# Questions about Bass guitars and tuning low F#



## Gameboypdc (Dec 2, 2009)

I'm sorry if this has already been posted before here. I was unable to find a topic with direct relation to my questions. 

I wanted to ask if anyone here knows of a brand/model of bass guitar that is built or can be modified easily to play in F# tuning? I know there was a Warwick Darklord 4 string bass released awhile back ,but I have been unable to get my hands on one *aside from filling out a custom shop order*. I am aware the longer the scale the easier it is to play with lower tunings along with larger string gauge. I would assume 35" scale or more would be best. I think someone mentioned here about a BTB being able to handle it ,but I wasn't sure how well. If anyone knows of any brand's or model's of bass guitar preferably with 4 strings ,but no more than 5 strings that can handle this low tuning that would be great.

Thanks!
Paul


----------



## Durero (Dec 2, 2009)

Dingwall Guitars

Knuckle Guitar Works - extraordinary instruments for extraordinary players


----------



## Gameboypdc (Dec 4, 2009)

Well after doing a much more refined search, I've come to the conclusion that a custom shop is just not a option for me at the moment. I did manage to find out some interesting info in regards to scale and availability. So I've narrowed things down so here is what I found.

Buy ESP LTD F-414FM Flame Maple Electric Bass Guitar | 4 String Electric Bass | Musician's Friend

Buy Ibanez BTB570FM Bass Guitar | 4 String Electric Bass | Musician's Friend

Brice HXB-405 5-String Nat Q at RondoMusic.com

The main reason I've selected these is because of their scale length being 35" and i've noticed that's been the longest scale i've seen so far that hasn't been custom shop. Although yes the third bass link I posted is a 5 string and I posted preferring a 4 string. I just felt it offered better features as far as build than it's higher price competitors so it was something to look into. Now mind you my goal is to try and tune F# so if anyone knows a better bass or setup to obtain this tuning please let me know. Oh and by all means if anyone knows how I should go about tuning to F#, or if I should just take it into a shop and have it setup please let me know your opinion.

Now in relation to this subject I would like to post a few links to bass guitars I was intending on purchasing before I was advised that it would be better to go longer scale for the F# tuning. If anyone knows or has positive experience tuning that low without 35"+ scale please let me know.

Buy Warwick Corvette $$ 5-String Electric Bass Guitar | 5 String Electric Bass | Musician's Friend

Amazon.com: Warwick Corvette Bass Guitar $$ 4-str, Nirvana Black, OFC: Musical Instruments

Thanks!
Paul


----------



## MF_Kitten (Dec 4, 2009)

my choise would be an ibanez BTB 5 string. if you could find one with the ash body and walnut top, then that´s the ultimate one for tuning low 

the BTB series have great pickups, and they are really comfy.


----------



## Harry (Dec 4, 2009)

What I'm going to suggest might not be to your expectations, but you should just tune up 2 semi tones.
In this case, a 34 inch scale bass would be more desirable.

Why 2 semi tones up?
Let's take Meshuggah as an example. In their recent records and their live sounds (once the FoH engineer gets hold of things) where the band has been using 8 string guitars tuned to F standard,the guitars have quite a weak bass content due to high pass filtering (and the fact the bass isn't dialed in very heavy in the first place on the guitars) and just slamming mids. 
Why? 
Because all those lower frequencies on guitars are mostly just overly resonant and a muddy mess quite frankly. That's why guitars are the mid range instruments they are because it's what they do best.

And now, since there is pretty much nothing going on below 100Hz in the guitars and the low-lower mids not being massively present, something has to hold down that low end.
And I guarantee you, that 2 semitones up to F# will actually sounds HEAVIER than tuning it down to F#, because you're keeping above the mud zone of sub bass sounds.
Below 40Hz on a bass guitar is just mud essentially, and if you listen to professional recordings and live shows that are done properly, 40Hz and under is generally just completely dialed out, because that sub 40Hz content doesn't add anything useful to the sound.
So if you start at F# above E standard, you're starting at a 46Hz fundamental note and the next overtone an octave up and so on, so you're ahead of the mud game and onto clarity and definition territory, which is where you want to be.
This way, you'll be sitting right in the mix the way things should be and you'll be heard much easier and (if you play in a band) your band mates will respect you more since you're not fighting them all with a barrage of sub 40Hz mud of the fundamental frequency of a low F# note.

For this, I'd just suggest slightly thinner strings than what come on a normal E standard tuned bass and you're on your way.
Also factor in the massive advantage of needing much less of a setup, no dicking around with a new nut to accommodate massive strings


----------



## Gameboypdc (Dec 4, 2009)

Awesome thanks yall!


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 5, 2009)

Harry said:


> What I'm going to suggest might not be to your expectations, but you should just tune up 2 semi tones.
> In this case, a 34 inch scale bass would be more desirable.
> 
> Why 2 semi tones up?
> ...


'kay...

Why not do the same for the bass as they have done for the guitar? 

By high passing the fundamental the second harmonic becomes the heavy lifter sonically. Conveniently, if you look at waterfall plots of guitar and bass notes the second harmonic is actually twice as loud as the fundamental anyway. And the volume in the balance of the harmonic content is actually more consistent - it SEEMS louder.

Shift gears to the bass. If you do for it the same thing you did for the guitar, you would lop off the lowest fundamental and present the second harmonic and up - it will SEEM louder, and it won't fight with the guitars.

In order to do that the actual fundamental would have to be 23 Hz as the desired relationship sonically is the second harmonic and higher. Tuning to 46 Hz alters the relationship in terms of audio relationships AND it changes the intervals. 

The intervals - fundamental to second harmonic - is an octave. The third harmonic is actually a tonic 5th. Where the sonic power in a bass (and guitar) falls is actually the octave up and a 5th up. 

It certainly would function just fine to tune in unison, but the character of the sound changes radically. Using 46 Hz in the sonic spectrum isn't mud by default. Its mud if that part of the spectrum becomes cluttered or poorly utilized.


----------



## Gameboypdc (Dec 5, 2009)

knuckle_head said:


> 'kay...
> 
> Why not do the same for the bass as they have done for the guitar?
> 
> ...



 Ugh I'm lost now in this topic. Are you sure you guys can hear all this stuff? This talk sounds so technical to me  maybe if there is a way to dumb it down and explain I would understand. I don't doubt the math you both put behind all of this. I am just a musician thats rather new to these super low tunings.


----------



## Setnakt (Dec 5, 2009)

Low notes sound different. If you want to sound like that do it.


----------



## john turner (Dec 6, 2009)

Harry said:


> What I'm going to suggest might not be to your expectations, but you should just tune up 2 semi tones.
> In this case, a 34 inch scale bass would be more desirable.
> 
> Why 2 semi tones up?
> ...


 
not if you have the appropriate amplification, it doesn't. 



> Below 40Hz on a bass guitar is just mud essentially, and if you listen to professional recordings and live shows that are done properly, 40Hz and under is generally just completely dialed out, because that sub 40Hz content doesn't add anything useful to the sound.


 
this is not true in my experience - any mastering engineer who did this would probably get fired by his clients. regardless, the harmonic series of a low f# is going to be completely different than the f# on the e string - the harmonic series is what the ear hears, not just the fundamental, unless someone is a lead sinewave player . even if the fundamental was "completely dialed out" for a low f#, it would still sound -substantially different- in a recording than the octave up version of the same note.



> So if you start at F# above E standard, you're starting at a 46Hz fundamental note and the next overtone an octave up and so on, so you're ahead of the mud game and onto clarity and definition territory, which is where you want to be.
> This way, you'll be sitting right in the mix the way things should be and you'll be heard much easier and (if you play in a band) your band mates will respect you more since you're not fighting them all with a barrage of sub 40Hz mud of the fundamental frequency of a low F# note.


 
again, you're making the assumption that most folks do in that the harmonic series of a low f# is going to be the same as the f# an octave higher. this is not the case - if it were they'd sound the same. they don't, no matter how you filter the note. furthermore, the tonal quality of a string with a diameter of .165 or bigger is going to be much different than a string thats only 2/3 that diameter, even playing the same notes. the roundness and thumpiness of the low f# is amazing, and not easily mimiced with a skinny string.



> For this, I'd just suggest slightly thinner strings than what come on a normal E standard tuned bass and you're on your way.
> Also factor in the massive advantage of needing much less of a setup, no dicking around with a new nut to accommodate massive strings


 
it is true that it would require a new nut to go to the low f# realm - otherwise, the lowest fret notes will not intonate properly (will always sound sharp due to how high the string is sitting above the nut).

i've been playing low f# (and lower) on my 7 and 8 string basses since '97. in my experience, the biggest considerations to be brought into the mix are : 

1. quality of strings : very few manufacturers make strings of sufficient diameter to handle the low f#. of these, the quality control can often be questionable at best. there are a few folks that make good, reliably consistent strings of sufficient diameter to handle a low f# properly - SIT do (a .165") although the exposed core of the string causes questionable intonation issues on the higest frets. i prefer just a tape for the huge strings - intonates better, less funky warble.

i've been trying out a set of skip fantry's circle-k strings on my low f#-equpped 8 string fretted and they are frankly fantastic. the low f# on these is bigger than the sit (.175" iirc) and it holds up over time very well - i've had these things on my main bass for the past 3 months and they have not had any appreciable loss of tone or punchiness. i'm a believer skip 

2. quality of instrument : while a longer scale length will help greatly in the reproduction of the lowest notes, even more important in my experience is the rigidity of the instrument's neck. my 34" and 35" conklins do just fine with the lowest strings, because bill conklin is the neck master.  if the neck on the instrument is rigid and well made, there's no reason why it would not work for a low f#.

3. amp/cab : many amps/cabs are built around the constraints of a standard 4 string - the cabs are ported/constructed such that they favor 80 Hz and up, amps are built with eq focused on the frequencies prevalent on the 4 string, etc. 

with an extended range bass, you'll find that you might have to think outside the box, gear-wise. for example, i use 4x12" guitar cabs cross-overed at about 100 hz with 1x18" pa subs. these reproduce the lowest notes relatively well (not the best - there are specific cabs geared toward that kind of reproduction like bag end and accugroove, but the subs do ok for my needs right now). 

it's common to hear folks say "below xxx frequency it's just mud" because they have not heard those lowest notes reproduced properly. it's like judging the sound of a bass guitar by listening to it on the telephone. 

when i play my lowest notes/lowest strings, they are articulate and powerful, not muddy, because i have a rig built around reproducing them, along with whatever else i'm playing. and played with a pair of drop tuned guitars, there's no mud to be found - that's due to the amplification as much as the instrument.


----------



## Gameboypdc (Dec 6, 2009)

^ So what I got from your post is i can tune low to F# with a 34" scale bass if it has a good neck or a 35" scale bass if same rules apply? Aside from the scale and choice of bass a new nut would be required cause to tune that low i would need all new strings yes? Now i was intending on dialing my tone thru Pod Farm and because of that, i really didn't plan on on using any sort of live bass rig of any sort. Will this work? Did i miss something vital within this discussion?


----------



## Setnakt (Dec 6, 2009)

You may want a luthier or repair guy to look at the nut on your bass, and possibly file the slots to correct for the bigger gauges, but I think it would be pretty unusual to need a _new_ one.


----------



## Durero (Dec 6, 2009)

Good informative posts John & Skip (Knucklehead)



john turner said:


> it is true that it would require a new nut to go to the low f# realm - otherwise, the lowest fret notes will not intonate properly (will always sound sharp due to how high the string is sitting above the nut).


Are you talking about adjusting the nut slots only, or do you adjust the nut position as well? 

Have either you or Skip tried the Buzz Feiten tuning/intonation system with these extended low range instruments?



john turner said:


> my 34" and 34" conklins


 34" & 35"?




john turner said:


> there are specific cabs geared toward that kind of reproduction like bag end and accugroove,


I'm always on the lookout for sub cabinet recommendations. Have you tried or heard good things about any specific Bag End or Accugroove models?


----------



## knuckle_head (Dec 6, 2009)

Sorry for the technobabble - it is generally the shortest answer but not always the best one. And fwiw I was wrong about a 5th being the third harmonic - it's actually a 7th.

John is absolutely right - a well-executed F# is more about the integrity of the instrument than anything. A good stiff neck and tight union at the body will get you there - though a longer scale length will let you take advantage of thinner strings, that isn't a deal breaker by any means. Proper strings run a close second.

A new nut is called for because you want equal spacing, and accommodating at minimum a .165 will not be executable with existing slots. Up side to that is you can go back if you find sub bass unappealing.

A proper set up takes in to account whether or not you are sharp at 1st through third positions as well as at the octave. This is the biggest reason for using the Buzz Feiten system. I have not implemented it, but have seen it, and find that for me it is not necessary for sub bass applications.

Using a pod, or in any sort of way going direct is the simplest way to take advantage of everything your bass is putting out. PA's tend to be better equipped to deal with lower frequencies, sadly, than bass rigs are, and it's the simplest route when you're recording.

John's approach to amplifying is spot on. The fastest way to mud is having a bunch of speakers trying to do the same job on the low side. This is what happens when you put a big speaker under a standard bass cab - yes you get better low end extension, but you also get overlap at the low frequencies from ALL cabs. 

The Bag End Infra system is awesome because the processor that makes it work properly is also a crossover - the lows go to the sub, and the highs go to a full range cab or cabs. Then it is just a matter of balance between low and high frequencies and it becomes a volume thing high/low rather than an EQ thing. The Infra processor has a built in crossover point of 95 Hz IIRC.

The AccuGroove Whappo Grande is great, but a crossover and biamping will make it perform best. Same with any sub. 

If you're a DIY'er, there is a thread on TalkBass about a line of cabs you can get plans for on the web - they're free. The fEaRB 15" sub is awesome as it is tunes to and delivers very close to 40 Hz. Again, to make this or any sub shine it needs to be crossed over properly.

John - it delights me that you have a use for my strings.


----------



## john turner (Dec 6, 2009)

Durero said:


> Good informative posts John & Skip (Knucklehead)
> 
> 
> Are you talking about adjusting the nut slots only, or do you adjust the nut position as well?


 
nut slots alone. not had to mess with position. however, modifying the slot diameter is a pretty destructive change, possibly requiring a new nut should one change their mind about the tuning.



> Have either you or Skip tried the Buzz Feiten tuning/intonation system with these extended low range instruments?


 
i have not, no.



> 34" & 35"?


 
heh yeah, oops. i'll change that.



> I'm always on the lookout for sub cabinet recommendations. Have you tried or heard good things about any specific Bag End or Accugroove models?


 
the bag end infra system (used to be the elf system) which uses a closed box 18" speaker coupled with a rack unit that compensates for the acoustical properties of the cabinet to keep the output flat down to either 18 hz or 8 hz, depending on the system. this is the high dollar option, and while it is nicely portable (the closed box cab is fairly small and portable, and the rack unit is a single space) it is a bit overkill in most non-recording applications (which is irrelevant to me, and i've been wanting one for over a decade heh. gonna own one as soon as i can afford to get it).

the accugroove stuff is passive (as opposed to active like the bagend system), uses large drivers and large cabs tuned to lower frequencies to reproduce the lowest notes. the whappo grande, which uses a 21" driver, is a great solution for the low f# and is less expensive than the bagend stuff.

i use yamaha pa subs. 1x18" sub in a ~10 cu ft cab. it's not perfect - doesn't do the fundamental of the low f# as loud or as clear as the more expensive options, but it does reproduce the low frequency sufficiently to activate pant-flap in anyone within 20 ft, even outside, at about 1/2 volume. and it cost ~$300 a cab. considering all the other elements of my rig, i could not justify the thousands i would have had to spend on the bag end system back when i got these subs. since then i've pretty much filled up my rig full of riggy goodness, so my sights are now finally set (And actually have been set for a few years) on getting one of the better subs/systems.



knuckle_head said:


> John - it delights me that you have a use for my strings.


 
me too, dude .  i love em, more and more as i continue to play em. they've maintained their integrity through a few months of hard playing with no loss of tone.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Dec 6, 2009)

Yeah, the Talkbass fEarful 15/6 cabs and 1515/66 designs are really cool looking and with the appropriate drivers (3015LF IIRC) will do an excellent job of reproducing sub-lows in a small, relatively portable box.


----------



## Gameboypdc (Dec 6, 2009)

Ok just for reference this is the tuning/setup that i am trying to obtain. *link*



If there are tips on obtaining such tone aside from what's obvious like the actual guitar model *Warwick Darklord* or the amp being used in the video, please let me know. Also if anyone has any more references like audio clips and or video's with this tuning in action please send them my way.

Thanks!
Paul


----------



## Durero (Dec 7, 2009)

Thanks so much for the info Skip and John 

I've been dreaming of a Bag End Infra rig for some years too. I'm just starting to explore the sub-bass range with my 8-string Chapman Stickbass. I do find that the exposed core SIT strings sound much much clearer than the wrapped strings I've tried (mostly D'Addario) but then I'm just using the very light tapping technique that Sticks are designed for.


----------



## Setnakt (Dec 7, 2009)

There is nothing tremendously special about the Dark Lord, it's just a 4-string standard scale bass made of some exotic woods. That is cool, but nothing about that is going to be any better than like a 35" scale Ibanez bass or something. Barring a difference like basswood to wenge, scale length and pickups will make more of a difference really.

By the way, I dunno who was responsible for that, but the amateurish video splicing for that Warwick demo made me dizzy - half the time it was video of him _not_ playing the bass while we were listening to him play. Disorienting.


----------



## nephilymbass (Feb 6, 2011)

Just to throw in my 2 cents. A lot of bass players around my area seem to be confused about tunings now because of 8 string guitars and such. Meshuggah's bass player is tuned to drop B flat, So his low B is down half a step and his EADG strings are actually up a half step from standard. So in there case the bass and the guitars tend to play in unison(same octave)because his E string is tuned to F matching the guitars lowest string. A lot of other 8 string guitar bands tune drop E so they can play unison with a standard Bass E string

Warwick dark lord strings worked awesome on my 34 inch warwick 5 to get down to F#. My complaints about the strings were they felt very rough compared my usual strings. They went dead extremely fast to be so expensive, the low F# I think it was .175 was so thick (about as thick as a standard pencil)it was pretty unplayable even though the tension was amazingly tight. No matter what rig I tried the F#,G, and G# all sounded very similar, almost like a super low 808 type sound(very powerful though). Most ERB guys that use low F# and even low C# stings use them to hit say an F (first fret on the E string) much higher on the fretboard for tapping parts just like you can hit F on the 6th fret of the B string. Luckily my Warwicks have adjustable nuts, if you don't you'll have to permanently alter the nut to get the fatter strings closer to the fretboard. 

The happy medium I discovered from trying the dark lord set was a ken smith tapercore stainless steel .145 for G#(below B) which works great in my opinion. Its playable, last a decent amount of time and seriously the difference between G# and F# is not that noticible as far as range. Check out juststring.com and follow the links for single bass strings. 

It is true most clubs use low pass filters so nothing below 40 comes through anyways, It makes the PA more efficient because super low notes suck massive power it also protects the subs. However G# doesn't seem to be effected even when cut at 40hz maybe because the overtones are still their. If you want to play along to an 8 string I suggest playing on the typical E string. playing an octave down from an 8 string guitar is way to muddy. I like the idea of tuning my bass lower than an octave below guitar, Our guitarist normally tune to B with some of the newer stuff in A and G#. So for me its cool to go down to A instead of up to A sometimes when the guitars are in B

I also wanted to add on the bass scale debate. I have a neck through Warwick Thumb, I've owned 10 or so nice basses before it and 34 inch scale is the way to go IMO. The claim that a longer scale gives a stronger B is nonsense, in fact I've found that the longer scale only makes it more difficult on the fretting hand, makes the high strings sound much worse, and hurts how the lower strings cut through the mix. I personally don't like multiscale (fan Fretted) instruments either because it completely screws up bends and vibrato IMO. If anyone disagrees on scale length look into the Jonas Hellborg signature warwick its a short scale and E-G sound awesome on it. As far as cut, just look at upright basses, they tend to have over 40 inch scales and they don't cut through the mix at all there's no punch or clarity just low end rumble so I guess yeah if your gonna record a hip hop album you might want a 35" or more. If your playing anything else grab a 34"


----------



## josh pelican (Feb 6, 2011)

This thread is over a year old, dude...


----------



## nephilymbass (Feb 7, 2011)

my bad I meant to comment on a similar thread that was posted on today


----------

