• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

F# string tension/playability?

#21
Bass Thunder said:
I like the Warwick Dark Lords on my MTD with 35" scale. The gauge is .175 F#, and .135 B. They probably won't work on 34" because of the winding may reach into the tuning peg.

They are hard to get, but you can try Mike's Chop Shop on ebay, or special order from your local real music store. Order from Dana B Goods.

I've tried the SIT .165 F# and like the Warwicks better.

If you plan to experiment with extra heavy string gauges you definitely need to keep two different nuts handy - IMHO.

PS - The Dark Lord only comes as a 4-string set, so you may need to add a 5th string as I do, or not.
Click to expand...

Bass Thunder, Why do you like the .175 better than the .165. I'm thinking about trying that guage.
 
#22
Basshole said:
In a manner of speaking yes, I hope they might help answer those questions.

I recall posting a couple of examples - one of runs across strings, as well as real world song use of the F#...so, indeed, provided you can find the posts, they may be of some help to you in answering those questions with real sonic examples.
Click to expand...

cool thanks. I will try to find them.
 
#25
Steelpulz said:
Bass Thunder, Why do you like the .175 better than the .165. I'm thinking about trying that guage.
Click to expand...

I can't say I like .175 vs. .165 gauge straight up because I don't know of any string maker that offers both to test apples with apples. If anyone knows of one, please inform me.

That being said, I do like the Warwicks better than the SIT Power Steels for a couple of subjective and objective reasons:
As has been previously stated, higher gauge and longer string length makes for higher tension. Also as a set, they come with a .135 B string (I think a .110 E ??) and makes for a balanced set to my fingers. I like higher tension on lower strings for sure. To me, higher tension = more articulate at these frequencies. I have not tried .185's yet. I'm happy with the playability of the .175 for now.

The SIT's are designed for 34" scale, but the outer wrap just fits past the nut (actually zero fret/nut in my case).

The SIT's are exposed core and the Warwicks can best be described as a fat hybrid taper core (a standard B string with one more wrap to top it off). Exposed core can have some harmonic artifacts with the overtones (some call it "chorus-ing" - too much overtone, not enough fundamental) and that can be a negative to some, positive to others, non issue to others.

You can order the Warwick .175 as a single string through your RETAILER ONLY from Dana B Goods (Warwick's US wholesale distributor located in beautiful Ventura, CA).

attachment.jpg

Photo from left to right - Warwick .175 / SIT .165 exposed core / Rotosound .130 / Pedulla .128 taper core
Good Luck.
 
#26
Allow me to elaborate a bit more; a .175 tuned to F# will get you to about 33 pounds of tension. A .165 gets you about 29 or 30 pounds. The SIT .195 ought to come in at near 40 pounds.

La Bella had a .185 that sounded and felt perfect - a .185 that wen to roughly 36 or 37 pounds.

For those that are at the the F#, what are your A and D gauges and do you like them?
 
#27
20Hz, here are a couple of threads loaded with info about heavy strings, detuning and lots of Knuckle stuff ;)

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=334090&highlight=knuckle+quake

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=341148&highlight=knuckle+quake

I also play aggressive finger style and absolutely hate floppy strings. I tune my 5th string to G#, but we're relatively in the same neighborhood.

If you're not going to get a Knuckle Quake, then I would suggest at least a .175 for your F#. I use a .165 for my G# and it's barely acceptable. I don't think you'd like it at all for F#.

In all practicality, you were right IMO for originally posting this in the Bass forum, since the real solution to successfully reaching F# lies in the construction of the bass. A string will get you partway there, but no string in the world on a standard scale bass is going to give you what you really want.

I'll quote Skip: "The longer the scale length of the instrument the thinner the strings can be, and the greater tonal range the strings will produce." ...from his website.

I played Skip's Quake for a while and mine should be arriving soon. I can promise that you'll be happy with what you get out of one of his basses.
 
#29
Actually, with some different gauge tapering, I was able to make up an experimental set that plays well, and is pretty even to the touch, with the bass properly adjusted for them. I use, are you ready? Only a .155 F#...on what I think is just a 34" scale.

See if you can track down the samples I put up. The strings aren't terribly flaccid, and moreover my string-to-string gauge curve makes it actually pretty even across the board with the proper setup.

The problem with moving to too large a gauge is that the string becomes less flexible, and produces less upper harmonics, thus hampering note intelligibility, already at a premium.

Diminishing returns...so it's still a moving target, up for grabs. Different things have worked for different people. Experiment.
 
#30
Basshole said:
The problem with moving to too large a gauge is that the string becomes less flexible, and produces less upper harmonics, thus hampering note intelligibility, already at a premium.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why getting thicker strings to go lower is compromising. The right way to get down there is to increase scale length.

I'm not surprised that you are satisfied with a .155 at F#. I used anything from a .130 through a .145 at G# for quite a long time. I wasn't satisfied, by any stretch, but it worked. Once Ilearned about string tension and how to calculate it, I went about finding myself a heavier string and also got the rest of my set balanced.

Have you tried anything heavier than the .155?
 
#31
Bass Below said:
Exactly. Which is why getting thicker strings to go lower is compromising. The right way to get down there is to increase scale length.

I'm not surprised that you are satisfied with a .155 at F#. I used anything from a .130 through a .145 at G# for quite a long time. I wasn't satisfied, by any stretch, but it worked. Once Ilearned about string tension and how to calculate it, I went about finding myself a heavier string and also got the rest of my set balanced.

Have you tried anything heavier than the .155?
Click to expand...

I have to say that I liked the response, and was so surprised at the control I still had at .155 with the particular bass I have set up that way, that I've hesitated to "break it".

I'm interested to try both a .155 and .165 F# on the same axe, and see how much the compromises change.

Knowing what I know about instruments, I also know that different instruments sometimes "like" different string sets. I have a Conklin 7 that I haven't tried stringing low (sub-contra F#) yet. Some basses might need the thicker string, depending on the resonances of that particular instrument.

Something tells me the Wenge/Purple Heart-necked Conklin will need the added mass of a thicker low string to "sound off" effectively and find its voice down low.
 
#33
so I just picked up a set of Ken Smith Compressors, (medium) with a .125 B to replace the set I have on my bass now and I ran them through greenboy's calculator using d'addario's info and I get the following

B 31.34
E 40.30
A 48.4
D 51.3

I'm thinking thats a pretty big swing B-A and over the 4 strings, no? The thing I don't get is that Smith only offers a 125 B in compressors, as far as I can tell. Could the compressors have significantly different unit weight compared to D'addario? I'm kind of thinking of returning these and trying again.. I really don't like floppy B strings and it seems like 31 pounds isn't going to make me happy... what do you tension gurus think?
 
#34
If you want a balanced set with Smith Compressors on a Five or more using the taperwound .125 you have to go with the lightest gauges above: 40-58-76-96. Those are still going to have more mass than similar gauges in roundwound due to their wrap wire profile. Side benefit for those who want the smoother feel without losing so much upper content is that they are not as thuddy and sustain better than the thicker Compressors. If you are used to playing .50 flatwound sets it'll take a little time for your technique on lighter strings to let's say, "stabilize" ; } - but because the tensions are relatively balanced this should not be that tough.
 
#35
The most conventional solution would be a 35 scale with the SIT .195 tuned to F#, it should give you tension close to that I tuned that thing to an E and because the string is so heavy it can feel a little funny to play. The real issue I've found with strings this big and tunings this low is that if you play the string too hard and too fast you interfere with the vibrations and effect how the string vibrates cause the volume to swell. However that can be avoided with a light touch. Right now my .195 is tuned to C# and my Ashdown 115 Mag does a great job of reproducing the 17hz, even when I use my pos phone as a recoding device.
 
#36
greenboy said:
If you want a balanced set with Smith Compressors on a Five or more using the taperwound .125 you have to go with the lightest gauges above: 40-58-76-96. Those are still going to have more mass than similar gauges in roundwound due to their wrap wire profile. Side benefit for those who want the smoother feel without losing so much upper content is that they are not as thuddy and sustain better than the thicker Compressors. If you are used to playing .50 flatwound sets it'll take a little time for your technique on lighter strings to let's say, "stabilize" ; } - but because the tensions are relatively balanced this should not be that tough.
Click to expand...

so if I understand you correctly if I get the lightest set for EAD portion (96,76,58) that will fix the inbalance between the set, but the tension on the B will still be really low, no? Or does the increased relative mass of the compressors compared to other roundwounds make up for that? I'm just concerned that a 31lb tensioned B is not going to work for me, as I play agressive finger style, and with a pick sometimes..
 
#38
20Hz said:
so if I understand you correctly if I get the lightest set for EAD portion (96,76,58) that will fix the inbalance between the set, but the tension on the B will still be really low, no? Or does the increased relative mass of the compressors compared to other roundwounds make up for that? I'm just concerned that a 31lb tensioned B is not going to work for me, as I play agressive finger style, and with a pick sometimes..
Click to expand...

1) The Smith Compressor .125 tension is higher than that ROUNDWOUND figure because the oval and compressed wrap wires give it more mass, as I mentioned earlier

2) What makes a B string often seem flabby is because it's put into sets where all the strings have considerably higher tension. Then, you get used to hitting all those strings harder and of course the B then gets hit harder too by habit, and it can't help but seem "odd man out." But if you get the tensions of the other strings down near the B strings' tension, then your technique will begin to accomodate them all and they will roughly react as equals - and that B string won't feel rubbery any more.

There's an advantage to doing this instead of trying to heavy up the B string instead. Why? Because as you get up into fatter strings for lower pitches they lose so much flexibility that they don't intonate as well, don't reproduce the harmonic series as well and thus sound dull after the inital transient (duller sustain), and just don't seem to have the same dynamic.

But where that threshold of average tension per string is of course might vary a bit from person to person of course ; }
 
#39
Seems like you guys are figuring it out.

You are correct in your assumptions that lightening the upper strings to match tension is the way to go...this way, you can taper the setup slightly higher on the bass side, to compensate, but you must keep your technique in check to play lighter.

It's still a better compromise because of the diminishing returns on upper harmonics with the thicker subcontra strings.
 
#40
Just to keep everyone from going batstuff insane on the speculations - general rule of thumb is to keep the relationship to the following; plus fifteen pounds from G to D (40-55..), plus fifteen pounds from D to A (40-55-70..), plus twentyfive or thirty pounds to E (40-55-70-95/100) and most preferrably another thirty pounds to the B (40-55-70-95-130). That gives you the most uniform possible string-tension with commercially available strings. Then you can add or subtract another .005 inches, depending on your preferance, to all the gauges, i.e 35-50-65-90-125 or 45-60-80-105-135, and still keep a nice balanced string-tension to go.
How this transfers onto low tunings, I still don't know. If I were to use a .175 on the bottom for F#, I'd probably go with the 40-set.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back