Its taken a while for the low B, how long for lower?

[NoobBassist]

ok, i missed alot on this thread, but the low F# is also getting pretty popular with metal guitarists, and of course the metal bassists will want to keep up. in fact ESP just released one or two 8 string guitars this year with the F#.

something else to consider

ummmm arent there octave differences between guitars and basses?? which would probably mean the f# string on a guitar would sound something at the range of f# on the e string of a bass guitar... well anyways... i think an open low f# wont be really audible and probably would be just good to give an earthquake effect during a live gig... (hardly audible)*twang* = whole stage shaking...
just a thought...

 

[Linkert]

Im sure this has been mentioned but how about the Warwick "Dark Lord" or whatever its name is.. It's tuned F# B E A?

 

[waseok]

Im sure this has been mentioned but how about the Warwick "Dark Lord" or whatever its name is.. It's tuned F# B E A?

yeah

I don't like how the F# sounds, and i doubt i will ever do. Why u would need such a low note anyway?

 

[JAUQO III-X]

I don't like how the F# sounds, and i doubt i will ever do. Why u would need such a low note anyway?

How many different scenarios have you heard the Low F# used in?


I can only speak for myself. When I use the Low F# I like how the texture of Low F# can really assist in pushing the groove and how it can add that extra substance when needed. And on ballads or medium temp songs it's almost like having an organ with growl moving through the composition.

 

[Bearded Bugs]

it's almost like having an organ with growl moving through the composition.

Agreed, lushness ensues

 

[john turner]

i wonder who of the folks with the really strong negative opinions have actually heard the low f# period.

one thing that a lot of folks are not acknowledging is that the tonality of the big string is a very useful tool even with higher pitched notes. having a .165 play the "e" that equates to the open e string of the standard 4 is absolutely thunderous - it's such a large, round sound, completely different than the open e string.

 

[JAUQO III-X]

one thing that a lot of folks are not acknowledging is that the tonality of the big string is a very useful tool even with higher pitched notes. having a .165 play the "e" that equates to the open e string of the standard 4 is absolutely thunderous - it's such a large, round sound, completely different than the open e string.

 

[jordan_frerichs]

the b is low enough for me. my friend has a 6 string bass, but he strings it low f, low b, e, a,d,g. it works for him cuase he does a lot of church music. guy also has a 3 string tuned in ffiths. octives are backwards

 

[spade2you]

i wonder who of the folks with the really strong negative opinions have actually heard the low f# period.

Oh, I know! I know!!! The same people who have never played boutique basses but are experts on ours!!! What do I win?

 

[knuckle_head]

Okay, I'll toss a buncha crap out here; I play a 4 string bass tuned an octave down. I play it through any rig I can get my hands on and it has yet to fail to perform. My rig of favor is a Cafe Walter HA-1. No worries, no problems.

First, I don't care how good your gear is, the vast majority of the rigs we all own are incapable of producing 40 Hz. That said, everyone seems to be alright with the way their E strings perform. If your rig happens to be good to 40 Hz then you have all the rig you need for F# or the E below that.

I believe the majority of players are using inferior B strings, so having an adequate or even benchmark F# is a ways off. That is not to negate what is being done - Jauqo's C# Theory is awesome, and the subcontra and solo stuff that is out there needs no defending.

What will make the F# mainstream first and foremost is a maker of strings willing to make the commitment to it - make a good string in quantity enough to make them affordable. Having a single string cost the same as a full set is very off-putting.

Home stereo equipment is rarely sold without subs these days. Cars with better sound systems are coming with them too. And because of the tonal structure of bass notes the F# and octave E wil fall well within the range we are accustomed to hearing.

The bass players adventurous enough to keep up (down?) with their 7 and 8 string guitarists will likely be the ones to push it the furthest.

 

[Arx]

Okay, I'll toss a buncha crap out here; I play a 4 string bass tuned an octave down. I play it through any rig I can get my hands on and it has yet to fail to perform. My rig of favor is a Cafe Walter HA-1. No worries, no problems.

First, I don't care how good your gear is, the vast majority of the rigs we all own are incapable of producing 40 Hz. That said, everyone seems to be alright with the way their E strings perform. If your rig happens to be good to 40 Hz then you have all the rig you need for F# or the E below that.

I believe the majority of players are using inferior B strings, so having an adequate or even benchmark F# is a ways off. That is not to negate what is being done - Jauqo's C# Theory is awesome, and the subcontra and solo stuff that is out there needs no defending.

What will make the F# mainstream first and foremost is a maker of strings willing to make the commitment to it - make a good string in quantity enough to make them affordable. Having a single string cost the same as a full set is very off-putting.

Home stereo equipment is rarely sold without subs these days. Cars with better sound systems are coming with them too. And because of the tonal structure of bass notes the F# and octave E wil fall well within the range we are accustomed to hearing.

The bass players adventurous enough to keep up (down?) with their 7 and 8 string guitarists will likely be the ones to push it the furthest.

Interresting. What makes a B string better or worse?

 

[knuckle_head]

Interresting. What makes a B string better or worse?

Inconsistent tension and inconsistent winding parameters are the biggest culprits.

A string that is too loose as compared to the strings that sit above it in a set will have a more pronounced fundamental and a much hotter output. It sounds different in the first place and has to be played differently to accommodate the higher volume. Too few B strings sound as though they are from the same set IME.

If you approach proper tension then you have a dampening (damping?) affect caused by different wrap counts. A fair amount of B strings .130 and heavier (a goodly number of .125s as well) use 4 wraps which changes the characteristics of the B as compared to the balance of any given set.

Best solution I have stumbled on to has been to start with your lowest string, be certain that the harmonic structure of that string is to your liking, and then build a set out in such a way as to pick up only a couple of pounds of tension per string as you go higher. This enables you to play with a very consistent technique all the way across and keeps everything sonically similar.

....my $.02

 

[El-Bob]

ummmm arent there octave differences between guitars and basses?? which would probably mean the f# string on a guitar would sound something at the range of f# on the e string of a bass guitar... well anyways... i think an open low f# wont be really audible and probably would be just good to give an earthquake effect during a live gig... (hardly audible)*twang* = whole stage shaking...
just a thought...

i think you're missing the point. if a guitarist has a low F#, then i want a low F# an octave below it. if my guitarist plays an open E, i'm not playing the 7th fret of my A string, i'm playing my open E. so, if a guitarist plays an open F#, i don't wanna be playing the 7th fret of my B string, i wanna have an open F# an octave below.

now, i personally don't use the low F# because my guitarist doesn't, however if he did, it's something i would consider. in fact i would likely be the one to pressure him into buying an 8 string guitar.

and, if the whole stage is shaking, i think it's more likely bad EQing on your part than it is the F#. also, the main application i think of for the F# is metal, so is the "earthquake effect during a live gig" really such a bad thing

 

[Darkstrike]

I like the growl, deafo gonna try this sometime, soon, very soon.

 

[El-Bob]

I like the growl, deafo gonna try this sometime, soon, very soon.

put it on youtube when you do

 

[lpdeluxe]

I like five string basses not because I want to cause rumbles in the dancers' intestines (although that is certainly an attractive byproduct) but because it makes playing in C and D easier, with the ability to go across the fingerboard instead of toward the nut.

I think that, with a sixth string, you'd hit the point of diminishing returns.

First, many five string basses have unsatisfactory B strings. The B string doesn't speak, feel or react like the upper four. Simple fact. Six strings will not magically erase this problem: instead of one string that doesn't work very well, you'll have two.

Second, another string is going to pretty intrusive to a lot of players. You can't get the fashionable skinny neck with five, let alone six.

Third, I'm old-fashioned enough to think that the "slammin'" bass coming out of the subwoofer of the low rider cruising down my street sounds like crap. No note definition, just the sound of my pictures rattling on my living room walls. Dancers like the punch, but the fact it, you don't have to go that low to get it. More than that, IMHO, the lower you go, the muddier it gets, which does not improve punch.

Disclaimer: at the moment I don't own a five, but I have and I will.

 

[JAUQO III-X]

the lower you go, the muddier it gets, which does not improve punch.

That is not always true.

 

[spade2you]

I like five string basses not because I want to cause rumbles in the dancers' intestines (although that is certainly an attractive byproduct) but because it makes playing in C and D easier, with the ability to go across the fingerboard instead of toward the nut.

I think that, with a sixth string, you'd hit the point of diminishing returns.

First, many five string basses have unsatisfactory B strings. The B string doesn't speak, feel or react like the upper four. Simple fact. Six strings will not magically erase this problem: instead of one string that doesn't work very well, you'll have two.

Second, another string is going to pretty intrusive to a lot of players. You can't get the fashionable skinny neck with five, let alone six.

Third, I'm old-fashioned enough to think that the "slammin'" bass coming out of the subwoofer of the low rider cruising down my street sounds like crap. No note definition, just the sound of my pictures rattling on my living room walls. Dancers like the punch, but the fact it, you don't have to go that low to get it. More than that, IMHO, the lower you go, the muddier it gets, which does not improve punch.

Disclaimer: at the moment I don't own a five, but I have and I will.

First of all, you really need to try a good 5 string before you critique the low B string. Luthiers are definitely worth their price tag in this respect. I hate to sound like a snob about it, but making a stronger low B than their competition is their bread and butter.

Five and six strings have a wider neck. Yup. Sloppy technique is not really allowed unless you're a giant.

If you think the subwoofer nonsense in cars is from low basses, think synthesizer, PLEASE!!!!!! Like they'd ever have a real bassist...or drummer..etc.

 

[El-Bob]

I like five string basses not because I want to cause rumbles in the dancers' intestines (although that is certainly an attractive byproduct) but because it makes playing in C and D easier, with the ability to go across the fingerboard instead of toward the nut.

I think that, with a sixth string, you'd hit the point of diminishing returns.

First, many five string basses have unsatisfactory B strings. The B string doesn't speak, feel or react like the upper four. Simple fact. Six strings will not magically erase this problem: instead of one string that doesn't work very well, you'll have two.

Second, another string is going to pretty intrusive to a lot of players. You can't get the fashionable skinny neck with five, let alone six.

Third, I'm old-fashioned enough to think that the "slammin'" bass coming out of the subwoofer of the low rider cruising down my street sounds like crap. No note definition, just the sound of my pictures rattling on my living room walls. Dancers like the punch, but the fact it, you don't have to go that low to get it. More than that, IMHO, the lower you go, the muddier it gets, which does not improve punch.

Disclaimer: at the moment I don't own a five, but I have and I will.

i think you're missing something too. 6's are usually BEADGC (i play one). you're diminishing returns argument simply isn't true, so i won't bother with it. also, F# would be most commonly found on 7-string basses, or the 4-string Warwick dark lord

 

[Marcury]

First of all, you really need to try a good 5 string before you critique the low B string. Luthiers are definitely worth their price tag in this respect. I hate to sound like a snob about it, but making a stronger low B than their competition is their bread and butter.

Five and six strings have a wider neck. Yup. Sloppy technique is not really allowed unless you're a giant.

If you think the subwoofer nonsense in cars is from low basses, think synthesizer, PLEASE!!!!!! Like they'd ever have a real bassist...or drummer..etc.

i think you're missing something too. 6's are usually BEADGC (i play one). you're diminishing returns argument simply isn't true, so i won't bother with it. also, F# would be most commonly found on 7-string basses, or the 4-string Warwick dark lord

+1 to both and I'll add that the high c string allows for more and more interesting chord voicing if you are interested in such things. Also what makes you think sub woofers in cars have anything to do with quality sound?