Going to install very thick strings (.175 - .85) on my 4 string. What should I worry about?

[The3fingerteers]

Ok i am maybe left out by the new trends but C# G# F# should be below the sonic capabilities of most amps/cabs . And on the border between subsonic and sonic, which means that their musicallity is questionable. The idea that extended range guitar should come down to our frequencies doesnt mean that the bass should be downgraded to a rumble instrument. So why stop at G# why not lower?

Lower frequencies need more volume and larger surface area to be audible, and that's the only issue with lower tones.
sub 30hz can actually sound like a note with proper amplification.
Although, I probably won't go lower than an E an octave below a 4-string.

A rumble bass, I'd say, would be a sub-bass suited for just that. Think sub 20hz.
We're already quite low, as bass players, as the E of a 4-string is 41.2hz and the B of a 5-string is 30.87hz.
The E an octave below is 20.6hz, which is just barely out of the rumble territory (about Eb0 or D0 is when it reaches that threshold).
F#0 (23.12hz) and F0 (21.83hz) is as low as I'd go.

Also, when an instrument is below 20hz, it doesn't mean musicality is taken away. The user and how they choose to apply the instrument is the determining factor.

As for 9-string guitarists, my simple solution to those is just not to play with them!

 

[ixlramp]

C# G# F# should be below the sonic capabilities of most amps/cabs . And on the border between subsonic and sonic

Apart from the extreme G#00, these are common misconceptions that you will see on most extended range bass threads.

As notes become very low (B string and lower) it becomes less important to reproduce the fundamental frequency, it increasingly has a small amplitude compared to the higher harmonics, and it's frequency becomes less audible and less musically relevant. The tone is increasingly carried by the 2nd harmonic and up.
Even for an E string the fundamental has little amplitude compared to the 2nd harmonic.

The fundamental frequency of B0 is 31Hz which is not well reproduced by many amps, doesn't matter, still sounds good.
The 2nd harmonic of F#0 is 46Hz which is reproduced well by many amps.
The 2nd harmonic of C#0 is 35Hz which still reasonably reproduced, but then the 3rd harmonic and higher then become more important.

Essentially, as notes become lower and the fundamental and/or 2nd harmonic become impractically low, unreproduced and unheard, the higher harmonics have increasing importance and take over the job of carryng the tone. The misconception comes from focussing on the fundamental frequency too much, as if harmonics don't exist.
The only issue is getting a reasonable tone on a string that is thick and therefore stiffer, darker and more inharmonic. Some people like that tone, some don't, but i have heard good sounding C#0 17Hz strings.

Church pipe organs have long gone down to C0 16Hz, there is an organ in Sydney with a C00 8Hz pipe, there was a youtube video of the note, recorded in low quality, the tone is still clear because you hear the harmonics.

I agree bass doesn't have to go lower, i support it going both higher and/or lower.
Stopping at some point is necessary because the tone just becomes so poor due to string thickness on a limited scale length.
The same discussions no doubt happened when the B was being pioneered.

 

[The3fingerteers]

Apart from the extreme G#00, these are common misconceptions that you will see on most extended range bass threads.

As notes become very low (B string and lower) it becomes less important to reproduce the fundamental frequency, it increasingly has a small amplitude compared to the higher harmonics, and it's frequency becomes less audible and less musically relevant. The tone is increasingly carried by the 2nd harmonic and up.
Even for an E string the fundamental has little amplitude compared to the 2nd harmonic.

The fundamental frequency of B0 is 31Hz which is not well reproduced by many amps, doesn't matter, still sounds good.
The 2nd harmonic of F#0 is 46Hz which is reproduced well by many amps.
The 2nd harmonic of C#0 is 35Hz which still reasonably reproduced, but then the 3rd harmonic and higher then become more important.

Essentially, as notes become lower and the fundamental and/or 2nd harmonic become impractically low, unreproduced and unheard, the higher harmonics have increasing importance and take over the job of carryng the tone. The misconception comes from focussing on the fundamental frequency too much, as if harmonics don't exist.
The only issue is getting a reasonable tone on a string that is thick and therefore stiffer, darker and more inharmonic. Some people like that tone, some don't, but i have heard good sounding C#0 17Hz strings.

Church pipe organs have long gone down to C0 16Hz, there is an organ in Sydney with a C00 8Hz pipe, there was a youtube video of the note, recorded in low quality, the tone is still clear because you hear the harmonics.

I agree bass doesn't have to go lower, i support it going both higher and/or lower.
Stopping at some point is necessary because the tone just becomes so poor due to string thickness on a limited scale length.
The same discussions no doubt happened when the B was being pioneered.

Seems like we'll hit a negative ceiling at some point though, good points.
I think I like my 4-string as it is actually.
But, I did find a bass that I may get in future (not anytime soon, I have an octave pedal anyways) that I'll perform surgery on to slap those strings on it.

 

[Conkal]

@ixlramp I respect your opinion which is also very well explained but it is just not for me. Very rarely do I need a lower range than the 5th string and most times I can do without it, i also think that most amps fart a lot down there . I mostly need the 5th string for not changing positions and not for the extra lower notes. I suspect that other people have harder wars with the guitarists than I do though.

 

[Turnaround]

Apart from the extreme G#00, these are common misconceptions that you will see on most extended range bass threads.

As notes become very low (B string and lower) it becomes less important to reproduce the fundamental frequency, it increasingly has a small amplitude compared to the higher harmonics, and it's frequency becomes less audible and less musically relevant. The tone is increasingly carried by the 2nd harmonic and up.
Even for an E string the fundamental has little amplitude compared to the 2nd harmonic.

The fundamental frequency of B0 is 31Hz which is not well reproduced by many amps, doesn't matter, still sounds good.
The 2nd harmonic of F#0 is 46Hz which is reproduced well by many amps.
The 2nd harmonic of C#0 is 35Hz which still reasonably reproduced, but then the 3rd harmonic and higher then become more important.

Essentially, as notes become lower and the fundamental and/or 2nd harmonic become impractically low, unreproduced and unheard, the higher harmonics have increasing importance and take over the job of carryng the tone. The misconception comes from focussing on the fundamental frequency too much, as if harmonics don't exist.
The only issue is getting a reasonable tone on a string that is thick and therefore stiffer, darker and more inharmonic. Some people like that tone, some don't, but i have heard good sounding C#0 17Hz strings.

Church pipe organs have long gone down to C0 16Hz, there is an organ in Sydney with a C00 8Hz pipe, there was a youtube video of the note, recorded in low quality, the tone is still clear because you hear the harmonics.

I agree bass doesn't have to go lower, i support it going both higher and/or lower.
Stopping at some point is necessary because the tone just becomes so poor due to string thickness on a limited scale length.
The same discussions no doubt happened when the B was being pioneered.

The real problem with very low frequencies is that they require a very large amount of energy to reproduce. It can put a huge load on your amplifier resulting in overheating, breakup, distortion, etc. Thus the usefulness of gizmos like Francis Deck's HPF that rolls of frequencies below 35 Hz, thus placing less demand on your amp. And as noted above, those fundamental frequencies are not important in terms of what you hear, so why waste huge amounts of amp power trying to produce them?

 

[ixlramp]

The real problem with very low frequencies is that they require a very large amount of energy to reproduc

True, but it's not a 'problem', it's just a fact.

It can put a huge load on your amplifier resulting in overheating, breakup, distortion, etc.

That's not an inherent problem of low strings, that's musician error, and as i wrote, reproducing the very low frequencies is not needed.
So if a musician plucks the centre of the string to produce a strong fundamental, heavily boosts 25Hz (making the error that 'the fundamental needs reproducing') and turns the amp up to high, problems can occur, that's their own fault.
Certainly, rolling off the very low frequencies is a good idea.
When playing these very low strings it really helps to pluck near the bridge to increase clarity and brightness, this also reduces the amplitude of the fundamental.

And as noted above, those fundamental frequencies are not important in terms of what you hear, so why waste huge amounts of amp power trying to produce them?

Agreed, nowhere did i write that was necessary, i wrote quite the opposite. This is irrelevant to low strings though and no argument against them.

 

[Turnaround]

True, but it's not a 'problem', it's just a fact.

That's not an inherent problem of low strings, that's musician error, and as i wrote, reproducing the very low frequencies is not needed.
So if a musician plucks the centre of the string to produce a strong fundamental, heavily boosts 25Hz (making the error that 'the fundamental needs reproducing') and turns the amp up to high, problems can occur, that's their own fault.
Certainly, rolling off the very low frequencies is a good idea.
When playing these very low strings it really helps to pluck near the bridge to increase clarity and brightness, this also reduces the amplitude of the fundamental.

Agreed, nowhere did i write that was necessary, i wrote quite the opposite. This is irrelevant to low strings though and no argument against them.

Yes I was re-inforcing what you were saying, not contradicting it.

 

[ixlramp]

Argh i'm sorry.