guildbass

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1324117240' post='1470912']
No. the longitudinal sandwich isn't going to resist bending any more than a single piece of wood with similar anti-bending properties. Its the tension in the truss rod which resists the bending. The sandwich is to prevent resonances.

Also the bolted construction can be considered to be superior to a set construction in that the bolts draw the neck to the body tight as opposed to being held with glue. In actuality both these will transfer vibrations as there is a large surface area of contact and the joint in both is rigid tight. Gibsons are reknown for their sustain.

This is way off the original subject but a perfect bass won't vibrate at all. All vibrations by the body and neck will reduce the vibration of the string which is why its a fallacy that, unplugged, a 'loud' bass is better than a quiet one. The loud one is vibrating in sympathy with the strings and converting these vibrations to sound rather than holding fast and letting the strings vibrate with no sympathetic resonance. Anything moving in sympathy with the string will reduce sustain, not enhance it.

Build a bass into the side of a granite cliff and you are approaching perfection!

(I would also challenge anyone who says they can hear the difference of different woods used as the wings of a through-neck bass. In fact, those who can hear the difference in woods used anywhere on a bass and, yes, even their construction. My Musicman has sustain which goes on forever. My Jaydee does too. Do I need sustain in a bass? Not really.
[/quote]

I think resonance works both ways. While it is of course true that a reflected wave can oppose a note by being 180 degrees out of phase, it can also do the opposite... I get what you are saying though... So in effect, sympathetic vibration in the instrument is a bad thing because ultimately it'll stop the initiating string from moving.

As regards sustain...The thing with the Warwick and the Spector is that they SOUND like the sustained note barely attenuates. When I've played other instruments you can hear it still going for a while if you listen, and I've seen people use compressors to pull the tail end of the note up but the drop-off in volume from the start of the note is quite extreme.. However, with the Warwick in particular it seems to just run and run....Easily long enough for me to have to gently 'kill' the 'drone' of an open string 4 seconds after it's been plucked when in one of our songs I move to another chord/note

As regards woods... I can definitely hear the Warwick's tone compared to the Spector. The Spector NS 2000-4 weighs 12 lbs and is dense maple throughout. The Warwick weighs about 9 lbs and is less dense Maple throughout. The Spector is 'toppier' with less depth to the lows.

With speaker design, engineers can use tuned ports to resonate with the lowest notes to artificially 'pull' the frequency response down below the box's natural limit. It is not beyond the wit of man to do something similar with a bass...Especially as very few electric basses will actually manage the fundamental 42 Hz....Which after all, despite the fact that many PA guys wouldn't know what to do with such a low note would be rather true to the nature of the instrument. I've never heard a bolt-on get much from down there ( looking on a scope) but I have owned a set neck ( my 302) that gave around 50% of it's bottom 'e's level as fundamental and I reckon the Warwick has probably got a fair chunk of 42 hz in there.

The way the 'wings' interact with the body could be to move with the very low notes to deepen the instrument...Considering a four string with standard tuning can only go to 42hz you COULD build the body with it's wings to have a resonance point near there...Just a thought...

Do I need sustain...YES...It's a fundamental part of our sound. I use the sustain on whole chords (plucked away from the fretboard) to give a single sustained note to a four or eight bar section, or on one open string to mimic a keyboard 'drone' while I arpeggio the chord associated with that string. It helps that our vocalist is happiest around 'E'..... Different horses and all that!

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1324084448' post='1470808']
I wonder that more significant in the sound is the make of the neck itself. Most (all?) neck-throughs are a sandwich construction to avoid resonation and the dreaded dead spots. Most bolt-ons, especially Fenders, are from one piece of wood. They nearly all resonate and have a dead, or at least less lively, spot on the 4th fret of the G. This gives the impression of a lack of sustain and has nothing to do with the neck fixing.
[/quote]

Are they sandwiched to prevent resonance.?.. I've always believed they were sandwiched to prevent bending under string load. The laminations go longitudinally and are perpendicular to the fingerboard so they won't stop resonance but they will resist long term stress bending. With a neck-through your 'system' is a closed loop from nut, along the string to the bridge then down through the bridge and back along the one piece wood 'neck' and back to the nut. It's a closed loop tuned system.The wings are then attached to either side with a different density wood strip to allow them to move in sympathy with certain frequencies to further enhance the sustain.

With a Fender type instrument, the neck itself has a 'tone' when rapped but the vibes are killed or at least attenuated as the wood gets to the neck/body join so the string vibration is damped and can't get to the bridge with as much energy. It's closer to an open loop system.

It's similar with a set neck, unless it's an extra-ordinarily good join...Which is why my Guild 302 and the set neck Gibson basses I've played have a huge punch which decays relatively fast...The join isn't mechanically as good at transferring vibration as a single piece of wood.

The dead spot on a Fender neck may well be because the resonant frequency of the neck (which is derived from it's length) is creating a vibration wave which is travelling up the neck to the body join, then returning and the waveform happens to be the same frequency (or a harmonic) of the 4th fret on the 'G' but with the waveform inverted...thus killing the note....Like noise cancelling headphones There are going to be other frets which seem too lively for a similar reason, although those frets are having their waveforms reinforced by the waves bouncing up and down.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1324071907' post='1470688']
Why do you take this approach mate? The song is king, the singer brings the song alive, you and me are just there to enhance the experience and support the song and the singer. We are very important, us bassists, but we should not get above ourselves, the best bassists understand their role within the music and support its purpose.
[/quote]

I couldn't agree more... The song IS the key, and as bass players, we support and enhance.

As regards the instrument itself, all I'm saying is that in my opinion, unlike a 6 string electric, a good though-neck bass guitar has enough mass from it's strings to generate a unique tone from the interaction between it's strings and it's one piece construction that doesn't need further signal path distortion.

If you think about the nature of oscillation, which is what a stringed instrument relies on, having a string stretched between two points which are anchored on a one piece tone wood length, with two different q factor 'wings' attached is going to 'ring' and allow the oscillations to propagate through the wood and back up through the nut and bridge better than having a piece of wood that stops half way, then is bolted to another piece of wood (or perhaps a piece of medite) .
In engineering terms If you want to stop a thing from ringing, putting a break in the length and sticking a dissimilar material half way down is a bloody good way to do it....In fact it is exactly how you 'kill' vibration in a system...which is the opposite of how an instrument needs to work....Which of course is why you have to use loads of fancy electronics to enhance your sound if you start off with a vibration generator with a break halfway down!

I think we have to agree that there are two routes to tone. One is the route taken by electric guitarists where the guitar is one half of the system, with the signal path electronics forming the other half... And that is the same route that CAN be taken by a bass guitar player.
The other route is the one taken by players of instruments where the sound generated is entirely from the instrument, either as sound waves or as electromagnetic energy and is then converted to a louder acoustic output with as little interference as possible.

I have always admired the recordings done by Buddy Holly...The earlier ones.... Just a single ribbon mic, a guitar going through an amp, a stand-up bass and a vocalist. everyone moved around until the relative volumes were correct...and then played. There's NOTHING in the signal path at all. Just tape. Take a listen...They are stunning

John Paul Jones
Steve Currie

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1324070955' post='1470672']
Ooh, a Fingerbone! A favourite of Robbie Shakespeare, or was.

My Streamer's a BO, and it's f***ing fantastic.
[/quote]

Yes, they are OK... Quite similar in many ways to the though-neck... but one layer removed....They worked hard to keep the family sound

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1324070605' post='1470668']
And you think a desk, compressors, limiters, eq, exciters, automation in the DAW, the engineer, and the loudspeakers you hear it all on and the room they're in don't affect your sound and dynamics? Ask the engineer what he did when you hear the finished masters, if you have an hour or two spare
[/quote]

I'm sure they would, if I let them! The room is fine..( When I say 'room' I mean an electronically applied reverb patch) .That's part of the sonics an acoustic ensemble relies on.... the Albert Hall doesn't add distortion or compression, it's designed so that everyone hears a reasonable reproduction of the music. When I listen to Buddy Holly's 50's recordings, I hear a bass...No special effects, no fancy stuff, just a bass through the vocal ribbon mic. Sounds fine apart from the bits where the bass notes interact with the room and disappear...Which is why I'll be D.I.ing.

I would hope the speakers will be pretty neutral. I've got a bit of history with speakers. basically, I'll be trying to hear my bass sound through the mix as accurately as it went in. If I have to tweak the sound to get it to come out sounding as it went in, then so be it, but MY little Mackie desk and monitoring is HiFi enough not to colour my sound so I'd be very disappointed if the studio's kit does.

The engineer will be my mate Ian, who is Porcupine Tree's engineer...he's a good lad and vey into the instrument's tone rather than creating a tone via the signal path... Anyway, we'll see...?-)

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1324065836' post='1470597']
Christ mate, you've made a big splash haven't you

I disagree with your appraisal of bolt on basses though. I tend to agree with Patrice Vigier who insists a good bolt-on is in no way inferior (tonally or otherwise) to any other system. I can't see how you can justify your opinion that they are flawed.

I'm also a fan of zero frets.
[/quote]

My fretless is a bolt on... It's a Fingerbone... i

It's like this. Like a lot of us, I take most opportunities to pop into Music shops to have a quick go. You inevitably grab the decent kit. I loved the Vigier 6 string guitar...especially the fretless 6 string...Although how one could play the damn thing beats me, my barre 'E' sounded...well...Dreadful! Kudos to anyone who can play a fretless treble guitar! As far as the Basses were concerned...Meh... OK... Better than a Music Man, better than a Fender but not a patch on a Streamer unplugged, ...No sustain in comparison...same goes for almost every other bolt neck bass I've tried. That isn't to say there isn't a bolt neck that sounds and feels as good as a Streamer or similar through neck...But I haven't found one yet...

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1324067351' post='1470614']
He is saying that he sound of the instrument unaltered, just amplified, does not cut it on recordings. Try it, you'll find out he's right. You have to chuck it through a shitload of stuff to even approach making it sound right in a band mix.
[/quote]

Well, we'll see cuz I'm in the Studio on the 29th with both the Spector and the Warwick. I intend to D.I. ...I might have to use compression because I may not be accurate enough to conntrol the fine dynamics... But that'll be all.

There also will be some 'room' in the mix...But that's OK i think!

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1324066059' post='1470598']
My electric basses all sound sh*t without amplification, I couldn't go on stage with much louder version of the unamplified sound, I'd be a f***ing laughing stock. I plug them into my POD X3 and they sound ace. Sound is nothing but personal preference and whether it fits with the other instruments and voices.
[/quote]

Mine don't... at least the new one's don't. the Guild 302 didn't sound great...A bit like an old set neck Gibson, the old hofner 500 sounded...well frankly awful. The Spector sounds great, bright, looong rolling sustain and very controlled upper register. The Streamer similarly lovely which a deeper rolling bottom end sustain, very distinct mid band tones and again, a very detailed and crisp top end. The only time I use any tone controls is to tweak the bottom end to take in to account the way the room interacts with the amp.. I use everything flat...The bass and my fingers does it all...

Yeah... I'm opinionated...But I really do believe what I say... I'm not chiming in to be contentious...And I really enjoy the discourse!

9 times out of ten when I listen to another guy's bass sound I hear a fairly conventional bass sound... it just isn't the sound his instrument makes raw. I choose to have an instrument that actually makes the sound I like without needing processing...:-)

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1324055912' post='1470438']
Well now there is an interesting thing.

Cant think of anything much I've heard on a recording of a bass guitar that could be described as the sound of the instrument unaltered, just amplified.

Simply because that doesnt cut it at all.
[/quote]

What, you can't hear a bass guitar unless it's chucked through a sh*t load of effects....Really?

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1323079124' post='1458858']
Define 'real bass guitar sound' for me....
[/quote]

The output waveform of the instrument, amplified yet unaltered. Just like the sound of an upright acoustic instrument is ideally amplified yet unaltered.

If a violin player dislikes the tone of his instrument, he doesn't stick it through a pile of electronic effects... He gets another violin with a sound he prefers....

If you are not hearing the tone from your instrument you want, you should change the instrument. Every change in the signal path is a degradation.

....Unless of course you are in a covers band whose job is to accurately mimic the tone of the original artist's recordings...Although having been in several cover's bands, you don't need to be THAT close because the likelihood of getting even reasonably close to the recording while playing live is fairly remote. Ultimately it's about the audience and they'll lap it up irrespective of the finer points of instrument tone as long as you are tight, have good timing, and most importantly, having fun up there...

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1323073081' post='1458804']
What sort of date would people say the whole mastering "loudness war" kicked in?
Yesterday we had music TV channels on for an hour or so, and the difference in mastering style between newer stuff and 90s or older stuff was striking. All of the recent stuff was constantly loud and shiny and in-your-face in quite a wearing way.
I view added harmonic distortion on bass as a separate issue from that, as I hear lightly driven bass sounds going back much further than the last couple of years, on records which have a lot of dynamic range. Most 70s prog is an example!
I realise that a "natural sounding" recording is pretty much an impossibility and not particularly desirable anyway. Frank Zappa pointed out in an interview that since multitrack recording and close-micing came in, all recordings are an illusion, as there is no one place in the room you could put your head to hear the combination of sounds that end up on the recording.
[/quote]

Phil Spector's 'Wall of Sound' signature tone from the early '60's was over-driven in the recording stage, clipping the tape to make it sound louder...And Motown stuff from that era is similarly clipped..

One of the reasons so much stuff is so limited is that you need truly MASSIVE equipment to listen to undistorted full dynamic range music even played at relatively low levels. i read somewhere that if you listened to a naturally recorded orchestra at an average 10 watts rms (which is actually room filling) then you'd need at least 1000 watts RMS of headroom available in the system to cope with the transients...Which is a lot of electronics sitting on the sideboard! I also read somewhere that to reproduce a single crack of a snare drum at a similar volume to the original, you need 4000 watts RMS....

So basically, you need compression.....

I had a test CD once that the uncompressed sound of a Challenger tank firing it's main weapon. It came with a very stark warning that the track was easily capable of destroying your HiFi...Especially as the track started with the generic meadow sounds where the tank was sitting... Bird song, cricket's etc! Watching the amp clip while the speaker cones clacked against their stops and strained at the end of their travel was a not to be repeated experience!

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1323010663' post='1458232']
Sounds like you are trying to say..in a round about way.. that Bolt-ons are inferior...???

I think there are way too many variables in the way before you try an decide whether neck thru V bolt-on is relevant.
You might want to test acoustic resonant properties but the only factor is whether it is any good or not..
[/quote]

Well... Honestly... I do think they are inferior. That's not to say a good bolt-on is a competent instrument but invariably, bolt-on neck guitars are so constructed because they are cheap to make....Not because they offer advantages tonally. You tend not to find bass guitar luthiers (as opposed to companies diversifying into instruments) building a bolt-neck first and then building through necks... It's almost always the other way round...They build their top quality amazing sounding through-neck and later, if the market profile has grown and impecunious potential customers are lusting after their product, they commission cheaper bolt-necks (usually in foreign climes) which in effect sell on reflected glory..

Leo Fender built bolt on-neck guitars because a) He wasn't a Luthier, he was a radio engineer, and it was an easily replicatable process for mass production. His (and THE) original electric bass of course had felt blocks damping the strings to make it sound like a double bass...the way the strings reacted with the body was not even a tiny bit important...The tone of the P bass became an industry standard because it was the original instrument and it's a heck of a lot easier to replicate or copy a bolt-neck than it is to do a set neck or through neck.

I see bolt-neck guitars like I see rear wheel drive cars with one piece rear axles and leaf springs. Frequently entertaining but ultimately flawed and requiring quite a lot of 'help' to get them acceptable.

I also realise that nine times out of ten, in a live environment, by the time your instrument sound has actually reached the audience's ears via the cab, the way the cab interacts with the floor/room, the way it's mic'd, the way the desk process's it, and the way the front of house is set-up, , it hardly matters what the original construction or tone was... So providing the thing PLAYS similar to your favourite luthier-built through-neck baby that lives at home and spends time in the studio, you might as well have something pretty hanging off your neck!

well you DID ask!

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1323015836' post='1458296']
For a start you pickups do not capture the sound of your unamplified bass. They only attempt to transfer the characteristics of the resonating string.

What you are hearing when you play unplugged is a combination of the string and the bass wood vibrating, you can't capture the sound waves coming off the wood.

If you speak to Alex, he will probably tell you that his cab design is a compromise. He did try to build a three way hi-fi full frequency cab but found that fully transparent cab is not required for bass. So the barefaced cabs are 'fairly' transparent.

Another factor is that unless you play solo, you need to redically alter the bass sound so that it sits in the mix with the other instruments. With an upright you will find that a lot of the frequencies it produces are masked by the other instruments and this happens naturally or is done by the sound engineer. If you don't you'll run out of headroom and everything will turn to mush.
[/quote]Agreed, You'll need a mic/piezo combination to get a reasonably accurate sound and even then it doesn't really sound like YOUR bass, it sounds like A bass...

My cab didn't have tweeters by the time it was finished, it was in essence a two way system because they did nothing but add string noise and pickup clatter. it did however, amplify the signals it got in reasonably accurately.


I find the biggest problem with uprights is that certain frequencies either interact with the room and boom uncontrollably, or disappear as they are subject to out of phase reflections.

We play with just bass, classical guitar and human voice so there is plenty of space for each instrument

[quote name='hairyhaw' timestamp='1323003292' post='1458098']
Er, if its an electric bass you're talking about then you're not really going to hear [i]anything[/i], because its an electric bass - it needs to be plugged into something.



Completely. The original query is probably better pointed in the direction of acoustic bass guitars, an instrument not specifically designed for use with amplification. But then, another poster has already alluded to instrument construction taking in so many variables that really any natural sound is builder and user defined so again, maybe a futile debate.
[/quote]

I also have a cheap acoustic bass with a piezo bridge pick-up. ...And the unplugged sound...Inevitably rather dead and lacking in resonance and volume because it is a fraction of the volumetric size of a double bass with shorter and higher tensioned (so higher frequency oscillating) strings. And plugged in it sounds like a reasonably coherent modern electric bass.

personally i think build style is the primary tone shaping factor...Most through necks have a 'family' sound, most long scale set necks have tonal similarities (my 302 Guild sounded quite like a Gibson EBO long scale for instance) and to my ear, there are definite family resemblances to the sounds of bolt on neck guitars... Yamaha's don't sound strikingly different from many Fender/Squiers to my ears for example. also, if you pick up a manufacturers bolt neck and then play their own through neck...like the Warwick Streamers, While the bolt neck instrument sounds like someone has worked very hard to get it to sound like it belongs to the same tonal family as the through neck, when you hear the actual through neck version you realise you are listen to the aural version of a Ciroen 2CV doing seventy compared to a Jag doing 70...

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1322929591' post='1457444']
But that's the acoustic sound of an unplugged electric bass. As mcnach pointed out, that's not the the sound that actually gets amplified and heard. If you really want to capture the sound of an unplugged electic bass then you'd need to use a mic.

So already we have a conflict in the definition of the 'basic sound'.
This is why it's a futile debate. Especially as it doesn't matter (see rule 2 )
[/quote]

No, I don't think you can because the sound of the instrument is derived from the way the metal string moves across the pickup.. There is no sound hole so you won't get a representative tone. What you CAN do is play the guitar with the top of the headstock pressed against a wooden door...THAT's quite interesting and you can certainly hear the difference between a well made through/neck or set-neck versus a bolt-on!
in effect a bass guitar is an electric motor... And the way that string moves is down to the way the vibrations of the body interact with the vibrations of the string.

Ultimately, stick it through a HiFi pre-amp and listen on studio headphones. if the instrument has a tone close to your ideal like that, you can get there with amp/string/pickup fiddling. My Streamer sounds like a Streamer through headphones

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1322997984' post='1457998']
Read my sig.....
[/quote]

OK....I did...What should one infer from that...

I have quite strong opinions on this. while I am of the opinion an electric guitar is only part of the instrument, and that the majority of it's tone comes from the stuff it is plugged into, I think a through-neck or set neck bass has it's own distinct tone and that tone should be allowed to develop through an amplification system that is as flat and without distortion as possible. That includes having enough power to not clip the front end of the waveform.

Basically, bass guitars have so much metal moving about on them the woods and most importantly the way they are built make a huge difference. The heavy strings make the wood resonate in a way that a treble guitars strings simply can't manage...They don't have enough mass.
On a six string, the neck thickness seems to be the biggest factor, certainly to sustain with the coils offering the rest of the tonal differences, which is why it doesn't really seem to matter much if they have a bolt-on neck.
I built a telecaster recently. It used a massively thick Broadcaster neck, a solid Ash body, very expensive pickups, one a '49 Broadcaster rep and the other a SD tapped Humbucker and basically top flight bits throughout... And it sounded lovely...the front pup and fat neck giving an almost acoustic quality with the rear pup sounding like an early twangy Nocaster...As indeed you'd expect. Tonally, it doesn't matter [b]much[/b] whether a 6 string is chipboard, ash mahogany or whatever....the tone is from the electronics and the sustain from the neck.
On a bass, there is a huge difference on tone just from the density of woods. My Warwick SS1 and my Spector are hugely different despite being essentially the same design...And no, it isn't pick-ups...It's build style first with wood as the main tone colouring. I've read many times where people have swapped pick-ups, particularly on through and set neck guitars and although you [b]can [/b]hear a change, it doesn't alter the essential tone of the instrument...

It was almost impossible to stop my Guild 302 sounding like a Guild 302 irrespective of the amp rig, unless it was through an instrument modelling front end. To be honest, I never really liked the dark, woody tones of the 302 and i had both the mahogany and Ash versions, both of which sounded almost exactly the same. With the Guild, the set neck construction established the tone. with the Spector, the Warwick, and indeed my mate's Pedula, it's the through neck there is a 'family' sound, with the wood density adding colouration and pickups coming a distant third as regards the tone. when you consider the Spector has passive EMG's, the Warwick actives and the Pedula (I think) active Barts you'd expect more tonal variation but it's a bit like different tyre brands on cars...You'll never get a Moggie Thou to feel like a Ferrari F40 by putting Pirelli P0's on it...

When I built my first cab system I used a Peavey Max pre-amp which had a crossover output. I used this to ensure that the output via a huge Crown MA2400 amp through the 15" bottom speaker and the pair of 7" tops was as close to 'HiFi as possible. I initially put a sweep tone through and then demo'd various CD's until I had it sounding like my HiFi. It was like this for years.



For a while I went through a phase of trying to make my Guild 302 sound like the bass sound I had in my head, which was a more modern 'Warwicky' tone. I bought a Behringer pre-amp thing and a fancy modelling amp as well. Making them pretend they were Fender Bassmans helped a bit...

Finally in September this year I bought a Streamer (and a Spector)....Which actually MADE the sound i had been hearing in my head since 1990...

So...For me It works two ways, if you want to do covers and emulate the precise tone of the bass used on the recording, get a cheap bolt-on neck guitar and a modelling amp. Alternatively, get a bass with the tone you want

It's ridiculous really but in 30 years of live playing I've never worried about strings much... Just play what's on the instrument and boil 'em to get the tone back if they go dead. However, because we're recording now and because the bass sound is so pivotal, and because the Warwick SS1 AND the 1998 Spector NS2000-4 are both very 'toney' and both have distinct and equally appealing sounds suddenly, preserving or at least not catastrophically buggering up the sound has suddenly become important. I think the DR's sound interesting...
Thank you so much for all your help and thanks for reminding me that a different gauge will change the neck tension...It's taken a while to dial in the neck's of both basses...THAT is definitely one thing I don't want to be doing on the day!

[quote name='chrismuzz' timestamp='1322594433' post='1453348']
Totally agree with JTUK about Newtone Strings. They're amazing! I've had a set on my 6er for a year now and they're only just starting to go dull... I really don't look after my strings either!
[/quote]

Well my buddy's the sound guy for Porcupine Tree so he say's he'll snag me something... they get quite a few sets of strings chucked at 'em. I'll look at a set of Black labels or some DR's later... Might string the Spector NS 2000 with a medium light set of something nice too...

[quote name='Mog' timestamp='1322581789' post='1453079']
If you are happy with the original tone then grab a set of Warwick Black labels, as thats what the bass was shipped with (presuming its purchased new).
Otherwise try and figure out what brand is on the bass atm. A few pic's might shed some light if you're stumped.
[/quote]
No, The bass wasn't bought new, it was bought this year and is unlikely to have Warwick strings on...however, when I first played an SS1 in 1990 (and started my obsession with the SS1) it was new in a music shop so DID have Warwick Strings on...Were they Black Labels in 1990...???

[quote name='Mog' timestamp='1322581789' post='1453079']
If you are happy with the original tone then grab a set of Warwick Black labels, as thats what the bass was shipped with (presuming its purchased new).
Otherwise try and figure out what brand is on the bass atm. A few pic's might shed some light if you're stumped.

IME guage has very little impact on sustain wrt standard sets. Unless you jump from an E of 90 to an E of 110 the effects will be mimimal. To answer your question though I've always found that excessively thicker strings can be of lower sustain than thinner guages as tension/scale length comes into the equation.
[/quote]

Perfect...That's EXACTLY what i needed to learn!...Thanks!

Wow! great stuff!

The Streamer has plenty of sustain but I want to retain that almost 'though a compressor' level but with some detail within the note.

I'm not after a sharp top per se...In fact the generic Warwick SS1 tone is sport on...I just don't want to put strings on that bugger it up and the way the top end manages to sit apart from the sustaining bottom 'E' and 'A' open strings without sounding out of balance is a key part of the sound (and is why I've been after a 1990 SS1 since I tried one in 1990!)

Because time is short I might not have the hours to play the toppiness out of totally virgin strings before we go in so the Newtones sound promising...Deans..Hmm...They sound interesting too....

Now... comparing light and medium gauges... How do each type effect sustain... Does a heavier string tend to have more initial attack....Does the higher tension effect sustain...

I know, I know... But bear with me... I've been through the various posts on strings but what the posts tend not to say when talking aboiut string preference is how the user plays and what they play.

Right. I have a 1990 Streamer 4 string stage one which I will be recording with shortly.

My style is fingers only, with, for the purposes of the recordings, the majority of the time I'll be playing chords with each string allowed to ring (think House of the rising sun guitar style but slower!) critically, in many of these chords, the appropriate open string is allowed the stay ringing under the other notes to underpin the whole...In a sense, I'm trying to use the bass to perform the job of a keyboard droned chord as well as picking out the counterpoint. It sounds harder than it is but I need strings that enhance the Streamer's characteristic sounds with a bottom 'E' and 'A' that will not decay too fast

We only have bass, classical guitar and voice so the bass has to fill the spaces where necessary.

What I'm after is the opinions of bassists who enjoy a lyrical, melodic style where the instrument has to provide both an inder-pinning 'wash' of sound as well as a couter-point melody...So needs to have crisp, well defined notes and great sustain... Basically, the Streamer's signature sound.

Or should I simply stick a set of Warwick's strings on the thing!!!!

I would very much like info on brand and, critically, gauge/weights...Thanks chaps!

[quote name='BottomE' post='1332177' date='Aug 8 2011, 03:03 PM']S,nice

[/quote]

Yes, thank you for that!....Acharming and of course particularly topical image....