String Length In Relation To String Tension

[Jeremy Allen]

OK all you smart people out there:
How does string length affect the tension/stiffness of strings, either in real or perceived terms?
If you put the same set of strings on a bass with a 41" mensure and a bass with a 44" mensure, on which bass will they feel stiffer?

I ask because I just acquired an old old "Juzek" with a mensure of almost 44" and on this bass, Spiro mittels (which usually seem a bit wimpy to me) are fat and strong. But then, I put some light plain guts on the D and G, thinking they would be stiffened up like the Spiros seemed to be, and they felt more flaccid than ever. What's supposed to happen to strings when the distance over which they are suspended is increased?

[Aaron Cohn]

Don't know about feel but the tension will be higher with a longer string length. All things being equal a longer string would sound lower, so it has to be raised to a higher tension to get it to the same pitch. There may be other factors that affect feel though.

[moles]

I don't have a 100% definitive answer - but the answer I've always heard is that the longer string length will require a higher tension to achieve the same note, as the total mass between the two points is greater.
As for the perceived tension being lower on the guts - that also makes sense to me. Although the actual tension on the string is higher - you've also got other elements working - more material means more stretch, a longer length means pulling the string far enough to produce a note when released is actually pulling into less of an angle...etc etc..

[Jeremy Allen]

Originally Posted by moles

As for the perceived tension being lower on the guts - that also makes sense to me. Although the actual tension on the string is higher - you've also got other elements working - more material means more stretch, a longer length means pulling the string far enough to produce a note when released is actually pulling into less of an angle...etc etc..

And now that I think of it, I probably had the action lower than the guts needed for best response because the Spirocores felt too stiff to me to begin with.

This may mean that I can, without guilt, put a set of Spirocore weichs on a bass!

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Allen

This may mean that I can, without guilt, put a set of Spirocore weichs on a bass!

Never happen...without guilt, that is.

[Uncletoad]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Allen

This may mean that I can, without guilt, put a set of Spirocore weichs on a bass!

Sissy.

[Uncletoad]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Allen

I ask because I just acquired an old old "Juzek" with a mensure of almost 44" and on this bass

Where is the thread on this bass? I expect pictures and some kind of diatribe about where it came from and why it instead of everything else you considered you picked it.

Yes, we are paying attention.

[Jeremy Allen]

Originally Posted by Uncletoad

Sissy.

Hey, I'm the guy playing a bass with an archaic 44" string length...

...and I assume audiences and bandmates will take that into account when I can neither play it in tune nor play anything faster than half-notes on up-tempo tunes.

[Jeremy Allen]

Originally Posted by Uncletoad

Where is the thread on this bass? I expect pictures and some kind of diatribe about where it came from and why it instead of everything else you considered you picked it.

Yes, we are paying attention.

OK, that'll be forthcoming. It's the subject of the second line of "My Funny Valentine" at the moment: looks like it barely survived a fire, multiple people have carved their initials in the top, and the previous owner had a way of mounting a mic on it that destroyed the varnish around the treble f-hole. And it has a broken neck. In fact, it's about the ugliest bass I've ever seen.

Sound appealing? There's some work to be done, yes, but the sound is huge and clear. And spirocores sound like gut strings when played pizz and flexocors when bowed on this axe! (Well, almost--but it is close.)

[Uncletoad]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Allen

Hey, I'm the guy playing a bass with an archaic 44" string length...

...and I assume audiences and bandmates will take that into account when I can neither play it in tune nor play anything faster than half-notes on up-tempo tunes.

Well there is that.


That sums up my playing on a 42".

[moles]

Well, I'm playing on a bass with a 43 3/4, and I don't see what the problem is
Uh....well except for the bad intonation etc... But really, you get used to it.
That's probably why my full set of plain gut Lenzners have enough tension for me as well. On a 42" scale they'd probably be flop-city.

[clink]

My new bass is a 43". Putting the exact same strings (Stark E, Mittel A, Obligato tops) that were on the 41.5" really feels tighter. The sound has a real punch and attack to it. The thing I noticed several days into it were my hands toughening up more. My left pinky now has a callus on it that rivals my pizzing fingers. That is something I never expected. The string height and FB camber are similar, so the tension is the only variable.
The 43" hasn't bothered my intonation much, but 44"? You da man.

[Uncletoad]

Ah, Chris is sweeping up after me.

How bout "wuss"?

Sissy wouldn't come out of my mouth on my deathbed. It's also decidedly unfunny.

[KSB - Ken Smith]

I own and have owned MANY Basses of various lengths from under 40" to over 44". I see now direct relation to length vs. tension other than longer should be more flexible like with a stick.

There are so many factors than can vary with Basses besides the string Lengths. You can go looser or tighter on the exact same bass buy just changing strings not to mention all of the other 'voodoo' remedies.

My Candi Bass is at 39.5", Loveri at about 41.5 and my Storioni is 44+". These are all loose feeling Basses. My Gilkes is 41", my Martini is 41.5+" and my Bohemian is 40.75". These are all tighter feeling Basses. My Hart is 41.75 and the Batchelder is 41.25 and these have medium tension by my standards.

What does this all mean? Well, it's not the length!

If each bass was set-up and adjusted relatively the exact same way, height, neck angle/stand, bridge height in proportion, saddle, etc etc etc.. THEN, maybe you can make a comparison and sell these results at Sports Authority in the Tennis Racket Isle..lol

Longer than 42" is tough on the left hand for playing long hours. It is also tough on the ear when playing in an Orchestra sight reading music where you can't look to adjust finger placement. At that point in your life, you need a Bass you can play easily with your eyes closed or sight reading and to play for 3-6 hours in a day if that time ever comes and not get tired as far as the stretch. Also, don't loose the job because of your intonation regardless of how good you think you or your bass sounds.

In the market place, the ideal size is 41-42" String length for minimum and maximum. 41.5" is golden!

When I did Beethoven's 6th 'Storm' earlier last year my Gilkes (then set at 40.75") was much easier to play the fingered 16ths on the C-Ext. than on my Martini (then set to 41.75"). The difference on fingering ease or difficulty was huge to me.

Playing in a jazz/pizz setting, or casually for fun (bowing or not) is not the best way to test what string length is easiest or best for you. You need to be put to the test challenging yourself either musically or physically wise with endurance to really see what bass or length you want to live with.

[moles]

Ken, I completely agree that there are other factors other than scale length that will determine the playability and perceived tension of the bass.

I'm not sure I 100% agree with a couple of the other points though. Yes, just playing casually isn't the best way to determine what scale length you want. Truthfully, it's not the best way to decide *anything* about your instument, amp, bow, strings, or what shoes you're gonna wear that night - all that stuff needs to be put through the ringer. However, and I'm not sure if you meant it to come out as such, but I don't think everyone needs to decide on their set-up based on whether or not it would be suitable for a modern orchestral application. I know mine wouldn't - but that's not what I'm playing.
The 12 hours of solid rehearsing I put in with two different outfits this past Friday might have been easier with a 41.5" scale bass - but put whatever strings Uncle Toad is using this week as opposed to my guts, and maybe the difference isn't so great.

As for the intonation thing - I'm almost never looking at the fingerboard. I *have* to sight-read with my swing band (no way I'm learning 987 tunes by ear) I *have* to keep eye contact with my rockabilly band, as well as in the other 4 playing scenarios I'm in right now. I've always been of the opinion that shorter scale lengths make it easier to hold down a false note. Am I off base here? My reasoning is that if I were to miss the optimal spot by, say, 1/8" - that 1/8" is a smaller percentage of a 44" scale than related to a 41" scale.

Doing anything for long hours may be difficult. The thing I've found is the more you do it, the easier it gets. When I was playing electric I went through a phase with a big ole P-bass neck. Then I got my first J - yes, I didn't get tired as quickly at gigs, but after awhile that kinda wore off from playing it all the time, and really my stamina was right back to where it started.

Anyway, back to the original point - I have a question. When string manufacturers measure the posted tension of their strings - how is it measured? I would think that pure tension on a string would have to be measured directly in line with how the tuner is pulling on the string. Otherwise, if it's measured by a side pull for example, all those other factors come in to play (like scale length).