No reason why a 34" bass cannot have a good B string

[Jay2U]

Originally Posted by BrickBatMansion

Cool! I have a '76 M-bird strung B E A D as well. I think it plays better strung with a B than E A D G. PLus, with the 24 frets Ive got all the high notes Ill ever need.

That holds for my cheap 34" Ibby GSR200EX as well. I converted it to BEAD. The B, a .130 Ernie Ball flatwound, is rock stable and produces a well defined sound. It also intonates perfectly. I'm happy I got rid of the G-string, as it had dead spots and sounded very thin.

[jscomposer]

Am I the only one who saw 78" and thought HolyMotherOfGod? (I think OP meant '78.)

[johng999]

Try a Fender American Deluxe 5 string. It has an added string retainer on the B string that increases the string angle across the nut, resulting in a tight B with good definition. It is the best sounding 34" B that I have played.

[Jay2U]

Originally Posted by jscomposer

Am I the only one who saw 78" and thought HolyMotherOfGod? (I think OP meant '78.)

No, you're not the only one. 78 inches is a bit long for a bass....

[DiabolusInMusic]

Originally Posted by lowfreqgeek

This is a matter of pickup height and overall setup, not scale length. If the magnetic pull of the pickups is too much, it causes the overtones. It's most noticeable on the B-string because the mass of the string is more affected by the magnetic field of the pickups. As you fret higher up the neck, the strings get closer to the pickups, causing more overtones.

I've dealt with that issue on both 35" and 34" scale basses (the 35" being the absolute worst) getting everything set up right eliminated the problems, regardless of scale length.

No, it is most definitely not an issue with the pickups. Every time somebody has a 34" bass with the issue everybody immediately goes pickups, though I will admit a pickup too close can cause strange overtones due to magnetic pull, it is never the case with these basses, especially since pickup adjustment will not fix it. The issue does lie with the scale.

I have had my pickups professionally balanced by the good folks at Dingwall, it had zero impact in my issue.

I think a B string with a thin core does have better results but nothing extraordinary, the core is more essential than the outer gauge in my experience. Dingwall and LaBella have the thinnest cores to my knowledge.

[DonaldR]

Originally Posted by jscomposer

Am I the only one who saw 78" and thought HolyMotherOfGod? (I think OP meant '78.)

You're right, I meant '78.

[Sartori]

The bass I use for BEAD tuning is a 34" Peavey. The low B string sounds great on it. I've tried a couple 35" scale basses and they were just not comfortable for my left hand.

[jscomposer]

Originally Posted by klegdixal

false
http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/~hjarvel...ons/icmc99.pdf

the paper is prolly TL;DR but in short
inharmonicity is an inherent property of any real string.
detuning of string's partials can be described as related to diameter^4/(length^2*tension) formula
in other words increasing length helps and also allows using strings with the same tension but lower diameter or same diameter and higher tension. which also helps.

as a side note inharmonicity is also related to Young's modulus of the string. ie. it is possible to build a decently sounding bass with a very short scale given very elastic, eg. rubber strings. U-bass anyone?

Interesting. Since tension is indirectly proportional to inharmonicity while thickness is directly proportional to the 4th power, it would seem that thinner is the way to go, no? Especially since weight is proportional to tension and diameter is proportional to the square root of weight.

[guy n. cognito]

Originally Posted by DiabolusInMusic

I have had my pickups professionally balanced by the good folks at Dingwall, it had zero impact in my issue.

I'm confused. You say that scale length is the only answer to this "problem", yet you had the same problem on a Dingwall?

[pickles]

Originally Posted by MysticMichael

It may seem counterintuitive at first...but I think you're right: a lighter-gauge "B" string remains more playable, and sounds better than a heavier-gauge "B", as one moves up the neck.

Being relatively new to the five-string world, most of my fivers are still string with medium-gauge strings - with a .125" "B" string - at least until I decide to experiment a bit more. But two of my instruments - my Carvin Bromberg signature models - are strung with light-gauge strings, including a .120" "B".

While I haven't conducted any serious listening tests, and I'm quite pleased with the performance of the "B" string on all my five-string instruments, it does seem that my Bromberg basses remain especially articulate - even on the "B" strings - way up above the 12th fret.

MM

My sadowsky 4 sounds amazing in drop C with a 105 hi beam. Way better than the C on 95% of the 5s I've had, unless I used a labella hard rockin steel B, which sounds great on any 5er. Still have not tried a 120 hi beam on my 5s, but plan to.

[DiabolusInMusic]

Originally Posted by guy n. cognito

I'm confused. You say that scale length is the only answer to this "problem", yet you had the same problem on a Dingwall?

No, they balanced the pickups on my Carvin LB76, which exhibits the issue, they hooked it up to some electrical device and balanced the output. Afterwards Sheldon was nice enough to help me with my issue we talked about the B string, and quite frankly I think he is a world class expert in the field. He also thought the Carvin had a solid B string for what it is worth.

So yes, the only cure for the issue is scale length. I have seen seem some mediocre B strings sound pretty good up the neck at 35", much better than my 34" Carvin even though the open B was much more loose.

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by pickles

Still have not tried a 120 hi beam on my 5s, but plan to.

If my experience is any indication, your light-gauge Hi-Beams should work out just fine.

All of my bass guitars currently wear DR strings - and that includes my Bromberg basses, which have a set of light-gauge (.040-.060-.080-.100-.120) Lo-Riders on the fretted instrument, and a set of light-gauge Fat Beams on the fretless - which should be closest to your upcoming experience with Hi-Beams, since both Fat Beams and Hi-Beams are essentially identical in construction, but for the winding processes used.

IMHO, as long as you have a good, controlled right hand technique, and can play consistently with a relatively light touch, you can keep a very comfortable low action on the instrument, and play the light-gauge DR "B" strings without any issues at all.

MM

[klegdixal]

Originally Posted by jscomposer

Interesting. Since tension is indirectly proportional to inharmonicity while thickness is directly proportional to the 4th power, it would seem that thinner is the way to go, no? Especially since weight is proportional to tension and diameter is proportional to the square root of weight.

the bigger linear density the string has the more tension is needed to get it to pitch.
also low tension strings will tend to go boing (ie. the fundamental will glide down) esp. if played with a harder touch.
but generally, also in my observation, yes. the lightest strings you will find playable will sound most clear.
that formula made a number of things go click in my head. like why i prefer the sound of lighter strings. why i prefer roundcore strings like DR-beams and pressurewound Foderas - they tend to be more elastic, ie. have lower Young's modulus and tend to intonate way better even if they lack the bite of hexcores.
also why even a small increase of scale goes a long way with helping intonation and clarity of the lowest registers.

being a shortarse i find 34" a maximum what i can play fretless, so my new fretless fiver is 34". if i venture into getting myself a fretted fiver/sixer it will be FF and starting at at least 35". my mate has a build going with a fan starting from 36". i'm waiting for his results

[AuntieBeeb]

Originally Posted by musicman666

Its just an inch!

All together now..."THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!"

[guy n. cognito]

Originally Posted by DiabolusInMusic

No, they balanced the pickups on my Carvin LB76, which exhibits the issue, they hooked it up to some electrical device and balanced the output. Afterwards Sheldon was nice enough to help me with my issue we talked about the B string, and quite frankly I think he is a world class expert in the field. He also thought the Carvin had a solid B string for what it is worth.

So yes, the only cure for the issue is scale length. I have seen seem some mediocre B strings sound pretty good up the neck at 35", much better than my 34" Carvin even though the open B was much more loose.

Yes, but Sheldon is just one such expert. There are plenty of other "world class" experts that can achieve a solid B without resorting to 35" or longer length. So, it's clearly not the only cure.............

[hover]

I dunno, I seem to recall Owen Biddle's Callowhill 30" scale 6 having an amazingly robust B string tone... while I do believe there are some merit-worthy claims favoring one scenario over another, and yes, I agree physics comes well into play in many of them as there are limitations, but in light of that I think sound engineering and construction techniques trump many of them...they're in many cases speedbumps more than road blocks.

[Dbassmon]

Every time a post concerning 34" v 35" comes up, there is an opinion that 34" B strings don't sound good, or Fender doesn't know how to make a good sounding B string.

I own a variety of 5 and 6 string basses by Fender, Warrior and Roscoe. From sampling of instruments that I own, I find the assertion that 34" scale B strings don't sound as good as 35" to be completely untrue.

My belief is that the quality of a B string has everything to do with the quality of the individual instrument, not the scale or the brand. If your B sting feels too floppy, go to a thicker string and pick by the bridge....FWIW.

[Huge]

Originally Posted by Dbassmon

Every time a post concerning 34" v 35" comes up, there is an opinion that 34" B strings don't sound good, or Fender doesn't know how to make a good sounding B string.

I think it's like being in school where a rumour gets started, and enough people repeat it, so it becomes a "fact".

[MysticMichael]

Originally Posted by Dbassmon

My belief is that the quality of a B string has everything to do with the quality of the individual instrument, not the scale or the brand.

To that end, I've found that it pays to get an instrument with a neck that is as rigid as it can possibly be - whether all-graphite composite, or with inlaid graphite reinforcement rods, or built of multi-laminate construction - or what have you. The "B" string, tuned to pitch, puts enormous stress on any neck. A super-rigid neck that can stand up to all of that stress allows every bit of that string's vibrations to occur freely - without any dampening - such that the pickups can then pick up every bit of its signal. That's what makes a great-sounding "B" string - at least a great open "B" (the quality of fretted notes has somewhat more to do with the quality of the strings).

As I've made the transition from playing four-strings to playing five-strings, I've also transitioned from instruments with one-piece necks, to instruments with five-piece laminated necks - in my case either maple/walnut or maple/maple. In my experience, it really has made all the difference. I simply would never own a five-string or six-string instrument that has only a one-piece unreinforced wood neck.

MM

[Handyman]

Originally Posted by DiabolusInMusic

No, they balanced the pickups on my Carvin LB76, which exhibits the issue, they hooked it up to some electrical device and balanced the output. Afterwards Sheldon was nice enough to help me with my issue we talked about the B string, and quite frankly I think he is a world class expert in the field. He also thought the Carvin had a solid B string for what it is worth.

What does it meant to "balance" a pickup. I've never heard of such a thing. Do you mean they adjusted the pickup height?