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.
Its taken a while for the low B, how long for lower?
- Thread starter sonicnuance
- Start date
- Status
In a nutshell, this is the strongest - and in my opinion most conclusive - argument against the low F# ever becoming mainstream. For one thing, it takes a trained and disciplined ear to clearly distinguish (and appreciate) frequencies in that range - and the vast majority of casual listeners (i.e. your audience) are simply not going to make the time or effort. There's only so far one can extend the range of frequencies one uses to make music. Eventually one bumps up against the limits of human hearing and sound comprehension.
Secondly, there simply is little musical imperative for the low F#. The vast majority of music communicates what it needs to communicate within the range of notes and frequencies commonly available already. Just because one can do it, technologically speaking, doesn't necessarily mean that one should...
Do more with the frequencies you've already got, I say. Music is about a lot more than just physics...
MM
Link Removed
Take a listen to this. I think the listeners are "getting it" even though they don't know how low the notes are.
In a nutshell, this is the strongest - and in my opinion most conclusive - argument against the low F# ever becoming mainstream. For one thing, it takes a trained and disciplined ear to clearly distinguish (and appreciate) frequencies in that range - and the vast majority of casual listeners (i.e. your audience) are simply not going to make the time or effort. There's only so far one can extend the range of frequencies one uses to make music. Eventually one bumps up against the limits of human hearing and sound comprehension.
Secondly, there simply is little musical imperative for the low F#. The vast majority of music communicates what it needs to communicate within the range of notes and frequencies commonly available already. Just because one can do it, technologically speaking, doesn't necessarily mean that one should...
Do more with the frequencies you've already got, I say. Music is about a lot more than just physics...
MM
There ya go: musical imperative. Which is not the ability to rattle windows with the Radio Shack subwoofer in your ride. It IS music we're talking about here, isn't it?
Well, back to listening to an NPR piece on Charles Mingus...I'll bet he could have killed with a low F# or anything else he put his hand to. Not sure he's mainstream, though.
I'm going to see the Police next week. Hopefully the sound will be better. Hey, do they call Sting "Sten" in Denmark?
If I were to ever buy a Warwick Dark Lord I'd probably get a lifetime supply of strings in case Warwick discontinues the model.
JAUQO III-X
Inactive
I have yet to hear any one who is utilizing the Low F# string claiming to be mainstream.
I am trying to keep an open mind on the f# string concept. I know that the word concept may not be the right word choice since I am listening to Jauqo III-X recordings 0321 & 0407 (Cool groove BTW) so we are beyond concept stage and into reality.
It is a concept to me because this is all new to me and I am trying to get past my preconceived notions of what F# or lower would sound like. Listening to these recordings correct me if I am wrong but I am not hearing the fundamental but the over tones? Too me the tone sounds fat and growly almost dub like. I can hear the definition of the different notes being played. I like the tone I am hearing. The video clip that was posted of the Warwick sounded like my preconceived notions ie clunky like a string that is not tight enough. Jauqo III-X on the other hand sounds much better to me. Much better note definition. I am wondering though if I am not really hearing the fundamental much but more of the upper harmonic content of the note could a close approximation of this tone be had thru the use of heavy eq and playing one octave higher? and conversely eq that would get you into that range would not work at all on a F# equipped bass?
I think I need to track such a bass down and spend some time with it and listen.
As far as how main stream this will get I have no clue. I can think of so many different thing that would enter into the equation.
It is a concept to me because this is all new to me and I am trying to get past my preconceived notions of what F# or lower would sound like. Listening to these recordings correct me if I am wrong but I am not hearing the fundamental but the over tones? Too me the tone sounds fat and growly almost dub like. I can hear the definition of the different notes being played. I like the tone I am hearing. The video clip that was posted of the Warwick sounded like my preconceived notions ie clunky like a string that is not tight enough. Jauqo III-X on the other hand sounds much better to me. Much better note definition. I am wondering though if I am not really hearing the fundamental much but more of the upper harmonic content of the note could a close approximation of this tone be had thru the use of heavy eq and playing one octave higher? and conversely eq that would get you into that range would not work at all on a F# equipped bass?
I think I need to track such a bass down and spend some time with it and listen.
As far as how main stream this will get I have no clue. I can think of so many different thing that would enter into the equation.
JAUQO III-X
Inactive
Exactly: I was making a reference to the OP.
An F# string would be a challenge. It's hard enough to record a low E and have the presence you want...=sigh=
I'm sure that I would find something to do with it if I had a bass with one. But my understanding of the point of debate was not, is it possible, but rather, when will it reach the mainstream?
JAUQO III-X
Inactive
Since when? I'm hardly ahead of the curve doing well with a low B. I guess it will all boil down to a can-do or can't-do attitude.
I guess I should probably stake that it probably won't become mainstream since musicians are often more stubborn than the average 80 year old man when it comes to change.
I listened to your recordings. I think they're great, but to me the lower notes sounded empty and quiet in comparison to the usual range of notes.
Swet, cuz now I feel like gettin some dark lords and stringing up my ibanez with an F#BEA setup. are ther any other string makers that make the f# string? i think its like .175 er somethin
I doubt most listeners can tell the difference between a standard-tuned bass's low notes. Probably a lot of them are hazy even in the guitar's range. We bassists seem to do okay though. The perceptual issue is one of familiarity and I'm not talking about spending years learning to tell these notes apart. It's more a matter of weeks or a month for a person who already has some experience in another range. Many listeners are perfectly happy hearing no bass at all (because it doesn't even register). Should we quit playing because of them?In a nutshell, this is the strongest - and in my opinion most conclusive - argument against the low F# ever becoming mainstream. For one thing, it takes a trained and disciplined ear to clearly distinguish (and appreciate) frequencies in that range - and the vast majority of casual listeners (i.e. your audience) are simply not going to make the time or effort. There's only so far one can extend the range of frequencies one uses to make music. Eventually one bumps up against the limits of human hearing and sound comprehension.
Secondly, there simply is little musical imperative for the low F#. The vast majority of music communicates what it needs to communicate within the range of notes and frequencies commonly available already. Just because one can do it, technologically speaking, doesn't necessarily mean that one should...
The real issue is that most bassists aren't prepared to listen to low notes. To my ear there's a qualitative shift just below E (42 Hz), and unless you know it's coming you probably won't be happy when you start sounding like a motorbike. On the other hand, once you realize what's happening, those four or five semitones on the low B string may not be enough for you.
Can you name me an instrument that there was a "musical imperative" for before it was invented and experimented on? Uses for low notes may not jump immediately into your head, but that says more about your vision (not to single you out) than about low notes. So you don't know what to do with those notes. I draw a blank when I pick up a violin, but I don't go around saying it's got no musical imperative.
I'm not talking about technique, I'm referring to the exploitation of a musical resource new to me. Without trying it out, I have difficulty imagining the role such a low bass note would play, without it being simply for novelty's sake.
I'm inclined to think that its value would not be great enough -- for the material that I play -- for me to go to the expense to try it.
john turner
You don't want to do that. Trust me.
this is simply not true. the harmonic content of the notes below the low b is unique, and as such is clearly distinguishable, even if the fundamental is not. anyone with ears can hear the notes on my low f# and register them as they should, especially live.
knuckle_head
Commercial User
- Jul 30, 2002
- 2,621
- 58
- Disclosures
- Owner; Knuckle Guitar Works & Circle K Strings
You have several choices; the .165 F# string that Jauqo uses is available through the Conklin web site. There is the Dark Lord .175. And if you like/want high tension the .195 C# string that is a part of the Jauqo set on the Conklin site does a bang up job on the F# and/or octave down E.
All these can be utilized on a standard bass UNLESS you have a string through bridge. A bass string's ball end is 1/4" from most manufacturers, and all of the makers listed above. If you don't have a top loading type of bridge you can ream out ferules and bridge holes slightly to let the string barely fit through and you'd be golden.
The only way you'll know if it serves a musical purpose to you is to give it a go. 4 strings will do... it does for me.
This is the case with just about anything .... ERB's, piccolo bass, 5th's tuning vs 4th's, 39" scale, fanned frets .... many players see no real need for anything other than the accepted standard (whatever they perceive that standard to be
) for the music they play. OTOH, some players feel the need to explore beyond their normal comfort range (not suggesting you don't, lp 
) and reach out to things beyond the norm.I'd venture to guess that when TB started Mr. Turner was close to a lone voice in the wind regarding ERB's, yet 10 years later he does have some company. Would I call ERB's a standard? No. Will they ever be? I don't know, just like I don't know if an F# would ever be considered a standard.
Arguments for fundamentals vs harmonics will rage on forever and I'm ill-equipped to offer any valid insight on that point. But in a practical world, when I play it I hear it, my band hears it and the audience hears it .... that's all that really matters to me .......
JAUQO III-X
Inactive
in a practical world, when I play it I hear it, my band hears it and the audience hears it .... that's all that really matters to me .......
this thread rules
Good thing I didn't start it
+1
People had similar concerns about the low B string, and those didn't pan out. Plenty of us are playing low-B fiver through cabs that don't reach 40Hz, let alone 30, and the low notes come through fine. It's all well and good to acquire an amp rig that reproduces those lowest fundamentals, but timbre is in the harmonics.
- Status
