.com/

A .185" B String ...

[ZolkoW]

thanks for the useful links!!

yes, i meant Warwick on WW.
.185 is for something lower than B, I think
actually I'm planning to build a 6 string in the future, with low F#.. a source of HEAVY strings is always good to have

great that as the Circle K site says, the plpularity of "balanced" sets is growing... I am not an idiot!!!! :-) or at least, not because of this

[LowB-ing]

I actually PM'd Skip at CircleK here on this forum a few weeks ago, inquiring about the possibility of a .48, .65, .85, .110, .145 -set. He said he had something very similar coming up, but I haven't seen anything on his site yet.

Originally Posted by HogieWan

http://www.circlekstrings.com/

[HogieWan]

Originally Posted by LowB-ing

I actually PM'd Skip at CircleK here on this forum a few weeks ago, inquiring about the possibility of a .48, .65, .85, .110, .145 -set. He said he had something very similar coming up, but I haven't seen anything on his site yet.

I'd love a .145 B. I'd REALLY love a .145 flatwound B!

[alexclaber]

It does feel like it! I'm using quite balanced tension gauges on my 36" five: 38 58 78 104 134

In more normal sizes 40 55 75 100 130 is closest to balanced tension.

I don't know how Ritter gets their gauges to be balanced tension, unless they're actually going for balanced feel and achieving it through stiffer cores on the lower strings.

Alex

[T-MOST]

I've never player anything heavier than a .127 but I'd like to try one day.

[dmusic148]

It's weird science.
Using D'addario's tension chart, and assuming roundwound steel strings at 34" scale, and shooting for as even a tension as possible(I went with 40lbs per string) you end up with:

B- .145 @ 41.5 lbs.
E- .105 @ 40.3 lbs.
A- .080 @ 42.0 lbs.
D- .060 @ 42.9 lbs.
G- .045 @ 42.8 lbs. That's the best you could do, and as you can see, the gauges would be kinda funky, especially the B to E transition.

To add to the weirdness, be aware that as you go from one string to the next, the difference in frequency is not the same.

B- 30.9Hz
E- 41.2Hz
A- 55Hz
D- 73.4Hz
G- 98Hz

So, the difference in frequency from B to E is 10.3Hz, from E to A is 13.8Hz, A to D is 18.4Hz, D to G is 24.6Hz. So as you go up in pitch, the changes get larger.

What's really bizarre is, the gauge changes I used, in order to keep the tension even, are inversely proportional to the pitch changes. In other words, even though the pitch change from D to G is the largest, the required gauge change is the smallest.
Someone a lot smarter than me will have to explain that. I can do math, but not physics.

[greenboy]

For one thing, frequency in hertz makes more sense when you view it as ratios, and multiply or divide, not play with subtraction or addition. This follows the way frequnenies actually work in the real world where intervals are ratios, and an octave is either twice or one-half the frequency of the note it's being referenced to.

open A: 55 Hz fundamental
12th fret on same string A: 110 Hz fundamental

[dmusic148]

Originally Posted by greenboy

For one thing, frequency in hertz makes more sense when you view it as ratios, and multiply or divide, not play with subtraction or addition.

True dat, good point.