The fatter the string, the fatter the tone?

[Jay2U]

I don't think so!

A fatter string requires more tension in order to make it's higher mass resonate at a given frequency. More mass and tension require more energy for the same amplitude. Apart from the fundamental tone, harmonics appear along the string. The more energy, the more harmonics. As those harmonics are multiples of the fundamental frequency, the result will be a richer tone, not a fatter tone.

As the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I analysed the waveforms produced by both, thin and fat strings. It can be clearly seen that the percentage of harmonics versus the fundamental frequency depends on string gauge. In other words: Thinner strings produce more boom.

In the graph tone, gauge and tension are listed.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Jay2U

[Newfoundfreedom]

I have to admit, most of the post may as well be written in Greek, but the conclusion is interesting and somewhat surprising. So basically, if you want more bass, use lighter strings?

Edited December 19, 2018 by Newfoundfreedom

[Lozz196]

Our old producer said that Trevor Bolder (of Ziggy/Bowie fame) advised him on using lighter gauge strings as he could add more bass to them without them booming.

[4000]

I’ve always got a rounder tone using thinner strings.

[Jay2U]

24 minutes ago, 4000 said:

I’ve always got a rounder tone using thinner strings.

Rounder usually means more sine wave shaped, so less harmonics.

[GisserD]

On 18/12/2018 at 20:32, Jay2U said:

I don't think so!

A fatter string requires more tension in order to make it's higher mass resonate at a given frequency. More mass and tension require more energy for the same amplitude. Apart from the fundamental tone, harmonics appear along the string. The more energy, the more harmonics. As those harmonics are multiples of the fundamental frequency, the result will be a richer tone, not a fatter tone.

As the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I analysed the waveforms produced by both, thin and fat strings. It can be clearly seen that the percentage of harmonics versus the fundamental frequency depends on string gauge. In other words: Thinner strings produce more boom.

In the graph tone, gauge and tension are listed.

Interesting topic! You clearly have gone to a lot of trouble to record those!

Any chance you have a waterfall plot like the one below to show comparisons on a frequency scale?

 

[The59Sound]

Use your ears. Don't look at graphs. 

[totorbass]

I always believed that fatter strings had a more pronunced  fundamental and less harmonics. It seems I was wrong.

Edited December 20, 2018 by totorbass

[Jay2U]

4 hours ago, GisserD said:

Interesting topic! You clearly have gone to a lot of trouble to record those!

Any chance you have a waterfall plot like the one below to show comparisons on a frequency scale?

 

No I don't. For further analysis I should have arrays with numerical data, which I don't have. The graphs were made directly from the wav-files.

[GisserD]

1 hour ago, Jay2U said:

No I don't. For further analysis I should have arrays with numerical data, which I don't have. The graphs were made directly from the wav-files.

can you send me the wav files?

[Jay2U]

3 hours ago, GisserD said:

can you send me the wav files?

I can, after having them dug out. They're on another PC, so maybe tonight... 

[LITTLEWING]

I have to admit I've never felt happier with my strings and the whole sweet tone thing since I dropped from 45-105's to 40-100's. If you're not over the moon with the change, then go halfway with 45-65-80-100 to keep the thin side balanced.

[Joachim]

Ok so, the intention is nice, but I think you're missing many, many, many aspects of the string making.

1- does fatter strings requires more tension to resonate etc... : no, it is not as black and white as it may be. GHS released some years ago a pdf explaining what influences tension and tone, in fact B and E strings are way more flexible than the other strings, and the A and D strings are the stiffer, generally speaking (by saying generally speaking I'm just saying that after decades of trying strings, praticing, gigging, educating bass students, and also comparing the tension charts of the manufacturers). It depends on material used cos' the weight of the string has an impact on its tension too, elasticity, sustain, ... some says they get fatter tones with flexible stainless strings for example, some will say "ear James Jamerson and his P/labella flats legendary tone"... a tone that was also tailored by a comperssor, a tube amp, a 15" cab... not all the time cos' it was mainly directly plugged in a console.

2- fatter strings = more harmonics: again no, cos' it depends on human perception, theory says "human pitch perception is between 20 and 20,000 Hz", but we all know that we bassists struggle to transcribe basslines easily, right ? it is way easier to transcribe a trumpet solo for example, because our perception, our ears are designed to hear in the high mids, high range.

That's always the same misconception that we all read about amps and cabs: the lower a cab can go, the better it is, missing the harmonics suite fact a sound = it's fundamental + 1st harmonic that doubles the fundamental rate the octave so, then the fifth, then again the 2nd octave higher, then the third etc... for a C1 it gives this C1 C2 G2 C3 E3 and on and on

This is why we'll never see amps and cabs going down past 40Hz, because that wouldn't make any sense, that would not be ... musical. The B0 is rated 30.87 Hz @ A440 tuning, so it's impossible to hear its fundamental on 99% of amps and cabs on the planet, some will probably say "yeah but the lower the fundamental is, the more the harmonics you'll get in the harmonics suite" nope because, again: human perception. Some tunes their instrument @ F#0 for example 23.21 Hz, 2nd harmonic F#1 46.24 so, then 3rd harrmonic the fifth C# 2 69.30 etc... it will be even complicated to hear the octave fundamental @ 46.24...

So, in theory, using maths: yes there are more harmonics with lower fundamentals, but in practice our brain will interpret high mids pitches as fuller harmonics (Jaco Pastorius and his use of true harmonics, mainly on the D and G strings for instance).

So as many said here on this thread, the "use your ears", and I would tell you also "use your fingers" thing is the way to go. Feelings, nothing more than feelings... haaa haaa haaa

What were the strings used ? brand, material, weight, etc... did you do comparisons between materials, brands, etc....

The GHS pdf here http://www.ghsrep.net/uploads/2/2/2/5/22258814/ghs_bass_string_guide.pdf

Edited December 28, 2018 by Joachim

[Guest Marcoelwray]

IMHO, I think that's a good exemple of maths and science use in music.... They are the facts, and the reality.... 

[Guest ixlramp]

On 18/12/2018 at 20:32, Jay2U said:

A fatter string requires more tension in order to make it's higher mass resonate at a given frequency.

Yes. Tension at a particular pitch on a particular scale is determined by string mass per inch, so primarily determined by gauge, but also to a smaller degree structure and material densities.

On 28/12/2018 at 22:15, Joachim said:

does fatter strings requires more tension to resonate etc... : no, it is not as black and white as it may be.

Well, generally yes. For a particular string type and gauge, tensions vary a little between brands due to differences in structure (winding formula, core size). However these are only small differences because to make a functional string you are rather limited in how much you can alter the structure. Also, the materials that can be practically used don't vary much in density.

On 28/12/2018 at 22:15, Joachim said:

in fact B and E strings are way more flexible than the other strings, and the A and D strings are the stiffer, generally speaking

Flexibility/stiffness is independent of tension, it's important to not confuse the 2, and neither of those 2 are 'perceived tension'/'feel'. There's a huge amount of misunderstanding and confusion on guitar forums concerning these 3 things. But i'm assuming by 'flexible' you are referring to low tension.

So yes in traditional sets B E have lower tension than A D. However that is determined by which gauges are chosen, this has nothing to do with the fact that, roughly speaking, for a particular pitch larger gauges have higher tension.

Of course, this topic depends on what is meant by 'fatter tone', what does that even mean? It doesn't mean anything measurable and means different things to different people.

Edited February 7, 2019 by ixlramp

[Lozz196]

On 20/12/2018 at 19:54, LITTLEWING said:

I have to admit I've never felt happier with my strings and the whole sweet tone thing since I dropped from 45-105's to 40-100's. If you're not over the moon with the change, then go halfway with 45-65-80-100 to keep the thin side balanced.

If only Warwick made their strings in this gauge.

[fleabag]

By the time my band has kicked in, just about every nuance i can hear on my own, with any string gauge, has virtually disappeared under a wall of keys, drums guitar, and vocals.

Just buy the gauge strings you're comfortable with, and quit worrying.

[Jay2U]

17 hours ago, fleabag said:

By the time my band has kicked in, just about every nuance i can hear on my own, with any string gauge, has virtually disappeared under a wall of keys, drums guitar, and vocals.

Just buy the gauge strings you're comfortable with, and quit worrying.

That's pretty much true, but (to me) it's fun to know the effect of string gauge. In the studio it may, however, make the desired difference.

[fleabag]

I agree - in a studio, subtle tones would be useful.

[itu]

Human perception ends @ 20 kHz on average, but the magnet-coil -pickups of a bass are not able to go that far. If I remember correctly, the feasible frequency response ended probably @ 3 kHz or so. Very high fundamentals are not that important, especially in a band that has other soloists than the bass player (like Edgar Meyer or Michael Manring).

Testing different strings is not that easy. I have been thinking of the test setup, but it is everything but simple. How to pluck at the exactly same force at the same place, which bass, which gauges, string manufacturers, piezo or coil-magnet... Lots of testing and building that setup.

[fleabag]

I did a hertz listening test and i got as far as 11,000 Hz and that was it. I think if one were 18 years old,  one might get to hear 20,000 hz but this disappears over the years.  Bit off topic , soz

[Jay2U]

When still young, I could hear slightly past 20 kHz. About two years ago (57) I got as far as 16 kHz.

[Jay2U]

25 minutes ago, itu said:

Human perception ends @ 20 kHz on average, but the magnet-coil -pickups of a bass are not able to go that far. If I remember correctly, the feasible frequency response ended probably @ 3 kHz or so. Very high fundamentals are not that important, especially in a band that has other soloists than the bass player (like Edgar Meyer or Michael Manring).

Testing different strings is not that easy. I have been thinking of the test setup, but it is everything but simple. How to pluck at the exactly same force at the same place, which bass, which gauges, string manufacturers, piezo or coil-magnet... Lots of testing and building that setup.

Ideally a test setup should be completely neutral and 100% reproducible… but then we'd never know how string x or string y would sound on a specific bass, played finger style.

[itu]

2 minutes ago, Jay2U said:

Ideally a test setup should be completely neutral and 100% reproducible… but then we'd never know how string x or string y would sound on a specific bass, played finger style.

Ideally we could see some results about the differences. By the way, who would offer his "original thumb" and "famous fingers" for tests for few months?

[Delberthot]

The other thing as well is how strings feel.

I've experimented with various strings gauges from extremely light to extremely heavy and prefer the feel of a particular set. I wouldn't be interested in a set of heavy or light strings if they didn't feel right, even if they were perceived to sound better