Who Came up with Unbalanced String Sets?

[FunkMetalBass]

We've known the physics of sound, specifically as it relates frequency and string tension of a standing wave, for centuries. We've known that musical notes are logarithmic, not linear, for even longer. Why then is .105 - .085 - .065 - .045 still one of the most common string gauges? I realize there are minor differences in quoted size vs. actual measurable size of the string, as well as differences in tension depending on how the manufacturer winds them, but there is generally still a large gap in the amount of tension between that .105 E-string and the .065 D-string, often more than 10lbs of tension difference. What's worse, that same philosophy is transferred to the lower and higher strings of 5- and 6-string basses, causing even more uneven tension.



The pictures show note frequencies for a standard 6-string bass and a standard 6-string guitar. What part of this even remotely implies linear distances between string sets? Who came up with the unbalanced string sets?

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

/rant

[jasper383]

I remember reading, maybe it was here, that problems with early speakers led to the D string, especially, being out of whack. In order to get the strings to sound even through amplification, the gauges had to be like that. Then, tradition took over.

[knuckle_head]

There is actually a pretty good reason, historically, for this. It applies marginally still but really oughtn't.

Alot of the rules were set in the 50's with the standard Fender set in both instrumentation, but more importantly amplification.

No MI cab is 40 Hz capable, and back in the day you were doing well to have a rig that was 60 or even 80 Hz competent.

What has this to do with strings? A loose string moves more - by default it is louder as a result. If your rig can't push a specific frequency you tend to up it with EQ so that there is more of it being amplified. Think of a loose string as an EQ bump - where the rig has less to offer you give it more to work with because of the higher amplitude. Because a B string places even more rigorous demands on reproduction, the physics skews even further in the historic direction.

If you were ever only amplifying (or mic'ing a rig) you would have few-to-no issues. But rigs have improved since the 50's, and you can reliably expect at least a half-octave more out of contemporary gear. Additionally we record direct which shows the inadequacies glaringly. Now you can actually hear the faulty physics, but we have a tried-and-true/entrenched standard that we have relied on for decades.

I used to be a studio rat and set up the near-4-foot-stack of processing gear that can be called for to rein in unwieldy bass signals - E and B are generally the culprits, and extraordinary methods are commonplace. Band pass compression, anyone?

Now that rigs support near-fully the audio spectrum of standard 4 strings, bringing the E string at very least into alignment with the higher strings is a good idea. There is still something to be said about a looser B string as we find ourselves now in a similar place as we were with E strings back in the day.

Direct signal chains, and home and car systems with subs are allowing us as bassists to hear and make use of a hugely broad frequency range. And psychoacoustics expand that even a bit further. If we can get the physics right at the bass it makes so many aspects of the low end so much more feasible.

[FunkMetalBass]

Originally Posted by knuckle_head

There is actually a pretty good reason, historically, for this. It applies marginally still but really oughtn't.

Alot of the rules were set in the 50's with the standard Fender set in both instrumentation, but more importantly amplification.

No MI cab is 40 Hz capable, and back in the day you were doing well to have a rig that was 60 or even 80 Hz competent.

What has this to do with strings? A loose string moves more - by default it is louder as a result. If your rig can't push a specific frequency you tend to up it with EQ so that there is more of it being amplified. Think of a loose string as an EQ bump - where the rig has less to offer you give it more to work with because of the higher amplitude. Because a B string places even more rigorous demands on reproduction, the physics skews even further in the historic direction.

If you were ever only amplifying (or mic'ing a rig) you would have few-to-no issues. But rigs have improved since the 50's, and you can reliably expect at least a half-octave more out of contemporary gear. Additionally we record direct which shows the inadequacies glaringly. Now you can actually hear the faulty physics, but we have a tried-and-true/entrenched standard that we have relied on for decades.

I used to be a studio rat and set up the near-4-foot-stack of processing gear that can be called for to rein in unwieldy bass signals - E and B are generally the culprits, and extraordinary methods are commonplace. Band pass compression, anyone?

Now that rigs support near-fully the audio spectrum of standard 4 strings, bringing the E string at very least into alignment with the higher strings is a good idea. There is still something to be said about a looser B string as we find ourselves now in a similar place as we were with E strings back in the day.

Direct signal chains, and home and car systems with subs are allowing us as bassists to hear and make use of a hugely broad frequency range. And psychoacoustics expand that even a bit further. If we can get the physics right at the bass it makes so many aspects of the low end so much more feasible.

This post and its great presentation of historical knowledge makes me tingle inside. Thank you for that, Skip. I had never considered that before.

[cassius987]

+1 @ knuckle_head. I have heard elsewhere the same thing, that the historical basis for these 45-65-80-100 sets etc. etc. has mostly to do with how a P Bass worked back in the day, making up for a few shortcomings.

I have been using 45-60-80-105 sets for over a year now and haven't looked back. It's so much nicer.

[Krucial]

This historical outline is very usefull and todays physics are obvious thruth. I'm not arguing with this at all, but i do have a question about the impact of tension.


When playing a 50,70, 85, 105 set (simply called "heavy" by Elixer) I further enlarge the tension error already present with the 45, 65, 85, 105 set (the "medium-heavy").
By adding an eq boost at around 65 Hz (wich is good for some solid reggae foundation) I put more emphasis on the frequencies not present in the D and G string.
Hence I should hit the common problem of a softer sounding D and G string quite hard.

However I don't.
Volumewise both the heavy and medium-heavy sets sound even.
Tonewise the 50, 70, 85, 105 sounded more even than the 45, 65, 85, 105 set.

Could it be that because of the higher tension of the D and G string the amount of energy implied to the string is higher?

I mean; when playing you give the strings a centain excursion. When a string has a higher tension, you automaticly pull harder, thus implying more energy. When playing you're very unaware of this, since with the D and G strings the distance between your thump an playing fingers is larger, making it easier to exercise force.

Offcourse this is only valid for fingerstyle playing. When playing with a pick the implied force to the string is only depending on the pick.

[Fetusyolk]

Originally Posted by Krucial

Offcourse this is only valid for anchored thumb fingerstyle playing.

fix'd

loads of info in this thread, what i like to see.

[knuckle_head]

Originally Posted by Krucial

Volumewise both the heavy and medium-heavy sets sound even. Tonewise the 50, 70, 85, 105 sounded more even than the 45, 65, 85, 105 set.

Could it be that because of the higher tension of the D and G string the amount of energy implied to the string is higher?

I suggest that you have been playing long enough that your technique has adjusted to make the strings speak the way you want them to.

A tighter string has less excursion and as such will be quieter when plucked or played with the same force as a looser string.

Your technique has likely evolved to compensate just as you say - the tighter strings are being played harder than the looser ones. That, or you're compressing the hell out of your signal.

[hasbeen]

knuckle head's posts are spot on. And there is another "wrinkle" too: flexibility/stiffness.

When many people are speaking of "tension", they are actually referring about "flexitiblity".

I worked on designing a "composite gauged" set of strings for a certain manufacturer. We made the string set much more balanced "feeling" by altering the core dimensions.

Nothing new there...really...however, more to the point is that the tension would stay the same as long as the overall mass of the string stayed the same. But, we could increase the flexibility of the string with a lighter core.

This is one reason I like DR round core strings so much. Since they are so flexible, I find I can go up a gauge to a fatter string and my tone benefits from that.

[GregDunn]

Originally Posted by hasbeen

knuckle head's posts are spot on. And there is another "wrinkle" too: flexibility/stiffness.

When many people are speaking of "tension", they are actually referring about "flexibility".

+1000. It drives me mad when people talk about tension and equate it to the amount of force required to flex the string. This is at a right angle to the tension force, and high tension does not mandate inflexibility. As you point out, this is why some string compositions are much easier to play than others, even though their linear tension may be the same.

[hasbeen]

Originally Posted by GregDunn

+1000. It drives me mad when people talk about tension and equate it to the amount of force required to flex the string. This is at a right angle to the tension force, and high tension does not mandate inflexibility. As you point out, this is why some string compositions are much easier to play than others, even though their linear tension may be the same.

we'll both have to carry the banner.

[Shmone]

Originally Posted by GregDunn

+1000. It drives me mad when people talk about tension and equate it to the amount of force required to flex the string. This is at a right angle to the tension force, and high tension does not mandate inflexibility. As you point out, this is why some string compositions are much easier to play than others, even though their linear tension may be the same.

In that case, when you talk about the string's tension, what are you referring to?
How can you feel it when you play?

[knuckle_head]

Originally Posted by Shmone

In that case, when you talk about the string's tension, what are you referring to?
How can you feel it when you play?

Tension is the pull necessary along the string that brings it to a specific pitch.

Stiffness refers to how rigid the string is whether or not there is tension on the string.

One can affect the other. To have more tension you need a thicker string, and by default a thicker string is a bit less flexible than a thinner one. That is usually less a problem as the way the string is made and the materials they're made of has a greater affect on rigidity. And of course a tighter string will feel less flexible.

It's what gives each brand and its subset its 'flavor' and feel.

[GregDunn]

^ What he said. With everything constant except the tension, what you'll notice is that as tension increases, it will take more force to play the string at the same relative volume as at a lower tension (knuckle_head also alludes to this above). But at design pitch the construction of the string will have a large effect on how "tight" or stiff it feels.

A friend of mine has a 6-string guitar which uses no wound strings; it makes for a very trebly, interesting sound. The strings feel quite flexible and easy to play.