4-stringed set tuned down, or 5-stringed set tuned up?

That would work, but you could do better. Search for a member here who goes by the name Greenboy and check out his spreadsheet. Using that in combination with information taken form D'Addario's website for string mass, you can come up with the perfect string gauges for your tuning. I learned a lot in this thread last month: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=334090

I did just that. I tune to C# (well, G#, but I play a 5 string, if I were playing on a 4 it would start at C#) so we're not too far off. My perfect gauges wound up being 50-65-85-120-165. To accomplish that I put together my own 4 string set of Ken Smith strings from Juststrings.com and it cost me under $30, then I ordered the SIT/Conklin .165 from another site. I have a very even tension in the mid 30's all across my board.

In a few months, I won't have to worry about this nonsense because I'll have my Quake ( http://www.knuckleguitarworks.com/ ), but for now crazy string gauges will have to do. Good luck!

 

if i were you i would buy string singles and buy specific gauges...

 

My suggestion; assuming D'Addario ProSteels (as these guys are the only company with such stats on their products) contemporary E set:

E - .100 @ 34.4 lbs
A - .080 @ 40.5 lbs
D - .065 @ 47.3 lbs
G - .045 @ 41.9 lbs

If you bring the tension of the E up and the tension of the D down (as one ought to) a comparable/ideal CGCF(CFA#D#) set would be as follows:

C - .130 @ 35.5 lbs
G - .085 @ 35.6 lbs (F - .090 @ 37 lbs)
C - .065 @ 37.6 lbs (A# - .075 @ 38 lbs)
F - .050 @ 38.9 lbs (D# - .055 @ 41 lbs)

You start getting tonal shifts as you near .130 and beyond as most string makers start using 4 wraps at that point - and as a point of reference, a well tensioned B string really ought to be in the .140 to .145 range, with its E counterpart around .105

 

Going back over my numbers, I probably should have gone with 50-65-90-120-175...

The 50 is a bit low, but the 55 is way high, it's almost a 14lb. jump. I admittedly don't play a helluva lot on that string anyway, so the neighborhood of 34lbs is fine.

I could have gone with a 70 in place of the 65, that would still keep me under 40lbs, but still significantly higher than my lower strings and I was more concerned with uniformity, for the sake of my neck..

Going with the 85 instead of the 90 was a mistake on my part, I must have misread my sloppy handwritten charts when I placed my order, the 90 was far enough below 40lbs. that uniformity wouldn't have been disturbed much. The 85 at F# checks in at under 32lbs... a little too floppy. Oh well, I f'd up. Like I said, soon I'll have my Knuckle Quake and this crap will be a nuisance of the past

The 120 is perfect. At C# it sits at around 36lbs.

I would have gone with a 175 in lieu of the 165 for my G#, but I couldn't find it readily available. I was lucky enough to find a place a mile away from me that had the 165's in stock. It was a big upgrade over the 130's. 132's and more recently 145's that I'm used to learning to deal with. It'll get me through the waiting period for the Knuckle.

Anyway, Rolle2k I guess my point is, choose wisely now. Do your research adn you'll save yourself alot of aggravation and alot of money.

 

The primary reason for a balanced set is to even out technique - you can go to a higher tension on the treble side if you want, but you'll have to play those strings a might differently than the looser ones. You aren't picking up much if anything more tonally by going tighter on the high side.

I suggest keeping your choices within a couple of pounds of one another - hovering between 35 and 40 pounds is a decent rule of thumb. If you really feel like it is important then get gradually tighter as you go high by only a pound or two per string - that will keep the difference in tension between low and high strings reasonable.

Your bass' neck will thank you...

 

My Chromes:

F - .050 - 43.6lbs
C - .075 - 51.5lbs
G - .095 - 49.8lbs
C - .132 - 40.2lbs

Standard tuning w/Chromes:

G - .045 - 45.7lbs
D - .065 - 52.0lbs
A - .085 - 50.2lbs
E - .105 - 41.5lbs

 

Flatwounds are inherently higher tension - not at all a bad thing IMO.

A ten pound sway from one string to the next, especially on a round wound string, is more than I personally care for.

 

Without putting in the numbers, I'd suggest changing that 75 to a 70 and changing that 125 to a 128. That would likely give you a uniform tension across the board in the neighborhood of 40lbs., or just under. I'll punch the numbers in later to confirm that.

 

The only real offender in that set is the .065 - if it were dropped to a .060 I bet it would be a pretty sweet set.

I personally like my strings tight and hover just above 40 if I can, and often flats are well above 50 pounds. More important to me is that a set is balanced so that similar technique can be used from string to string, with similar tonal and amplitude charachteristics.

I wish I had advice for a European string source....

Skip

 

I have a client (www.aroarah.com) that drop tunes her 4-string bass to C#.

The solution was GHS Boomers in Heavy grade. This restored the lost tension, and I am able to use the neck in the same truss rod position as standard strings at standard tuning.

I did a complete setup on her bass, and it runs great with the Heavy Boomers. She prefers NPS over SS or pure Nickel, so the Boomers worked perfect for her. These are the heaviest 4-string set I could find.

 

I can see where the GHS_5M-DYB Boomers would be pretty good on a 4 string if you drop the .105 - good call mr gavin.

Singles are about the only way to dial it in precisely as the big boys haven't figured this stuff out yet.

 

Chelsea drops one of her LTDs to C# G# C# F# tuning on a permanent basis. This bass is always tuned this way, so I wanted to optimize it for this tuning.

The H3045 heavy gauge set is 50, 70, 95, 115 and she says it works great for her needs. She is a very aggressive player and dominates that bass, so avoiding fret buzz is a must. With standard Nickel Lo-Riders, I had to set the action too high to avoid buzzing. With the thicker cables, I use stock neck relief and stock action height.

 

I'm glad it's working for her - the tensions are a bit inconsistent though. The set you stipulate to runs ballpark like this;

C# - 34 pounds
G# - 55 pounds
C# - 54 pounds
F# - 48 pounds

What you generally want to see is the highest tension on the thinnest string, but not by alot. A 20 pound sway from one string to the next is a bit extreme IMO.

If you get the opportunity to do it again a better ballpark relationship might be;

C# - .125 @ 40 pounds/.130 @ 43 pounds/.135 @ 45 pounds
G# - .090 @ 48 pounds
C# - .065 @ 45.5 pounds
F# - .050 @ 48 pounds

 

I prefer mine tighter than mid thirties as well, but in my current situation, I'm compromising. The guy I got the .165 from also had a .194, which would have given me a very tight G#, and I could have based the rest of my set on that. Probably could have gone 194-130-95-70-55, which would have given me tension in the low to mid 40's across the board, which would truly be ideal for me but I'm compromising for a reason.

Using a 194 and a 130 in the traditional "B" and "E" string positions would require me to modify the nut on my bass to the point at which going back to so called normal strings would require a new nut. Not a big deal, I'm quite capable of doing it and switching it back and it is certainly worth it... usually.

I have a Knuckle Quake on order. Hopefully I will have it in a few months or so. I can live with the tension I'm getting at G#-C#-F#-B-E with 165-120-85-65-50 during that time. The trade off of some tension versus not having to mod the nut on my Music Man now and then having to replace it in the fall seems to be worth it. Especially since I've been playing on much lower tension for most of the last 2 years. What I have now is a step up, when the Quake arrives, I'll be ready for the real tension.

Thanks for the link to the Dark Lord stuff, but after using the 165, I don't think I would ever try anything heavier. Although everything I've tried below the 165 was just too floppy to play, there is sonic articulation that is obviously lost in the massiveness of the 165. Detuning on a standard bass, unfortunately comes with it's compromises no matter what you do. Go up in gauge to regain tension and you're going to lose tone. It's just a question of what is more important. For me, at this point, I'm playing mostly live so my ability to play and play hard outweighs the sonic differences. If I go into a studio to record before I get my Quake, I may try to find a string somewhere between a 145 and a 165, to maintain some tension, but regain some lost sound.

The only real solution is increasing scale length, and no, I don't mean switching to a 35" scale bass

 

The next step up is cutting the nut for a .125 or .130 string, and buying custom sets. This gets pricey in a hurry, as most B strings are $10 to $12 as a single. Another alternative is using the 5L-DYB 5-string light set 120, 95, 75, 55 with a recut nut. I have not calculated this set tension for her drop tuning.

Splitting hairs gets expensive. If she gets endorsed by GHS, perhaps they will build the Chelsea set just for drop tuners. That hasn't happened yet, so I do what I can using factory string sets.