General sound differences between 4-string and 5-string basses

[KJung]

People may or may not hear a difference. Sometimes I think I do, other times I don't. It may be in my head. I've had a lot of basses over the years, and there is something unique in the sound of each of them.

This would definitely be true... EVERY bass sounds different, even ones that are spec'd exactly the same.

My guess is, those who hear a 'big' difference between the E string on a 4 string versus a 5 string are not taking this fact into consideration. It's amazing, for example, that when I had the opportunity to play a dozen or so identically spec'd Sadowsky Metro 5 nad 4 string basses (known for tonal consistency), that all the strings sounded a bit different on each one. Two pieces of wood, much less multiple pieces of wood glued and bolted together, will have quite an impact on the tone and response of a bass.

Attributing differences to the 'most visible' visual cue is called the 'vividness phenomenon' in my day gig business, and it is very common (e.g., this bass has a BadAss bridge and this other one that looks the same doesn't, and I like the one with the BadAss better, hence, I like basses with BadAss bridges)

Now, will a given PLAYER sound different on a 4 or a 5 string... of course. I can totally understand a producer or engineer wanting a four string bass if the 5th string will not be used, since many players (even very good ones) have trouble keeping the B string muted. This is a minor thing live (unless the player totally sucks), but a HUGE thing when laying down a track. Different issue.

 

[KJung]

interesting thread... since I've got my 5 string (and now my six), I'm searching THAT growl in the E strings of 4 stringers, but couldn't find yet.
that doesn't mean that wider neck is better, but may mean that this is my sound.
I hope, once I can build a 4 string bass with THAT sound.

(no, it's not a pickup thing for me, I can absolutely hear it acoustically.
same strings, etc)

See post above. Why would you think that the number of strings is the primary driver in the tone difference you are hearing? Different basses sound different for a huge number of reasons, even if they are spec'd similarly. If they aren't spec'd similarly (i.e., if you are comparing different brands or build specs of these basses), then there is no way to isolate the cause of the differences you are hearing.

 

[harrybosch]

I still say there is a difference and nothing will change my mind. I hear it in all brands of basses. When I play one brand of bass and play a 4 string, then a 5, and then a 6 the tone gets thinner everytime a string is added. And no amount of EQ can bring the tone of a 6 back to the sound of a four. I've experienced this without exception. No big deal. It can be a good thing.

 

[spade2you]

When I play one brand of bass and play a 4 string, then a 5, and then a 6 the tone gets thinner everytime a string is added.

Ok, I'll call it. Which bass make and manufacturer have you tried 4, 5, and 6 strings in almost identical configurations?

 

[ZolkoW]

See post above. Why would you think that the number of strings is the primary driver in the tone difference you are hearing? Different basses sound different for a huge number of reasons, even if they are spec'd similarly. If they aren't spec'd similarly (i.e., if you are comparing different brands or build specs of these basses), then there is no way to isolate the cause of the differences you are hearing.

I didn't say it's because of the count of the strings.
I'm not sure why this is happening, but I _NEVER_ found a 4 string bass sounding as good (good for me, of course) as my 5.
I'm still trying.
I'm going to try different woods, constructions, maybe scale lenghts, etc.
I just want THAT sound, and this quite clearly separates the instuments into two categories: LIKE - NOT LIKE

maybe not a big deal on stage.
but if I'm practicing, it bothers me. actually it bothers me on stage, too

the funny is, that I can hear the opposite of some others say.
I dont think that I'm necessary right, that's just a similar thing as some consider Elixirs as bright strings, but I'm not

 

[KJung]

I didn't say it's because of the count of the strings.
I'm not sure why this is happening, but I _NEVER_ found a 4 string bass sounding as good (good for me, of course) as my 5.
I'm still trying.
I'm going to try different woods, constructions, maybe scale lenghts, etc.
I just want THAT sound, and this quite clearly separates the instuments into two categories: LIKE - NOT LIKE

maybe not a big deal on stage.
but if I'm practicing, it bothers me. actually it bothers me on stage, too

the funny is, that I can hear the opposite of some others say.
I dont think that I'm necessary right, that's just a similar thing as some consider Elixirs as bright strings, but I'm not

+1 I too have a bass that sounds better to me than any other bass I've ever owned, and it happens to be a 5 string. It's all about how the many, many parts of a bass fit together... dozens of multiway interactions that can make even virtually identical basses sound quite different.

I had two Celinder Update 5's... same identical spec, approximately the same weight, same strings, same player same amp, and they were 'night and day' different, with one being a bit more growly and punchy, and the other having a HUGE low end and a bit of a scoop with massive sizzle. Go figure! I guess I could attribute it to the fact that one was blue and one was natural in color

 

[tommixx]

So you're telling me that with all of these extremely similar basses that I'm also wrong? The problem with this debate is that most 4 to 5 string comparisons have several other variables. These basses had about 1-2 variables apart and the E was consistent across the board. There were some tonal differences between basses. Besides, I also have some 5-6 string basses where the E also sounds the same despite even more neck/mass/voodoo.

Not at all...I thought what I said was very clear...You have the right to your opinion but so do I. Your original post said the difference was "minimal at best". That is not MY experience as a recording engineer or bassist. You quoted me so I assumed that you were speaking to me and I merely responded. I am not trying to be argumentative. I am merely stating MY experience that is all. I don't need anyone to suggest that my experience is whatever THEY want it to be...seems to happen a lot around here unfortunately. People find it all too easy to just dismiss real, practical experience if it does not go along with their own opinions. I just refuse to go along quietly with it that is all....



Peace,

T

 

[tommixx]

This would definitely be true... EVERY bass sounds different, even ones that are spec'd exactly the same.

My guess is, those who hear a 'big' difference between the E string on a 4 string versus a 5 string are not taking this fact into consideration. It's amazing, for example, that when I had the opportunity to play a dozen or so identically spec'd Sadowsky Metro 5 nad 4 string basses (known for tonal consistency), that all the strings sounded a bit different on each one. Two pieces of wood, much less multiple pieces of wood glued and bolted together, will have quite an impact on the tone and response of a bass.

Attributing differences to the 'most visible' visual cue is called the 'vividness phenomenon' in my day gig business, and it is very common (e.g., this bass has a BadAss bridge and this other one that looks the same doesn't, and I like the one with the BadAss better, hence, I like basses with BadAss bridges)

Now, will a given PLAYER sound different on a 4 or a 5 string... of course. I can totally understand a producer or engineer wanting a four string bass if the 5th string will not be used, since many players (even very good ones) have trouble keeping the B string muted. This is a minor thing live (unless the player totally sucks), but a HUGE thing when laying down a track. Different issue.

What I am referring is NOT just the E string. If someone got that impression then that was not my intent. I am simply stating that there is a difference in the way a 4 string and a 5 string of similar configurations sound and track. Tom Dowd was NOT talking about muting technique nor did I mean to infer that either. I am not sure how that came across but he thought that the 4 string sounded better to tape. It had nothing to do with technique at all but the sound itself. Sorry I was not clear....Like I said before I guess we will all just have to agree to disagree....

Peace,

T

 

[spade2you]

Not at all...I thought what I said was very clear...You have the right to your opinion but so do I. Your original post said the difference was "minimal at best". That is not MY experience as a recording engineer or bassist. You quoted me so I assumed that you were speaking to me and I merely responded. I am not trying to be argumentative. I am merely stating MY experience that is all. I don't need anyone to suggest that my experience is whatever THEY want it to be...seems to happen a lot around here unfortunately. People find it all too easy to just dismiss real, practical experience if it does not go along with their own opinions. I just refuse to go along quietly with it that is all....



Peace,

T

It is also my experience that musicians are not very scientific, unbiased, or objective. To be honest, most is dogmatic jargon to justify that even though a 5 or 6 string still has the main 4 strings that somehow they're justified to be not as good.

In a blind taste test with near identical basses, the differences will not be noticed unless it gets played or engineered differently. ....and yes, I did this several years back when I was in a recording project.

As I stated before, unless anyone has played near identical 4, 5, and 6 string basses, it's just the usual TB opinions with minimal facts or backing, usually more bias than anything else.

 

[svtb15]

+1

I started to play 5 strings about 1983.. The first thing i noticed at that time was how different 2 similar basses from 4 or 5 sounded..
And things have come a long way since then in 5 string.. Way more 5 strings available from many different manufactures.
At one time i had 27 different 5 strings from Fodera to Alembic, Pedulla, Yamaha, Spectors, Fender clones, Sadowsky etc. ect.
And i had a few of the 4 string versions of the same bass.. not only did the 4 and 5 sound different being recorded they sounded different live too.

Is it the extra mass of the 5 string? more neck wood. more bridge mass. more headstock mass. I have no idea...

But i noticed it way back then and i still do. but i have become used to it now and it is not as noticable since the initial "WHOA that different" moment has passed years ago..

WOW..So it seems like a couple of you guys are saying what? That Paul Turner just doesn't know what he is hearing? For the record, I agree that there IS a difference in 4 and 5 strings. I have played on AND recorded THOUSANDS of tracks with both over the last 30+ years and there is definitely a sonically measurable and quantifiable difference. I suspect that Paul knows EXACTLY what he is hearing as do I. If you choose to disagree then that is great. However, I, for one would certainly appreciate the opportunity (as I am sure Paul would) to offer a different opinion from yours. I had the privilege of working with Tom Dowd on a lot of recordings over the years and he would have to be BEGGED to let someone use a 5 string if they were not going to play the B string at all. When he saw a 5 the first thing he asked was the player going to play ANY notes below an E. If the answer was no he was pretty insistent about NOT using it. He has recorded and played back a number of tracks for bassists who were overly insistent about the fact there was no difference. I know several well respected Studio bassists that started using 4s again after working with him. I am a 4 string player myself but I find that I HAVE to have a 5 for most of the things I am doing now but when I do pick up a 4 there is DEFINITELY a BIG difference to me....Just my $.02

Peace,

T

 

[KJung]

What I am referring is NOT just the E string. If someone got that impression then that was not my intent. I am simply stating that there is a difference in the way a 4 string and a 5 string of similar configurations sound and track. Tom Dowd was NOT talking about muting technique nor did I mean to infer that either. I am not sure how that came across but he thought that the 4 string sounded better to tape. It had nothing to do with technique at all but the sound itself. Sorry I was not clear....Like I said before I guess we will all just have to agree to disagree....

Peace,

T

Interesting discussion. Again, I would have a hard time believing that the average tone of 20 similarly spec'd 4 strings would significantly differ on average from 20 similarly spec'd basses that only differ in the number of strings. However, I do believe ever single one of those 40 basses will sound a touch different.

I do believe, however, that many players DO sound quite different (especially down low) on a 4 string versus 5, due to the different technique and muting requirements of the 5 when playing on the E string.

So, we might be saying the same thing, but attributing the tone differences to different causes.

 

[harrybosch]

Ok, I'll call it. Which bass make and manufacturer have you tried 4, 5, and 6 strings in almost identical configurations?

Ken Smith basses. I played a 4,5 and 6 that all featured mahogany bodies, maple tops and ebony fingerboards. That's just one example. I've played a ton from other manufacturers that mostly included 5 and 6 string comparisons.

I also agree with tommix. I'm not talking about the E string but every string, every note. I've always known there was a difference and it's this difference that has caused me to sell several 6 string basses.

 

[Fuzzbass]

People may or may not hear a difference. Sometimes I think I do, other times I don't. It may be in my head. I've had a lot of basses over the years, and there is something unique in the sound of each of them.

This is very true. I've owned and still own "identical" basses that had noticeably different tones. My favorite example is from Ken Smith, who said he built identical basses cut from the very same planks of wood and they still sounded different.

But to say that basses sound different based on the number of strings alone? That every four sounds better than every five, regardless of every other factor? That is just plain ridiculous. Tom Dowd is a great man, but that doesn't mean he knows everything... and being a big man in the biz he's also extremely influential, which would be as likely to get a studio musician to change his mind as any other factor.

 

[Fuzzbass]

I do believe, however, that many players DO sound quite different (especially down low) on a 4 string versus 5, due to the different technique and muting requirements of the 5 when playing on the E string.

This point can't be stressed enough!

 

[DJ.D.]

Hi! I'm the one who posted the original question. It's funny opinions go so far from each other. My original position was as someone stated here that the sound generally gets "thinner" the more strings you add to a bass. Or, thinner isn't the right expression. I would use the word "slick". The tone get to have less punch and growl. This is of course not true if you compare a 5-string Fender deluxe with a Squire 4-string copy. but the difference is general and has a pattern leaning towards 4-strings having the advantage in punchier tone. I'm not saying I know this but this is my experience so far. And it seems that I'm not alone with having that. There should be individual exeptions to this, because of all the variables playing in for the tone of every bass.

I've been playing for fifteen years. Still young and not that experienced. I have only owned middle class 5-strings (I love the extra lows you can get!). I'm hoping to find a 5-string that can give me the right tone for a more rock'n'roll style sound. Thanks guys (and girls?) for participating in the discussion. Is there anyone here with experience of building basses from scratch? I would think that a constructor should have some insights in the matter.

 

[Bongolation]

Funny you should ask. I have found that, with the basses I've owned or played, that the 4's do indeed seem to have more heft to the tone, which I am at a complete loss to explain.

It actually makes sense if the five has a more massive and rigid neck, which will accentuate a purer fundamental. If the four has a less massive and more resonant neck, it will (all other things being equal) contribute to a "woodier" and more complex tone, particularly with a low-mass bridge.

 

[sonic assassin]

the difference i hear is that i cant find the basses i want in 5 string as easily.

seeing as how i cant play 4 string basses.. id say the 5's sound better in my hands

seriously, ive never really noticed a difference. then again.. i dont really do sub lows much. so if the difference is there, i already EQ'd it out

 

[DJ.D.]

It actually makes sense if the five has a more massive and rigid neck, which will accentuate a purer fundamental. If the four has a less massive and more resonant neck, it will (all other things being equal) contribute to a "woodier" and more complex tone, particularly with a low-mass bridge.

I bongolation think you hit the nail there! It's indeed a more complex and a little bit woodier tone that is the biggest difference! The punchyness may come more from that you are allowed to attack the strings better thanks to wider string spacing and lack of B-string. But the more resonant neck should contribute to that too. It makes sense!

If this is the case my next question would be what kind of neck is the most resonant but still being rigid enough to hold for climate changes?

 

[KJung]

I bongolation think you hit the nail there! It's indeed a more complex and a little bit woodier tone that is the biggest difference! The punchyness may come more from that you are allowed to attack the strings better thanks to wider string spacing and lack of B-string. But the more resonant neck should contribute to that too. It makes sense!

If this is the case my next question would be what kind of neck is the most resonant but still being rigid enough to hold for climate changes?

Rigidity has little to do with mass... more about the quality of the wood. I have had HUGE multilam 5 and 6 string necks that you could pull back and bend like a rubber band, while my old school flat sawn Alleva-Coppolo and Sadowsky maple necks feel like granite, and hence have amazing E and B string response (34" scale too!).

There are no 'simple rules' that you are looking for, unfortunately (i.e., 4's sound different than 5's, some neck designs are better than others, etc.). It's all about the quality of the wood, the unique voicing of every single piece of wood, even woods that comes from an area right next to each other from the same tree, the way the pickups interect with those specific pieces of wood. etc., etc., etc.

This is why SO many who try to custom design the perfect bass (i.e., 'neck through for sustain, multi-lam necks for stiffness, graphite bars to eliminate dead spots, 35" scale for a better B string, etc.) are more often disappointed than not, since all of those things are a kind of 'in general' sort of thing, and do little to predict the performance of any single bass.

Most of these 'judgemental heuristics' are based on the general population's lack of understanding of the scientific method in general.. i.e., not attributing causal status to one particular design component without controlling for the hundreds of other differences in the comparison instruments.

IMO and lots of IME

 

[Bongolation]

Rigidity has little to do with mass...

That's true, but note that I didn't say it did. Relative mass does affect resonance, as does rigidity.

A massive and rigid neck will contribute to the tonal qualities I suggest, relative to a neck that has less rigidity and/or mass, all other things being equal.