What gauge would you recomend for downtuning my Ibanez Mikro to C-F-A#-D#?

Discussion in 'Strings [BG]' started by NoiseNinja, Jul 5, 2017.


  1. NoiseNinja

    NoiseNinja Experimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-drone

    Feb 23, 2011
    Denmark
    In the band I am playing in currently (heavy slow dark music in the line of OM and Earth) we are pondering on tuning down.

    The guitarist in that case would tune down to drop C, and I figure that if we go through with this it would make most sense for me to tune down to regular straight C tuning.

    Now, giving that it's a 4 string 28,6" scale bass, and I like to use a relatively slim set .095-.040 to tune it in regular E-A-D-G tuning, which means relatively floppy strings, what gauge of strings would you recommend me using if I were to tune the bass down 2 whole steps, meaning C-F-A#-D#, and retain just about the same tension and overall feel (although I am perfectly aware that heavier strings will feel different anyway)?

    Also might I add, I prefer steel strings with round nickle windings, aka regular round wound strings.

    What I had in mind was using something like gauge: .050, .070, .090, .110, but that is pure speculation, anyone has a better idea for what gauge to use for this down tuning of my Mikro?
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
  2. Killed_by_Death

    Killed_by_Death Snaggletooth Inactive

    IME, 30 in/lb per string is as low as you want to go on the tension:

    upload_2017-7-5_2-28-50.png

    String Tension Pro
     
  3. Nev375

    Nev375

    Nov 2, 2010
    Missouri
    Technically you would be tuning to C standard, not drop C. Drop C would be more like C-G-C-F.

    As for gauges i'd go something close to .125 .100 .080 .060 unless you like your strings floppy.

    You may need to have your nut slots widened.
     
    The Rage likes this.
  4. NoiseNinja

    NoiseNinja Experimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-drone

    Feb 23, 2011
    Denmark
    That is what I said, the guitarist will be tuning to drop C, but I will tune my bass in straight regular C tuning.
     
  5. SLaPiNFuNK

    SLaPiNFuNK Inactive Commercial User

    Jul 28, 2006
    LA California
    The Brains: FretNation.com
    .125 .105 .085 .065 works and is much more readily available...
     
    unclebass and NoiseNinja like this.
  6. NoiseNinja

    NoiseNinja Experimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-drone

    Feb 23, 2011
    Denmark
    Something clearly must be wrong here, so tuning a string in F, half a step above where I tune my current E string would require a .011 thicker string than the one I use currently as my E string tuned a half step bellow.

    Makes no sense to me.

    Likewise tuning A half a step up, seemingly require a .005 thicker string than I currently use for my A, and tuning to D# seemingly require of me only to go .002 down from the one I usually use to tune a half step lower D#.

    Also apparently Ibanez is way off when they string their 5 string Mikro basses with a 0.125 B string, since tuning it half a step up to C seems to requires a 0.145 string according to the app you link to.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
  7. NoiseNinja

    NoiseNinja Experimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-drone

    Feb 23, 2011
    Denmark
    Seems more in the ball park, even though it still doesn't make sense to me that tuning half a step up would require a .010 thicker string on the F string and A# string than I currently use as my E and A string and for the D# 0.05 thicker than my current D string.

    I come to the conclusion, taking your answers into consideration that I would probably need to put a custom set together based on single strings and that a 0.125 or 0.120 is probably much better suited as my C string, than the 0.110 I had in mint first.

    Anyway thanks to everyone who dimmed in with suggestions, even those that doesn't really make sense based on the information I provided.

    Keep 'em coming in case you have better suggestions than the ones already mentioned.
     
  8. SLaPiNFuNK

    SLaPiNFuNK Inactive Commercial User

    Jul 28, 2006
    LA California
    The Brains: FretNation.com
    Well, I make these suggestions as they are most readily available #1... Most singles are not available in "short scale" however you can get away with using a longer than "short scale" string in the "A-String" position however a long scale string would still be too long in this position and the full winding would go around the tuning post.

    Ok so back on track...

    The Mikro is so short scale that even a 45-105 set tuned EADG is considered low tension and floppy... You can tune the .125 .105 .085 .065 to EADG on the Mikro and it will feel like a 50-110 set on a long scale.
     
  9. NoiseNinja

    NoiseNinja Experimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-drone

    Feb 23, 2011
    Denmark
    If you had read my initial post I said I use a .095-.040 set (.040, .060,.075,.095) currently for my Mikro in standard E tuning and I specifically ask for a set of strings that would give me approximately the same tension and feel tuned down to standard C tuning.

    Please don't tell me what works best and feel most comfortable for me, when I already provided that piece of information, thank you.

    Anyway, I've come to the conclusion, that a set with a .120, .095, .075 and .060 string would probably be what I am looking for since I don't want my strings to get any floppier than they already are either, and just tried to tune the 3 strings in question up a half step, which still seems fine and comfortable.

    Again I do appreciate that people comes with suggestions, it is just kind of annoying that they chose to totally disregard the information I provided to answer my question properly and insinuate that what works for me doesn't actually work at all in reality and that I much rather should buy a subscription to their version of reality than stick to my own which clearly must be a delusion since it doesn't work for them.

    Anyway I will be off chasing bumblebees and practicing jedi mind tricks convincing them they can't fly!
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
    comatosedragon likes this.
  10. SLaPiNFuNK

    SLaPiNFuNK Inactive Commercial User

    Jul 28, 2006
    LA California
    The Brains: FretNation.com
    I apologize, I missed that in your original post...

    Look for the GHS set that is 50-107 or D'Addario XL Nickel 50-105. Those are the closest you will get without needing to custom order strings. Both are short scale and will fit the Mikro appropriately.
     
    Killed_by_Death likes this.
  11. SLaPiNFuNK

    SLaPiNFuNK Inactive Commercial User

    Jul 28, 2006
    LA California
    The Brains: FretNation.com
    Really even a 45-105 set would work for you if you like lower tension strings... There are more readily available in these gauges.
     
  12. I've got a 5-string Mikro with a weird tuning in mind, so I've been looking at string gauges as well.

    According to Kalium's tension chart, .125, .90, .65, .50 would be at the same tension you use already.
     
    NoiseNinja likes this.
  13. NoiseNinja

    NoiseNinja Experimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-drone

    Feb 23, 2011
    Denmark
    Thank you, my final result is pretty close to that as well.

    Just tried myself with string tension calculator Killed by Death links to, it seems to be somewhat buggy, sometimes resetting the data provided and sometimes comming up with slightly different tension for same gauged strings.

    What I came up with though using the calculator was .125 .095 .070 .050

    Seemingly the tension changes minimally by tuning up my current A string tuned half a step up, so that would stay the same.

    Also apparently the tension of my current D string kind of sticks out a bit from my other strings's tention, therefor whole 0.010 slimmer tuned up to D#, as I figured I might as well try to go for as balanced a set as possible.

    Again thank you for all your suggestion, seems like what I will get will then be a .125 .095 .070 .050.

    At least your replies opened up for me realizing I had to use a much thicker C string than what I initially had imagined would be necessary and Killed By Death, although his point was way off what I actually asked for, for providing the string tension calculator that made it possible for me finding what probably is the closest possible answer to what I need.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
  14. Spidey2112

    Spidey2112

    Aug 3, 2016
    First, arthritis... now, this. The pain...
     
  15. Nev375

    Nev375

    Nov 2, 2010
    Missouri
    I was under the impression you were tuning 4 half steps down, not a half step up. I'm confused. No matter though, you have several people trying to help you and you seem more annoyed than appreciative. I'm done here. Good luck.
     
    wmhill, wilder, Impermanence and 2 others like this.
  16. NoiseNinja

    NoiseNinja Experimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-drone

    Feb 23, 2011
    Denmark
    Well, I decided to increase tension a bit to see if that will allow me to get a bit lower action in return.

    So I decided to order a set of strings that'll look like this:

    0.055 - 0.075 - 0.100 - 0.130

    Will give me a string tension of 27 Lbs and slightly above on the 3 higher strings and about 25 Lbs on the low 0.130 C string.

    Versus just around 24 Lbs for all strings with the 0.125 - 0.095 - 0.070 - 0.050 set I mentioned I planed on using earlier.

    Right now with the 0.040-0.095 set tuned in standard E, the tension was a bit all over the place, with 22,01 Lbs on the low E string, 24,76 Lbs on both the A and G string, and then no less than whopping 28,91 Lbs on the D string.

    Anyway, the strings are ordered, so now I'll just have to wait and see how this experiment turn out and if I in fact will be able to lower the action a bit with the increased string tension or it will just make the bass harder to play, which means I then will go for the set first planed instead.

    You apparently didn't bother to read the thread through.

    It's all explained there, and if you include some of the replies by some of the other people participating in this thread, you'd see why I got slightly annoyed as well.

    Let me explain the annoyance factor first:

    I asked for a set of strings that would have the same tension and feel as the ones I currently use, and then most of the replies turned out to be random suggestions of string sets that I didn't ask for, but still was suggested cause the person didn't think I should play what I am currently happy playing, but I instead ought to take or leave their suggestions.

    It's basically the same as if you had asked for, lets say, suggestions on 5 string basses and then practically everyone is suggesting you to buy a 4 string bass instead, since they don't like playing 5 string basses themself.

    In other words several posts with replies that is not to much use for me.

    This is not what annoyed me however, what annoyed me is what these replies implied: That people consciously chose to ignore the part of information in my question that didn't fit into their perception of reality but was crucial for giving me an answer that actually would be useful to me.

    Now next, I guess you have to agree with me that tuning the lowest string in C, would be just like tuning the B string on a 5 string bass a half a step up, likewise F, the next string on this bass, would be like tuning the E half a step up.

    Now proceed to the other strings and you'll find a similar pattern.

    I am aware that I am talking about a 4 string bass here, and that is apparently what confused you.

    However the 4 string bass as I am planing to tune it will function and sound much more like the 4 lower strings of a 5 string tuned half a step up, than a 4 stringer in E tuned down, hence the half step.

    Another reason for doing so was to make it more apparent how odd it was suggesting relatively quite a bit heavier strings for tuning 1 half step up, instead of slimmer strings, which would have been the logical answer, as what I wanted was to maintain the original tension.

    In other words I chose to compare the string tension of strings I already got and what gauge they would have to be if they were to be tuned half a step up while remaining the same tension, instead of the less logical way that you seem to prefer, trying to find out what string gauge was needed compared to your current ones when tuning them 4 half steps down.

    You see 1 half step is actually less than 4 half steps, and therefor relatively easier to use as a comparison factor.

    It would be a bit like you having 20 dollar, and having to find out how much more you needed to buy something that costed 25 dollar. And then instead of doing the equation 20+X=25, you would go (25/X)X=20, you see much more complicated and not all that logical.

    I hope this has enlightened you.

    And in the future it would be nice if you didn't budge into random threads you didn't bother reading through, just to leave a remark telling OP that you think he is a jerk and the thread by the way was too boring for you to bother to try to understand what was actually going on.

    Really not that constructive.

    Anyway, have a nice day. :cool:
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
    comatosedragon and HaphAsSard like this.
  17. Spidey2112

    Spidey2112

    Aug 3, 2016
    I like the thought process behind all this, and the apps are cool, as long as they are correct...

    ... one may not learn as much, but I think the best solution, in this case, would be to get rid of the guitarist...
     
    Andre678, Richie Se7en and NoiseNinja like this.
  18. Killed_by_Death

    Killed_by_Death Snaggletooth Inactive

    Ah yes, so you like to have only 22 in./lb. per string, so here's a balanced set:

    upload_2017-7-5_9-18-37.png

    I'd suggest just using the site that I linked to next time, so you can avoid the whole indignant monologue.
     
  19. NoiseNinja

    NoiseNinja Experimental-psychedelic-ambient-noise-drone

    Feb 23, 2011
    Denmark
    Monologues is how I think best, and what might be considered indignant to you, is not necessarily considered indignant to me.

    No need to feel a shame on my behalf, in fact I would advise against feeling on other people's behalf, especially dealing with negative emotions, as you never know how their subjective reality of emotions might actually look.

    That's not the same as refraining from being empathic, but it is the same as saying you shouldn't attribute your own private subjective moral standards to other peoples feelings.

    Anyway in case you didn't noticed I did thank you a couple of times for providing the link in some of my, to you, indignant monologues, that I imagine, without of course knowing if this indeed is true, you skipped lightly over in order not to feel embarrassed on my behalf.

    Just like you didn't really bother answering my original question, even if you did provide the tool for me to find out, but much rather suggested what seemed to be the correct way to handle my situation from your point of view.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
    TonyP- likes this.
  20. Primary

    Primary TB Assistant

    Here are some related products that TB members are talking about. Clicking on a product will take you to TB’s partner, Primary, where you can find links to TB discussions about these products.

     
    Jun 23, 2021

Share This Page