string construction and volume

[Aaron Cohn]

Vitoliuzzi's recent thread on Corelli strings was very interesting--in it he described how the strings, with their lower tension, made some technical things easier at the expense of some projection. It seems to be generally accepted that all other things being equal, higher tension strings are louder than lower tension strings provided the top of one's bass can stand up to it--i.e. Spirocore orchestras tend to be louder than the weichs.

But, on the other hand, tension vs. volume is far from a direct correlation if we tinker with the other variables. Velvet strings are loud on a lot of basses despite their low tension. A lot of players get huge sounds with gut strings. My bass is very loud right now, at least for pizz playing, with relatively low-tension Aquila Nylguts, and it's not a bass that needs low tension. But then Spirocores tend to be loud as well, while a number of strings in the middle tension-wise seem to be quieter.

I haven't tried low-tension steel strings such as the Corellis. I wonder, though, what factors in the construction of a string other than its tension affect the overall volume it produces. Velvets, guts, etc typically require fairly high action so as not to buzz. At what action height do players typically use the light Corelli strings? Does anyone know what makes it so that some low-tension strings produce lots of volume while other string types need to be at a higher tension? I'm interested to hear any comments.

[PB+J]

I think--and this is just guessing--the more mass a string has, the more volume it tends to produce. It's very true with guitars--heavier strings mean more acoustic volume.

But if a string is too stiff, it will be hard to pull and may end up being (or playing) quieter than a low tension string that you can pull further before releasing. That might be one reason why lower tension often produces more volume.

I suspect it's not volume per se, it's the overtones. Different strings emphasize different frequencies--that's why they sound different--and I bet we hear those different frequencies as volume increases. More midrange, say, and less b ass equals more perceived volume

I'd be willing to bet that if you took all the different string brands, strung them up one set at a time on the same bass, and tested them with a decibel meter there would be very little difference in overall volume. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but it would be interesting to see. You'd have to standardize the pluck/bow stroke, but I bet if you did they'd all be within 3 dbs of each other.

[Bobby King]

I have an old King bass with a 43.5 string length and Kings have a fairly narrow body. I've always found that lower tension strings sound best and get the best volume on that bass. Heavier strings seem to sound more "choked" and don't vibrate as freely, even when plucked hard. This is especially noticable on the E&A. Currently I have Corelli 370M on the bass and when I first put them on, I was really surprised at the fuller low string response. Also, a while back, I had a set of those Innovation rockabillies, low tension, and they also seemed to preform well on that bass although I wasn't crazy about them for other reasons. I probably keep the Corellis a little higher since they have lower tension.

My other bass is a 42" scale hybrid Strunal and the body is wider. Currently I have guts with medium-high action and get plenty of volume, but I used to have Superflexibles on that bass which are fairly high-tension (despite the name ) They also sounded very good and loud.

I think that the added string length is a big factor with the King - higher tension strings wind up being even more so , but also the smaller body doesn't seem to want to put out the sound produced by a big heavy steel string and so it winds up being choked.

Just my 2 cents.