Dose a lighter gauge = more fundamental?

[mastershake]

I heard this from someone on one of my threads What string material produces a more dominant fundamental Nickel or SS?
I quote him saying ''Playing a lighter gauge of flexible strings will increase the fundamental, regardless of material type.'' I just want to see if anyone else can confirm this as being true.

Edit note: Iv decided to change the title from 'Dose a lighter gauge = more fundamental?' because it seemed less accurate.

[JimmyM]

I can't confirm my beliefs but I'm not buying into it.

[klokker]

Is there a non-flexible string? Wierd statement.

[R. Laevinus]

IME/IMO, no.

In my experience, and how I was taught (but mostly my experience - I've experimented a lot more than my teachers ever did), a fatter string = fatter tone.

[seanm]

I've always felt that a larger gauge == more fundamental. But I can't prove it.

[darkstorm]

The guy may simply be expeirencing a little bit easier fretting with the lighter gauge resulting in better expressiveness which makes him think theres more fundamental, or overall better tone. Simply cause he's haveing easier time with fretting stuff, strings arent quite as stiff. Theres been occassional looks at how a more freely or looser vibrating thing might have little bit diff tonal structure then stiffer one. But in the end I think its more about what gauges best serve the player for that finger (fretting) & pick/finger (striking, when ones not tapping with fretting fingers) tone thing add to the sound.

[Brad Johnson]

I use .120 to .125 gauge B strings and they consistently sound better than heavier guge strings IME IMO.

As yes, some strings aren't as flexible as others so they could be considered "stiff" relatively speaking.

[seanm]

Wasn't there a waveform posted recently that showed that flats have more fundamental than rounds? Given that flats are stiffer than rounds (not counting TIs), it doesn't look like flexibility helps for fundamentals.

[mastershake]

Originally Posted by seanm

Wasn't there a waveform posted recently that showed that flats have more fundamental than rounds? Given that flats are stiffer than rounds (not counting TIs), it doesn't look like flexibility helps for fundamentals.

well I remember doing an experiment were i tuned down my A string to a low E, same as the E string on my bass. the result was a darker sounding string than the E string with less overtones/harmonics. i assumed this was due to the lower tension but wasn't sure if gauge had anything to due with it (besides tension differences). I even made thread on it how dose sting tension affect tone.

[berwick63]

I would imagine flexibility being the last thing to help the fundamental note. Think of a tuning fork. Not very flexible.

[slaphappychappy]

as already said, fatter string, fatter tone. you dont see skinny opera singers, lol.

[John Wentzien]

I think less is less....and more is more..
You aren't adding anything with skinny strings.....IMHO.

[FunkMetalBass]

Hey, a thread about something I said - cool!

I pulled my information from something that Skip of Circle K string said in some other thread (or maybe I misunderstood him?) and then I contemplated it for a while.

Anyway, what I gathered is that a thinner string possibly has fewer wraps, which leads to less prominent overtones. Furthermore, the smaller gauge can vibrate more freely than its larger gauge counterpart, and the more freely a string vibrates, the more prominent the fundamental.

Simple experiment. Does anybody have two same types of strings (maybe a D'Addario .120 and a .130) that would be willing to record them and run them through an analyzer? That would give a reasonable idea of whether or not there is more fundamental output (or at least less overtonal output).

[JimmyM]

I would do it if I cared If you want more fundamental, just use dead strings.

[mastershake]

Originally Posted by FunkMetalBass

Simple experiment. Does anybody have two same types of strings (maybe a D'Addario .120 and a .130) that would be willing to record them and run them through an analyzer? That would give a reasonable idea of whether or not there is more fundamental output (or at least less overtonal output).

That would be a cool yet simple experiment.

[FunkMetalBass]

If I had a recording set up right now, I'd go for it while wearing my xkcd shirt:



I'm sure the information is already out there somewhere, though.

[mastershake]

Originally Posted by slaphappychappy

as already said, fatter string, fatter tone. you dont see skinny opera singers, lol.

I could be wrong but, what does 'fatter' really mean anyway, I cant help but feel when people use the term 'fatter' what there actually referring to is a wider tonal spectrum a string is producing and not a string thats emphasizing more of the fundamental.

[JimmyM]

I don't buy into the fatter strings fatter tone thing. I have a very fat tone and I use 40-95's. I've heard other players using fatter strings than me who I think have a pretty thin tone. Some like a thick string and that's cool, but you can do so much with EQing and whatnot that it renders any perceived differences moot.

[bluesdogblues]

Fatter strings = fatter tone.
Don't talk about EQ while on that topic

[FunkMetalBass]

Originally Posted by mastershake

I could be wrong but, what does 'fatter' really mean anyway, I cant help but feel when people use the term 'fatter' what there actually referring to is a wider tonal spectrum a string is producing and not a string thats emphasizing more of the fundamental.

When I think of the term "fat", I imagine it describes a prevalence of the first, second, and third harmonics, ie. the low-mids boost/neck pickup tone.