Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Heavy Gauge for Drop C# Aggressive Player
- Thread starter bgavin
- Start date
Cool, thanks. You've clearly done your research!
I'm no good at math, so what would the ideal gauge be for a low B string, based on .111 for a D?
- Dec 18, 2000
- 13,201
- 340
- Disclosures
- greenboy designs: fEARful, bassic, dually, crazy88 etc
Ah, gee, there's the link to the spreadsheet and over there is the D'Addario pdf that has all the unit weights - it's all open for exploration!
That said, a few observations...
1) Standard string sets seem to be based on old formulas that made sense a long time ago when all basses has small neck radiuses and had only standard tunings, and the string materials were not as developed as they are today. Look into almost any commercial sets and you will find that the D and A strings have way higher tensions than the G, and especially the E. Add a fifth string B to that, and the tension gap gets even more lopsided. That's why so many people have trouble finding a B that finds and sounds right.
2) The lower you tune, the more one find that the lower pitched strings are the problem. Especially on 35" and less scale length if you go for really fat diameters around B0 and below there is so little harmonic content and intonation, and spurious inharmonics further up the neck on the fat strings become readily apparent.
3) When you start tuning lower and lower and you want some tonal and feel continuity across the entire string set, it really begins to make sense to make your own balanced-tension sets. And since the lowest-pitched strings of a set are often dull and have all those intonation and inharmonic problems, it seems like finding a compromise low string that speaks well but may seem a little floppier than you like is the way to go.
Then, build the rest of the set around its actual tension. Then an odd thing happens. As you adjust to all the strings having about the same tension that low B or whatever no longer seems like the odd one out, no longer seems floppy, or tonally odd-man-out, and your hand technique acts the same with each string.
So for lower, or extended range tunings, whether you like really heavy strings or fairly light ones, if you build more balanced sets based around the lowest string in the set, then things begin to work better.
Anyway, that's from a few years of alternate tunings and string experimentation, and that's what's worked best for me tonally and feelwise - it may get you where you want to be : }
That said, a few observations...
1) Standard string sets seem to be based on old formulas that made sense a long time ago when all basses has small neck radiuses and had only standard tunings, and the string materials were not as developed as they are today. Look into almost any commercial sets and you will find that the D and A strings have way higher tensions than the G, and especially the E. Add a fifth string B to that, and the tension gap gets even more lopsided. That's why so many people have trouble finding a B that finds and sounds right.
2) The lower you tune, the more one find that the lower pitched strings are the problem. Especially on 35" and less scale length if you go for really fat diameters around B0 and below there is so little harmonic content and intonation, and spurious inharmonics further up the neck on the fat strings become readily apparent.
3) When you start tuning lower and lower and you want some tonal and feel continuity across the entire string set, it really begins to make sense to make your own balanced-tension sets. And since the lowest-pitched strings of a set are often dull and have all those intonation and inharmonic problems, it seems like finding a compromise low string that speaks well but may seem a little floppier than you like is the way to go.
Then, build the rest of the set around its actual tension. Then an odd thing happens. As you adjust to all the strings having about the same tension that low B or whatever no longer seems like the odd one out, no longer seems floppy, or tonally odd-man-out, and your hand technique acts the same with each string.
So for lower, or extended range tunings, whether you like really heavy strings or fairly light ones, if you build more balanced sets based around the lowest string in the set, then things begin to work better.
Anyway, that's from a few years of alternate tunings and string experimentation, and that's what's worked best for me tonally and feelwise - it may get you where you want to be : }
I go the weird route....I use a .135 on the bottom from a 5 string set (Holds the "C" beautifully), and then the rest is the standard .45/.65/.85....believe it it works great...the "C" is super solid, and the rest keeps the tension and feel of about a half step drop....bendable but not floppy...I of course had the neck adjusted and the nut slotted and the string anchor hole in the Badass bored out to accomadate the wider string....all this on a "Geddy Lee" Jazz.
.d
- Dec 18, 2000
- 13,201
- 340
- Disclosures
- greenboy designs: fEARful, bassic, dually, crazy88 etc
On a Five,
If I was going 4ths tuning with a low C1 at .135, I'd check out:
If I was doing drop-tuning with a low C1 at .135, I'd check out:
Another thing I noticed is that when the sets are a little closer to balanced tension that it often makes any dead spots less serious. I think this might have to do with less lateral torsional force on the neck and truss rod, and it seems to check neck wood resonance interactions somewhat.
If I was going 4ths tuning with a low C1 at .135, I'd check out:
Code:
Ab2 45 or 40
Eb2 60 or 55
Bb1 80 or 75
F1 105 or 100
C1 135If I was doing drop-tuning with a low C1 at .135, I'd check out:
Code:
Bb2 40 or 35
F2 50 or 45
C2 70 or 65
G1 90 or 85
C1 135Another thing I noticed is that when the sets are a little closer to balanced tension that it often makes any dead spots less serious. I think this might have to do with less lateral torsional force on the neck and truss rod, and it seems to check neck wood resonance interactions somewhat.
Greenboy, if I may ask your opinion since you seem to be the only person I've come across who seems to have an informed opinion on this subject....
I play a 5 string tuned G#, C#, F#, B, E
what would you reccomend?
The set that I recently had made that I'm about to try out is 145, 120, 100, 80, 60
I play a 5 string tuned G#, C#, F#, B, E
what would you reccomend?
The set that I recently had made that I'm about to try out is 145, 120, 100, 80, 60
- Dec 18, 2000
- 13,201
- 340
- Disclosures
- greenboy designs: fEARful, bassic, dually, crazy88 etc
Yeah, 145 is the largest string you can get easily. That gives around 26 to 30 pounds per on a 34" scale bass depending on SS or nickel, etc. Myself, I've never been too pleased with that low on a 34" or 35" scale bass - and I've got an incredible rig for low stuff (actually great with 39.5" scale Knuckle Quakes with a sub-low E0 below that G#).
I find that going up to A0, just half a step, really improves tonality and intelligibility.
But if you want to roughly match that .145 (are you going for tapered at the bridge on that), I'd go
Code:
E2 .45 (or .50)
B1 .60 (or .65)
F#1 .80 (or .85)
C#1 .105 (or .110 at the most - but that's a big jump!)
G#0 .145 or .145t (taper)You COULD go heavier on all the higher pitched strings, but that'll make the .145 feel all the more floppy and doesn't seem to match so well tonally, depending on bass, EQ settings, etc.
What you've got in your choices are way off. I'd be worried about bent and twisted neck, if not tendonitis.
I'm using a 110 now for my C# and it's a little too sloppy. Maybe sloppy isn't a good word, but there's play in it that there shouldn't be, I'm gonna give the 120 a shot.
I'm no expert and I'm sure the two are not exactly relative, but if each string is the same difference in pitch, in idiots math the string gauges should be similarly different. Emphasis on the word idiot of course, because that would make sense in a perfectly simple world, all other factors aside.
My tuning is standard as far as deviation goes, just dropped all across the board (That isn't necessarily a personal preference, it just gives me the most freedom to play my style in the band that I am in). On the 4 standard strings there is a difference of .20 in those 4 strings, a difference of .25 between the C# and the G#.
The other thing is that I have been using Rotosound's heaviest set, which is 50, 75, 95, 110 & 130. So the increase looks like this:
the .50 > .60
the .75 > .80
the .95 > .100
the .110 > .120
the .130 > .145
doesn't seem like such a big deal, but again, I'm no expert. I'm just going by how each string feels to me at this tuning, and quite frankly, even with the heavy Rotosounds with their reputation for being harsh, they still feel a little too noodly, especially since I play hard with my fingers.
I know you have all of the weights and measures and I trust your judgement, but I'm going to give this extra heavy custom set a shot based on the fact that it doesn't seem like a huge jump from what I'm currently using and the fact that what I'm currently doesn't seem to be very taught or putting any strain on the neck.
I'm no expert and I'm sure the two are not exactly relative, but if each string is the same difference in pitch, in idiots math the string gauges should be similarly different. Emphasis on the word idiot of course, because that would make sense in a perfectly simple world, all other factors aside.
My tuning is standard as far as deviation goes, just dropped all across the board (That isn't necessarily a personal preference, it just gives me the most freedom to play my style in the band that I am in). On the 4 standard strings there is a difference of .20 in those 4 strings, a difference of .25 between the C# and the G#.
The other thing is that I have been using Rotosound's heaviest set, which is 50, 75, 95, 110 & 130. So the increase looks like this:
the .50 > .60
the .75 > .80
the .95 > .100
the .110 > .120
the .130 > .145
doesn't seem like such a big deal, but again, I'm no expert. I'm just going by how each string feels to me at this tuning, and quite frankly, even with the heavy Rotosounds with their reputation for being harsh, they still feel a little too noodly, especially since I play hard with my fingers.
I know you have all of the weights and measures and I trust your judgement, but I'm going to give this extra heavy custom set a shot based on the fact that it doesn't seem like a huge jump from what I'm currently using and the fact that what I'm currently doesn't seem to be very taught or putting any strain on the neck.
- Dec 18, 2000
- 13,201
- 340
- Disclosures
- greenboy designs: fEARful, bassic, dually, crazy88 etc
Well, if I recall the pound figures I came up on your proposed set, they started out at below 30 pounds on the G# (I'd hate that and that's why I went with A instead of G#), and proceeded up to nearly 60 pounds per string, with one side of the neck having a lot of tension per string and the other, not. I would never do that to a neck, especially when you get strings with tensions up above 50 pounds per square inch on one side and ones that are maybe only 60% that on the other.
I feel that I need the .145 and the .120, the others I'm not overly concerned with. The .50, .75, and .95 of the Rotosound set could work there. The tensions up above 50 lbs. were on the higher strings I assume? Would I be risking less in the way of neck damage if I stuck with those three and just used the .145 and the .120 for my G# and my C#?
BTW, after spending the morning researching and reading reviews of the Knuckle Quake, I've contacted them about a possible order
BTW, after spending the morning researching and reading reviews of the Knuckle Quake, I've contacted them about a possible order
- Dec 18, 2000
- 13,201
- 340
- Disclosures
- greenboy designs: fEARful, bassic, dually, crazy88 etc
I'm not going to do the spreadsheet entry again. That's why I provided the link - so others could use it themselves. I put the figures in and built sets up around the .145 just because I was bored at the time. But as I said, I really think .145 is too light for the G# note anyway - espeically if you play on that string a lot. So as a result I did go heavier on the others than I would have otherwise so they would be more in the tension ranges of standard sets.
But your main problems with the ones you listed are definitely horrible on F# B and E. A difference of .20 or whatever really isn't that much on a lower pitch, a few pounds. But on a higher pitch it can be a hella lot - sometimes tens of pounds just on a five-string yet!
* * *
Should check out ExtendedRangeBassist.com for more of Skip's stuff too, he's got a new thing going on as well as the Quake that really looks promising.
But your main problems with the ones you listed are definitely horrible on F# B and E. A difference of .20 or whatever really isn't that much on a lower pitch, a few pounds. But on a higher pitch it can be a hella lot - sometimes tens of pounds just on a five-string yet!
* * *
Should check out ExtendedRangeBassist.com for more of Skip's stuff too, he's got a new thing going on as well as the Quake that really looks promising.
I checked out the spreadsheet and to be honest, it confused me, but not because of the sheet itself, strictly because I'm a moron. I'm far from computer literate and spreadsheets are the death of me, but I can appreciate the hard work you put into it. I wish I found it more helpful.
I do appreciate the info you've given me here, you've probably saved my neck (pun intended), not to mention introducing me to the Quake. Messing around with crazy string gauges on a 34" scale to get a barely acceptable tension/tone at a specific tuning all seems ludicrous now. I'm anxiously awaiting a reply from Knuckle...
I do appreciate the info you've given me here, you've probably saved my neck (pun intended), not to mention introducing me to the Quake. Messing around with crazy string gauges on a 34" scale to get a barely acceptable tension/tone at a specific tuning all seems ludicrous now. I'm anxiously awaiting a reply from Knuckle...
- Dec 18, 2000
- 13,201
- 340
- Disclosures
- greenboy designs: fEARful, bassic, dually, crazy88 etc
Ah, spreadsheets aren't anything I particulary care for either. But this one is pretty easy. Just use the D'Addario tension chart to get the unit weight of a string gauge you are interested in, and the chart at the left of the spreadsheet for any note frequency you are investigating.
You enter each of those two values in the areas provided for them at the top left and down in the area below it tells you what the tension would be. Or you can enter a desired tension for a pitch, and just below it will then cough up a unit weight, which you then have to look for the closest you can find on the D'Addario charts.
You can also change the scale length.
I was going to enter all the D'Addario gauges and unit weights into a database and have that be accessed by the spreadsheet directly so I wouldn't have to look unit wieghts up at all, but it looked like it would be a pain after awhile.
You enter each of those two values in the areas provided for them at the top left and down in the area below it tells you what the tension would be. Or you can enter a desired tension for a pitch, and just below it will then cough up a unit weight, which you then have to look for the closest you can find on the D'Addario charts.
You can also change the scale length.
I was going to enter all the D'Addario gauges and unit weights into a database and have that be accessed by the spreadsheet directly so I wouldn't have to look unit wieghts up at all, but it looked like it would be a pain after awhile.
Very impressive.... and easy, even for me 
Now I see where you're coming from with the set that I ordered. I wish I had spoken to you before I placed my order. The only little pieces of information I'm still missing are UW's of anything bigger than .145, I'm coming up with a tension of just under 30 lbs. on my 34" scale with a .145 tuned to G#. Getting that G# up over 30 lbs. would be ideal.
Using your spreadsheet I also punched in a bunch of different numbers for a 39.5" scale length, wow! Now I'm even more anxious to hear back from Knuckle... with a normal, taken off the wall by a zit faced kid at the music store set of strings, I can tune my way and have perfect tension (assuming the strings are long enough...), that is a dream come true.
Greenboy, you've been a tremendous help, thank you.
Now I see where you're coming from with the set that I ordered. I wish I had spoken to you before I placed my order. The only little pieces of information I'm still missing are UW's of anything bigger than .145, I'm coming up with a tension of just under 30 lbs. on my 34" scale with a .145 tuned to G#. Getting that G# up over 30 lbs. would be ideal.
Using your spreadsheet I also punched in a bunch of different numbers for a 39.5" scale length, wow! Now I'm even more anxious to hear back from Knuckle... with a normal, taken off the wall by a zit faced kid at the music store set of strings, I can tune my way and have perfect tension (assuming the strings are long enough...), that is a dream come true.
Greenboy, you've been a tremendous help, thank you.
- Dec 18, 2000
- 13,201
- 340
- Disclosures
- greenboy designs: fEARful, bassic, dually, crazy88 etc
Bass Below,
Yeah, all my and Skip's research and experimentation has shown that the lower you go, the minimum tension that will work well for feel and tone, increases. So even if someone likes superlight string sets, there's a threshold to be aware of where the dynamics and articulation start getting crappy, and the playing dynamics become increasingly hindered, even if the setup is raised to compensate.
If you have any questions about Knuckles, feel free to ask. I really found the 39.5 scale easy to work with - his necks are slender and stable and play easily all the way across up to the last fret, and because you don't have to use as thick of gauges for a given pitch, they really pack a punchy wallop with the same articualation you get on a regular scale length - only for lower notes! They slap well too.
Actually if you think of it this way: on the sub-low A string the low B of a regular Five-string is found at the 2nd fret - and that measures out to 35"! So only two frets worth of real estate lay below and the rest is within normal reach. Since his bass balances well and the neck is situated well in relation to the body it's easy for even someone like me with fairly short reach to play everything down to the nut. I even do double stops and triple stops over the majority of the neck.
Where he's going with his next models is a 36.5" scale length. For him or a buyer that means long enough for low tuning, yet a huge choice of stock string sets from a lot of manufactuers will work on it. The only string he'll have to have custom manufactured is for those who want to have their lowest string around F#0 or so - the rest can be from stock sets and play within stock tension ranges with basically, hearty versions of standard bass tone.
Yeah, all my and Skip's research and experimentation has shown that the lower you go, the minimum tension that will work well for feel and tone, increases. So even if someone likes superlight string sets, there's a threshold to be aware of where the dynamics and articulation start getting crappy, and the playing dynamics become increasingly hindered, even if the setup is raised to compensate.
If you have any questions about Knuckles, feel free to ask. I really found the 39.5 scale easy to work with - his necks are slender and stable and play easily all the way across up to the last fret, and because you don't have to use as thick of gauges for a given pitch, they really pack a punchy wallop with the same articualation you get on a regular scale length - only for lower notes! They slap well too.
Actually if you think of it this way: on the sub-low A string the low B of a regular Five-string is found at the 2nd fret - and that measures out to 35"! So only two frets worth of real estate lay below and the rest is within normal reach. Since his bass balances well and the neck is situated well in relation to the body it's easy for even someone like me with fairly short reach to play everything down to the nut. I even do double stops and triple stops over the majority of the neck.
Where he's going with his next models is a 36.5" scale length. For him or a buyer that means long enough for low tuning, yet a huge choice of stock string sets from a lot of manufactuers will work on it. The only string he'll have to have custom manufactured is for those who want to have their lowest string around F#0 or so - the rest can be from stock sets and play within stock tension ranges with basically, hearty versions of standard bass tone.
Well since you offered, I have some questions about Knuckles... I sent a long email this morning and I've been checking my mailbox all day, even though I don't realistically expect a response that quickly.
My biggest question is, do they offer fretless? I only play fretless, so if they don't, well my hopes are kinda dashed from the get-go. I haven't played a fretted bass in about 14 years.
Other than that my only requests to them were really just simplifying things, nothing crazy. I want a very simple looking black on black bass with simplified electronics. I also asked them about flatwound strings, I prefer to play flats and asked if they had any available that were long enough for 39.5" or if they knew where I could get them.
Everything else kind of speaks for itself, especially thanks to your tension chart. That solves my biggest, ongoing, extremely frustrating problem right off the bat. I listened to the sound clips they have on their website and it sounds phenomenal. I read through pages of reviews and couldn't find even the slightest criticism.
If you feel like talking about yours, I'm all ears.
My biggest question is, do they offer fretless? I only play fretless, so if they don't, well my hopes are kinda dashed from the get-go. I haven't played a fretted bass in about 14 years.
Other than that my only requests to them were really just simplifying things, nothing crazy. I want a very simple looking black on black bass with simplified electronics. I also asked them about flatwound strings, I prefer to play flats and asked if they had any available that were long enough for 39.5" or if they knew where I could get them.
Everything else kind of speaks for itself, especially thanks to your tension chart. That solves my biggest, ongoing, extremely frustrating problem right off the bat. I listened to the sound clips they have on their website and it sounds phenomenal. I read through pages of reviews and couldn't find even the slightest criticism.
If you feel like talking about yours, I'm all ears.
- Dec 18, 2000
- 13,201
- 340
- Disclosures
- greenboy designs: fEARful, bassic, dually, crazy88 etc
I only own fretless myself, though I'm eventually going to get a fan-fretted Knuckle or Basslab probably. But yes, Skip does fretless.
He's way into passive high-output, extended range pickups - Q-Tuners. As simple as you want it right down to no knobs, though usually people want the standard passive stuff.
Flats won't happen. It's tough enough to get custom fatties for roundwounds. Frustrating to even atempt to get anything else made. You can use a partial flat set though, from standard lenght sets, until you get to the strings that are taped at the nut to fit into tuning peg holes. That typically means the low E and A are out.
Actually they sound better than that. I hope your rig is up to really showing that off!
I had been in contact with a customer service rep from D'Addario regarding custom gauge sets of Chromes... alas I was shot down, but in my last correspondence I asked the rep if the length on the Super Long scale version of the Chromes might be sufficient for a 39.5" scale length. They claim to be for 36" scale lengths, which I know is a far cry from 39.5", but I figured it was worth asking...
As far as my rig, well I wouldn't call it a rig. I had an extended layoff from playing the bass. Became a lead singer for most of a decade and sadly, wound up selling all of my gear as time went on (not that it was anything great anyway...). I've been back playing bass for less than 2 years and within those two years I've also purchased a house, so my funds have been limited to say the least. I got myself an amp that would do the trick, for now. It's Carvin's BRX 212 combo, which is plenty powerful, but I definitely wouldn't reccomend it to anyone who downtunes on a regular basis. Other than that it's been a great little amp for my needs.
BTW, I checked out ERB, I'm just waiting for my confirmation email. My name over there will be Dead Seven.
As far as my rig, well I wouldn't call it a rig. I had an extended layoff from playing the bass. Became a lead singer for most of a decade and sadly, wound up selling all of my gear as time went on (not that it was anything great anyway...). I've been back playing bass for less than 2 years and within those two years I've also purchased a house, so my funds have been limited to say the least. I got myself an amp that would do the trick, for now. It's Carvin's BRX 212 combo, which is plenty powerful, but I definitely wouldn't reccomend it to anyone who downtunes on a regular basis. Other than that it's been a great little amp for my needs.
BTW, I checked out ERB, I'm just waiting for my confirmation email. My name over there will be Dead Seven.
