# Bass Tuning in F



## Dwellingers

Hey - Just saw some live footage of meshuggah. The Guitarplayers played 8 strings, probably tuned in F. But the bass player - played a Warwick of some sort. To my knowledge the scales on Warwick is only 34" - but the bass should still be tuned in F like the guitars, right? 

That should really be some thick motherfuckers of strings the bassplayer got on. Do any know which Gauge he uses - and does it sound allright. Cause i might be joining a Band using 8-strings. I should say at least 35" scale.


----------



## Metal Ken

I think he tunes to the same pitch as the guitar, up a half step.


----------



## Nick

you think right!


----------



## OzzyC

But, if you still want to do the low F thing, check out Conklin's website. They've got a section on strings.


----------



## Dwellingers

Metal Ken said:


> I think he tunes to the same pitch as the guitar, up a half step.



Wow - that seems kinda Wierd, but logical in a way. this means that the B is Tuned up to F? Crazy mofos them Meshuggah....


----------



## OwlsHaveEyes

8 strings are tuned F#BEADGBE, so it would be tuned down a half step...so they wouldn't be tuning their B to an F, but tuning their F# to an F


----------



## OzzyC

OwlsHaveEyes said:


> 8 strings are tuned F#BEADGBE, so it would be tuned down a half step...so they wouldn't be tuning their B to an F, but tuning their F# to an F



Yeah... But we're talking about BASS.


----------



## Mattayus

LOL, yeah that got confusing for a second.


----------



## Crucified

warwick also make any of their models custom to 35" IIRC. also the dark lord is at 35 stock tuned to f#. great sounding and playing bass.


----------



## heavy7-665

isnt the dark lord 39"?


----------



## TomAwesome

I'd imagine the bass plays an octave under them down to about Bb and then plays in unison with them for the low F type stuff.

The Dark Lord is 35" I think.


----------



## Dwellingers

TomAwesome said:


> I'd imagine the bass plays an octave under them down to about Bb and then plays in unison with them for the low F type stuff.
> 
> The Dark Lord is 35" I think.



Thats what i thought also - some confusing post in here now:S


----------



## Lynk

I'm fairly certain the the bassist uses a regular 5 string, drops the B down to Bb to play an octave lower than the guitars when they play older stuff, but for the newer stuff where the guitarists drop to F, the bassist tunes his E string up half a step to F so they play in the same octave in those songs.
If that makes any sense, haha.

Hope this helped.


----------



## angus

A 34" scale versus a 35" scale is NOT going to be what makes a difference between a nice B string, and definitely not for a nice F#. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap. Add a bunch of inches and it makes a difference, but between 34"/35", the scale length will not be the deciding factor.



Crucified said:


> warwick also make any of their models custom to 35" IIRC. also the dark lord is at 35 stock tuned to f#. great sounding and playing bass.



I couldn't disagree more- I've played 2 and they both had shitty F#'s and average B's. It's definitely a bass marketed to guitar players, if that makes sense.

To the OP, if you want to play in F an octave below the guitars, a good bass is not going to be your primary problem...amplification and sound reproduction will be. Make that string sound strong and clear at volume, espeically relative to the other strings, is a huge huge problem. You could buy a $6000 bass will an F# that's clear as a bell and sound like crap on stage because your amp/cab setup can't handle it (which is usually the case). I would focus on that more than the bass.


----------



## swayman

angus said:


> A 34" scale versus a 35" scale is NOT going to be what makes a difference between a nice B string, and definitely not for a nice F#. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap. Add a bunch of inches and it makes a difference, but between 34"/35", the scale length will not be the deciding factor.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't disagree more- I've played 2 and they both had shitty F#'s and average B's. It's definitely a bass marketed to guitar players, if that makes sense.
> 
> To the OP, if you want to play in F an octave below the guitars, a good bass is not going to be your primary problem...amplification and sound reproduction will be. Make that string sound strong and clear at volume, espeically relative to the other strings, is a huge huge problem. You could buy a $6000 bass will an F# that's clear as a bell and sound like crap on stage because your amp/cab setup can't handle it (which is usually the case). I would focus on that more than the bass.


 
Absolutely couldn't agree more with low F# being quite a problem, that is too get a good "sound". But tuning that low on a bass will be felt more than heard. Sound in that range is in a way irrelevant, it's deep rumble.

Obviously too getting a great tone, that low, is gonna be hard with a bass POD or something. You've got a much better chance of "hearing it" through a valve SVT rig.


----------



## Desecrated

heavy7-665 said:


> isnt the dark lord 39"?



nope it is 35"
The knucklehead quake bass is 39"


----------



## Desecrated

swayman said:


> Absolutely couldn't agree more with low F# being quite a problem, that is too get a good "sound". But tuning that low on a bass will be felt more than heard. Sound in that range is in a way irrelevant, it's deep rumble.
> 
> Obviously too getting a great tone, that low, is gonna be hard with a bass POD or something. You've got a much better chance of "hearing it" through a valve SVT rig.



Digital equipment is sometimes better then analog when dealing with really low notes, most real amps have a limitation in sonic range. Most digital are just set to 20hz-20khz range and since the low F# is 23 hz it falls in place. 

And you don't need to hear the fundamental tone, you will hear the overtones anyway. 

But what angus says is true, the lower the note the harder it is to amplify so a multiband compressor will probably help you a lot.


----------



## MF_Kitten

tuning a bass that low will accentuate the guitars no matter how crap it sounds by itself... as long as the string is vibrating at the right frequency, it´ll interact with the guitars, and the notes will be clearer. i tried this by tuning my bass to E an octave lower, and then tuning the guitars to the bass-octave E. sounded great with the lowest octave added, because even though you couldn´t really hear what the hell it was doing when it played by itself, the notes were alot clearer and more powerfull when it all played together. as long as you can reproduce somewhere around 40-50 Hz, you should be ok. and when it comes to longer scales, i think they make the notes alot clearer, but seeing as 30" is enough for a clear and nice E, i think 34-35" should be okay for going that low, especially if you slap on huge strings. i think large strings sound better on bass, as they make the sound tighter.

so yeah, no need for the fundamental, really. just because it´s the "base frequency" of the low notes, doesen´t mean it needs to be there for the notes to be heard. hell, guitarists REMOVE the low end from their instruments with tubescreamers, while accentuating the overtones, to get a good sound... and you hear what notes they play perfectly fine!


----------



## Ishan

For those wondering, you can totally hear low F tuning on a bass, even with standard bass amp. My bass teacher play in drop F tuning on his Nogera 5 strings and it sounds great (I'm so jealous actually  )


----------



## angus

Disagree with both of you. MF_Kitten I think you're missing the point, too. 

F/F# sound fine when played at home or in practice by yourself and whatnot, and of course they can be heard. We CAN hear the fundamental, and that's not the issue when I say "It's hard to distinguish live." 

The problem is live is tends to sound like shit at volume in a decently sized venue with any semblance of acoustics. No matter how you set it up it's always slightly down on volume and clarity relative to a B, and it creates a big problem live. It doesn't have anywhere near the oomph of the B or E, ESPECIALLY in something like metal. It ends up sounding muddy and getting completely lost in the mix more often than not, even when you have your sound set to cut through like hell! Live is just not comparable to a practice setting or recordings. 

MF_Kitten, it usually doesn't really accentuate it very well unless you are set up just perfectly because it tends to get completely lost. Unlike playing a B behind a seven string, it usually ends up just adding some vibration more so than any real value to the sound (from the guys I've seen use it live- I've never used mine live for a metal gig, but have for recordings and other gigs). That vibratory sensation mixed with not hearing the note often leads people to think its out of tune, which sucks. Again, this applies more to rock/metal music, because this is where it's application is IMO most difficult.

Amplification is extremely, extremely important to get anywhere near to a proper sound, and even then it's usually not that great for anything outside of jazz/fusion where there is a lot less sound energy involved.


----------



## MF_Kitten

ah, well, for live applications it´s obviously a different thing, but that might have something to do with the speaker systems used for concerts...

i´m pretty sure it´d work with the right settings


----------



## angus

I don't disagree, but those settings are very specific, expensive, and easily ruined by most every PA-system.


----------



## Desecrated

angus said:


> I don't disagree, but those settings are very specific, expensive, and easily ruined by most every PA-system.



What do you think about my idea of using digital equipment and a multiband compressor then, even with a PA that should work. Right ?


----------



## swayman

Desecrated said:


> Digital equipment is sometimes better then analog when dealing with really low notes, most real amps have a limitation in sonic range. Most digital are just set to 20hz-20khz range and since the low F# is 23 hz it falls in place.
> 
> And you don't need to hear the fundamental tone, you will hear the overtones anyway.
> 
> But what angus says is true, the lower the note the harder it is to amplify so a multiband compressor will probably help you a lot.


 
I take your points, but strongly disagree with a piece of digital equipment reproducing low end better than an Analog vehicle. This of course is a generalisation, there are exceptions. I have heard some fairly brutal sounds out of digital devices.

I myself use Guitar & Bass PODs to write with, they are an extremely useful tool.

My experience in low tuned basses though leads me straight to the opinion that the absolute best way to get a thundering low bass tone is with loads of hot valves running through a large cabinet.

In all my years of playing basses, I have never played a bass rig that is even close to the sound that an Ampeg Valve SVT rig can acheive.

I like most bassists would look at a player like Billy Sheehan in awe. The things that dude can do on a bass are beyond belief. But in the material I write, and in most of the stuff I listen too, the bass serves a different purpose, and the original purpose, the low stuff.

When you're talking about tuning to low F, lets get real, it's about feel more than sound. The most you're going to hear of the bass when it's that low is in reference & compliment to the guitars. My bass tone is a tube overdriven sledgehammer of a sound that hits you in the pit of your stomach, which is exaclty how I want it. And with that sound to the bass my guitars sound full & very tight. 

I've heard a lot of really low tuned attempts on digital gear, usually ends in tears. You are right that most digital gear for the purpose are able to sample from 20hz to 20khz. But in my experience digital devices do not faithfully reproduce samples when they are in low as hell territory.

Geese I've headed off on a tangent. Agreed though, multiband compressor for the win.

I'm also sorry if I've offended any bassists with MOSfet gear, I'd love to actually learn how to pull a great sound out of a MOSfet amp, just haven't acheived it yet.


----------



## Desecrated

swayman said:


> I take your points, but strongly disagree with a piece of digital equipment reproducing low end better than an Analog vehicle. This of course is a generalisation, there are exceptions. I have heard some fairly brutal sounds out of digital devices.
> 
> I myself use Guitar & Bass PODs to write with, they are an extremely useful tool.
> 
> My experience in low tuned basses though leads me straight to the opinion that the absolute best way to get a thundering low bass tone is with loads of hot valves running through a large cabinet.
> 
> In all my years of playing basses, I have never played a bass rig that is even close to the sound that an Ampeg Valve SVT rig can acheive.
> 
> I like most bassists would look at a player like Billy Sheehan in awe. The things that dude can do on a bass are beyond belief. But in the material I write, and in most of the stuff I listen too, the bass serves a different purpose, and the original purpose, the low stuff.
> 
> When you're talking about tuning to low F, lets get real, it's about feel more than sound. The most you're going to hear of the bass when it's that low is in reference & compliment to the guitars. My bass tone is a tube overdriven sledgehammer of a sound that hits you in the pit of your stomach, which is exaclty how I want it. And with that sound to the bass my guitars sound full & very tight.
> 
> I've heard a lot of really low tuned attempts on digital gear, usually ends in tears. You are right that most digital gear for the purpose are able to sample from 20hz to 20khz. But in my experience digital devices do not faithfully reproduce samples when they are in low as hell territory.
> 
> Geese I've headed off on a tangent. Agreed though, multiband compressor for the win.
> 
> I'm also sorry if I've offended any bassists with MOSfet gear, I'd love to actually learn how to pull a great sound out of a MOSfet amp, just haven't acheived it yet.



I respect your opinion, well written and nice info, but you should try a v-amp guitar digital processor and then run that through a preamp, eq and compressor, it really produces a good bass sound if you want the more crunchy bass with a little bit of dist on it.


----------



## MF_Kitten

i can see how tubes could do a better job at lower tones actually, as it´s all analog, just a bunch of currency running all the way, while the digital stuff actually has to "sample" it, and if it doesen´t do as good a job at the lower frequencies, like due to cheap bit rates and stuff, that could affect those really low frequencies. a tube, however, just sends the electrical current on, but changing it a bit in the process, and if you play 10 hz through a tube rig, it´ll work, no matter how uselessly faint and weak it is. 

you should be able to do a good low-end bass with a pod though, if you do it right. it´s obviously easier to make tubes sound good though, you have to wrestle digital equipment a little before getting something good 

and what if you want frequencies lower than 20 Hz? like, say 19 Hz? those frequencies aren´t there in a 20hz-20khz rig...


----------



## knuckle_head

angus said:


> A 34" scale versus a 35" scale is NOT going to be what makes a difference between a nice B string, and definitely not for a nice F#. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of crap. Add a bunch of inches and it makes a difference, but between 34"/35", the scale length will not be the deciding factor.
> 
> I couldn't disagree more- I've played 2 and they both had shitty F#'s and average B's. It's definitely a bass marketed to guitar players, if that makes sense.
> 
> To the OP, if you want to play in F an octave below the guitars, a good bass is not going to be your primary problem...amplification and sound reproduction will be. Make that string sound strong and clear at volume, espeically relative to the other strings, is a huge huge problem. You could buy a $6000 bass will an F# that's clear as a bell and sound like crap on stage because your amp/cab setup can't handle it (which is usually the case). I would focus on that more than the bass.



If the bass doesn't have it the amp won't either - start with the bass as you can always go direct and not be hamstrung by your rig.


----------



## angus

Any rig that says "20Hz-20kHz" can definitely go above and below, but it gets really inefficient well before it reaches the bounds of those numbers. It's similar to an electronic sensor- it can go from 0 to 100, but is really only very accurate from 10 to 90. Think of a car's fuel guage, speedometer, or tachometer. All are similar examples. 

I'm honestly not sure if whether it's better to go full digital or full analog in this case- I think it's up to each person's ear. For the record, I use all solid state stuff, but I also WISH I could switch back to tubes (not enough cash to cover it at the moment) because I do prefer the natural warmth of tubes for regular playing. 

For really low frequency reproduction, the only thing I've found to be successful at volume is to use a sonic processor- the Bag End Elf-M2. It's one of the most genius pieces of processing equipment ever made IMO (and done by one of the founders of Alembic!). It essentially electronically compensates for the undesirable acoustic effects caused by running frequencies lower than the resonant frequency of the loudspeaker cabinet. It's awesome...it essentially gives an extraordinarily clear, focused tone to any low note. It has a huge effect on the F#, B, E, and A strings, actually, so I always use it even with regular basses. It's the only real "effect" I use besides a noisegate, because I hate compressors, overdrive, etc. 

Sadly though, it requires a huge amount of power and specialized cabinets, and is pretty expensive. I have a 2400 watt power amp to power my rig with this freaking thing and I have to use the Bag End cabinets that are designed to work with it. Luckily I only use Bag End cabs anyway, so it's ok, but still does limit you a bit. The processor itself is like $800-900, and the cabs that work with it start at about the same price, so you can see it adds up quickly. And this is just a single piece in the signal chain!

I'm certainly not an expert in this, though, and there are guys like Skip from Knuckle Guitarworks who could bring the noise on this subject with much more authority than I could- my knowledge is purely from experience. 

Also, Swayman, Billy's tone is really interesting, but I don't think it adapts well to really low frequencies. I love his tone live (though I hate it recorded...doesn't translate at ALL), but he has so much overdrive that the low frequencies quickly get muddy. It works because he biamps- I do, too- but he still runs some overdrive through his lows live. He didn't use to, I don't think, as I remember him saying that he ran his low signal chain clean, but he last few times I've seen him he definitely didn't. Works for him, but I think it's too much compression to reproduce good tone as you go lower. IMO, he sounds pretty bad running the same rig when he's playing a bass tune BEAD, like on Vai's Bad Horsie. It just doesn't have the same strength that his regular setup has. 

Desecrated, I'm not sure that compression would really help the situation, digital or analog. You've got competing problems...the compression helps to even out string volume a bit, but is knocking out low end as it does it. To me it makes the F# (and B) sound flat and lifeless. I'm not a huge fan of compressors in general, so I may not be the one to discuss it, but it's one of those situations where it may be hard to find a middle ground because it fixes one problem while making another worse.

Again, this is just from my experience so please feel free to tell me I'm full of crap!



knuckle_head said:


> If the bass doesn't have it the amp won't either - start with the bass as you can always go direct and not be hamstrung by your rig.



Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I don't actually disagree with you at all! I just mentioned that because most people worry entirely about the bass when I think it's necessary to consider both ends of the chain. Instruments for me always garner more attention than the amp equipment, but if one is good and the other bad, the result will still be pretty bad. But I agree that a good rig will never ever make up for a bass that can't pull off a clear note.


----------



## knuckle_head

angus - first and foremost I am jealous of your relationship with Bag End.

Consider what purpose your rig serves. Most guys are closer than they think with what they already own. Biggest thing is that cabinets are truly capable of 40 Hz or below. This is more of a challenge than it sounds as very VERY few cabs test to what the specs suggest you can get. If you get the first harmonic you are getting most of the musical energy out of octave E or F#.

You have to ask yourself whether or not you want to bring with you what is necessary to hear yourself live. Essentially you will have to have the rig you have, plus an amp, a processor or two, and one more cabinet - basically a second rig.

It's still up in the air whether you want to hear everything the bass actually does as opposed to just what sounds good - the difference here is a factor of two IMO. We can get specific here but it's a lengthy explanation.

Best thing is - the simplest ways are the most true, and the least expensive. Studio purposes are best served by going direct which leaves everything to the sound of the bass. For practice purposes there are a ton of headphone amps and decent cans that are sonicly more capable than most rigs.


----------



## MF_Kitten

i just believe in doing what sounds good, and i´ve managed to make a low E sound useful. i´ve also had band bractise in drop G, and here too, the bass was useful, and did it´s job. my Hartke combo´s graphic EQ goes down to 30 Hz, so it´s close. i use it for guitars though, but still


----------



## knuckle_head

MF_Kitten said:


> i just believe in doing what sounds good, and i´ve managed to make a low E sound useful. i´ve also had band bractise in drop G, and here too, the bass was useful, and did it´s job. my Hartke combo´s graphic EQ goes down to 30 Hz, so it´s close. i use it for guitars though, but still



Exactly - it just needs to work. And it can with the tools at hand.

If I might suggest, you might do your Hartke a favor and see if you can wire in a 30 Hz high pass filter somewhere - they're pretty cheap.


----------



## swayman

Desecrated said:


> I respect your opinion, well written and nice info, but you should try a v-amp guitar digital processor and then run that through a preamp, eq and compressor, it really produces a good bass sound if you want the more crunchy bass with a little bit of dist on it.


 
Completely, I plan on experimenting with PODs & Vamps this year to see what I can pull out of them.

I think Valve players (like me) can get a little stuck in their ways, I don't wanna cut myself off to the possibility of a better tone.


----------



## angus

knuckle_head said:


> Exactly - it just needs to work. And it can with the tools at hand.



Come on Skip, don't do that. It's the God move- the sonic analog of saying "Because I have faith." It stops the entire discussion right then and there because that statement leaves nowhere to go. Why bother setting up an entire conversation only to say "nah, none of it matters". Well then why talk about it?

I also find that statement a little odd from someone who makes a business out of pushing boundaries with very niche-market, purpose-driven instruments. If any tool "just needs to work", then why don't you sell p-basses with widened nut slots? I'd love to hear more discussion and less hand-waving from you because I think you have a lot to offer this discussion and it's doing a disservice to it to simply say "anything works". What does that say?

I don't think holding a discussion on the how to make such low notes more useful, relevant and sonorous is actually going to drive anyone away from trying it- I don't think stating my opinions was going to put MF_Kitten off. I don't think it's fair to say everything works fine live, though- as I said, I've never heard someone pull it off well live. Recordings are another issues and not nearly as bad because it eliminates half of the equation.

For the record, yeah, I have all that stuff but I don't bring it to larger venues for those kind of gigs. I'm primarily a jazz player, and for those I bring a tiny setup- combo or small cab with my shitty G-K head. Sounds like crap loud, but at the low volumes of most jazz gigs it sounds pretty good, is easy to haul, and I don't care if it gets beat up. I never said I bring all that stuff to the coffee shop.

I'm just saying I think there is plenty of opportunity to discuss the cons of plays notes that low and how to make improvements here that is being tossed out by saying "what you have is good enough". Besides that I doubt that you really feel that that is 100% the case for everyone, I don't think it's a great way to transmit information. 

By the same logic, everyone should be playing super cheap instruments through crappy rigs with old strings and microphonic pickups. The tools at hand aren't always good enough, which is why we make improvements. I know you believe that- that's why you have the business you do making the awesome products that you do- so I'm a little surprised that the discussion stopped where it did.

I understand that they're words of encouragement more than anything else, but I don't think anything in this conversation is really going to scare people away.


----------



## knuckle_head

Doing it poorly or inadequately is the lion's share of how it has to be done at the moment. And doing it right now is more important than waiting until you have or even can get what is necessary to do it right. 

I certainly believe that the way I do it has advantages, but I also know that most players can't shell out $3k for an instrument, $2k for sub-frequency reproduction, and have a rig that is competent down to 40 Hz.

It really does go beyond encouragement. Most players that get an octave bass of mine in their hands have no idea what to do with it because they are unaccustomed to playing that low. Anybody that HAS played that low are impressed with the difference between what they can get or have been handed and what I do. I am not diminished by it being done 'the wrong way'. I shine only if it is being done at all.

As for how it ought to be done, that is a whole 'nuther thing. And it really does start with the rig you have. Nobody plays a rig that sounds like ass if they can help it. And there is no reason to ditch the investment in something that is meant to reproduce only standard frequencies, because that has to be done anyway. 

In actuality I think that MF_Kitten is in a reasonable place as with a crossover, INFRA processor and a single 18" cab she'd be rockin. This assuming that she likes what is coming out of her Hartke.

My rig would be completely different from her's; I am building a full range cab that will get me flat to about 35 Hz - it is a listening as opposed to a performance cab that will do just shy of 300 watts at 6 ohms at roughly 96/97 dB. My rigors are more demanding than most as I need flat down to 10 Hz, so two single INFRA cabs are called for. 

My experience has suggested that you need twice the power out of subs as your full range rig to get you a flat response curve at 20 Hz. To get flat to 10 Hz you need to double that. 

But I need to hear everything that a bass produces. Most players just need a bit of a boost where a standard rig doesn't go.

EDIT; I don't amplify at the moment. I use a headphone amp and headphones as it is as good as any rig that is competent to 30 Hz or so. I have a 1x10/1x12 and single 15 sub that I built myself, but the sub is only competent to 19 Hz, and I lack a power amp.


----------



## somn

to produce the low f and low c string clearly youll needed a powerfull amp or poweramp the more watts the better you can read about it somewhere on erb.com that and a very great cab like those isp or whoppo grande type cabs <i love that name lol>but even with all the right stuff my problem when first confronted with it was it did not seem loud and i wanted to crank it up more well the reason is and i found this out in the studio is that the low frq of the tuning has large waves it may sound low in vol in front of you but move back far enuff like lets say outside ur house you hear it loud and proud
oh and a very good compresor helps alot too


----------

