If you look at the semi-custom string makers who offer balanced tension sets, the B string usually comes in around .140 or .145 to keep it in line with a G string of .040 or .045 and an E string of .105 or .110.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Why is .130 the standard for a B string?
- Thread starter Barghest
- Start date
songwriter21
I have an obsession for wood. The musical kind.
Depends on the construction and setup. Ken Smiths have incredible Bs, and they're 34" scale with .125-.130, usually. My used $650 Schecters have unreal Bs, both with tapered .130s.
Doing your own setups to get everything exactly how you want it, makes most of the difference, imo. A $200 bass can play as good as a $2000 bass, if you know what you're doing.
Yes. The low B does works better on a 35" scale than a 34" scale.
Longer scale length makes for a better B string, but it does make the rest of the strings tighter. If you play a lot on the B string with your Schecter, that seems to me like a good trade-off, but if you play mostly traditional E-G stuff with the occasional trip down to the B string, it might not be ideal. Like anything else, it's a trade-off.
Thicker strings allow for more tension.
Think of it this way - there are three primary means to lower the pitch of a string. First is by increasing the speaking length - we do this all the time when we go from fretting a string higher up the neck, then going to a lower fret or open string. It gets longer, the pitch goes down.
Second is decreasing the tension, again we do this all the time by twisting the tuning knobs.
Third is increasing the gauge of the string. This is why we can have four strings all at the same scale length but sounding at different pitches. All pretty obvious stuff so far, I know.
Making a change to any one of these parameters means you can adjust another parameter in the other direction. If the string is longer, you don't have to make it as thick, or decrease the tension as much. Increasing the gauge means you can keep the scale length the same and bring the tension up to maintain the same pitch.
For the same reason, if you were to take a .080 A string and tune it down to E, it'd be so floppy that it would be nearly unplayable. Bring the tension up to .100 and it's nice and tight again.
I use a 130 on my 32" 6-string and it works out well. Galli Strings makes a set where the other strings are proportionally larger to match it.
IME (30 years with B-strings), higher tension B-strings have a lot more problems with overtones and intonation issues. Maybe that works better on a longer scale, but for typical non-37" scales, I get much better and more in-tune results with lighter gauge B-strings relative to the other 4. I honestly don't pay attention to matched string-to-string tension; it's mostly irrelevant.
Clearly it works for a lot of people but I am starting to think 34" scale is just too short for solid low B. Not unlike how 25.5" is too short for a low B on a guitar. 26.5" works much better.
That's not been my experience with basses. I've had longer scales with weak B-strings. My G&L, Muckelroy, Yamaha BB5000A, mutt-P5, and Regenerate Guitar Works 6 all have very good B-strings. It's far more about setup and how you play than the scale length, IME.
But YMMV and all that.
Its certainly possible my touch on the instrument is not all it could be and that is the issue... Won't rule that out.
I don't think it's really a black-and-white issue. Some basses work and sound great for some people, while other people have a totally different perception based on their own experience, which includes a lot of different factors. It is very much a personal thing, so find what works for you and enjoy it.
OTOH, just don't assume that what works (or doesn't) for you is universal Truth. There are Universal Truths, but B-strings and scale length ain't it!
I made peace with the floppy B's years ago. It's quite the compromise at these scale lengths.
I've played 34.5" fives virtually exclusively since the mid-80's and from this bass to that bass, this gage or another, this string brand or another, the B for me has always felt more loose than the other four. It's just the way it is at this scale length. I don't want 35 or 36. I am keen to try a fanned-fret axe sometime, but this just has never kept me up nights, my hands simply don't know any better. And the advantages of a five over a four for me make this a very minor disadvantage.
I've played 34.5" fives virtually exclusively since the mid-80's and from this bass to that bass, this gage or another, this string brand or another, the B for me has always felt more loose than the other four. It's just the way it is at this scale length. I don't want 35 or 36. I am keen to try a fanned-fret axe sometime, but this just has never kept me up nights, my hands simply don't know any better. And the advantages of a five over a four for me make this a very minor disadvantage.
My 4 strings are all 45-105. On fivers I started using 125 Bs (both rounds and flats) with some trepidation, thinking they'd be too noodly. But they don't feel that different from a 130, and I think they actually sound better, clearer (on my basses at least). I'm using DR Legends and Nickel Lo-Riders - the Legends only come in 125, and the LR's I could only find full sets with a 125, no 130s. Maybe 125 is the new "standard"?
I'm fine w 34" too. I had a very early Dingwall AB1. It sounded awesome, the fanned frets no problem, but the reach was just too much for me.
