String Balance (gauges)

[Sleeq]

Hey gents,

I use Fender Flats 9050L... however I find the E string a little weak... I have a new set of 9050ML. If i switch the E (from .95-.100) how will it affect the balance in relation to the other strings?

Or am I just overthinking?

 

[knuckle_head]

In general tension gets lower the lower you go. It drops dramatically at the E and gets worse the lower you go.

There are good reasons for this that I happen to disagree with, but I digress.

I bet you would be well-served by upping your E string to .100 as it will bring your set closer to a balanced set.

 

[lug]

I generally like the feel of 95's and the sound of 105's. 100's are the perfect compromise.

 

[Thunder Pulse]

In general tension gets lower the lower you go. It drops dramatically at the E and gets worse the lower you go.

There are good reasons for this that I happen to disagree with....

What are those reasons? From looking at that somewhat well known D'Addario string tension chart I've noticed that the D string always has the most tension and the E is relatively floppy by comparison. What's the reason that sets aren't spec'd with a more consistent tension across all the strings?

 

[Parabolic Box]

I never understood the reason for such variation in tension, either. I recently got fed up with it and ordered a set of La Bellas because they seemed fairly well balanced.

I don't notice any loss, but it does play more comfortably.

 

[DavidMP]

What are those reasons? From looking at that somewhat well known D'Addario string tension chart I've noticed that the D string always has the most tension and the E is relatively floppy by comparison. What's the reason that sets aren't spec'd with a more consistent tension across all the strings?

None. Thomastik-Infelds are well balanced.

 

[Thunder Pulse]

That doesn't explain anything. That's one brand, what about all the others?

 

[Parabolic Box]

There probably is no reason, other than that it's been the standard for so long no one questions it anymore. Plus, people have a strange affinity towards symmetry, so that might be reasons behind .020 gauge jumps between strings even though it has less than perfect results.

 

[knuckle_head]

What are those reasons? From looking at that somewhat well known D'Addario string tension chart I've noticed that the D string always has the most tension and the E is relatively floppy by comparison. What's the reason that sets aren't spec'd with a more consistent tension across all the strings?

They are tensioned this way to optimize the shortcomings of standard amplification.

Are you familiar with the theory behind how a Bag End ELF/INFRA sub works? They map the response curve of a sealed speaker cabinet and then crank the EQ curve in opposition (more or less) so that you get a flat response as low as possible.

In an odd way having loose tensioned low strings works like this. Bass speaker cabinets start loosing steam at 60 Hz or so. A loose string accentuates the fundamental, and this happens where the fundamentals are the most difficult to reproduce with standard speaker cabinets. You are essentially upping the low end of your frequency curve on the bass so that your rig can give back what you want to hear.

This is one of the reasons there is such a dramatic shift in what is necessary to record good sound direct from a bass as opposed to just mic'ing a cab. Compression, and ideally band pass compression is the best solution unless you can revisit the physics in some way.

 

[Thunder Pulse]

That was certainly news to me, I had no idea. When you say "loose tensioned low strings" are you referring to bass strings in general or just the low E (or D, B, etc) on a bass? What I'm getting at is, if having the lowest string a bit more floppy is 'good' in the sense that it helps with the fundamental, why do the other strings necessarily have to be tensioned higher? What would happen if they were tensioned equally as low as the lowest string?

 

[knuckle_head]

That was certainly news to me, I had no idea. When you say "loose tensioned low strings" are you referring to bass strings in general or just the low E (or D, B, etc) on a bass? What I'm getting at is, if having the lowest string a bit more floppy is 'good' in the sense that it helps with the fundamental, why do the other strings necessarily have to be tensioned higher? What would happen if they were tensioned equally as low as the lowest string?

FWIW, this wasn't intentional - it's what worked best at the time and has been relied upon since then. For all our effort to improve sound reproduction in general, bass rigs haven't really improved as much as performance stats on cabinets would suggest. But it works and there really is no need to fix it.

I refer mostly to the E string and below as being comparatively low tension. IMO a well tensioned set revolves around what you're using for an A and the relationship of the rest of the set around it. It's where everything comes together - near-universal reproduction, sonically powerful, and a tension/playability relationship that allows a swath of technique options.

If you were to tension an entire set similar to a B string you'd have a less lively overall sound, and you'd have to use a lighter playing technique.

There is no good or bad here. It's all about what you want to have come back at you when you play your bass.

 

[Thunder Pulse]

Interesting, thanks. One of my basses, a G&L L-2000, has the most bassy E-string I've ever played. At least on this bass I think I could easily get away with a higher tensioned E.

 

[Parabolic Box]

They are tensioned this way to optimize the shortcomings of standard amplification.

Are you familiar with the theory behind how a Bag End ELF/INFRA sub works? They map the response curve of a sealed speaker cabinet and then crank the EQ curve in opposition (more or less) so that you get a flat response as low as possible.

In an odd way having loose tensioned low strings works like this. Bass speaker cabinets start loosing steam at 60 Hz or so. A loose string accentuates the fundamental, and this happens where the fundamentals are the most difficult to reproduce with standard speaker cabinets. You are essentially upping the low end of your frequency curve on the bass so that your rig can give back what you want to hear.

This is one of the reasons there is such a dramatic shift in what is necessary to record good sound direct from a bass as opposed to just mic'ing a cab. Compression, and ideally band pass compression is the best solution unless you can revisit the physics in some way.

Then what is the effect on ported cabinets?

 

[knuckle_head]

Ported cabinets have a precipitous response drop off when it reaches the lowest frequencies it is capable of. A sealed cab has a more gentle response drop off that starts in the lower mids and has few useful discernable lows for bass application (unless corrected, processed or used in conjunction with other drivers).

If a ported cab is rated at -3dB at 40 Hz and the stronger fundamental of a loose string out of the bass doubles the output of 40 Hz in relation to the rest of its sonic composition (+3dB), the net result is flat response to 40 Hz to the human ear.