New revolutionary strings?

[ixlramp]

So then, if my bass is 35" and the strings are "lumped" with a perfect added mass, it must be "gauged" for open pitch E and a 34" inch length, and then if I tuned down to Eb or D on a 35" all this lump is thrown out the window then?

I was not referring to pitch.
The string ordering page states that the pre-manufactured compromise-design strings are considered compatible with 34" or 35", the scale difference is small so the effect of a fixed-length lump at the end will not change much.
My experience and knowledge suggests that slight retunings (such as 2 semitones) will not significantly alter the behaviour, just like how intonation remains near-perfect when you alter tuning.
So i think the answer to your question is 'no'.
The page states that radically different tunings will require custom-designed strings, but probably more because the gauges will need to be different.

There are thicker mass at the end of a non tapered string anyway, so why shouldn't that matter? Please explain...

Because that lock-twist section is behind the saddle.

BTW there are "Lumps" on these non-saddle bridge strings anyway, and must be "added weight" too to them don't you think?

Dr. Kemp posted about that here Announcing The Ray Ross™ Saddle-Less Bass Bridge

Not to speak of the sudden jump in total gauge in the string, bass gauge goes from an even .020 increase all acroos the string .40 - .60 -.80 - .100 and the all of a sudden a .146 for the low B.

Quoting Kemp Strings: "Gauges are 45, 60, 81, 108 for standard four strings plus 146 for five string sets. This gives a tension of 189 N (which is 19.3 kg = 42.5 pounds) for the G string, and very close to equal tension across the strings"

And the asking price too.

They are hand-made custom design strings made by a third party, and the custom sets require some complex physics to specify the lump design, so not entirely surprising.
If a string manufacturer made these in one compromise design it would only be the cost of one very small additional winding.

just to get heard without inharmonics when playing above 15th fret on a fivers lowest string.

Again, you are greatly understating the problem of inharmonicity for many players. B strings sound bad to me at fret 5.

Those notes are available on the g-string anyway, without inharmonics....

If a player chooses to play high up on the B or E it is for a reason, otherwise they would play the pitch on other strings.

BTW I did that "inharmonics" sound test the other day on my fanned fret Dingwall which is - actually - a 4 string with BEAD tuning and a) 36.25 scale on low B string b) No taper (as in no open core anywhere) c) at .125 gauge, and found the very same non-existent/reduced inharmonicity on the low B string up there, at the highest frets, as in these lumped ones.

I doubt it was "the very same" and it was not "non-existent" because inharmonicity is always present to a degree, and you could not prove that just from a listening test. I think what you mean is 'it sounded okay to me', which is fine.
It is highly likely that a non-tapered lumped .125 on 36.25" would have less much inharmonicity, as this is apparently scientifically proven.
As i wrote earlier, a 36.25" scale versus a 34" or 35" scale does not make a large difference to inharmonicity, especially as you are still using a standard B gauge like .125.

 

[ixlramp]

Deleted member 368008 made a good point about how different bridge designs will alter the saddle to lump distance and so potentially alter the effect of the lump.
Sorry i did not realise the importance of this issue earlier.

I re-read the scientific paper and there was no mention of this issue, this distance was stated as a particular value.

On the order page for the string sets Lumped 45s for Bass i found the references to this issue.
The pre-manufactured sets come in a choice of 2 ferrule to lump distances, one for through-body and one for top-loaded, based on the dimensions of "Fender designs". Quoting the page:
"You can now purchase these strings optimised for surface mount or through body mount bridges with the ball end to saddle distances and (34-35 inch) scale length compatible with Fender® designs."
"Dr Jonathan Kemp will email on ordering to confirm the exact make and model of bass these are intended for to ensure compatibility."

Custom sets are also available where you can specify your ferrule-anchor to saddle distance, such that the set is constructed with the ideal ferrule to lump distance.
Quoting the page: "Basses with non-standard designs may need custom strings made with approximately one month lead time from this website. Please email [removed] for enquiring about strings for basses of different scale lengths, tunings or non-standard distances of string between the ball end and saddle."

*****

In another Talkbass thread about Kemp Strings there was concern about how reducing inharmonicity could result in a tone that is actually undesirable because it is 'too harmonic'. When i re-read the paper i noticed that Kemp Strings recognise that a degree of inharmonicity is desirable, but excessive inharmonicity is unpleasant.

In the 'Results' section of the scientific paper there are 3 graphs, one for 21st fret, one for 12th fret, one for open notes. Each graph plots inharmonicity against harmonic for the 3 types of string tested: standard, tapered, 'tapered and lumped'.

For the 'tapered and lumped' strings, the graphs show that inharmonicity is greatly reduced for the lower harmonics (where the reduction is most beneficial), but there is progressively less reduction of inharmonicity for the higher harmonics.
This suggests that enough inharmonicity remains for a familiar and pleasant bass-guitar-like tone.

*****

The scientific paper shows how, compared to a standard non-tapered string, a tapered string has increased inharmonicity caused by having a length of tapered section in the vibrating length. This increase of inharmonicity is in addition to the inharmonicity caused by string stiffness.

This is unfortunate because tapering is usually used for large gauges, which already have high inharmonicity caused by their stiffness. The tapering is beneficial in multiple ways, and sometimes essential, but increases inharmonicity further.

So i consider lumped construction to be an important innovation that could be very beneficial for large gauge tapered strings. I hope that lumped construction becomes a widely-available option from many manufacturers for large gauge tapered strings.
Tapered strings are already rather weird due to their taper, so adding a lump seems not a big issue.

Other applications where i think lumped construction could be very beneficial is where inharmonicity is a big problem:
1. For very large gauge strings of approximately .150 and larger, such as a F#0 of around .175.
2. Large gauge strings (anything over .110) on tapping instruments (Chapman Stick, Warr Guitar, Touchguitar etc.). The tapping technique seems to excite higher harmonics in a way that makes the inharmonicity of a string much more of a problem.

 

[ixlramp]

BTW regarding that someone hasn't made them "lumped" before. Here's from Octave4Plus fb page, although you don't see where the lump ends, it's not only a regular tapered string, the lumps "gauge" turns down to its regular gauge after a while:

I follow Octave 4 Plus's FB page. I have just found that photo, read the comments, cannot find any mention of a lump.
Looked through all their photos of very large gauge strings and cannot see any lumped strings.
Also, that photo is from October 2020, which is after Kemp Strings released their lumped strings.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

Again, you are greatly understating the problem of inharmonicity for many players. B strings sound bad to me at fret 5.

Not on any 37.5" inch Dingwall I've heard. Christ not even at 36.25". I even use a BEAD tuning and use a capo at the 5th which turns it into a regular EADG tuning. I play up there without any remarks from anyone. I don't look at the dots though. Whenever having to do with SRV/Hendrix tunes, or horns to play "drop Eb" I just move the capo down one step. Drop D? Yes, capo on third. Play "Born Under A Bad Sign" in C sharp? Yes, drop the capo to 2nd fret. And all metal and modern music the capo resides on the headstock and the low B sings. When using fanned fret, the capo on 5th even has longer sustain than any short scale bass. People think it's going to be shorter but it isn't. The thing is that the tension is the same. Very little happens to tension to strings when barred, or capoed. To most peoples surprise. The most increase in tension of a string actually happens at - here it comes and people does not believe this - first fret. Right after the nut. Although, again, not by much, but only there it's slightly measurable.

The capo at 5th with a low B string is low B at 5th fret, and it doesn't sound bad at all, and I can play up there if I want, no one complains. Very few looks at it since it is a maple neck and the small fretwires aren't that detectable that they are fanned out. It's not visible until you looking up close. Not anyone sees it until I tell them..."hey look", and they go "omg"..

The low B is at a mere .122 I wouldn't want to play that .146 at all. There would be a too much ramp up on top of the strings. All the others are quite gradual, but then a sudden jump in height. No matter that you even out the tension. What has someone been smoking?

 

[Bassist30]

119 dollars for a 5 string. 76 dollars for a 4 string set. Ill wait for someone with a review or 2 or 3 before making a decision.

 

[ixlramp]

I am not slamming his idea at all,

You clearly are, and making quite an effort to do so. Which is partly why i want to defend and point out the misunderstandings.

but the comparison to piano strings with open core, is not mentioned in a bypassing way, and should not be neglected. It simple isn't that at a regular bass guitar.

It does not matter how many times lumped piano strings are referred to, i have explained above why the situations being different is irrelevant. Lumped construction is not only valid for piano strings with exposed core at both ends and lumps at both ends. Theory and experiment shows it works for bass guitar strings, and it works in a different but also somewhat similar way.

If I have higher action than anyone else, and intonate differently the lump may end up at the bridge saddle point or even behind it.

The scientific paper states that Kemp 'tapered and lumped' strings have 9mm between saddle and taper. The differences in action between players does not cause a 9mm change in intonation offset, probably no more than 1mm (you can prove this to yourself) which will not make much difference to the effect of the lump.
You are making some silly exaggerations in this thread.

 

[Willie5String]

I saw a picture of these strings at rhe Kemp website.

Take a look at the Kalium hybrids, same deal, I think. BTW the Kalium hybrids are 1/2 the price and none of the hype.

 

[Gsnorgathon]

Kaliums aren't lumped. Lumping is the whole point of the Kemps.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

"Deleted member 368008 said: ↑
BTW there are "Lumps" on these non-saddle bridge strings anyway, and must be "added weight" too to them don't you think?
Dr. Kemp posted about that here Announcing The Ray Ross™ Saddle-Less Bass Bridge"

Yes, and there he states the same thing as I did:
"The raised mass due to the knot at the bridge can be expected to lower inharmonicity somewhat which is a good thing."


Look, all this is an excellent example of "no such things as a free lunch" in combination with "you can't please them all" type.

The RR thread (ray ross) have just as many questions and detractors, and skepticism. I think one has to turn on every stone first with anything. Again, my problems with inharmonicity is mitigated (not exacerbated or totally eliminated) with multiscale and fanned frets design. That is what's to be used to equal tension out the easiest way. Granted that you still have to be wary of which string gauges you buy, use, and you still have to hunt down special length bass strings with extra long scale. What confuses it up even more ist that internet strings companies like stringsdirect lists "speaking" length in one of their FAQs as string from ball end to nut, which is whack in my book. The speaking length of any string is the vibrating length between the witness points of both nut and bridge saddle. And it starts a tiny bit in that is different from the total scale.

I think RR bridge is a good idea, again, as fast as all strings would fit in there without problems. But again, it's the same with Kemp strings. Good idea, as fast as the strings will fit perfectly within any bridge construction, body through/top load out there. But I doubt they will, ever. So many variations doesn't exist on upright pianos..as you saw on the picture, just put any lump of steel there (the blue ones) it doesn't have to be exact the wrap, alloy that the strings are made of.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

I think I would go out and buy those fish lumps and drill them up to fit a .130 gauge string. On a regular 34" fiver. And try out the inharmonicity. Those fishing "angles" or whatever they're called, can be

a) set on any distance of the strings once tuned up and intonated.
b) if the string is tapered or not.
c) Whatever gauge.

Still, if the "lump" is designed for one string, it's an open string. As fast as you fret up there the inharmonics differs and changes, and you have to adjust the lump accordingly, the mass will have to change to buck it just as well as to open string. How does Kemp fix that?

 

[Deleted member 368008]

I follow Octave 4 Plus's FB page. I have just found that photo, read the comments, cannot find any mention of a lump.
Looked through all their photos of very large gauge strings and cannot see any lumped strings.
Also, that photo is from October 2020, which is after Kemp Strings released their lumped strings.

Quoted from the comments of that video, below (Gary Goodman, founder octave4plus):
Garry Goodman 11 months ago
"I ve been making string like these for over a decade - best of luck."

Why don't you mail him then, and tell him he's full of it? Or you don't have the guts... He's been making special customized strings for anyone that cares, but doesn't make a fuss about it and hype it too the moon and back as especially revolutionary, and don't even bother to patent it. That just one of his specialities are thicker gauge at the ends, doesn't mean he just conforms to, or do those exclusively. It's just some of them that are made like that...

... too...

And yes, if I seen them before somewhere, rings a bell in the back of my head, (although the initial name was mixed up, I didn't know exactly who it was, from the start) but someone else thinks it's inventive, innovative and - especially - revolutionary, when they have come up with it, be sure of one thing, I am going to be all over them!

 

[Deleted member 368008]

And speaking of Ray Ross bridge and Lump strings combined. Atlansia basses had these for years, if not decades. No bend at all. Straighter than straight and no saddle to bend over.
My kind of guy...

Combines the two in one go. The need for bending any string is neglected. And the whole brass enclosure or "sheban"g seems to engulf the string at that point. Huge kind of lump if you ask me, the whole brass construction. That the lump must "hang free" in the air eludes me. You dampen them strings enough with this one. It is ADDED mass, and then some. I don't think you'll break strings that often on these ones, and tapered strings and thicker than hell you can still use.

If the lump has to be turned loose and hang in the air, well, just build a modification of this one where you can clamp the "brass lump" anywhere on the string, and then if not needed move it back to this bridge and lock it down without touching the string. The thing with this, is that it would work with ANY string.

 

[sunbeast]

I think I would go out and buy those fish lumps and drill them up to fit a .130 gauge string. On a regular 34" fiver. And try out the inharmonicity. Those fishing "angles" or whatever they're called, can be

a) set on any distance of the strings once tuned up and intonated.
b) if the string is tapered or not.
c) Whatever gauge.

Still, if the "lump" is designed for one string, it's an open string. As fast as you fret up there the inharmonics differs and changes, and you have to adjust the lump accordingly, the mass will have to change to buck it just as well as to open string. How does Kemp fix that?

If you read the purpose/goal part of the scientific paper, he contrasts the lumped string experiment against the “ideal” lump calculated for use on lumped piano strings. In other words, he acknowledges that a static lump cannot be “idealized” across the whole fretboard, but demonstrates in the results that the non-ideal lump bass string does still effectively decrease inharmonicity across different points of the fretboard significantly and relatively consistently vs the other string designs (the important part is that it does work across the whole fretboard). It looks from the results that his lumps may have been “idealized” to the 12th fret as this is where his lumped strings show the largest improvement from the results (which makes sense, since his main purpose is to improve the upper registers of fatter strings).
I won’t pretend to understand much of the theory in that paper nor have a lot of interest in his strings apart from curiosity, but this seems to be how he answers the question at the end of your post. In short, a single lump can functionally work across the fretboard to reduce inharmonicity vs standard tapered or non-tapered bass strings...

 

[sunbeast]

And speaking of Ray Ross bridge and Lump strings combined. Atlansia basses had these for years, if not decades. No bend at all. Straighter than straight and no saddle to bend over.
My kind of guy...
View attachment 4195503

Combines the two in one go. The need for bending any string is neglected. And the whole brass enclosure or "sheban"g seems to engulf the string at that point. Huge kind of lump if you ask me, the whole brass construction. That the lump must "hang free" in the air eludes me. You dampen them strings enough with this one. It is ADDED mass, and then some. I don't think you'll break strings that often on these ones, and tapered strings and thicker than hell you can still use.

If the lump has to be turned loose and hang in the air, well, just build a modification of this one where you can clamp the "brass lump" anywhere on the string, and then if not needed move it back to this bridge and lock it down without touching the string. The thing with this, is that it would work with ANY string.

I think this is a much more useful variant on the Ray Ross-style design (at least as far as not bending the strings, if that bothers you), but it has nothing to do with putting any additional mass into the speaking-length of the string. That front part appears to be the saddle piece, and it’s effect on the speaking length as far as this discussion would be null once the strings are screwed into place (I assume those set screws on top are just pushing the string down into that curved surface that is effectively the saddle).
The reason the Ray Ross bridge might (probably just by mistake given what I have read from Mr. Ross) share some theory with the Kemp string is because the built-in lump at the ball-end of any standard string is put into the speaking length of the string with the Ray Ross design. I personally see this as a major liability (particularly since I play a lot of strings that have silk wrap on the ball-end and know from experience that this will dampen my tone). I can’t speak to having tried a Ray Ross bridge though...

 

[JimmyM]

119 dollars for a 5 string. 76 dollars for a 4 string set. Ill wait for someone with a review or 2 or 3 before making a decision.

Word. Plus it can all be defeated with finger pressure anyway.

 

[sunbeast]

Quoted from the comments of that video, below (Gary Goodman, founder octave4plus):
Garry Goodman 11 months ago
"I ve been making string like these for over a decade - best of luck."

Why don't you mail him then, and tell him he's full of it? Or you don't have the guts... He's been making special customized strings for anyone that cares, but doesn't make a fuss about it and hype it too the moon and back as especially revolutionary, and don't even bother to patent it. That just one of his specialities are thicker gauge at the ends, doesn't mean he just conforms to, or do those exclusively. It's just some of them that are made like that...

... too...

And yes, if I seen them before somewhere, rings a bell in the back of my head, (although the initial name was mixed up, I didn't know exactly who it was, from the start) but someone else thinks it's inventive, innovative and - especially - revolutionary, when they have come up with it, be sure of one thing, I am going to be all over them!

Those YouTube replies point to no examples of him having done this before for customers, only a claim to have experimented with the idea in the past (and to have achieved the “same” goal with other designs of his, though he only mentions the goal of balance of fundamental and harmonics rather than the inharmonicity of the harmonics suggesting he may be missing the point). I’m certain the idea has been tried by numerous people over the centuries of stringed instruments towards various ends- part of the scientific process is acknowledgement and examination of previous work in the field (hence Kemp’s analysis of the piano string lump concept). In this case the important part of innovation is the use of a particular design towards a given goal- particularly using lumps on bass strings to decrease inharmonicity, something that seems to have only previously been marketed for piano strings. It may well be that someone out there has tried the same technique towards the same purposes previously, I just haven’t seen any evidence of that.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

I'll try fishin line sinkers first, it's cheaper and you can take them off.

And I'll buy his guitar strings. I can't think of that I am starting to play more up there thanks to his bass strings, or less. But I can think of playing his guitar strings since you can bend chords relatively with the whammy. That's an altogether different thing, and I couldn't give a *** how many lumps or large lumps there are on his guitar strings. That relative bend inside chord has way (light years) more value to me than to trying sound good up there on bass thickest string, when you can play them on other places and on other strings anyway will less inhamonicity.

Guitar Kemp strings = yes.
Bass Kemp strings = no.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

ppsst!!! I wonder if they'll work with a Gizmotron!!

 

[Deleted member 368008]

You clearly are, and making quite an effort to do so

No, what I am objecting at, is the "science" and innovation, invention that hypes it. It has been made before. "we used science..." and all that ballyhoo. They used engineering. People can't often make the difference between science and engineering. We all use science more or less. Engingeering not so much.

The real deal, which I should very well think is a more innovative, and better invention than the lumped bass strings, is the guitar strings that keeps relative in tune when bending on a regular strat whammy bar thing. That, I can very well think of, and even accept "revolutionary invention" hype, of his strings.

You are making some silly exaggerations in this thread.

No, not at all, and besides this, I am not alone. That a uniform gauge string has less, and at a certain length, no inharmonics compared to a non-uniform gauge strings is shown here. "Bell like quality"...yeah maybe, but not on my bass, guitar or piano.

 

[sunbeast]

No, what I am objecting at, is the "science" and innovation, invention that hypes it. It has been made before. "we used science..." and all that ballyhoo. They used engineering. People can't often make the difference between science and engineering. We all use science more or less. Engingeering not so much.

The real deal, which I should very well think is a more innovative, and better invention than the lumped bass strings, is the guitar strings that keeps relative in tune when bending on a regular strat whammy bar thing. That, I can very well think of, and even accept "revolutionary invention" hype, of his strings.

No, not at all, and besides this, I am not alone. That a uniform gauge string has less, and at a certain length, no inharmonics compared to a non-uniform gauge strings is shown here. "Bell like quality"...yeah maybe, but not on my bass, guitar or piano.

Dr Kemp is a research physicist and the Head of Music Technology at a university. That article posted at the start of this thread (the non-paywall one) was a press-release directly from his university to promote the work and research of one of their staff, so obviously they are going to publicize his innovation and scientific research because that’s what it is and it looks good for the school.
Getting your research published in peer-reviewed journals is pretty much how you gain legitimacy as a research scientist these days, and he’s done it with this research on lumped bass strings, his guitar strings and several other published works on a number of subjects (it seems he’s done a lot of work around brass instruments like trumpets in particular). This particular work with the guitar and bass strings both fit under the umbrella of what would be called “Engineering Sciences”, which are applied sciences to solve problems (basically a part of his day job).

As far as it “having been done before,” so far the only “evidence” you’ve presented is a vague comment on YouTube from someone who has claimed to have experimented with putting mass on either end of bass strings before. These aren’t strings that he has for sale anywhere, there seem no pictures or documentation posted to show that they were ever released to the public (or even existed), and certainly nothing to suggest that Kemp lifted this idea from the guy. Tons of innovative ideas (maybe most of them) are things that other people have thought of and maybe even tried in the past, to think of something truly “new” is a ridiculously tall order given that billions upon billions of people through human history have been thinking 24 hours a day about any number of things since we first started thinking. The difference between personal conception and application/research is a BIG one though. Sure, the concept was likely inspired by the lumped piano string, and the scientific research behind the lumped piano string was duly covered and credit given in Kemp’s journal article...



The problem with your neck posted video here is something you have brought up a few times in this thread- a bass guitar (unlike a piano) is fretted when played, so the “ideal” length to decrease inharmonics become moot unless you are just chugging away only in the bottom register. The whole purpose defined by the research Kemp made was finding a solution that decreased inharmonicity across the entire fretted string.