Tapping help...

[I Need a six...]

Well I tried to upload a short, basic étude I made for combining slap with strums and tapping. But I froze on the processing stage... 5 times. I'll try it again tomorrow.

 

[elkkid2]

No, I got a used alexander 168 bflat. Miraphones are great, don't get me wrong, but they don't even compare to Alex's. In my opinion Alexander's are the best tuba's on the market York or besson are great too) it's the most beautiful looking/sounding horn I've ever seen, and it's mine!

I haven't heard of those! They must be AWESOME!

 

[elkkid2]

I haven't heard of those! They must be AWESOME!

As for the Tapping, it's just not as loud...if you could set up a Foot switchable Boost Channel...with a bit of compression, I think you could get the Sound you're looking for.

 

[I Need a six...]

As for the Tapping, it's just not as loud...if you could set up a Foot switchable Boost Channel...with a bit of compression, I think you could get the Sound you're looking for.

Right, that seem doable.
And yes there AMAZING horns, and they cost an arm, leg, and spleen to get new. Plus the importation fee from Munich, it adds up quickly. I got mine from a music teacher, and he set me up with an amazing deal

 

[Nic.]

The reason we perceive flats as thumpy and new rounds as bright is the difference in overtones. When a string vibrates it behaves like a weight suspended on 2 springs, it oscillates at a specific frequency when agitated (in our case by fingers, pick, slap, etc.) and the only way to affect that frequency is via the length of the springs, the mass of the weight, or the stiffness of the springs. Now a spring-weight system with just one weight would produce 1 pure tone with little to no overtones, and a system with 2 weights would 1 overtone, 3 weights 2 overtones, and so on and so forth, but an instrument spring behaves like an infinite number weights oscillating at the same time, producing mostly the fundamental but also every harmonic of that fundamental. The volume of those harmonics is our perceived scale of bright (more harmonics sounding with the fundamental) to mellow (less harmonics). A roundwound string produces more harmonic content because the winding adds a lot of masses to our system, and a flatwound string doesn't add all that many comparably. Thus the difference in sound.

Generally pretty spot on, just two clarifications I want to add -

1) might be good to clarify what you mean by one weight, two weight, etc. It's probably obvious to you and anyone who already knows the theory, but if you haven't seen it before it'll be a total mystery. The one weight, two weight, etc. system here is a way to imagine how a string behaves. Every tiny length of the spring behaves like a weight suspended between two springs, so if you imagine a chain of infinitely small weights connected by infinitely small springs (i.e. nut-spring-weight-spring-weight-spring...........spring-weight-spring-bridge), that's more or less how a string behaves, and that's how you can start to understand the string. To really understand how the waves travel up and down, you need to take this at a differential level. @I Need a six..., I don't know how far your math/physics is, but I've been working on string acoustics research for two years as a sideline (I'm a physics undergrad) and if you want I can pass you some useful references to read. One good place to start IMO is to look up Fletcher; he did a lot of the important initial research into strings in the past century.

2) I'm not sure whether flatwound windings have less mass than roundwounds (do you have any references for this?) but it seems plausible. I recall when one of my TI Jazz Flats started uncoiling (the windings broke over the bridge on a sharp angle), IIRC the ribbon looked pretty thin... but that's a sample size of N=1.

But either way I think it's good to understand the reason why, and how this affects the string.

The reason for having windings on strings rather than simply having one single thick string is that if you simply increase the thickness of the strings, the stiffness goes up too fast, which makes the overtones less harmonic. It behaves more like a steel bar than a string (which may or may not be desirable). If you add windings, the stiffness does not go up appreciably, so it's a way of adding mass while keeping the string flexible. So a string's properties isn't just about the outer diameter, but also affected by the diameter of the core (which is part of the reason why same gauge strings from different companies may sound different even if the material is the same).

What harmonic or inharmonic overtones refer to is simply that strings have a finite diameter, so if you're talking about theoretical infinitely thin strings like in high school physics, then yes all the harmonics are exact multiples of the fundamental. However, actual strings have thickness, and if you do the calculations you'll see that it deviates from the multiples. So, depending on the strings, you may see that the harmonics would be something like 2.00001, 3.0001, 4.00025, etc. of the fundamental. This contributes to a slight jarring sound (which is why pianos are actually not tuned to exact integer multiples). The thicker the string's core, the further away the harmonics deviate from integer multiples of the fundamental.

So considering the above points, I would argue the following premises:

A) Flatwounds are known to feel higher tension (based on what I've seen on this board) and I would argue that it's more of they feel stiffer
B) The windings for flatwounds are expected to be thinner than those of roundwounds. Hence, since the windings add less mass, the core must be necessarily thicker to make up for it. This is consistent with premise A, as a thicker core increases stiffness.
C) If we assume that A and B are true, then we would expect flatwounds to be less harmonic. However, this is okay because the overtones are damped anyway. Perhaps this also contributes to the more 'thumpy' sound.

Therefore, yes the roundwound producers more -harmonic- content, but in itself, I believe the difference in winding mass should not change the amount of overtones produced, just that
- roundwound overtones are more harmonic than inharmonic as compared to flatwounds, but that's because of the necessary core thickness to make up for the difference in winding mass
- flatwound strings damp more of the overtones anyway, so less of the overtones sing out.

I meant it more in a "getting a 6 won't solve your problems and it'll take a couple months to adjust, making it harder to start with" kind of way.

Ah that's great, yeah it definitely doesn't solve the problems in itself!

 

[friendlybass]

Generally pretty spot on, just two clarifications I want to add -

1) might be good to clarify what you mean by one weight, two weight, etc. It's probably obvious to you and anyone who already knows the theory, but if you haven't seen it before it'll be a total mystery. The one weight, two weight, etc. system here is a way to imagine how a string behaves. Every tiny length of the spring behaves like a weight suspended between two springs, so if you imagine a chain of infinitely small weights connected by infinitely small springs (i.e. nut-spring-weight-spring-weight-spring...........spring-weight-spring-bridge), that's more or less how a string behaves, and that's how you can start to understand the string. To really understand how the waves travel up and down, you need to take this at a differential level. @I Need a six..., I don't know how far your math/physics is, but I've been working on string acoustics research for two years as a sideline (I'm a physics undergrad) and if you want I can pass you some useful references to read. One good place to start IMO is to look up Fletcher; he did a lot of the important initial research into strings in the past century.

2) I'm not sure whether flatwound windings have less mass than roundwounds (do you have any references for this?) but it seems plausible. I recall when one of my TI Jazz Flats started uncoiling (the windings broke over the bridge on a sharp angle), IIRC the ribbon looked pretty thin... but that's a sample size of N=1.

But either way I think it's good to understand the reason why, and how this affects the string.

The reason for having windings on strings rather than simply having one single thick string is that if you simply increase the thickness of the strings, the stiffness goes up too fast, which makes the overtones less harmonic. It behaves more like a steel bar than a string (which may or may not be desirable). If you add windings, the stiffness does not go up appreciably, so it's a way of adding mass while keeping the string flexible. So a string's properties isn't just about the outer diameter, but also affected by the diameter of the core (which is part of the reason why same gauge strings from different companies may sound different even if the material is the same).

What harmonic or inharmonic overtones refer to is simply that strings have a finite diameter, so if you're talking about theoretical infinitely thin strings like in high school physics, then yes all the harmonics are exact multiples of the fundamental. However, actual strings have thickness, and if you do the calculations you'll see that it deviates from the multiples. So, depending on the strings, you may see that the harmonics would be something like 2.00001, 3.0001, 4.00025, etc. of the fundamental. This contributes to a slight jarring sound (which is why pianos are actually not tuned to exact integer multiples). The thicker the string's core, the further away the harmonics deviate from integer multiples of the fundamental.

So considering the above points, I would argue the following premises:

A) Flatwounds are known to feel higher tension (based on what I've seen on this board) and I would argue that it's more of they feel stiffer
B) The windings for flatwounds are expected to be thinner than those of roundwounds. Hence, since the windings add less mass, the core must be necessarily thicker to make up for it. This is consistent with premise A, as a thicker core increases stiffness.
C) If we assume that A and B are true, then we would expect flatwounds to be less harmonic. However, this is okay because the overtones are damped anyway. Perhaps this also contributes to the more 'thumpy' sound.

Therefore, yes the roundwound producers more -harmonic- content, but in itself, I believe the difference in winding mass should not change the amount of overtones produced, just that
- roundwound overtones are more harmonic than inharmonic as compared to flatwounds, but that's because of the necessary core thickness to make up for the difference in winding mass
- flatwound strings damp more of the overtones anyway, so less of the overtones sing out.


Ah that's great, yeah it definitely doesn't solve the problems in itself!

Thanks for extra clarification dude I'm just a guy in a physics class it helps yo have a real student of the science!
I tried to keep it simple cause of my relatively limited knowledge and I appreciate you adding to it.
Now all we need is a metallurgist, a botanist, an acoustician, and an electrical engineer and we'll write the formula for tone!

 

[I Need a six...]

Generally pretty spot on, just two clarifications I want to add -

1) might be good to clarify what you mean by one weight, two weight, etc. It's probably obvious to you and anyone who already knows the theory, but if you haven't seen it before it'll be a total mystery. The one weight, two weight, etc. system here is a way to imagine how a string behaves. Every tiny length of the spring behaves like a weight suspended between two springs, so if you imagine a chain of infinitely small weights connected by infinitely small springs (i.e. nut-spring-weight-spring-weight-spring...........spring-weight-spring-bridge), that's more or less how a string behaves, and that's how you can start to understand the string. To really understand how the waves travel up and down, you need to take this at a differential level. @I Need a six..., I don't know how far your math/physics is, but I've been working on string acoustics research for two years as a sideline (I'm a physics undergrad) and if you want I can pass you some useful references to read. One good place to start IMO is to look up Fletcher; he did a lot of the important initial research into strings in the past century.

2) I'm not sure whether flatwound windings have less mass than roundwounds (do you have any references for this?) but it seems plausible. I recall when one of my TI Jazz Flats started uncoiling (the windings broke over the bridge on a sharp angle), IIRC the ribbon looked pretty thin... but that's a sample size of N=1.

But either way I think it's good to understand the reason why, and how this affects the string.

The reason for having windings on strings rather than simply having one single thick string is that if you simply increase the thickness of the strings, the stiffness goes up too fast, which makes the overtones less harmonic. It behaves more like a steel bar than a string (which may or may not be desirable). If you add windings, the stiffness does not go up appreciably, so it's a way of adding mass while keeping the string flexible. So a string's properties isn't just about the outer diameter, but also affected by the diameter of the core (which is part of the reason why same gauge strings from different companies may sound different even if the material is the same).

What harmonic or inharmonic overtones refer to is simply that strings have a finite diameter, so if you're talking about theoretical infinitely thin strings like in high school physics, then yes all the harmonics are exact multiples of the fundamental. However, actual strings have thickness, and if you do the calculations you'll see that it deviates from the multiples. So, depending on the strings, you may see that the harmonics would be something like 2.00001, 3.0001, 4.00025, etc. of the fundamental. This contributes to a slight jarring sound (which is why pianos are actually not tuned to exact integer multiples). The thicker the string's core, the further away the harmonics deviate from integer multiples of the fundamental.

So considering the above points, I would argue the following premises:

A) Flatwounds are known to feel higher tension (based on what I've seen on this board) and I would argue that it's more of they feel stiffer
B) The windings for flatwounds are expected to be thinner than those of roundwounds. Hence, since the windings add less mass, the core must be necessarily thicker to make up for it. This is consistent with premise A, as a thicker core increases stiffness.
C) If we assume that A and B are true, then we would expect flatwounds to be less harmonic. However, this is okay because the overtones are damped anyway. Perhaps this also contributes to the more 'thumpy' sound.

Therefore, yes the roundwound producers more -harmonic- content, but in itself, I believe the difference in winding mass should not change the amount of overtones produced, just that
- roundwound overtones are more harmonic than inharmonic as compared to flatwounds, but that's because of the necessary core thickness to make up for the difference in winding mass
- flatwound strings damp more of the overtones anyway, so less of the overtones sing out.


Ah that's great, yeah it definitely doesn't solve the problems in itself!

Right, I know getting a six string won't solve any problems I experience in playing. And it will take a whole to ajust to the differences. But I still will be getting one as soon as possible. I just love them, there so cool.

 

[Nic.]

Now all we need is a metallurgist, a botanist, an acoustician, and an electrical engineer and we'll write the formula for tone!

I wish we could do so. I really wish ;^;

Honestly, the only thing I got out of my undergrad-level research is that musical instruments are too goddamn complex. There's just so many factors. Even the resonances between the string and the pickups and everything just throws it out of whack. And at the same time I keep wondering how much of this is actually audible and how much really matters musically.

Right, I know getting a six string won't solve any problems I experience in playing. And it will take a whole to ajust to the differences. But I still will be getting one as soon as possible. I just love them, there so cool.

They're awesome all right. I can get stuff out of my 6 that I can't do feasibly on the 5 because of the increased capability for chords. But I'm sticking to a 5 because the bass I want doesn't come as a 6-stringer.

 

[Flatwoundround]

I tap on Flatwound strings and the tone is decent. I have heard also that tapping works better on Roundwounds but you can still get a nice tone from tapping on Flatwounds.

Here is what I love about Tapping:

The other night my Mom was visiting and she asked if I could play something for her on the bass. I played her Something from the Beatles using tapping and she liked it (I also played Girl from Ipanema). If not for tapping what would I play for her? Walkning basslines sound good by themselves too but tapping is almost like playing a piano since you can do 2 things at once with a low and high end.

Tapping is awesome so to the OP keep practicing and experimenting and eventually you will get it. I totally agree that you don't want high action but keep in mind you can still tap with a good tone on Flatwounds (at least you don't have to worry about the scratchy finger noise that you get with Roundwounds).

 

[I Need a six...]

But I'm sticking to a 5 because the bass I want doesn't come as a 6-stringer.

That Sucks, metal band? I see a lot of metal bands use six strings. And NEVER TOUCH high c, makes me mad.

 

[I Need a six...]

tapping is almost like playing a piano since you can do 2 things at once with a low and high end.

You can do that without tapping. Though I'm sure you know this. But tapping is more generally applicable for it most definitely

 

[markjsmithbass]

I've never found the type of bass or pickups to be an issue with tapping. Billy Sheehan plays on a P bass with passives, Victor has a Fodera. Both completely different ends of the spectrum and I think both players would sound the same if they swapped instruments.
One thing that can make a difference for me is finger strength and a good callus. If I haven't played any tapping pieces for a few years and then come back to it I usually have to build my calluses up because the fingers can really take a beating when you play Billy Sheehan style lines. The more pianistic Stanley Jordan style tapping isn't as harsh on the fingers but the tone is still affected by the toughness of the callus.

When I talk about the Billy Sheehan style lines I mean the stuff I talk about in this lesson:
The other pianistic stuff I talk about here:

 

[Nic.]

That Sucks, metal band? I see a lot of metal bands use six strings. And NEVER TOUCH high c, makes me mad.

Yeah you could more or less classify my band as metal, we started covering power/speed/symphonic stuff but our originals would be closer to melodic folk/experimental/alt I guess. Most of the time I stick pretty low but I would like the extra high C to give me convenient space for legato passages. I mean, I -could- do without it but it would be nice... for those occasional times..... okay I guess I don't really need it.

One thing that can make a difference for me is finger strength and a good callus. If I haven't played any tapping pieces for a few years and then come back to it I usually have to build my calluses up because the fingers can really take a beating when you play Billy Sheehan style lines. The more pianistic Stanley Jordan style tapping isn't as harsh on the fingers but the tone is still affected by the toughness of the callus.

Never thought about that - pretty good insight, thanks!