Carvin Icon "B" string

MysticMichael said:

While I haven't yet played the Icon 5, I have played a couple of LB75s, and found the "B" strings unacceptably floppy for my taste.

MM

Click to expand...

I haven't played an Icon 5 but I have played a BB75 and it had a very good B string, better than my 5 string Carvin kit bass. I'm wondering if the wider asymetrical neck makes a difference. I'll be monitoring this thread.

Vinxbass has a 5 string Icon, maybe he'll chime in.

I had one a few years ago. Had a good B string. Not great but still good. Neither floppy nor loose.

MysticMichael said:

I know this topic has been touched upon previously, but search results reveal only meager information thus far. So this thread is dedicated to addressing just one question: "On a scale of 1 to 5, how do you rate the tension of the "B" string on the Carvin Icon 5 and Icon 6?"

For quite some time, I've been in the market for a couple of new five-strings. While I haven't yet played the Icon 5, I have played a couple of LB75s, and found the "B" strings unacceptably floppy for my taste.

I realize there are multiple factors that can influence the "B" string's tautness or looseness, even from one individual instrument to another - mostly the rigidity of the neck and the tension/gauge of the actual string itself - and I intend to control for those factors as much as I can.

That said, how do you Icon players rate the "B" string? Please weigh in with a response to the poll, plus a comment.

Thanks,

MM

Click to expand...

I don't have an Icon, but I do have a BB76F. No problems with the B even using TI jazz flats which have very low tension.

The real influence on the B is going to be technique and partially strings anyway so I don't expect that there'd be any difference between the Icon and any of the other carvins. The model is going to make a very miniscule difference if any at all.

On my bunny, I pluck over the humbucker at the bridge with the lightest touch I can use and still get a sound that I like. The B gives me no trouble....

As for strings, I'd avoid the carvin flatwounds, which is what I ordered my bunny with. They are extremely high tension and I found them hard to get a good sound out of (not to mention the truss rod having to be scarily tight to get the relief set where I wanted it).

The TI jazz flats give it an amazing bark tho, so if you can afford them I'd suggest those even on a fretted....

LS

Just returned my Icon 5 fretless. I thought the low B played like a loose rubberband.

Chris

Funny, I was in the Carvin Santa Ana store the other day and there was about 20 5-string basses on the wall and maybe 2 4-string, I thought maybe their just better at making 5 string basses or people may just be returning them?

wyleeboxer said:

Funny, I was in the Carvin Santa Ana store the other day and there was about 20 5-string basses on the wall and maybe 2 4-string, I thought maybe their just better at making 5 string basses or people may just be returning them?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing it's because 5-strings are so popular these days...

It's been a few years since I've played a Carvin 5-string, so I can't comment on the tightness of the B-string.

The B string tension will be exactly the same as any other 34" scale bass using the same strings. Unless someone has changed the laws of physics while I wasn't looking.

I've got a Carvin Icon IC5 and on a scale of one to 5 I give it a 4.5. I think the low B sounds very nice. I've also got a LB75AP Anniversary 5'er and the Icon low B sounds much better than the LB75. I've got an '08' MIA Fender Jazz V that has a tremendous low B and the Icon compares to it very well. The IC5's low B sustains quite well and is very well pronounced (clear).

I have a Carvin B5 and the B-string is just great, much better than other 34" basses I used to have, such as a Smith BSR, an StingRay5, and I would say is on par with my former Sadowskys.

But an Icon is much different than a B5, though.

I also think that string choice is 50% of what makes a B-string work. My Smith, for example, had a mediocre B-string with anything but stainless steel strings, in part because the humbucker pickups are dark in nature and they sound better with bright strings.

My Sadowsky 5-24's B-string sounded less than stellar with Sadowsky flatwound strings, but sounded better with TIs, and much better with rounds.

Handyman said:

The B string tension will be exactly the same as any other 34" scale bass using the same strings. Unless someone has changed the laws of physics while I wasn't looking.

Click to expand...

That's not always the case. Not all basses are made with the same rigidity. Woods have different densities, and neck joints have different designs and rigidities. That seems to affect string tension.

Is there a more scientific explanation, I wonder.

I have two 4-string Fender basses strung with exactly the same string brand and gauge, and one always has more tension. And I've experienced this on other basses as well.

the one i played was medium tight.

lefty007 said:

That's not always the case. Not all basses are made with the same rigidity. Woods have different densities, and neck joints have different designs and rigidities. That seems to affect string tension.

Is there a more scientific explanation, I wonder.

I have two 4-string Fender basses strung with exactly the same string brand and gauge, and one always has more tension. And I've experienced this on other basses as well.

Click to expand...

Right. I think that IS the "scientific explanation". For example my Fender Deluxe V has just sort of an average B string. Not killer but passable. And it's heavy and the neck is reasonably thick. My Modulus 35" scale has a B to die for. But then it's 35" and a carbon fiber neck. Some people assume you have to have a 35" scale to get a tight B (by physics they are thinking, I'm sure) but my Ken Smith is 34" with a wood neck and also has a B string to die for! My Alembic 34" has a B to die for, as well. So how does physics explain that? Basically I don't think it can. Which is why building exceptional instruments is an art not a science.

I haven't played an Icon or any recent Carvins, so I can't really add to the debate.

In regards to rigidity, I've heard that in slow motion, the neck will flex, which causes some of the flop sound. A higher headstock pitch will also hold the open position tighter in the nut and an angled bridge or higher witness point at the bridge can help in overall tone.

I will add that there are basses out there with a tight enough low B that you shouldn't have to alter your technique for just one string.

Thicker core strings can help add tension in the same gauge, but at a certain point, linear density tends to add more overtones sooner on the fingerboard. With the right string and great construction, the low B is very articulate to about the 12th fret or more.

MysticMichael said:

I get what you're saying. I generally play with quite a light touch as well, and have relatively good technique - if I do say so myself.

On the other hand, since I already have pretty good technique, I don't wish to invest in an instrument that forces me to further constrain my technique in any way - I want it to accommodate my technique. For example, there may be instances when I'll want to dig in right over the neck pickup. If the "B" string won't allow me to do that and still execute cleanly, it's a problem...

MM

Click to expand...

Ya been readin' too many of those boutique advocacy threads.....

There's myth and then there's truth. The myth is obvious. The truth is that virtually any 5 or more string of reasonable quality that fits you (i.e. is ergonomically compatible) is plenty good enough to accomodate a wide variety of techniques and levels of skill on the B string.

Variations in the bass itself are way, way down in the noise of variations of other things like the strings, electronics, skill level and technique. Those are going to make far, far more of a difference in how the B sounds, and all the other strings for that matter.

Unless the bass is really awful - flexy or truly horrible hardware/wood, or some kind of oddball design - it'll accommodate you and practically everyone else just fine.

The Carvin is WAY, WAY above any level of crappiness that could ever affect the B's sound and feel such that you'd ever have to work around it. The B on my bunny is fat, solid and gets monstrous when I dig in just like the other 5 strings on it. Feels fine, plays fine, sounds fine.

But so is the B on my L2500 and the B's that have been on all my other basses with B strings on them.

Again other things are going to make far more of a difference, such as the strings, sometimes the pickups and preamp and your technique. On my bunny I put on a set of TI jazz flats and they've really made it come alive. It had the original carvin flats on it which were way too high tension and weakened the sound a lot, particularly on the A and D strings. The TIJF's, tho, are very low tension and give a remarkable bark to the tone without hardly even having to dig in at all. I was able to loosen the truss rod almost 3/4 of a turn over where it was with the carvin strings, which makes me sleep a little easier too.

As for the Carvin bass in particular, all the designs are exceedingly standard (but with some nice additions like the balance of the bunny brunel series and a positively weird appearance with the SB signature). Standard scale lengths, string widths, hardware, neck designs, body designs, pickup/electronics designs, woods available, construction methods, etc. You just simply can NOT go wrong with any of the carvin designs because there's simply nothing oddball about them. And you get this simply fabulously made bass for a steal of a price to go along with.
I've had my bunny for about a month now and simply cannot find anything wrong with it. That's never happened with any instrument I've ever picked up and played for a while, boutique, El Cheepo and everything in between. Usually within a few hours to a few days there's something, either little or major. With my bunny there's simply been nothing that I can find to criticize on it.
Maybe really anal stuff like I wish the face of the humbucker were radiused rather than flat on top. But I have to really work to come up with stuff like that.......

LS

bassbenj said:

Right. I think that IS the "scientific explanation". For example my Fender Deluxe V has just sort of an average B string. Not killer but passable. And it's heavy and the neck is reasonably thick. My Modulus 35" scale has a B to die for. But then it's 35" and a carbon fiber neck. Some people assume you have to have a 35" scale to get a tight B (by physics they are thinking, I'm sure) but my Ken Smith is 34" with a wood neck and also has a B string to die for! My Alembic 34" has a B to die for, as well. So how does physics explain that? Basically I don't think it can. Which is why building exceptional instruments is an art not a science.

Click to expand...

Well the difference _has_ to manifest itself somehow, otherwise you're just invoking magic or miracles or something .

A lot of the art involved, probably the major part, is getting the right fit of the bass to the player. This has the biggest affect on the sound.

For example, over the years I've discovered I need the bridge PU (or the only PU if there's only one) in a particular place. Generally the sweet spot for me is where the humbucker is on my carvin - about 2.5 to 3" from the bridge saddles to center of the pickup. On the Carvin this is about 3", on my G&L's this is about 2.5". Both are in an acceptable spot.

In fact, this is such a sensitive fit issue for me that there is an audible difference in my sound and playing if the bridge PU is located anywhere else (i.e. my gibson tobias which has the PU way too close to the bridge). I just can't get used to it if the PU isn't in this location.
This is why I can't play Fender Precisions to escape out of a paper bag. No matter what other good qualities it may have, the PU location just screws me up.

My point is, that for me, this ergonomic goes WAY WAY beyond any subtlety like the type of wood used in the neck or the headstock design or etc. It's not the best example because it's both art and craft involved in this for me, but it illustrates what's important for me in an instrument and what isn't.

Going back to the Carvin, this was one of the design elements that went on the list when it came to choosing the bunny. The bridge PU looked like it was in the right spot (and when I got it it turned out to be ideally located). Same with my G&L's. The bridge PU is in an acceptable spot on both of those.
The Icon, BTW, looks like the bridge PU is a little too close to the bridge for me, which is one of the reasons I didn't go with it. But it probably is ok for any number of other players...

LS

"unacceptably floppy for my taste" This is why you should only play 4 string basses.

I have 3 Carvin basses, soon to be 4. They are nothing but quality (all are 4 stringer). So, I can't see why their Bs on 34" are looser than others with the same scale. Just use higher tension strings.

MysticMichael said:

Big bump!

Click to expand...

Not to sound harsh, but if you're unsure and still cautious after these posts, perhaps you should look at something else. Carvin seems to have a pretty generous return policy, but I personally like to feel confident before shelling out the $$.