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

[KJung]

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.

+1 It is the 'all other things being equal' that gets people into trouble when trying to, again, identify a single design feature(e.g., 4 versus 5 strings) as a primary causal influence among an almost infinite number of interacting elements, typically based on a very small sample size (i.e., sometimes only a couple of instruments that are in no way similarly spec'd).

This is the primary difference between science and 'mythology' or 'opinion'.

 

[Bongolation]

+1 It is the 'all other things being equal' that gets people into trouble when trying to, again, identify a single design feature(e.g., 4 versus 5 strings) as a primary causal influence among an almost infinite number of interacting elements, typically based on a very small sample size (i.e., sometimes only a couple of instruments that are in no way similarly spec'd).

I know. That was the point I was trying to make: If there was a difference, it wasn't primarily an issue of 4 v. 5, but rather the fact than most 5s have bigger, stiffer and more rigid necks than the corresponding four-string model.

Necks are far too overlooked as sources of tone mysteries on basses.

This is the primary difference between science and 'mythology' or 'opinion'.

You're preachin' to the choir here, Bud.

 

[KJung]

I know. That was the point I was trying to make: If there was a difference, it wasn't primarily an issue of 4 v. 5, but rather the fact than most 5s have bigger, stiffer and more rigid necks than the corresponding four-string model.

Necks are far too overlooked as sources of tone mysteries on basses.


You're preachin' to the choir here, Bud.

+1 I enjoy the topic!

 

[4lPh4n0m3g4]

I think for the most part the difference is psychosomatic. It's just a perceived difference based upon the players desires and playing preferences.

Now there are some minor differences due to the inherent characteristics of the woods and materials used on the basses in question. But I'd wager that if one could possibly have two exact basses; one 4, one 5, the difference would be negligible or nonexistent.

So the difference doesn't need to stem from how many strings the bass has, but how it is constructed.

 

[spade2you]

+1 It is the 'all other things being equal' that gets people into trouble when trying to, again, identify a single design feature(e.g., 4 versus 5 strings) as a primary causal influence among an almost infinite number of interacting elements, typically based on a very small sample size (i.e., sometimes only a couple of instruments that are in no way similarly spec'd).

This is the primary difference between science and 'mythology' or 'opinion'.

I dunno, if the additional neck mass made a big difference, wouldn't there be a difference in something with P vs. J nut spacing and/or 17 and 19mm string spacing. Then again, for the true "science" of things, most of us don't have the $ to prove anything.

I do think the technique/approach can be a big difference. I can't think of too many players who don't change their approach when using a 6er and often a 5 string.

 

[KJung]

I dunno, if the additional neck mass made a big difference, wouldn't there be a difference in something with P vs. J nut spacing and/or 17 and 19mm string spacing. Then again, for the true "science" of things, most of us don't have the $ to prove anything.

I do think the technique/approach can be a big difference. I can't think of too many players who don't change their approach when using a 6er and often a 5 string.

+1 So many variables... there is mass, density, volume, absolute weight... it isn't just the 'size' of the neck....

....and, can a more dense and/or heavy body offset a less dense or smaller neck, or can a heavier bridge make up for a less dense body, or do some less dense woods have properties that make them sound 'more full' than more dense woods????..... and on, and on and on

 

[spade2you]

+1 So many variables... there is mass, density, volume, absolute weight... it isn't just the 'size' of the neck....

....and, can a more dense and/or heavy body offset a less dense or smaller neck, or can a heavier bridge make up for a less dense body, or do some less dense woods have properties that make them sound 'more full' than more dense woods????..... and on, and on and on

So, to fully conduct a truly scientific experiement, we'd need about 2 million basses or whatever power of two it takes to get a sufficient number to compile ALL variables.

My only experience with 2 basses with identical specs was when I had 2 Fender Urge I basses. Roughly same weight overall and near identical setups. Sounded the same to me.

 

[KJung]

So, to fully conduct a truly scientific experiement, we'd need about 2 million basses or whatever power of two it takes to get a sufficient number to compile ALL variables.

My only experience with 2 basses with identical specs was when I had 2 Fender Urge I basses. Roughly same weight overall and near identical setups. Sounded the same to me.

+1 Almost impossible to do. I had two virtually identical Celinder Updates and they sounded quite different

Hey, Vinnie Fodera designed an 'extended B headstock' with a couple of extra inches of wire between the nut and tuner that was supposed to 'increase the B string tension'! Luthiers, sound engineers, pro players.... they (we) are all human and attribute 'tonal causality' to some strange things IMO and IME.

Actually, I've found a pretty strong negative correlation between playing skills and understanding any of this stuff (i.e.,many of the guys who really burn have never bothered thinking about all of this nuanced stuff... it's the schlubs like me who agonize over nitro versus poly and the impact of different varieties of rosewood!!!!)

 

[spade2you]

+1 Almost impossible to do. I had two virtually identical Celinder Updates and they sounded quite different

Hey, Vinnie Fodera designed an 'extended B headstock' with a couple of extra inches of wire between the nut and tuner that was supposed to 'increase the B string tension'! Luthiers, sound engineers, pro players.... they (we) are all human and attribute 'tonal causality' to some strange things IMO and IME.

Actually, I've found a pretty strong negative correlation between playing skills and understanding any of this stuff (i.e.,many of the guys who really burn have never bothered thinking about all of this nuanced stuff... it's the schlubs like me who agonize over nitro versus poly and the impact of different varieties of rosewood!!!!)

The only thing I can think of with the extended B string is that it might change the witness angle vs the usual placement. I once "proved" the importance of the witness angle because I accidentally cut a B string way too short, only allowing 1 winding. Flop city. Replaced the string and used my normal 3-4 windings and it was instant improvement.

 

[KJung]

The only thing I can think of with the extended B string is that it might change the witness angle vs the usual placement. I once "proved" the importance of the witness angle because I accidentally cut a B string way too short, only allowing 1 winding. Flop city. Replaced the string and used my normal 3-4 windings and it was instant improvement.

It's a never ending argument. Actually the witness angle has more down pressure on the standard headstock, if you wrap the wire around the peg a few times. My theory is that, if it does have any effect (same old story... how can you tell, since there are SO many other differences between basses), it is probably due to more wood in the headstock. Just guessing. My feeling is it probably does nothing.

 

[spade2you]

It's a never ending argument. Actually the witness angle has more down pressure on the standard headstock, if you wrap the wire around the peg a few times. My theory is that, if it does have any effect (same old story... how can you tell, since there are SO many other differences between basses), it is probably due to more wood in the headstock. Just guessing. My feeling is it probably does nothing.

From a theory perspective, I think angle from headstock design, more windings, etc, puts more pressure on the string at the nut, which could potentially hold it in the nut tighter to reduce some unwanted flop, but only in the open position.

 

[lowphatbass]

Would the E strings on a 4 string strung BEAD sound equal to a 4 string strung EADG??

 

[asberrys]

Here's a thought.Does perhaps the B string in the magnetic field(or proximity to) of the E strings pole piece affect the magnetic lines of this pole piece hence output? It is a fat mother. What do speaker builders call this effect? Fringe fields or something? Where there is some magnetic field bleed off or undesired non-symetrical geometry of the field.

 

[tommixx]

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.

I am not sure exactly what it is you are saying. Are you inferring that as a musician I am not very scientific, unbiased or objective? It just so happens that at least in my case I happen to hold a degree in engineering and graduated at the top of my class from a famous Audio Program in November of 1993. I went on to become the Chief Engineer of one of the largest Pro Sound Companies in the World and after a car accident went on to work in the Recording World as a fairly successful Recording Engineer. I have worked on projects from Jimmy Buffet, R. Kelly, Cher, Prince, Luther Campbell, Mangu, Baba Maal, (won a Grammy) Queen, Elton John, Billy Joel, Luther Vandross and Patti Labelle just to name a few. Along the way I met a lot of pretty exceptional people with one of them being Tom Dowd as mentioned. I have probably owned as many stringed instruments as anyone here and certainly far more than most. My family has owned a Musical Instrument Retail store since 1924 and I grew up buying and selling and trading for all kinds of music gear. A look at just the sales I have had here would confirm that yes I have owned MANY similarly spec'd instruments in both 4 and 5 string versions. I do NOT play 6 strings and made no mention of them in ANY of my posts. A look at the original question would show that the question had nothing to do with 6 string basses so I am not sure how that entered the equation. Since I have no experience with similarly spec'd 6 strings I will make no comment except to say that based on my experience I would expect that there is always the POSSIBILITY that the same differences I hear and record between a 4 and 5 would also apply to a 6. However that is PURE conjecture and speculation on my part so take it with a grain of salt. Personally I have been able to compare the EXACT same specification basses in a 4 and 5 string from Sadowsky, (I have owned 29 of them and played many more and I think the most I had at one time was 7 or 8) Lakland, (I have owned over 60 4 and 5 string 44 and 55 series, Darryl Jones 4 and 5s, and JO 4 and 5s) Warwick (Multiple Stage 1 and 2s 4s and 5s and Thumb 4s and 5s. I was an endorser back in the 80s and 90s and had 22 Warwicks at one time) I have owned well over 1,000 instruments from many different manufacturers in my 44 years on this Earth. I have done over 4,500 recording sessions that usually involved recording stringed instruments of some type or another.

Frankly I feel VERY qualified to make the statements I have made here. I am not sure why you are trying to dismiss my opinion so easily but I would suggest that maybe, just maybe I might know a little bit about the subject when I responded. I try to make it a habit NOT to get into too many discussions these days because I am sick and tired of getting sucked into some kind of pissing contest....However when I do take the time to respond I can assure you that I ONLY speak from my own personal experiences. I would tend to agree with you that there is FAR too much BS that gets put out there here and in the world in general.

In this case I am merely answering a question that was asked about something that I have a lot of experience with. If you choose to dismiss it that is cool with me but don't do so at my expense. I would love it if there was a place on here that REQUIRED everyone to list their credentials so we were all on equal footing. I think a lot of people here have NO clue at all about MOST of the stuff they talk about.

Present company excluded, of course...



Like I have said several times already I guess we can agree to disagree?? I have no doubt that you feel the way you do and I feel the way I do and I can leave it at that....

YOU WIN....

I have nothing else to say about this. I have better things to do. I hope the original poster got the answer to his question but somehow I doubt it...






and all that just so you don't think I am being anything but nice and non confrontational here!!



Peace,

T

 

[ZolkoW]

Would the E strings on a 4 string strung BEAD sound equal to a 4 string strung EADG??

good question, as I remember, it does.
maybe I'm wrong, but I did it once, and the fact is, that I wasn't satisfied with that particular 4 string, and I still wasn satisfied with it after that string change.
so if there was a difference between the two, it was not enough

I tried to put a heavy clamp on the headstock - no success.

I tried to glue in the bolt-on neck - no success.

a Fodera guy in the Fodi topic said that there is no big secret, there are many small secrets to get that Fodera sound.
I think it's true in every other brands' case

 

[Gunner77]

I realize that the last post on this thread was almost a month ago but I was reasearching this subject and feel like I have something to add.

I am still a newbie but I have become quite the gasser and bass collector. I own four 5 string basses and feel like the tone on the E string on 3 of the 4 is different/worse. I don't want to say it sounds dead because that is not exactly right. It doesn't seem like it sustains as much and the tone is just not as "good" to start with. At least to my ears.

I have an Ibanez SR705, Ibanez SRX505, Ibanez SRX695DX and a MIA Fender Precision V. The 705 and 695 have the stock Elixer strings and the Fender has the stock Fender strings. The 505 has DR Hi-Beams. It might surprise you that I think the 705's E string sounds just like my 4 string basses. Great tonal quality. I don't notice a ton of difference with the Fender but I can still hear some difference on the E string. With the two SRX's I can hear a pronounced difference. So much so that I changed the strings on the 505 to the DR's thinking it might be the Elixer strings. No difference. The E still sounds weaker and not as "good". The SRX's have the wider string spacing so I don't think the issue is not being able to dig in as much and really "go to town". Is the reason the 705 sounds the best to me because it has the narrower SR neck that is closest in size to a 4 string bass? I don't know but it is interesting to think about.

Gunner

 

[ZolkoW]

I think it's mostly about the tone you expect.
If you prefer that "four string sound" (if that exists at all...but thats what this topic is about), you might not find it in different constructions.
I like open sounds, but with massive bottom - strong fundamental. the 4 stringers doesn't seem to give me that fundamental, they seem to be about midrange.
but I have built tooooooo few basses and made toooo few "measurements" to be able to generalize like this.

I think the overall rigidity of the bass is very important on this.
once I thought that the more stiffness is the better... but I made some basses from very stiff materials, and they don't sound the best to me.
It might be more of a balance between the stiffness and resonances... I still don't know.
that's why I find very useful if I can test some modifications on the very same bass: before and after some neck thinning, etc..

I realize that the last post on this thread was almost a month ago but I was reasearching this subject and feel like I have something to add.

I am still a newbie but I have become quite the gasser and bass collector. I own four 5 string basses and feel like the tone on the E string on 3 of the 4 is different/worse. I don't want to say it sounds dead because that is not exactly right. It doesn't seem like it sustains as much and the tone is just not as "good" to start with. At least to my ears.

I have an Ibanez SR705, Ibanez SRX505, Ibanez SRX695DX and a MIA Fender Precision V. The 705 and 695 have the stock Elixer strings and the Fender has the stock Fender strings. The 505 has DR Hi-Beams. It might surprise you that I think the 705's E string sounds just like my 4 string basses. Great tonal quality. I don't notice a ton of difference with the Fender but I can still hear some difference on the E string. With the two SRX's I can hear a pronounced difference. So much so that I changed the strings on the 505 to the DR's thinking it might be the Elixer strings. No difference. The E still sounds weaker and not as "good". The SRX's have the wider string spacing so I don't think the issue is not being able to dig in as much and really "go to town". Is the reason the 705 sounds the best to me because it has the narrower SR neck that is closest in size to a 4 string bass? I don't know but it is interesting to think about.

Gunner

 

[AlexanderB]

I am with tommixx on this one, and I believe kjung has very little logic involved in his theories. While kjung tells us that even minor variations between wood grains etc will affect the tone (which seems possible) he also denies that much larger factors like neck dimensions, mass or total mass has no correlation with it?

Looking at a large enough number of similar basses (like tommixx has done) has done, one surely should be able to see the links between design parameters and the resulting tone.
Since all minor variation between individual instruments will be "blended" one will see the more general characeristics of the different groups.

A good example of four string bass, 34", bolt on neck design is Fender and the dead spots that come along with those basses. Every four string Fender / Squier bass I have tried has had dead spots around 4:th to 7:th fret on the G-string. All of these basses, no exception.

The other day I picked up a 2010 Fender American Standard Precision V in a shop. No dead spots at all.
Played an Ibanez 6 string mid price bass a while ago. G-string was clear as a bell. Tried an Ibanez 5:er at the same time. No dead spots.
Moved on to a Lakland 4. Dead spots just like Fender.
Then a Sandberg 4. Dead notes in the same places the Fenders have, but not as severe.

There is even a story about how Fender gradually chopped of piece by piece of the head of a P bass to get rid of the dead spots. They succeeded, but by then there was no room left for the tuners.

/Alexander

 

[Fuzzbass]

I am with tommixx on this one, and I believe kjung has very little logic involved in his theories. While kjung tells us that even minor variations between wood grains etc will affect the tone (which seems possible) he also denies that much larger factors like neck dimensions, mass or total mass has no correlation with it?

My interpretation is that Ken (KJung) is saying that so many variables are at play that it's extremely difficult if not impossible to figure out why one bass sounds different from another, even when "all else is equal". And as he said, all else is never equal, simply due to the variable nature of wood. Like him, I have played and owned "identical" instruments that had distinctly different tones.

Given that no scientific research has been done, all we have here are opinions. My opinion is that, even if a difference exists between 4 and 5 string basses, that it's too subtle to matter, either live or in the studio. 5 string basses are incredibly common in music these days, even in blues and country recordings. I think it's preposterous to claim that these recordings (or even the bass tones specifically) would be superior if the basses had only four strings. And I cannot believe that any qualified engineer would have trouble with five string bass. It's not like every four string bass is a gem.

Looking at a large enough number of similar basses (like tommixx has done) has done, one surely should be able to see the links between design parameters and the resulting tone.
Since all minor variation between individual instruments will be "blended" one will see the more general characeristics of the different groups.

Do some research on "scientific method", if you're not already familiar with it. The reason this methodology was invented was because humans are incredibly prone to bias: if they believe a certain result will occur, they tend to shape the available data to conform to that result. Scientists and other "experts" are as prone to this as anyone else... and perhaps more so, in that they are more likely to elevate their "expert opinion" to objective truth.

So: as Ken said, it's virtually impossible to answer this question one way or another in a scientific way.

 

[JazznFunk]

There is a difference to my ears. My 4-string Lakland 44-01 basses are a little less 'sculpted' sounding, while my 55-01's definitely have a more 'burpy' and sculpted midrange character, even with the same type of strings, pickups, and general setup parameters. I attribute this to pickup spacing and the extra scale length, as well as the graphite reinforcements in the neck. Back when I played Fenders I noticed a difference in my 4 and 5-string models.