String Gauges question

[Turnaround]

Those numbers aren't actually gauges, they're the diameter in inches.

Except that they're not. They're really nominal diameter in inches. For example, I just measured a new set from a well-respected manufacturer, labelled as 45-65-85-105 and they are actually .044 .062 .083 and .102. And another new set from a different manufacturer - .043 .062 .082 .102. A set of guitar strings (well known maker) that are supposed to be 10 - 46 are actually .009 to .043. So don't get hung up on the numbers - they don't mean a lot.

 

[Killed_by_Death]

Ha, that explains why changing brand but keeping the same specified sizes can still lead to a difference in tension.
or maybe even from the same brand, if it's just poor QC

It's easy to tell on a guitar with a floating bridge, as the bridge will float higher or lower depending if the tension has increased or decreased.

 

[Turnaround]

Ha, that explains why changing brand but keeping the same specified sizes can still lead to a difference in tension.
or maybe even from the same brand, if it's just poor QC

It's easy to tell on a guitar with a floating bridge, as the bridge will float higher or lower depending if the tension has increased or decreased.

I'm not sure it's poor QC - the better brands are consistent one set to another, just not quite as labelled. Generally a bass 4-string set referred to as "medium" or "standard" gauge are labelled 45-65-85-105 regardless of the actual diameters.

Funny about floating bridges - they're often accompanied by sinking tops.

 

[Chad T]

I'm not sure it's poor QC - the better brands are consistent one set to another, just not quite as labelled. Generally a bass 4-string set referred to as "medium" or "standard" gauge are labelled 45-65-85-105 regardless of the actual diameters.

Funny about floating bridges - they're often accompanied by sinking tops.

Yeah, my thinking is they probably optimize the sets slightly +/- to fit their design. After all, if people went to buy a set of strings and saw them listed as "43, 62, 82, 102" it could certainly lead to some head scratching.

 

[Jon Moody]

Yeah, my thinking is they probably optimize the sets slightly +/- to fit their design. After all, if people went to buy a set of strings and saw them listed as "43, 62, 82, 102" it could certainly lead to some head scratching.

It's mainly this.

It could also be within tolerances as well. If a spec for an .085 calls for a .020 core, a .014 first cover and a .020 second cover, there are three pieces of wire that all are variable to within +/- .001, and that's not talking about how loose/tight the machines are run to "stick to the gauge."

It's easy to tell on a guitar with a floating bridge, as the bridge will float higher or lower depending if the tension has increased or decreased.

On a guitar, a +/- .0005 tolerance has a huge difference (as you're going from a .010 to a .0105), whereas having that same tolerance on a bass string would amount to minimal difference at all.

 

[michael_t]

After all, if people went to buy a set of strings and saw them listed as "43, 62, 82, 102" it could certainly lead to some head scratching.

I actually like dealing with companies that list the actual size of the strings in their descriptions.

Examples:

GHS ML7200 44-58-80-102.
La Bella 760FL 43-60-82-104.
Etc...

 

[JimmyM]

Are you still offering money to those who CAN tell the difference? Or, are you simply referring them to the scientists who want to study them?

I just didn't want to repeat a joke

 

[Fender_Bender]

It's mainly this.

It could also be within tolerances as well. If a spec for an .085 calls for a .020 core, a .014 first cover and a .020 second cover, there are three pieces of wire that all are variable to within +/- .001, and that's not talking about how loose/tight the machines are run to "stick to the gauge."




On a guitar, a +/- .0005 tolerance has a huge difference (as you're going from a .010 to a .0105), whereas having that same tolerance on a bass string would amount to minimal difference at all.

Yeah, I think trying to hold a manufacturer to a tolerance of less than 2-3 thousandths of an inch is unreasonable. I'm sure it could be done if we were all willing to pay a lot more for our string sets lol. I change string gauges seasonally so I don't have to mess around with the setup and never feel like it's some sort of onerous task to get acclimatized to the change.

 

[HaphAsSard]

They're really nominal diameter in inches. For example, I just measured a new set from a well-respected manufacturer, labelled as 45-65-85-105 and they are actually .044 .062 .083 and .102. And another new set from a different manufacturer - .043 .062 .082 .102.

An apropos thread by @Pier_:
Real Gauge of Bass Strings - real gauge vs advertised gauge

 

[Lo-E]

Yeah, I think trying to hold a manufacturer to a tolerance of less than 2-3 thousandths of an inch is unreasonable. I'm sure it could be done if we were all willing to pay a lot more for our string sets lol.

I'd also like to meet the bassist who can tell the difference of .003". I'm pretty darned exacting when it comes to my setups but no matter how fussy I get my G&L is not the space shuttle. I think bass strings can safely vary by a couple thousandths without putting mankind in jeopardy. On the whole, I think most manufacturers do a pretty fine job.

 

[ixlramp]

Now I realize these are really considered hybrid. Medium on the A and E, and light on the D and G. Medium by many string manufacturers seem to be .105 .85 .70 .50.

The terminology is arbitrary and relative to a subjective preference of what is the optimum.
To be non-arbitrary go with actual scientific tension, then you see that 105 85 65 45 is 'middle-heavy' with E G at a similar tension and A D at a similar and higher tension. 105 85 70 50 is a traditional set of tensions that is middle-heavy and top-heavy.

Besides playability what would be the advantage to using a medium gauge D .70 and G .50 string? Do heavier gauge strings offer more advantages such as smoothness, or sustain, etc?
I do notice that my G string and D can be thin sounding at times

There's no playability advantage to a set that is even more tension-imbalanced and has even tighter strings, some just prefer that. I doubt there is more sustain.
Volume issues can be addressed by tilting pickups.

So it's mainly because a certain gauge has a certain tone, and players have their preferences of how the tonal character changes across a set. Traditional bassists use top-heavy sets to get a 'large gauge tonal character' on the D and G because they find a tension-balanced set sounds too 'thin' on the D and G ('thin' as in 'the tonal character of a thin gauge', the sound itself is not actually lacking in bass frequencies). Whereas i am happy with the sound of a custom set with tension falling from low to high.

 

[rob_thebassman]

I think it's a case of trying a gauge what suits ya, I'm used to 45 - 105, but I've been considering 45 - 100 as my hands sometimes ache from picking

 

[Jon Moody]

I'd also like to meet the bassist who can tell the difference of .003". I'm pretty darned exacting when it comes to my setups but no matter how fussy I get my G&L is not the space shuttle. I think bass strings can safely vary by a couple thousandths without putting mankind in jeopardy. On the whole, I think most manufacturers do a pretty fine job.

Again, that's in context. You can tell the difference between a .027 and a .030 string fairly easily.

The difference between a .104 and a .107 (assuming tolerances being what they are) is a lot harder to figure out/feel.

 

[Jeff Scott]

Funny about floating bridges - they're often accompanied by sinking tops.

I believe KbD is referring to a Strat style vibrato bridge, not an arch top guitar style floating bridge.

 

[Two-Spirit]

I thought about trying the heaviest strings, for 5 string it's .050. I'm not going to replace my strings more than every three months so maybe I'll try it maybe I wont. I'm using Blue Steel .045 to .128 now. I think it's just a big balls thing, mainly. I'm pretty happy with my tone considering I'm a low volume guy now.

 

[Lo-E]

Again, that's in context. You can tell the difference between a .027 and a .030 string fairly easily.

The difference between a .104 and a .107 (assuming tolerances being what they are) is a lot harder to figure out/feel.

That's true, but most bassists don't use strings much lighter than .040.
I know some players use very light strings or extended tunings that require such gauges, but that's not the norm with low-enders. I was painting the picture with broad strokes.
On a guitar, with it's smaller strings and shorter scale, one or two thousandths is very noticeable indeed, but on most basses it's minute.

 

[ixlramp]

This 'gauge' thing is silly, the word means the measurement of a width or diameter, it doesn't specify how that measurement is done or if it's absolute distance or an abstract inverted number.
Train tracks have a 'gauge' that is the distance between the rails measured in feet and inches, or metric equivalent.
With instrument strings it is an accepted standard in the industry and amongst musicians that the gauge is an absolute diameter.

My understanding is that heavier gauges have more bass because of size

They have a higher tension, and that reduces the amplitude of the lower harmonics relative to the higher harmonics, so the string becomes brighter, which means less bass. However with very large gauges increased gauge means a stiffer duller string, which then has the opposite effect.
It may be that larger gauges only seem bassier because they have that 'large gauge tonal character' which gets mistaken for bassiness. String 'size' increases volume yes but not necessarily bassiness.