Lighter gauged (0.120) B str.?

[KenthIJ]

Does a lighter gauged (0.120) B string gives a more even output with

0.105-0.045 set. than 0.130 B (my 0.130 B sounds a bit muddy/unfocused compared to the other strings?

 

It's an 34" scale bass and as I understan, a thicker string need to be as long as possible to get optimum tension when tuned, and then in opposite, a lighter str. wont need to be that loong??

[JanVanHove]

if you want even tension (hence more even output) across your strings, you need to get a ticker B, not lighter (in my view of things, at least, which might or might not apply to your view of life, the universe and everything...)...

 

On a 34" scale, a 105 string gives you about 40 pounds of tension, and you need a .145 B in order to get to the same tension...

 

Personally I love .145 strings, but they may feel very big for a lot of people...

 

Just my 2 cents, your milleage may vary, in my humble opinion...

[KenthIJ]

 

if you want even tension (hence more even output) across your strings, you need to get a ticker B, not lighter (in my view of things, at least, which might or might not apply to your view of life, the universe and everything...)... On a 34" scale, a 105 string gives you about 40 pounds of tension, and you need a .145 B in order to get to the same tension... Personally I love .145 strings, but they may feel very big for a lot of people... Just my 2 cents, your milleage may vary, in my humble opinion...

 

 

 

 

Thanks

 

but... I must say I'm a bit confused (nothting unusual, though).

 

I once had a 34" fivestring bass, with an "boomy/unbalanced" B str. when strunged with 0.045 - 0.130. Then a friend of mine bought it for using it as a fourstring and when he changed strings he just bought new E-G strings and used an 0.110 E str. on the place of the B str. (just used as thumbrest).

 

When I played that bass later on I tuned that 0.110 E str. to B and...

I thought that bass, stringed and tuned that way, sounded more balanced (especially that "light gauged B" string) than it did with the 0.130 B str.

 

Strange ?

[JanVanHove]

strange? not really...

 

If you like light Bs, by all means go for it!

 

Personally, i'd think that .120 would be the ideal size for an E on 34" scale, balancing the tension on a .90 A...

 

I guess now you know why I'd so much like to get a Quake!

 

PJ

[BassDemon]

A lot depends on the bass

 

I'm using a .145 B on my Modulus Q5 because I like really solid strings.

 

With a .130 the feel is still good but I find it move around too much.

[L-1329]

One thing I've been finding out about thinner guage low B's is the effect it has on chorusing/harmonics in the upper frets. It seems to me that a thinner guage will sound truer to the note up to higher frets without getting the chorusing effect, and I've been looking for lighter strings to try myself because of this, especially for my Warmoth which seems more prone to that effect. DR nickel Lowriders have a .125 low B, and work very well on my 34" STSS. Basically, it seems that the thicker B's don't sound as good or as true the higher you go up the neck on any of my 34" basses.

 

Also a lesson I learned with my Carvin is that if you have to pull the bridge saddle way back to get correct intonation, the thicker the string the more the chorusing effect becomes an issue. Thinner strings are not as susceptable to this. That bass has the bridge placed too far towards the neck, and in searching for strings that work I needed them to be thin. I'd love to get Knuckleheads view on this!

[ToeJamFootball]

I thought thinner strings had more tension?

 

EDIT: I guess that's because the thinner strings are also tuned higher?