The Squier Mini Precision Bass Club

[Volker Kirstein]

I mean like what is available that works out of the box or with minimal work?

Again, that depends on how you define "working":

If you don't mind having the fat part of the string wrapping around the tuner post - and many people don't - any short scale strings will work.

If you insist on having the taper only wrapping around the tuner post - and many people do - your choices become limited. Here, a ball to taper length of between 30" and 31" is what "works". Ibanez Mikro (except for the G), and custom wound, are the only options I'm aware of.

Here are Ibanez Mikro strings (except for the G, which is a straight 045 nickel roundwound) on a Mini P. Note where the tapers are:

EDIT: PS - The strings that come stock on a Mikro are not the same strings that Ibanez sells as replacements.

 

[DavesnothereCA]

I am sorry if I missed it, but have we started collecting model names of string options that are working for this specific bass? Like a link to a google sheet or something that can be a useful sticky as the thread is getting bigger?

~
There HAS been some discussion on this upthread, but as Volker said....

And same as him, I am one of 'those people', who just wants my bass strings to simply fit properly, with no 'you-know-what-ing' around.
~

 

[DavesnothereCA]

I touched base with DR last week and, at my suggestion, they're going to talk to Fender, will get a Mini P, and may develop a set that will work for the Mini P (and possibly the Mikro as well). I outlined the opportunity for them and presented my recommendations on how they could address the need via pre-orders, limited runs, etc. There's no guarantee (and it certainly will not be a priority for them), but I'd like to see them make a run at offering a set. There's at least a chance.

~
Thanks for giving DR a nudge.
~

 

[SBassman]

I have seen the trick here cited numerous times, where people unpeel some of the string.

I took a look at that once, and I just couldn't do it. It doesn't help that I suffer from shaky hands and poor up close sight.

Would Love to be able to do that and just customize any string out there. I just don't think I have the ability. What kind of tool to use? Maybe if I saw a video of someone doing it slowly, I could give it another shot.

 

[mikew31]

I would think one could add a bit of solder when you unwrap so the winding doesn't loosen up and continue to unwrap.

 

[macmanlou]

Another way to "shorten" strings so that the wound area doesn't reach the tuning pegs is to add a spacer to the bridge ball-end hole. McMaster-Carr has many unthreaded spacers in different lengths. I've used the stainless steel ones with success. This one is 1 inch in length, 5/16" outer diameter, #8 screw size (.166" inner diameter), but you can choose from many others on their web site. No drilling or extra hardware required.

 

[Volker Kirstein]

Another way to "shorten" strings so that the wound area doesn't reach the tuning pegs is to add a spacer to the bridge ball-end hole. McMaster-Carr has many unthreaded spacers in different lengths. I've used the stainless steel ones with success. This one is 1 inch in length, 5/16" outer diameter, #8 screw size (.166" inner diameter), but you can choose from many others on their web site. No drilling or extra hardware required.

View attachment 4011888

Also much easier than unwinding a new taper! I like it!

 

[SBassman]

Another way to "shorten" strings so that the wound area doesn't reach the tuning pegs is to add a spacer to the bridge ball-end hole. McMaster-Carr has many unthreaded spacers in different lengths. I've used the stainless steel ones with success. This one is 1 inch in length, 5/16" outer diameter, #8 screw size (.166" inner diameter), but you can choose from many others on their web site. No drilling or extra hardware required.

View attachment 4011888

I have thought about this a couple of times and never executed. I think I am about to jump in.

That .166" ID is the right pick for the ball end?

I was thinking possibly of this one, a little closer to 1.4" in length, to make up the 28.6" + 1.4" = 30" scale, to get us into the zone of all the 30" strings. ?

McMaster-Carr

 

[macmanlou]

That .166" ID is the right pick for the ball end?

I was thinking possibly of this one, a little closer to 1.4" in length, to make up the 28.6" + 1.4" = 30" scale, to get us into the zone of all the 30" strings. ?

The .166" worked for me with a .130 B string. It should work fine with anything that size or thinner.

Before you decide how long you will have the spacer(s) sticking out from the bridge, I'd trial fit the actual strings you plan to use to determine how long the spacer needs to be. 1 3/8" seems to be a safe bet, but you might be able to get away with something shorter.

 

[DavesnothereCA]

Another way to "shorten" strings so that the wound area doesn't reach the tuning pegs is to add a spacer to the bridge ball-end hole. McMaster-Carr has many unthreaded spacers in different lengths. I've used the stainless steel ones with success. This one is 1 inch in length, 5/16" outer diameter, #8 screw size (.166" inner diameter), but you can choose from many others on their web site. No drilling or extra hardware required.

View attachment 4011888

~
Excellent !

I once made something similar out of pieces of a metal automotive fuel or brake line, I forget for what or whose bass (I used to do work for other players, and occasionally still do).

I'd much rather not mess with the string itself.
~

 

[Bassamatic]

The solution for strings is to choose designs that are flexible enough to be cut.

Cutting strings is not a good solution. Strings are pulled to playing tension when wound. If you just cut a string designed for a longer scale, it is never pulled to its intended tension. This will affect the sound, usually to the muddy end.

This is likely how short scales got a bad rap over the years - player cutting long scale strings down to use and giving really muddy sound.

 

[DavesnothereCA]

Cutting strings is not a good solution. Strings are pulled to playing tension when wound. If you just cut a string designed for a longer scale, it is never pulled to its intended tension. This will affect the sound, usually to the muddy end.

This is likely how short scales got a bad rap over the years - player cutting long scale strings down to use and giving really muddy sound.

~
I agree, and from most string makers not servicing the short scale bassists well enough that we feel the need to try/butcher longer strings.

Even if they did make a short scale set, they [with only a few exceptions] do not make them in the heavier gauge required for proper tension, so they flop around, which also contributes to that bad rap.

I don't care what ANYONE else says, including the string makers themselves, short scale bass strings need to be HEAVIER than long scale bass strings, to maintain proper tension and character of the played notes, NOT LIGHTER.

It's simple math.

If they want to make the cores of short scale bass strings a bit thinner to compensate for making the diameter larger, so that the strings do not feel too stiff, and/or incorporate more but thinner wraps for the same reason, I can understand and endorse them also doing one or both of those things.

But to begin, strings need to be the correct gauges for the intended application, as well as the correct lengths of wrap.

[/rant]
~

 

[Volker Kirstein]

~
I agree, and from most string makers not servicing the short scale bassists well enough that we feel the need to try/butcher longer strings.

Even if they did make a short scale set, they [with only a few exceptions] do not make them in the heavier gauge required for proper tension, so they flop around, which also contributes to that bad rap.

I don't care what ANYONE else says, including the string makers themselves, short scale bass strings need to be HEAVIER than long scale bass strings, to maintain proper tension and character of the played notes, NOT LIGHTER.

It's simple math.

If they want to make the cores of short scale bass strings a bit thinner to compensate for making the diameter larger, so that the strings do not feel too stiff, and/or incorporate more but thinner wraps for the same reason, I can understand and endorse them also doing one or both of those things.

But to begin, strings need to be the correct gauges for the intended application, as well as the correct lengths of wrap.

[/rant]
~

Many people believe that, but my experience is the opposite: fatties for full scale, lights for short. 90s and 95s feel / play / sound better than 105s and 110s on my short scales. And vice versa.

 

[SBassman]

~
I agree, and from most string makers not servicing the short scale bassists well enough that we feel the need to try/butcher longer strings.

Even if they did make a short scale set, they [with only a few exceptions] do not make them in the heavier gauge required for proper tension, so they flop around, which also contributes to that bad rap.

I don't care what ANYONE else says, including the string makers themselves, short scale bass strings need to be HEAVIER than long scale bass strings, to maintain proper tension and character of the played notes, NOT LIGHTER.

It's simple math.

If they want to make the cores of short scale bass strings a bit thinner to compensate for making the diameter larger, so that the strings do not feel too stiff, and/or incorporate more but thinner wraps for the same reason, I can understand and endorse them also doing one or both of those things.

But to begin, strings need to be the correct gauges for the intended application, as well as the correct lengths of wrap.

[/rant]
~

You are absolutely correct. It is astonishing to see so many shorter scales - including the sub shorts that are 25ish scale, go down to 90s and 95 for strings, when they need to be doing the opposite - scaling the diameter up to accommodate. It boggles my mind.

 

[MakoMan]

Here is what I have read and been told about why manufacturers do not make thicker strings for short scale basses. A string with high tension on a 34" scale vibrates more freely than a string with high tension on a 30" scale, which can be too rigid due to the reduced amount of speaking length, resulting in a loss of tonality. As the scale gets shorter, the string tension needs to be reduced in order to retain the same tonal quality.
Shorter scale basses do not require as much tension. Because the end anchor points are closer together, the string becomes less floppy, so two strings which end up at the same lower tension will be less floppy on a shorter scale bass. The tension may be lighter for someone used to long scale, but the strings are actually the proper tension to work correctly for the scale length.

 

[knigel]

[/rant]

Yeah right

 

[pcake]

You are absolutely correct. It is astonishing to see so many shorter scales - including the sub shorts that are 25ish scale, go down to 90s and 95 for strings, when they need to be doing the opposite - scaling the diameter up to accommodate. It boggles my mind.

i love 90s or 95s on everything. they're my gauges of choice.

but again, for those using rounds, newtone strings will make you a set with custom string lengths - i got a set for my 24.75" scale bass and your choice of every single gauge. and i paid the same as i would for a set of those la bella sub short scale flats, which i'd guess are too long for the mini P.

 

[fermata]

Many people believe that, but my experience is the opposite: fatties for full scale, lights for short. 90s and 95s feel / play / sound better than 105s and 110s on my short scales. And vice versa.

Thanks for pointing this out--seems like lots of people don't realize that as the scale gets shorter, the string needs to get thinner for tonal reasons, as @MakoMan details above.

And while we're myth-busting, adding string length beyond the nut or the saddles does not increase string tension.

 

[DavesnothereCA]

You are absolutely correct. It is astonishing to see so many shorter scales - including the sub shorts that are 25ish scale, go down to 90s and 95 for strings, when they need to be doing the opposite - scaling the diameter up to accommodate. It boggles my mind.

~
The conversation which I had recently [starting at post #2065 at the below link] might be an interesting read. - Note the paragraph where the owner of 40+ basses says [about some very light gauged short scale strings] :
"The GHS Precision Flats short scale sets seem incapable of holding a steady pitch. They go kinda BOOOOOIIING before the sustained note settles on a slightly different pitch than the attack.
This makes them really hard to tune and even worse to intonate. I've experienced the same with Roto 66 short scales [rounds] (but they were even worse, to the point of being completely and utterly useless)."

Praise Report: GHS Precision Flats

Also :
"Why do so many string manufacturers make poor short scale strings? There are exceptions of course: Pyramid, Thomastik, LaBella all make GREAT short scale sets. But there's so much junk out there for short scale!"
~

 

[Splash7]

I have GHS Precision Flats on my Bronco, Gretsch Junior Jet, Mikro and Mini P. My basses go Bung, not BOOOOOIIING. They stay in tune and they intonate just fine. I have Dunlop Flat Wounds on my 5 string Mikro. Same results.