Do you lose tone with a lighter gauge?

[Bass-desires]

Hahaha! That is how I feel some days on bass.

I have found that starting with an instrument that is difficult to play pretty much dooms the whole thing from the start. I started with an old squire P-bass that was heavy, hard to play, and initially killed the dream for a year before I picked up my ibenez.

I guess it just goes back to the thought that if its uncomfortable to play, don't do it.

I am ok with my mid-gauge strings for now, I want to try lights and as you all said, "Hear for myself."

Anyone have a waveform schematic of the notes with the different gauge strings might be able to quantify this.

 

[Rockin Mike]

There are lots of ways to adjust tone. Amps, pedals, onboard preamps and pickups, whether you play closer to the bridge or the neck...

Thinner strings will "pitch dive" more than heavy strings, meaning when you pluck them, the pitch will start off sharper and then go flatter as the vibration settles down. This effect is more pronounced the harder you hit the strings, and might be what you want for some styles. This is one of the causes of the much-talked-about "weak B string" on many 5-string basses. Another factor is that the fundamental frequency of the low B is at the threshold of what most people can hear so more mids and harmonics are needed to liven it up.

The only way to adjust pitch dive is with thicker strings or a longer scale bass. New strings tend to be cheaper than new basses.

Thinner strings will have more upper mids and trebles, thicker strings will have more fundamental. Get a couple of sets and see for yourself.

My choice is to run a Circle-K "balanced" set with a .142 low B on a 35" scale bass. Sounds tight like a piano wire. I use good electronics to bring out the mids and highs. Sounds amazing.

One thing I notice is with the heavier (tighter) B string I can play way high on the neck, right up on the fretboard, and it doesn't get mushy. I can get a real deep almost double-bass sound that way.

I had to work out with a grip strengthener to handle that .142, but then I had quit playing for 15 years and my hands were out of shape anyway.

I wish I could afford a Knuckle bass for the longer scale. I think I could get a better sound out of thinner strings with that longer scale and still avoid the pitch dive.

I can't say enough good things about the Circle-K strings. They kicked Rotosounds off my main axe.

Check out Knuckle's website, they have some neat articles about the interactions of string length and dimensions.

Link Removed

 

[Jay2U]

You lost me on that. Typical gauges from D'Addario range from about 35-60 lbs of tension per string.

You are completely right!!! It's always a pain in the ... to calculate lbs from kilograms. I did it the wrong way round. I should have written: 30 to 55 lbs, which reasonably falls in the same range. Sorry, I'll try to remember that it's only about 450 gramms per pound.

 

[Jay2U]

On my standard basses (none sub contra) my gauges are.


B .110
E .080
A .060
D .040
G .030
C .025

On my 8 string(single course) I add.

F .017
Bb .015

The standard strings on my 15 string are.

E .080
A .060
D .040
G .030
C .025

This is interesting. In my experience thinner strings tend to rattle a little easier. Maybe I compared different makes. As far as I know it is not easy to find suitable thin flatwounds, let's say starting at 0.03 or 0.035. Maybe a set for a six-string could do the job, but then two of them will never be used.

 

[JimmyM]

Anyone have a waveform schematic of the notes with the different gauge strings might be able to quantify this.

Nope, they won't. The way you play is way more important than the strings you use, and especially when you're going from one gauge to another, there is no real way to actually duplicate every little thing you do on bass with any reasonable degree of accuracy for it to be interpreted with a waveform.

 

[MarkA]

...The frequency produced is a matter of mass, length and tension. Within the concept of an average long scale bass, I would say that a tension from 12 kg (6.5 lbs) to 25 kg (13 lbs) might be about the range.

Your conversion went awry somewhere. 1 kg =~2.2 lbs, so 12 kg to 25 kg is roughly equivalent to 26 lbs to 55 lbs.

I thought for a moment you might be trying kilometers to miles, but that didn't work, either.

 

[MarkA]

You are completely right!!! It's always a pain in the ... to calculate lbs from kilograms. I did it the wrong way round. I should have written: 30 to 55 lbs, which reasonably falls in the same range. Sorry, I'll try to remember that it's only about 450 gramms per pound.

Sorry, missed this. And just when I was feeling clever.

 

[fingerbun]

My upright has very low action. I fight it just as little as I absolutely have to.

Sure. But how low you can get it will be different for amplified pizz playing vs unamplified arco.

My pizz upright has rather lower action than my arco bass.

 

[JimmyM]

Sure. But how low you can get it will be different for amplified pizz playing vs unamplified arco.

My pizz upright has rather lower action than my arco bass.

You are obviously more of a man than me, as when I play arco, it sounds like a cat getting eaten by a bigger cat.

 

[Mushroo]

Not better or worse tone, just different.

Personally I get massive, fat low-end with light/medium-light strings. But maybe that is just my touch. Enough players have gotten awesome tones from heavy strings that I respect their approach too.

 

[fingerbun]

You are obviously more of a man than me, as when I play arco, it sounds like a cat getting eaten by a bigger cat.

Ah, but you lug an Ampeg. Outright winner in any test of musical muscle!

 

[Mystic Michael]

The counter point....

My double bass teacher says "The bass is a beast. It's not like violins where you can be all dainty, you need to conquer it with strength." In his late 70s, he still has hands so strong he could get part time work as a woodworking vice. And this is a man who has shared the stage with the likes of Sir Neville Mariner, Sir Adrian Boult and Benjamin Britten. His opinion is worth something. The more I learn, the more I agree with him.

Definitely true on double bass. Also, imo, true on electric.

I appreciate your input here. And I would agree: The double bass certainly is a beast. It's just one of several reasons why I don't care to play one.

That said, it's also quite a different beast from the electric bass. There's only so much you can extrapolate from the acoustic upright to the electric bass guitar - aside from the basic category (i.e. stringed instrument), the tuning (EADG), and the musical function. The raw physicality of the double bass is one of the least things it has in common with the electric...

MM

 

[fingerbun]

I appreciate your input here. And I would agree: The double bass certainly is a beast. It's just one of several reasons why I don't care to play one.

That said, it's also quite a different beast from the electric bass. There's only so much you can extrapolate from the acoustic upright to the electric bass guitar - aside from the basic category (i.e. stringed instrument), the tuning (EADG), and the musical function. The raw physicality of the double bass is one of the least things it has in common with the electric...

MM

I agree with you, they are very different instruments....a fact I didn't appreciate until I bought my first upright.

That said, one thing the upright and electric have in common is the method of sound generation - a string vibrating. Change the gauge on the string or the distance from the string to the fingerboard, and it will affect the way the string sounds.

The difference is that with the acoustic upright you can't use electronics to compensate.

Lots of players who are much better than me play with light strings, and low action. It can certainly be done. But I reckon I can get a thicker sound at higher volume if I set the bass up so I have to work a bit harder. That's what I want, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to want it.

 

[knuckle_head]

. . . (t)he difference is that with the acoustic upright you can't use electronics to compensate.

There really is no need to compensate - if you are there's something wrong some place.

 

[Toptube]

I like lighter gauge strings for a few reasons:

they are easier to play.

They tend to growl harder. I think the lighter gauge combined with less material just makes it easier to get them moving, get them growling. When people dig in and play hard with heavy guage strings for a certain sound, I find that sound is easier to achieve on lighter strings. it inherently is there sound. The pitch dive that has been talked about goes along with this.

I love rotos. I LOVE lighter gauge rotos.

 

[fingerbun]

There really is no need to compensate - if you are there's something wrong some place.

Hi, it's been a long day and my brain is fried, but I don't follow your point? Could you explain please?

 

[knuckle_head]

Hi, it's been a long day and my brain is fried, but I don't follow your point? Could you explain please?

Thinking farther than the point at hand - and it's a big kettle o' fish.

There are alot of compromises in the electric bass guitar as we know it and it would be great to have a discussion to air them, but lighter gauge strings is the topic at hand. I'd rather not detract from this topic as its valid and important.

 

[fingerbun]

Thinking farther than the point at hand - and it's a big kettle o' fish.

There are alot of compromises in the electric bass guitar as we know it and it would be great to have a discussion to air them, but lighter gauge strings is the topic at hand. I'd rather not detract from this topic as its valid and important.

Fair enough.

The point I had been making is that lighter strings will change the sound. On an acoustic instrument you have to live with it, on an electric you can adjust EQ to compensate.

With the caveat that I don't think I get your point, I still think my original statement is right.

 

[knuckle_head]

Fair enough.

The point I had been making is that lighter strings will change the sound. On an acoustic instrument you have to live with it, on an electric you can adjust EQ to compensate.

Ah - I get you. Although, string to string, the tonal differences will be inconsistent. A universal EQ fix may not be adequate.

Can't help it - it's the nerd in me.

 

[fingerbun]

Ah - I get you. Although, string to string, the tonal differences will be inconsistent. A universal EQ fix may not be adequate.

Can't help it - it's the nerd in me.

Not nerdy at all, totally right.

Upright was where i first came across the notion of mixing strings to try and construct a perfect set for that particular bass. So you might use, I dunno a Thomastik on the E, a Pirastro on the A, and so on. Me I'm too lazy. Four Helicore Hybrids in a pack....yeah, that'll do.

I have read of people doing the same on electric basses in studios. When I think about it, one of the things I like is the way a note sounds different played on different strings...gives me another option for tonal colour, and makes the sound interesting. But yes, it's also a limitation in another sense.

But it does raise the point to the OP that it's fine to start with a set of lighter gauge strings, but if for example the E, A and D sound good but G doesn't, mixing and matching is an option.