• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Thick sounding G and C on a 35"?

smeet

smeet

Gold Supporting Member
Nov 27, 2006
9,203
13,451
65
Sammamish, WA
www.reverbnation.com
#1
I have a 35" scale 6-string, and although it has a warm sound (Nordstrand Big Singles and Audere), the G and C strings have that thin, somewhat hi-fi sound to them. I mean as opposed to a Fender, where the G string up hi is very thick and round sounding.

I am currently using DR Lo-Riders. Should I try a heavier gauge on the top strings, or is there a brand that might get me that round/thick sound on the upper strings?
 
#3
That doesn't sound right to me.

The hi strings sound thin partially because my scale length is too long, so I think a thinner string will sound even thinner and with less fundamental.

I've used lighter sets in the past, and they do indeed sound thinner and brighter, which is not what I want.
 
#4
Well, the longer scale length means tension is higher. Going to a lighter gauge will have the effect of less tension, and less tension means a greater amplitude for the fundamental.

Or else TI Flats would sound tinny and weak, which I'm sure a bunch of folks here would tell you is simply not true.

-e-

You could try and replace the treble strings with flats.
 
#5
I think what you want is a more flexible string, and maybe nickels instead of steel. You could try hi beams, sunbeams, superalloys, something from labella ... I use Hard Rockin Steels on my 35" 5 string, and the G sounds fat and round.
 
#6
I've never tried the Hard Rockin Steels, maybe I'll try those.

Would Hi Beams give me a more scooped sound than the lo riders? I don't want to lose midrange.

How about the TI roundwounds? Do they have a thick sound?

I've thought about flats, but this bass is already a bit dark-sounding and I don't want to lose all my high end.

Basically I want to go from a more refined/hi-fi sound towards a more primitive/Fender kind of sound, if that makes sense. More attack, less sustain, more fundamental. In general, more like a traditional bass sound.
 
#7
A balanced tension set of strings with light tension over all would put you closest to where you want to go regardless of manufacturer.

I canna speak to flavors/manufacturers of strings specifically - I defer to the wisdom and knowledge of the board.
 
#8
Hi beams have stronger mids than lo riders IME, especially after they've had a chance to mellow out (they're very bright at first, just like lo riders).

TI superalloys have a great, full, thick sound. Not particularly bright sounding, but real smooth.

From your last post, I'd actually recommend trying out a set of Fender nickels (if they make a 6-string 35" set???), which are really smooth, thick, and fat sounding rounds.
 
#10
smeet said:
That doesn't sound right to me.

The hi strings sound thin partially because my scale length is too long, so I think a thinner string will sound even thinner and with less fundamental.

I've used lighter sets in the past, and they do indeed sound thinner and brighter, which is not what I want.
Click to expand...

I know it seems counterintuitive but IME it's true. On my sixes I use DR Fat Beams (stainless steel) in a .125 - .030 set ( .045 G) and have no issues with thin sound up high. I use a .120 - .040 on most of my fives. I use low action (but not too low), keep my pickups very close to the strings and play with a relatively light touch.

How you have the Audere set internally can make a difference too.
 
#12
Too bitey is not my problem.
It just seems like there is not a lot of fat-sounding fundamental on the G and C strings, especially on the low frets.

I've ordered a few sets (Hi-Beams, SuperAlloys, Deep Talkins, and Hard-RockinSteels). Whew, that's a lot of money to spend on strings! Hopefully it will be fun to try out some new sounds.

I might order some Fat-Beams and Fenders later on too.

Thanks for all the advice, y'all! I'll post how the different sets sound to me.
 
#16
That's all a matter of experimentation. You can experiment with the pickup loading, balancing the pickup gains (if you have two pickups), try to find which Z mode gets you where you want. If you have two pickups, I'd also check the height adjustments (in passive mode if possible) and make sure you aren't favoring the bridge too much.

You haven't mention what you're running the bass through. That could easily be an issue too (what it is, how it's set up, etc.).

Unfortunately there are many reasons why you could be experiencing what you are. These are the things I'd check first vs. doing a lot of string experimentation, which as you know gets expensive fast.
 
#17
My main setup is a DB750 run flat through two DB112s. I also have an Eden WT400 through an XLT210 and sometimes an Acme B2. At rehearsal spaces I've tried GK and Randall amps through their own cabs.

It's not that it sounds thin overall, it's more that the low strings sound much thicker than the high strings on the same fret, so where on my Fender Jazz I can just move to higher strings, I have to move up the neck on the 6-string to get a similarly thick tone.

Brad, do you find you can play in the first four frets on the G and C strings and still get a nice fat bass-y tone? If I eq for that, my lower strings are then too fat and low-middy.
 
#18
smeet said:
My main setup is a DB750 run flat through two DB112s. I also have an Eden WT400 through an XLT210 and sometimes an Acme B2. At rehearsal spaces I've tried GK and Randall amps through their own cabs.

It's not that it sounds thin overall, it's more that the low strings sound much thicker than the high strings on the same fret, so where on my Fender Jazz I can just move to higher strings, I have to move up the neck on the 6-string to get a similarly thick tone.

Brad, do you find you can play in the first four frets on the G and C strings and still get a nice fat bass-y tone? If I eq for that, my lower strings are then too fat and low-middy.
Click to expand...

I don't get a fat, bassy tone but I do get a full-bodied tone.

This kind of stuff has to be approached methodically or you'll drive yourself crazy. I was working on a bass tonight and while I know what's causing what I don't like, someone who's unfamiliar with particular pickups/preamps/strings/woods/etc. can end up chasing their tail trying to fix things. The bass I was working on sounds great unplugged but the highs, when slapped sound colored and compressed when I ran the bass through two different amps. I know the pickups are the culprit in this case because of the unplugged sound and extensive prior use of the preamp.

It could be something as simple as how you play... I know I get a fuller sound depending on how I pluck; the angle of my finger striking the string, how hard I pluck (softer tends to get a fuller sound IME) both play into what I get out of a bass. Muting too.

What kind of bass are you using? Have you tried cutting some of the high end? Typically if you do that, you can then turn the bass up louder and get a fuller sound... the highs tend to signal our brain that we're loud. Bring them down a little, bring the signal level up for your bass and you'll probably end up with the highs you had before, but this time better matched (not overpowering) to the lower frequencies.
 
#19
A little bit of compression could help as well, especially a multiband comp like the DC24 which can clamp down on the lows coming off the bottom strings a bit -- then you could EQ them back in and your high strings would sound fatter.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back