• 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.

How heavy is too heavy for a b string?

#21
Why Nautilus‽ said:
I’m not going to disagree with the other comments about lighter string gauges. I think that could help you a lot.

That said, my five string is .184-.59. They’re kaliums. Tuned low F to Db so lower than a B but the tension hasn’t been an issue.
Click to expand...
Drop G with a .168 on a 35” scale Q5. I love the equal tension but honestly could go thinner for the tone… Was a $70 set that took 2 months to get so I’m rocking them lol.

My favorite set of strings on that bass were a prototype SIT .120 set tuned to B and the bass came alive. I won them in a giveaway on instagram.

I have a G&L JB2 with an equal tension set for B that is .143 and for that bass in BEAD the set just works.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Why Nautilus‽ and Ethix4
#22
Prodigus Filius said:
Okie doke.
Here are Kaliums own string tension calc numbers based on multiscale lengths in inches from low to high
37 36.25 35.5 34.75 34 33.25
I’m assuming the .033 you list as part of the current .148 arrangement is not a typo and you didn’t mean the .031 that is in the desired 160 arrangement.


Screen grab 1 with 33-148 gauge input
View attachment 7401382
Total Tension = 297lbf


Screen grab 2 with 31-160 gauge inputView attachment 7401394
Total Tension = 298lbf

Seeing as you have upped some gauges but downed some others, the difference is only 1lbf overall. Your neck won’t notice.
Full steam ahead!
Click to expand...
I’m mostly worried about the difference between tension on each side of the neck warping it. You are right about the overall tension being the same though. So it doesn’t seem like it would snap the truss rod at least which is comforting.
 
#23
LHbassist said:
In my opinion, on a 34" scale bass- a .125, sounds considerably better than a .130 or .135. Why? Thinner strings simply produce more pure harmonics. That Dingwall has longer lower pitched strings for a good reason. A piano tech showed me this, and I've never forgot it. He went over to a baby grand piano- I think it was a 6' or 8'. He played the low notes, and then one individual note- possibly a low 'B'.. but it might have been a 'C' Then, he went over to a concert piano, with a much longer harp. He pointed out the difference in the string diameter, of the note he played. The short piano used a much thicker string. He played the longer piano, and the note. The difference was incredible. The short piano produced a quick, tubby, and 'bonky' note. The longer piano with thinner low strings, produced a deep, clear and great sounding low note. THIS is why you see fourteen foot Bosendorfer pianos in Classical concert halls..
Going heavier will likely make things worse.
Click to expand...
Ideally I’d like thinner strings with extra thick cores to achieve the higher tension I like without extra windings and other things that tend to make that clunky sound. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find a company that would make a set of strings like that. If anyone knows of a string maker that could make something like that though im open to suggestions.
 
#25
logdrum said:
Yep, they sound out of tune as well when fretted up high in fact weird overtones start at Eb and that's no good The benefit of less shifting goes out of the window when you can't use the B for as low as E and notes above from fret 5 all the way to the end of the fretboard.

Also everyone seem to want a 1 mm or less action, when low B can really benefit from being raised. The strings need some space to oscillate. and breath. if it is too low, you cannot pluck it to punch. Do some nut and saddle work , so that the B sits nicely , Use a zero fret, so may ways to improve the feel of the B. I personally like it at .120 although I will compromise at .125, I will not go thicker than that.


So for salsa and latin using an EUB or an acoustic, the way to get that punch tumbao is to udr solo strings ( which should be tuned to F#-B-E-A) Essentially thinner strings but set the actio0n a bit higher. You need that to get feet moving and hips swaying. Thin strings higher action, more oomph and cut
Click to expand...
I don’t find the overtones to be particularly detrimental. Not nearly as much as the fret buzz or the change in attack required to get rid of it on the low string. And I don't play with low action. My low b is set to just under 3mm which is about whats recommended if not a bit higher.
 
#27
micguy said:
A 148 B at 37 inch scale is 55 pounds. A 160 is 63 pounds - that's quite a lot. Kalium's tension calculator does not have any limits on tension - it just calculates a value; whether or not it's too much they don't say.

If, however, you look at the GHS tension charts for bass guitar strings, they show tunings for every string up until... they go into the high 50's for tension, but not a single string has a tuning/tension listed at 60 or more pounds. I used to have a tension calculator app, and when the tension went above 60, ir showed the value in red (not recommended).

I'd say a 160 is pushing it.
Click to expand...
It’s definitely as far as I’d push it. Also i didnt know there was an app for string tension. Is it just called string tension calculator?
 
#30
Jughead6 said:
Mechanical engineer here. I would urge the OP to be cautious and seek advice from Dingwall before he breaks something.
Click to expand...
If twisting a bass neck due to proportionally more tension on either the lower side or higher side was an issue, than no bassists would do a lighter E and a heavier G for example on a 4 string. Say 100 and a 50. The G would have roughly 16lbf more tension than the E with vanilla hex core rounds. I have done this myself on a pbass over an extended period without any issue whatsoever. If corresponding with Dingwall reassures the OP than there is no harm in that.
P.S on whether tension disparities can cause neck twisting see post #8
I

Thread 'TWISTED NECK!!'

Hi All,
Newbie here.
Got my hands on a lovely old Marlin Sidewinder from fleabay..
All was as described apart from the TWIST IN THE NECK!!!!

The seller said the bass has been without strings for a few months..
So, would that cause the wood/neck to flex and if so, would new strings, a bit of time and atmosphere pull the neck back into line?

Or should I jump ship now and return the bass..

I've been an acoustic player for years, setting up my guitars etc etc so I'm not a complete stranger to the theory but at the moment new to the bass side of things..

Thanks in advance ..

Pete.
Saying uneven tension may hasten a neck that already has twisting potential inherent.
I doubt a quality built bass like a Dingwall 6 string multiscale with it’s neck construction materials and methods, and dare say reputation, is gonna experience any twist acceleration under the OP’s plan
 
Last edited:
#32
Dust2Dust said:
You lost me here. I've been using 100 for E, and 80 for A on both my 30 and 34 inch scales. Are you saying that 105 and 85 would sound better? 🤔
Click to expand...
The poster was saying that since a concert grand piano (with long, relatively thin strings) sounded better than a baby grand (which used, shorter, thicker strings) ...that meant you should use thinner strings on a bass guitar. I disagreed with that sweeping generalization.

I use 95 E's (and 130 B's) on my basses, and they sound just fine. One of those might be considered fat (the B), and the 95 E skinny, but they are the same tension - that is a matched set of strings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dust2Dust

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back