# Drop G Tuning Bass



## Pan3optic3on

Im using a 34" Sterling Sub Bass and Ive been trying to tune it to Drop G but it sounds a little flappy. I bought a .175 extra long scale string for it but its still struggling to intonate. Ive seen Gabe Crisp from Whitechapel use a 4 string bass thats tuned pretty low but cant get mine to sound right. Any ideas?


----------



## stevexc

34" is hugely suboptimal for Drop G.

Gabe Crisp makes it work because he's either a) fine with it being floppy, b) has a much higher tolerance for intonation problems, c) has a professional setting his basses up regularly, or d) some combination of the above.

The best option is to use a bass designed to be tuned down, at least a 35" scale.

Barring that, invest in heavier, thinner strings like Kalium. Intonation problems are (in part) caused by the gauge of the string - the thicker it is, the further back you have to move the saddle. Strings like Kalium have more weight at smaller gauges, giving you more tension while decreasing the amount of distance you need to move the saddle.

The other option is, and I'll put this bluntly for comedic effect, to just suck it up. Acclimate yourself to the lower tension and don't worry about the intonation as much. Or at least, make sure the notes you're actually playing are in tune - given my limited experience with Whitechapel I can't be sure but last I've heard there's not too much playing going on in the top half dozen frets on the thicker strings. Ergo, it's less important that the low G is intonated that high up, you've got a much higher tolerance for error.

Keep in mind that his rig will likely be able to handle low notes as well. Going back and forth between my Ampeg (SVT 450 through 410HE) and my Fender Rumble 100 (V1) with my SR505, there's a huge tonal difference when I play my low B, even if the other 4 strings sound similar.


----------



## RobbYoung

I had a very similar problem when doing a similar thing (F# Standard on a 34" Squire PJ!) Turns out most bass are not made to sound good almost an octave below standard.

I use a 175 on the low string, and for intonation you'll probably have to use your 12th harmonic instead of the open string to match tuning and intonation.

Your signal path will be especially important at such a low tuning also. Make sure your pedal/DI/amp is suited to such playing.


----------



## Systolic

You filed the nut for that gauge string right? If not, that is one of many problems right there.


----------



## Pan3optic3on

Systolic said:


> You filed the nut for that gauge string right? If not, that is one of many problems right there.



Haha, yep. That was something that had me a bit nervous at first. It doesn't really house light strings tight anymore but its a f**k around bass for recording.


----------



## Pan3optic3on

stevexc said:


> 34" is hugely suboptimal for Drop G.
> 
> Gabe Crisp makes it work because he's either a) fine with it being floppy, b) has a much higher tolerance for intonation problems, c) has a professional setting his basses up regularly, or d) some combination of the above.
> 
> The best option is to use a bass designed to be tuned down, at least a 35" scale.
> 
> Barring that, invest in heavier, thinner strings like Kalium. Intonation problems are (in part) caused by the gauge of the string - the thicker it is, the further back you have to move the saddle. Strings like Kalium have more weight at smaller gauges, giving you more tension while decreasing the amount of distance you need to move the saddle.
> 
> The other option is, and I'll put this bluntly for comedic effect, to just suck it up. Acclimate yourself to the lower tension and don't worry about the intonation as much. Or at least, make sure the notes you're actually playing are in tune - given my limited experience with Whitechapel I can't be sure but last I've heard there's not too much playing going on in the top half dozen frets on the thicker strings. Ergo, it's less important that the low G is intonated that high up, you've got a much higher tolerance for error.
> 
> Keep in mind that his rig will likely be able to handle low notes as well. Going back and forth between my Ampeg (SVT 450 through 410HE) and my Fender Rumble 100 (V1) with my SR505, there's a huge tonal difference when I play my low B, even if the other 4 strings sound similar.



Thanks for the info! I had realised after posting this I had gone back to the lighter string kinda like you had said using the lower notes. 

It seems to be better as I have loosen the string bar on the headstock holding down the 2nd and 3rd string. The tension seems better.

Its more recording I struggle with at times I just cant seem to get the bass to sound right. Ive just done a recording where it sounds decent and wasnt to bad on the high notes.

Are there any cheap basses that can hold drop g well? I play guitar so Im not so hot on my gauges and string tensions when it comes to bass.
Are there 4 string bass in 35" scale?


----------



## Pan3optic3on

RobbYoung said:


> I had a very similar problem when doing a similar thing (F# Standard on a 34" Squire PJ!) Turns out most bass are not made to sound good almost an octave below standard.
> 
> I use a 175 on the low string, and for intonation you'll probably have to use your 12th harmonic instead of the open string to match tuning and intonation.
> 
> Your signal path will be especially important at such a low tuning also. Make sure your pedal/DI/amp is suited to such playing.



Yeah this is what I was finding. I picked up a DI box a few weeks back and it did help a lot. I dont think the pickup likes the low octave like you say. The other three strings are much brighter.


----------



## Low Baller

Me personally I just transpose up, A is the lowest I tune a bass too IMO below that with guitars and drums in the mix the bass is gone. I will admit I am a baby and can't suck up lower tension, or intonation problems. Not saying tuning to drop G is wrong. I would recommend a 35" neck or invest in a fiver with thicker strings. But I know for me to just buy a new bass is not in my budget. You could try standard down a whole step (D,G,C,F#) you can transpose those open G riffs to what would be your A string. Honestly a guitar tuned to G is probably in the same octave as that string but that's not a bad thing IMO I find it keeps the bass present and makes it easier to keep the mix from getting muddy.


----------



## Pan3optic3on

Low Baller said:


> Me personally I just transpose up, A is the lowest I tune a bass too IMO below that with guitars and drums in the mix the bass is gone. I will admit I am a baby and can't suck up lower tension, or intonation problems. Not saying tuning to drop G is wrong. I would recommend a 35" neck or invest in a fiver with thicker strings. But I know for me to just buy a new bass is not in my budget. You could try standard down a whole step (D,G,C,F#) you can transpose those open G riffs to what would be your A string. Honestly a guitar tuned to G is probably in the same octave as that string but that's not a bad thing IMO I find it keeps the bass present and makes it easier to keep the mix from getting muddy.



I hadn't considered that but I think you might be right about the octave. It seems to be hard to mix the frequencies in that range with the G string. I normally cut low end on the 7 string to around 120hz but Im not sure if taking it down to around 40 hz would be better. I cant afford a 5 string at the moment even a cheap one so Ill give your idea a try. Cheers.


----------



## xwmucradiox

You could also get a pedal like the Digitech Drop to play in CGCF and drop it down a fifth. I know one bass player in a HUGE metal band does this for songs in a lower tuning live.


----------



## A-Branger

Low Baller said:


> Me personally I just transpose up, A is the lowest I tune a bass too IMO below that with guitars and drums in the mix the bass is gone. I will admit I am a baby and can't suck up lower tension, or intonation problems. Not saying tuning to drop G is wrong. I would recommend a 35" neck or invest in a fiver with thicker strings. But I know for me to just buy a new bass is not in my budget. You could try standard down a whole step (D,G,C,F#) you can transpose those open G riffs to what would be your A string. Honestly a guitar tuned to G is probably in the same octave as that string but that's not a bad thing IMO I find it keeps the bass present and makes it easier to keep the mix from getting muddy.



yup, pretty much that. I too find that in a bass a limit should be A. Playing music in sub-sonic frequencies I dont really see the point of it. I understand the "want" on a guitar, but when you add a band and a bass, its just pushing it too far. 

Guitar becomes a bass - bass becomes rumble 

also a 5 string bass wont make any difference. apart of coming with a nut already cut for ticker strings. You prob need longer scale.

the drop tune pedal could be a solution. Taking for experience on using it on my guitar, if you have your bass on A (a whole step down from a standar 5 string) you can get the extra step with the pedal and it could sound good, it would only need a good re-eq. But pushing the pedal for a whole 5th is bit too much..... Donno, I have never tried on my bass tho, I dont play any song that requires down tune my bass from 5 string standard.


----------



## xwmucradiox

I play in G all the time on my Dingwall. Its low but its not really that crazy. The reinforcement below drop G guitar is impressive.


----------



## Pan3optic3on

xwmucradiox said:


> You could also get a pedal like the Digitech Drop to play in CGCF and drop it down a fifth. I know one bass player in a HUGE metal band does this for songs in a lower tuning live.



If that's who I think you are reffering to then will I have a field day on my bass?

[SC]https://soundcloud.com/pan3optic3on/roam-progress-riffages[/SC]

This is no plug just riffs Im working on but its the closest Ive got to a decent bass sound. Im using an ampeg impulse through the lecab plugin. The low end seems best on certain cab microphones. Im also using a sansamp plugin to try and get some nice overdrive but that sounded absolutely awful. I heard a clip of a deftones cover using the sansamp plugin and the overdrive sounded amazing as was the cover. In fact its the only cover Ive heard by other band that sounded like the original.

I still cant get anywhere near it. This is with the bass tuned G D G C. .175 on the low G. It intonates ok but cant deal with to much bending as it goes out of tune.


----------



## Systolic

Well definitely switch to Kalium strings. See if that fixes the intonation issue. I suspect it will (as much as it can on that bass,) as you shouldn't have to move the saddle as far back.


----------



## LordCashew

A-Branger said:


> yup, pretty much that. I too find that in a bass a limit should be A. Playing music in sub-sonic frequencies I dont really see the point of it. I understand the "want" on a guitar, but when you add a band and a bass, its just pushing it too far...
> 
> Guitar becomes a bass - bass becomes rumble



Not so in my opinion, provided players have the right kind of strings and know how to eq and compress their tones to work well in the mix.




This is a string demo recently posted in another thread here. The bassist is tuned to G standard - you can hear plenty of low G around 7:18, in a mix. To me, it still clearly sounds like a bass, and the guitar (though not my favorite tone) is clearly a guitar.

Of course it's subjective and everyone has a right to their own opinion, but I think it sounds pretty good.


----------



## A-Branger

yeah I can hear it. But again the amount of times hes playing an actually "G" is pretty null compared with all the rest of the song. Something that makes it sound better overall. In a way is like hes playing a normal 5 or 4 string bass for 90% of the song. Only around the 8:20 mark where they stay longer on the lowG section is when it becomes more rumble-ish, even then they are adding other notes.

Guitars are always going to sound "good", as not only they still are on the nice sound FQ spectrum, but they are more high pitched. Bass is delicate. Not many ppl know how to nicely EQ like this guy

also care to notice that it only sounds good (or best) when he plays with a pick, as the pick adds more attack and lots of high pitch (saem reasons I dont like playing with a pick, as my EQ is setup for fingers), and adding a bit of dirt helps too. When he plays finger style clean, the soud gets lost a lot on the low end register G..... as I only play finger style and with no FX all clean, maybe thats why I dont like anything lower than my standard 5???

Nothing wrong with this song. They actually move around the fretboard a lot. I Think my problem comes more when they only stay on the low low low end of their instruments.


I Might as well be that grumpy old man yelling "this dam kids and their low tunings......back in my day....." LOL


----------



## LordCashew

^ All valid points.  Especially in regard to the percentage of time he actually uses the low notes. I believe having an instrument capable of extremes makes good compositional taste all the more important. For instance it seems lower notes tend to need a little more space - I don't think octave-doubling a tremolo-picked guitar line in that register would come through at all.

I also agree that it sounded best with a pick. I noticed a woofy frequency in the low/low mids that seemed accentuated when he played fingerstyle. But I'm not sure if that's something he should EQ out or an issue with my headphones.


----------



## A-Branger

LordIronSpatula said:


> - I don't think octave-doubling a tremolo-picked guitar line in that register would come through at all.



yup thats pretty much my rant against such low tunings. And pl who only uy 8 string guitars just to stay in the low 5 frets of their instrument for 80% of the song and want a bass to do the octave of that


----------



## Pan3optic3on

Mmm I tried using the octave higher and it didn't sound right and havent the cash for a pitch shifter. I think ill put up with the bass as it is until I find a cheap 35" scale. Ive started to take a bit more high pass out of all the guitars and it seems to be doing the trick. Its probably because of there being more bass frequencies. Ill check out those strings that were mentioned also because the .175 is like a suspension bridge cable.


----------



## Nlelith

Pan3optic3on said:


> I think ill put up with the bass as it is until I find a cheap 35" scale.


I'm interested to buy one too, did a lot of research about cheap 5-string 35" scale basses, and I think that the best price/quality would be Schecter Session Stiletto or Session Riot. ESP LTD has some tasty models as well. Used Peavy Cirrus BXP 5 may be nice choice too.


----------



## RobbYoung

Anyone suggested the Brice/Agile Multiscale basses that are avaliable on rondomusic.com? Surely a 34-37" scale would also fit your needs, as you don't need such a ridiculous scale length for the higher strings?


----------



## Deepcut

How straight is the neck?

I have a 5 string cort with 34inch scale I tune drop g# it's perfect with standard set of strings .135 on the bottom but my neck is perfectly straight when doing so, if the necks curved it will not be right.

Compression helps as well.


----------



## LordCashew

Pan3optic3on said:


> This is no plug just riffs Im working on but its the closest Ive got to a decent bass sound. Im using an ampeg impulse through the lecab plugin. The low end seems best on certain cab microphones. Im also using a sansamp plugin to try and get some nice overdrive but that sounded absolutely awful. I heard a clip of a deftones cover using the sansamp plugin and the overdrive sounded amazing as was the cover. In fact its the only cover Ive heard by other band that sounded like the original.
> 
> I still cant get anywhere near it.



Hey man, I somehow didn't notice this clip at first. To be honest, I think your main problem is that there are just not enough mids in your mix. The overall product sounds kind of brittle and harsh in my opinion, and makes my ears feel tired quickly. That's usually the result of too much mid-scooping, either in the overall mix or in the individual tracks, but it can also happen from overuse of sonic maximization/aural enhancement plugins and even compression.

Really, the secret to good bass guitar presence in the mix its its midrange, especially, in my opinion, when it's overdriven. I get that you want the low notes to hit hard, but the fundamental of those low notes will probably have less punch than the overtone components in the low mids. This isn't just because of equipment limitations, but also because of how the human ear is tuned and the frequency niche the bass guitar usually occupies when paired with guitar and drums.

I don't have enough mixing experience to tell you definitively what frequencies you should be tweaking. But I suggest you set the bass eq flat, then look at boosting slightly around 250-400 and maybe even rolling off the extreme low end a bit.

I'm not trying to hate on your mix or anything, and I mean no disrespect. My ears just prefer a more natural sound.


----------



## Pan3optic3on

LordIronSpatula said:


> Hey man, I somehow didn't notice this clip at first. To be honest, I think your main problem is that there are just not enough mids in your mix. The overall product sounds kind of brittle and harsh in my opinion, and makes my ears feel tired quickly. That's usually the result of too much mid-scooping, either in the overall mix or in the individual tracks, but it can also happen from overuse of sonic maximization/aural enhancement plugins and even compression.
> 
> Really, the secret to good bass guitar presence in the mix its its midrange, especially, in my opinion, when it's overdriven. I get that you want the low notes to hit hard, but the fundamental of those low notes will probably have less punch than the overtone components in the low mids. This isn't just because of equipment limitations, but also because of how the human ear is tuned and the frequency niche the bass guitar usually occupies when paired with guitar and drums.
> 
> I don't have enough mixing experience to tell you definitively what frequencies you should be tweaking. But I suggest you set the bass eq flat, then look at boosting slightly around 250-400 and maybe even rolling off the extreme low end a bit.
> 
> I'm not trying to hate on your mix or anything, and I mean no disrespect. My ears just prefer a more natural sound.



No disrespect taken and I value your advice. I was experimenting with a plugin on the mix out. There is minimal eq except for what is in superior drummer.

Ive been trying hard to get more mids into the mix but its probably because I go between eq and flat direct when listening through my amp on headphones. I aquired a set of flat eq studio headphones a few weeks ago so I have been getting uses to those.

Im still learning but im happy how far ive come recording over two years from scratch.


----------



## WintermintP

I had to get this account quickly just to tell you this...

I have no clue what the rules are when it comes to reviving two year old threads, but I did get a tweet directly from Gabe Crisp himself.

His top three strings are the bottom three strings from a 110 pack (I'm guessing 55-110 based on his words?) and his fourth string is a 145. That's the gauges he uses live. In the studio he did say he goes heavier than that.

Also surprising to note, several sources have been saying that Gabe's bass is actually a 34" scale. I'm not sure if everyone is aware of that but I thought I should mention.

WintermintP


----------



## WintermintP

One other thing I should note is that I tried tuning my 5-string bass down to a Drop G using the standard D'Addario 45-130 set, and it works just fine aside from the bottom string which does feel like it needs a bit more tension. So honestly, I don't think you need to go for as heavy of a gauge as you think.


----------



## ixlramp

A 35" scale (and the extra mass and neck strength of a 5 string bass) will help a little of course, but the 'need' for 35" is overstated here. Having been a part of the ERB community i know it is possible to get a good sounding G0 or F#0 on 34", many ERBs are tuned down to F#0 or the C#0 below.

String choice is more important, the thicker the gauge the more critical it becomes because some brands are super-stiff and dull, and stiffness makes intonation difficult.
Kalium's are apparently very flexible for their size and i have heard of bad experiences with other brands.
For G you only need a .160, D'Addario do those now as singles.

If your .175 goes out of tune after a bend you haven't set the string up right, make sure the string goes through a sharp bend at nut and bridge (push down either side of the nut / saddle) and keep bending until they are stretched out and stable. Also of course top-load the string in your bridge.


----------



## bostjan

Necrothread, but very pertinent to today's discussions...

35" > 34", obviously, but it's not really that much bigger. However:

1. 35" scale basses usually have lower notes in mind, which means that they typically have other design features lending themselves more to lower tunings than 34" basses.
2. Clarity goes like scale length to the fourth power, so 34" - 35" gives about 12% less inharmonicity, all else equal, which is considerably substantial, even though it isn't make-or-break.
3. A longer scale length also necessitates a lower string gauge in order to achieve the same tension at the same tuning.

Any tuning is doable at any scale length, but to my ears, some instruments just sound sloppy tuned lower than A0. With a 34" scale bass and the right pickups and amplification, there is no reason why not to tune to G0, if you want to. I've found myself bottoming out at F0 at 35" with the Darkglass. But there are other concerns as well.

This is getting low. Very low. 12 Hz G0 takes 0.08 s for just one cycle of of the string. Your brain takes several cycles before it registers any cyclical sound. Say it takes about six cycles before the brain even sees G0 as a tone (as opposed to a percussive sound), that's half a second. At 120 bpm, that's a quarter note. What I'm saying is that a sine wave of that frequency playing anything faster than 120 bpm quarter notes won't register in the brain as a low note. In reality, a bass will have all sorts of harmonic overtones and whatnot, so the mathematics is not that meaningful, but the gist is still the same, that most of what is going to be picked up by the electronics, reproduced by the amplifier, and registered by the brain of the listener is going to be overtones. That horse has been beaten, but he still holds the key of what it all means.

Since inharmonicity is the deviation of actual overtones from mathematical overtones, and the discrepancy increases in order of magnitude by increasing the order of the harmonic overtone, the inharmonicity will have a greater effect on tones that rely on psychoacoustics, like G0, F0, E0, etc. We are talking about tones that can push 30% error in the first overtone. These are basically percussive notes unless you have some real meat on your strings. You can roll with that, or else you will simply have to be very careful with scale lengths, string gauges, and electronics.


----------



## Beheroth

G0 is 24,5 Hz, you're thinking about G00.
But yeah, for me anything below A0 is just pure mud. I can barely tolerate a B0 on a 34" scale. That's why i've been thinking about building something with a 39,55" scale like the Knuckle/Circle K/Kallium Quake.


----------



## bostjan

Beheroth said:


> G0 is 24,5 Hz, you're thinking about G00.
> But yeah, for me anything below A0 is just pure mud. I can barely tolerate a B0 on a 34" scale. That's why i've been thinking about building something with a 39,55" scale like the Knuckle/Circle K/Kallium Quake.


You're right. I got carried away tuning down 
The thing is, if you are careful positioning the centroid of the instrument, such that the bridge balances naturally further back from the right (assuming right-handed playing) hip, 37" and greater scale lengths are not at all a problem for an average-sized adult. 

I'm still a bit interested in how 39.55" seems to be the new super-extended scale standard. Two frets extended from 35" is 39.29" and 3 frets extended from 34" is 40.43".  I guess it doesn't matter as long as it's long.


----------



## Beheroth

If i remember correctly (i read it some years ago), the dude behind the Quake, Skip Fantry, did some math and found that 39,55" was the scale needed to make a B0 string have the same harmonic content as an A1 string on a 34".
His Quake bass has a elongated body to help with the balance of the instrument. It's a real cool bass but the headstock is fugly


----------



## ixlramp

Here's a good demonstration of the new low cost produciton bolt-on Quakes (around 2000 USD). This one is 39.55" and tuned F#BEAD but the fanned version is 37-40". He doesn't play the F#, just so you know that 4th string is the B being played.
Yes, the Quake was created because Skip was trying to get A0 sounding like a 35" B0 so designed an instrument which was 35" plus 2 frets.


----------



## WintermintP

Honestly, I'd say each to their own. From my own personal experience, aside from the bottom string feeling just a little bit too loose for my tastes (not that I can't tolerate it), even a 130 did just fine on Drop G (my bass is a 34" 5-string bass). Several of my friends have told me a 130 would do just fine as well. Honestly, if anything, maybe I should look into buying a 135 just to add that little bit of tension that I could use?

If I were to get an eight-string guitar at some point, though, maybe I could use that Kalium bass, but dang, over 2K for a low-cost model feels flat out overpriced.

Either that, or I have more tolerance toward there being less tension on my bass because I'm primarily a guitarist.

Maybe I just got really lucky and got a good brand of strings. They are a D'Addario XL 45-130 pack. I can hear the low G just fine through DI without any effects, and if all else fails, I have a plugin that simulates an Ampeg SVT bass amp.

WintermintP


----------



## Beheroth

WintermintP said:


> but dang, over 2K for a low-cost model feels flat out overpriced.



It's not low cost as in factory made somewhere in Asia, it's more of a lower cost (still 2k) standardized specs bass (bolt-on maple neck,passive nordstrand single pickup ...) as opposed to a full custom (neck through, fancy exotic woods, custom wound pus like Q-Tuner, active preamp ...) but it's still handmade in the US.


----------



## ixlramp

Skip has the base instrument (body, neck and frets only, no wood finish) made in batches of 5 by some company, not sure who or where. He then adds the hardware, electronics and wood finish himself.


----------



## Beheroth

really ? my bad, i thought he was making them from start to finish.
I wonder how he managed to find someone willing to build him necks with that ugly as fuck headstock.


----------



## ixlramp

Fairly sure, on FB he wrote 'they did a good job' or something similar, referring to the first batch of 5.


----------



## WintermintP

Sorry for the necro again.

So I had this big problem that dragged on just because I wanted a little bit more tension on my bottom string on my bass. The guys at L&M said that not even a 145, let alone a 135 is all that ideal for Drop G so I was trying to work out solutions but then they just hung up on me abruptly (Are they even allowed to do that? I was their frequent customer...).

Several days passed and a classmate of mine had to physically prove that a 135 on a G actually works. His 6-string bass had the bottom string on 135 so what he did was he physically tuned that to G and passed the bass to me just to see if the tension is okay for my tastes, and it surprisingly did work out really well.

So I've just passed my bass to my local independent tech last week along with a 135 set included in the bag and now I'm waiting for the setup to complete...

So yea, 135 will do just fine for Drop G, it's only a matter of how much more tension you would really want. Even a 130 did just fine, except at that point the bottom string just felt a little flabby. Again, maybe I don't mind having lighter gauges on my bass because I'm primarily a guitarist and that's just me, but these are my thoughts.

Furthermore, because most of what I'm going to be mixing with is going to be based on overtones anyway, I honestly think just because it's below A0 it doesn't make it outright mud right away. I have mixed my own songs in Drop G before, and in them I used the regular 45-130 set and it worked just fine. What I would have to say is that it's all personal taste at that point.

Again, maybe I'm kind of defensive over the concept of Drop G because I'm a guitarist, but what I'm actually saying is that I don't think it's fair to just knock it that quickly... if that makes sense.

Funny thing, if I were to go even lower, say Drop E with an eight-string guitar, what actually would happen at that point is that it would reach this threshold where the bass would fill more of a textural role and thus I wouldn't need anything fancier than a typical standard-tuned 4-string bass, but even I know that at that point even the guitar would have a tough time sounding really good because it'll be really hard to get the necessary treble out. So I actually plan to go no lower than a Drop G. Anything below THAT would be nonsensical.

WintermintP


----------



## bostjan

Funny thing about super-low tuning is that a thicker gauge increases tension but also decreases clarity. It's a balancing act, and the lower you tune, the more difficult it is to balance.

I've found, myself, time and time again, that the really heavy bass strings on 34" or even 35" scale just leave me wishing I had a longer neck. Tuning down, even to E0, I can't get any tones useful to me out of anything thicker than 0.150". Every bass I've tuned below G, I end up tuning back up to G, since, from what I've determined about what I personally prefer, that's the limit of usefulness I can get out of any mass-produced gear.


----------



## WintermintP

bostjan said:


> Funny thing about super-low tuning is that a thicker gauge increases tension but also decreases clarity. It's a balancing act, and the lower you tune, the more difficult it is to balance.
> 
> I've found, myself, time and time again, that the really heavy bass strings on 34" or even 35" scale just leave me wishing I had a longer neck. Tuning down, even to E0, I can't get any tones useful to me out of anything thicker than 0.150". Every bass I've tuned below G, I end up tuning back up to G, since, from what I've determined about what I personally prefer, that's the limit of usefulness I can get out of any mass-produced gear.


I can agree with that to a degree (no pun intended). I don't believe 135 is all that heavy within the grand scheme of things though. Obviously I know for a fact that a longer scale would definitely help with the brightness of the sound, but I also know for a fact that I already have an amp plugin for that.

Besides, when I dial my bass tone, I've come to realisation that I only need so much in the highs to even begin with anyway, because if I add any more it will conflict with the guitars, and it's important that I keep as much highs on the guitars as I can because I know it's going to be highpassed, even if I take it even lower than the G0.

That being said, having realised how much hassle I had to go through just for the Drop G tuning, I am starting to reconsider as to whether the statement saying "anything below A0 is outright mud" actually holds weight. While personally I do think Drop G sounds great, if it's going to cost a lot of money to get the necessary strings just for this kind of thing in the long run...

Christ have mercy...

WintermintP


----------



## bostjan

WintermintP said:


> I can agree with that to a degree (no pun intended). I don't believe 135 is all that heavy within the grand scheme of things though. Obviously I know for a fact that a longer scale would definitely help with the brightness of the sound, but I also know for a fact that I already have an amp plugin for that.
> 
> Besides, when I dial my bass tone, I've come to realisation that I only need so much in the highs to even begin with anyway, because if I add any more it will conflict with the guitars, and it's important that I keep as much highs on the guitars as I can because I know it's going to be highpassed, even if I take it even lower than the G0.
> 
> That being said, having realised how much hassle I had to go through just for the Drop G tuning, I am starting to reconsider as to whether the statement saying "anything below A0 is outright mud" actually holds weight. While personally I do think Drop G sounds great, if it's going to cost a lot of money to get the necessary strings just for this kind of thing in the long run...
> 
> Christ have mercy...
> 
> WintermintP



Yeah, that's my experience in a nutshell. You can tune down to A0 with budget gear and everything should seem mostly okay. Every semitone down below that point, and you need to do something clever to mitigate the problems you'll run into - and nothing is as straightforward as it seems to anyone who has never tried to tune that low before. Once you get your feet wet, though, I think that the paradigm will shift for you and you'll continue tuning down as you like, just in a more creative way than you thought you would when you started (I'm saying "you," but speaking for myself in the second person).

After messing with all sorts of string gauges and different amps and EQs and settings and preamps, etc., I came to the realization that everything helps, but that increasing the scale length of the bass is the most powerful tool in tuning down. G0 @ 35" is doable, but kind of a pain. Once you have a rig that can pull off G0, I guarantee that if you plug an extended scale bass into that rig, you'll notice an improvement right away. The Dingwall has the added bonus of some really nice ergonomics and electronics, so tuning down to F#0 or F0 should be an easy adjustment, comparably.

Personally, after I achieved tuning down to F0 with lighter strings by adjusting my mindset and my technique, I went back to G0 anyway...in fact, I typically tune my bass one step below standard 5 string tuning, then drop the lowest string a whole step when I need it.  I think that if I had unlimited resources to put toward a custom bass, I would opt for a multiscale with a really long scale length, then also go for a two-fret extension, so I could tune the low string G0 and have a massive scale length behind that, but still essentially have fourths tuning for finger positions.


----------



## WintermintP

bostjan said:


> Yeah, that's my experience in a nutshell. You can tune down to A0 with budget gear and everything should seem mostly okay. Every semitone down below that point, and you need to do something clever to mitigate the problems you'll run into - and nothing is as straightforward as it seems to anyone who has never tried to tune that low before. Once you get your feet wet, though, I think that the paradigm will shift for you and you'll continue tuning down as you like, just in a more creative way than you thought you would when you started (I'm saying "you," but speaking for myself in the second person).
> 
> After messing with all sorts of string gauges and different amps and EQs and settings and preamps, etc., I came to the realization that everything helps, but that increasing the scale length of the bass is the most powerful tool in tuning down. G0 @ 35" is doable, but kind of a pain. Once you have a rig that can pull off G0, I guarantee that if you plug an extended scale bass into that rig, you'll notice an improvement right away. The Dingwall has the added bonus of some really nice ergonomics and electronics, so tuning down to F#0 or F0 should be an easy adjustment, comparably.
> 
> Personally, after I achieved tuning down to F0 with lighter strings by adjusting my mindset and my technique, I went back to G0 anyway...in fact, I typically tune my bass one step below standard 5 string tuning, then drop the lowest string a whole step when I need it.  I think that if I had unlimited resources to put toward a custom bass, I would opt for a multiscale with a really long scale length, then also go for a two-fret extension, so I could tune the low string G0 and have a massive scale length behind that, but still essentially have fourths tuning for finger positions.



Hrmm... It's one of those instances where it's like, "you'll never know what it's like unless you try it for yourself," isn't it...

I mean, I honestly think that is a super fair thing to say. There have been so many cases in my life where I was completely uncertain until I took a shot in the dark. If this is another one of those cases I can completely understand.

Come to think of it, I'm starting to see your point. A longer scale length would mean that there would be more tension on the strings, which leads to them requiring more energy to play, which means more output and what's better about that is that my playing style is already aggressive as a guitarist so I probably might need more tension on the strings to even begin with...

The main problem I have, though, is that I can't seem to find a bass that has the longer scales that I might need. I don't even know if they have any places that sell not-run-of-the-mill basses here. Online stores anyone?

(keep in mind, you're talking to a Canadian)

And where, pray tell, can I get a Dingwall bass in Canada?

Oh right... I'd have to go to all the way to Markham... makes sense... =.=

(oh god they cost over 2K...)

Thanks,
WintermintP


----------



## ixlramp

WintermintP said:


> even a 130 did just fine on Drop G (my bass is a 34" 5-string bass). Several of my friends have told me a 130 would do just fine as well.


I've found some do think this (usually without trying anything heavier), i did too before Skip encouraged me to try a D'Addario tapered .145 for A0. A .130 at G is very undertensioned at 23lbs, it's equivalent to a .075 at E.


WintermintP said:


> While personally I do think Drop G sounds great, if it's going to cost a lot of money to get the necessary strings just for this kind of thing in the long run...


No, .145s are widely available and not expensive and D'Addario sells .160s too now. Also a 35" scale is enough.
A .145 at G will still be low tension but better, i find the D'Addario tapered .145s excellent, flexible and clear.


WintermintP said:


> The main problem I have, though, is that I can't seem to find a bass that has the longer scales that I might need


Ibanez and ESP are now selling fanned fret basses that i think go to around 35.5".


----------



## ixlramp

WintermintP said:


> Come to think of it, I'm starting to see your point. A longer scale length would mean that there would be more tension on the strings, which leads to them requiring more energy to play, which means more output ...


Actually the advantage of more scale length is that you can use a thinner string while maintaining the same tension, so the string tone becomes clearer because the string is both longer and thinner. These super low strings are never at a high tension because the required thickness for that causes too many problems (stiffness, dullness, inharmonicity, difficult to intonate) to be worth it, so you will have to learn to use a lighter technique on the lowest string (but this is the case anyway with standard Bs which are the loosest string in a set).

Anyway, do try a D'Addario tapered .145 single string for G0, it can also be retuned to A0 or even B0 with no problems.


----------



## LordCashew

WintermintP said:


> The main problem I have, though, is that I can't seem to find a bass that has the longer scales that I might need. I don't even know if they have any places that sell not-run-of-the-mill basses here. Online stores anyone?



http://www.rondomusic.com/defiant53437nat.html

It has the same scale/fan as a Dingwall. These guys do ship to Canada and have a track record for great customer service. Someone (I think Bostjan) posted some clips A/Bing one with a Dingwall. Might be worth a search.



ixlramp said:


> Ibanez and ESP are now selling fanned fret basses that i think go to around 35.5".



The Ibanez does go to 35.5". The ESP is actually 37" IIRC, but I have yet to hear a demo of it that sounds particularly good, despite the fact that it comes with Nordstrand pickups.


----------



## bostjan

The Ibanez SRFF's are nice basses. I tend to personally not like the feel of the SR basses, so I don't think it was for me, as it still feels "small" and "cramped" for my liking. The ESP has nicer specs, IMO, but I have not tried one, so I can't personally recommend it.

The Brice Earthquake is a very affordable 37" static scale and the Defiant is 34-37" multiscale for about $150 or $200 more (I don't recall exactly, off the top of my head). I honestly don't think the Brice compares to the Dingwall basses I've played in stores, nor to the imported NG-2 I own (which I give the highest recommendation). It's still a wonderful instrument, with a few minor flaws, but the low string (G in my case) is quite tight. I think I will have to swap the pickups and electronics out at some point, to get the low notes tighter, but the stock pickups and electronics are not bad, especially for the price. The Dingwalls just have a much better balance and are so much more comfortable to play. And for me, that's very important if I'm going to do a 4-5 hour long gig with the instrument.

Here's my NBD thread for the Brice I bought: http://www.sevenstring.org/threads/nbd-brice-defiant-53437-rb-bubinga.319366/
Here's the NBD thread for the Dingwall NG-2: http://www.sevenstring.org/threads/nbd-dingwall-ng-2.289585/


----------



## gingerman

From my standpoint, it really boils down to personal preference. I had a custom dingwall-like bass built to handle G0 with relatively light strings (.155 kalium), but I didn't fully like how it sounded compared to other strings. A0 is almost ideal, and G#0 is the compromise I settled on.

So now if I want to write heavier music, I don't play / tune low, I just add more contrast to the music. After all, Gojira is a great example of "heavier is not lower".


----------



## bostjan

gingerman said:


> From my standpoint, it really boils down to personal preference. I had a custom dingwall-like bass built to handle G0 with relatively light strings (.155 kalium), but I didn't fully like how it sounded compared to other strings. A0 is almost ideal, and G#0 is the compromise I settled on.
> 
> So now if I want to write heavier music, I don't play / tune low, I just add more contrast to the music. After all, Gojira is a great example of "heavier is not lower".



I sound like a broken record, but I'll just keep saying this:

Tune down to where it sounds good, instead of tuning down and then trying to make it sound good. That should always be the musical context around tuning up or down.

From a more science-y perspective, tune down as low as you want, and observe what happens. But, under that context, there should never be anyone shrugging off the discussion and saying "I don't know, it just sounds better."


----------



## WintermintP

I think the best option for me would be to tune the bass back to Drop A, and then buy a Digitech Drop (if it's not discontinued yet) to bring it a whole tone below to get my Drop G. I can tell the SRFF805 might be a good bass for this kind of thing but forking over $1K for a bass is a little iffy for me. I think the Drop pedal will work much better for me in the long run due to the fact that I will also be able to use the same pedal on my 89-equipped Snakebyte, which will allow me to use the 89s on it in Drop G.

As for the Brice bass, I'm a little concerned because I can't seem to find where they're located, and if they are located in the States that can be a problem for me due to shipping time deficit and the currency conversion fee.

Thanks,
WintermintP

P.S. Multiscale basses are a bit daunting for me because I have never played a multiscale guitar/bass before. I could try the Brice Earthquake?

P.P.S. Hrmm... I can't seem to find the bass itself... T^T


----------



## bostjan

Rondo or Brice? The bass would ship from Rondo Music, which is in Claremont, NH, or thereabouts. It's not far from where I live, but they do not have a public showroom. The Earthquake, to me, looks like a decent deal - you'd be getting a sort of spiritual copy of the infamous Quake bass from Kalium. I have not tried the Earthquake, personally.

Here's the maple fretboard Defiant, though: http://www.rondomusic.com/product8586.html

And here's the rosewood version (maple sounds snappier): http://www.rondomusic.com/defiant53437nat.html

And here's one with a veneer: http://www.rondomusic.com/defiant53437natb.html


----------



## WintermintP

Hrmm... looks like my internet is slow today. I actually meant the Earthquake but I can't seem to find any information about the bass at all.

WintermintP


----------



## bostjan

http://www.rondomusic.com/Brice_HXB2_405_37_NatB.html


----------



## ixlramp

WintermintP said:


> I think the best option for me would be to tune the bass back to Drop A, and then buy a Digitech Drop


Why give up on drop G? You already wrote it works fine and sounds good even using a .130. As i have written before you don't need a new bass, just try a D'Addario taperwound .145 single, which are only slightly more expensive than other B strings. You don't know unless you try it. Cheaper than buying a pitch shift pedal.
Try, instead of deciding mentally what will or will not work.
If the .145 isn't good at G it will make an excellent A string so you lose nothing.

Also using a pitch shift pedal just isn't the same, it's a crude solution that inevitably creates a very slightly weird synthetic sound. The vibration you feel from the instrument will not match what you hear. Plus you won't be able to practice at low volume or acoustically.


----------



## WintermintP

bostjan said:


> http://www.rondomusic.com/Brice_HXB2_405_37_NatB.html



That sounds like a pretty good price, but there's only one left... I don't know if I'll be able to respond in time due to SOCAN and other issues that came up.



ixlramp said:


> Why give up on drop G? You already wrote it works fine and sounds good even using a .130. As i have written before you don't need a new bass, just try a D'Addario taperwound .145 single, which are only slightly more expensive than other B strings. You don't know unless you try it. Cheaper than buying a pitch shift pedal.
> Try, instead of deciding mentally what will or will not work.
> If the .145 isn't good at G it will make an excellent A string so you lose nothing.
> 
> Also using a pitch shift pedal just isn't the same, it's a crude solution that inevitably creates a very slightly weird synthetic sound. The vibration you feel from the instrument will not match what you hear. Plus you won't be able to practice at low volume or acoustically.



The main problem that I see with a 145 is the fact that I will have to drill a bigger hole in the tuning pegs (according to the guitar techs at the main stores). That's problem number one. The other problem is that I already went through a round of a string change through Greigg after my classmates suggested 135 so I don't have to drill a new hole in the pegs, and applying a 145 now would mean that I would have to go through the whole process all over again so soon, which would infuriate my mother and she will outright block my path from it (I can't drive and the bus system here is beyond nonsensical).

I haven't given up on Drop G. I'm using a 135 on Drop G, which still does feel flabby albeit not as flabby as a 130, but it barely gets the job done and I don't want to complicate the situation for the others even further.

The gauge of 145 isn't what my bass can handle due to the tuning pegs unable to accommodate such a thick string. If I were to not drill a new hole on it and run the risk of destroying the bass, I would have to buy a whole new bass entirely. Given the fact that the instrument stores have hung up on me all of a sudden despite the fact that I was their main customer not long ago, I have next to no options at all.

Furthermore, one string might sound cheaper than a Digitech Drop, but once we start talking long term, a Digitech Drop will only be a one-time purchase and will also unlock *all* my instruments' ability to play in Drop G, whereas a 145 string will be something I will have to pay for again and again, and it might run me dry eventually. So a Digitech Drop is way more bang for the buck in that sense. It may seem like I'm only going to need that pedal just for the bass, but it will actually benefit my EMG 89/89 Snakebyte in addition, and the final nail in the coffin is that I don't have to change any of the setup that's already there, so it's way cheaper that way.

TL;DR Yes, it may seem like a 145 single string might be a far cheaper option, but the Digitech Drop will unlock far more options for the equipment I have *and* it saves a ton of money long term.

Also:


WintermintP


----------



## Beheroth

I've never heard of a bass tuner that need to be drilled even for 200+ gauge strings. Pretty sure you can put a 145 easy without any mod. However you might have trouble with the bridge if it ain't top loading.


----------



## bostjan

Beheroth said:


> I've never heard of a bass tuner that need to be drilled even for 200+ gauge strings. Pretty sure you can put a 145 easy without any mod. However you might have trouble with the bridge if it ain't top loading.


Sperzel bass tuners' openings are .125"
Gotoh's basic bass tuner (GB350) only accepts .118" wire.

Obviously a .145" string isn't .145" thick at the tuning post, because of the taper, but most tuners only accept about .120" wire, so if a string doesn't taper, it'd be a total no-go, unless you drilled it out. With the taper, it totally just depends on the nature of the taper.


----------



## WintermintP

Beheroth said:


> I've never heard of a bass tuner that need to be drilled even for 200+ gauge strings. Pretty sure you can put a 145 easy without any mod. However you might have trouble with the bridge if it ain't top loading.



In that case I could try, but my mother might complain about having to set up the bass and getting a different gauge again so soon.

If what I think you're saying is correct, I've once accidentally chipped the bottom of the bass loading the string due to the ball end being too big and the holes for the bridge not being elevated high enough. The strings load from the bottom of the bridge rather than the back of the bass.

@ixlramp I don't think you're wrong about me needing a thicker bass string for the bottom. I definitely agree with the statement. Whether I will get such an opportunity, though, is my real question. It's not like I can just go to Bellone's any time I want because one, it's downtown and that means immense traffic, and two, I can't drive, which means I will have to get a ride there, and as long as my mother finds it ridiculous she can just keep me stuck at home or stuck at the college. She even disabled my debit card, claiming it's "not my money" despite the fact that I pay rent and all. I'm even discussing with her about the Digitech Drop right now. Heck, I could try getting a 145 and if I find a much more genuine tone out of that, then maybe it is worth it to get a 145. I'll even look up how big the pegs' holes have to be in order to fit a string like that. The reason why I considered the Digitech Drop was mainly because it benefits more than one of my instruments, really.

Could even try setting it up myself really...

Wait, if I try to set it up myself, doesn't that mean I get to actually find out whether the peg needs drilling?! Oh wait, I can't file the nut unless I find the tools...

WintermintP


----------



## ixlramp

WintermintP said:


> The main problem that I see with a 145 is the fact that I will have to drill a bigger hole in the tuning pegs (according to the guitar techs at the main stores).


You won't, guitar techs in shops are often wrong about anything non-mainstream, as are your classmates, consult the experts on the internet instead (us).
Big strings are tapered at the nut end, the part you insert in the tuner post will be small like the .135 you are using. I've used D'Addaro .145s on several basses and the string at that point is much smaller than the slot and hole in bass tuner posts.


WintermintP said:


> applying a 145 now would mean that I would have to go through the whole process all over again so soon, which would infuriate my mother and she will outright block my path from it (I can't drive and the bus system here is beyond nonsensical).


You should do your own setups, it's easy and will save you huge amounts of money, all the advice you need is on the internet for free. Only by doing your own setup can you adjust the setup to your needs and technique, any tech is guessing how hard you play and what your technique is like. It's like someone making clothes for you without measuring you, guesswork.

Using a .145 won't even need a truss rod adjustment as it's a small tension increase, just saddle intonation and saddle height. Also, for an unusual gauge it's much better to buy a string mail order from somehwere that can ship it out to you instantly, a guitar shop will take ages to get a weird gauge in and your travel costs will be almost as high as the string itself.

Maybe try a .145 next string change, with our advice you won't go wrong.
Filing out the nut would be the most difficult task, but even that is cheap and easy using a needle file.


WintermintP said:


> will also unlock *all* my instruments' ability to play in Drop G


With weird synthetic sound, as i said it's not remotely the same. The further you pitch shift the weirder it sounds, from A to G is bad enough. if you're willing to use a pitch shift pedal you might as well play a synthesiser instead.


WintermintP said:


> The strings load from the bottom of the bridge rather than the back of the bass.


What bass and model? Is there a top-loading option? Consider that a .145 is only very slightly wider than your .135 by the width of a guitar top string, you can judge by eye whether the string-through grommet hole is big enough for the string to pass through (it probably is) or if there are any other issues.


----------



## WintermintP

ixlramp said:


> You won't, guitar techs in shops are often wrong about anything non-mainstream, as are your classmates, consult the experts on the internet instead (us).
> Big strings are tapered at the nut end, the part you insert in the tuner post will be small like the .135 you are using. I've used D'Addaro .145s on several basses and the string at that point is much smaller than the slot and hole in bass tuner posts.
> 
> You should do your own setups, it's easy and will save you huge amounts of money, all the advice you need is on the internet for free. Only by doing your own setup can you adjust the setup to your needs and technique, any tech is guessing how hard you play and what your technique is like. It's like someone making clothes for you without measuring you, guesswork.
> 
> Using a .145 won't even need a truss rod adjustment as it's a small tension increase, just saddle intonation and saddle height. Also, for an unusual gauge it's much better to buy a string mail order from somehwere that can ship it out to you instantly, a guitar shop will take ages to get a weird gauge in and your travel costs will be almost as high as the string itself.
> 
> Maybe try a .145 next string change, with our advice you won't go wrong.
> Filing out the nut would be the most difficult task, but even that is cheap and easy using a needle file.


A needle file? If only I knew where to get one... If that's the case, I think I'm going to be ready to change to the 145.



ixlramp said:


> With weird synthetic sound, as i said it's not remotely the same. The further you pitch shift the weirder it sounds, from A to G is bad enough. if you're willing to use a pitch shift pedal you might as well play a synthesiser instead.


That video I just posted was actual proof that the pedal actually works. It may not quite be the same, but it's actually been compared to other pitch shift pedals and it has actually been proven to be a viable alternative. That being said, I have started to realise I will need a heavier gauge anyway, even with the pedal, so I'm leaning toward buying the 145 outright.



ixlramp said:


> What bass and model? Is there a top-loading option? Consider that a .145 is only very slightly wider than your .135 by the width of a guitar top string, you can judge by eye whether the string-through grommet hole is big enough for the string to pass through (it probably is) or if there are any other issues.


http://www.epiphone.com/Products/Bass/Toby-Deluxe-V.aspx

I have the Vintage Sunburst model.

Thanks,
WintermintP


----------



## bostjan

I don't want to become the negative nancy in the thread, but looking at the clips on the Epiphone site, I don't get the impression that the Toby is particularly well suited for extreme down-tuning. The guy demo'ing the five string doesn't seem to ever even touch the low B string, and even the low E string sounds farty to my ears. It sounds great when he's playing halfway up the neck on the AD&G strings, though.

Your tone is the sum of everything, though- from your fingers, your strings, your scale length, your wood (fight me!) choices, your electronics, your pickups, your amp, and more. Drop G is not the most unforgiving tuning but it is rough. 

If the drop pedal works for you, that'd be great. Just keep in mind the amp still has to work just as hard to keep the tone tight.

Since no one asked for my personal opinion, I'll let you know what I think 

The pedal sounds pretty darn good dropping down a half step or whole step in the demo, but it does lose some brightness. Beyond that, I really didn't think it sounded very good, honestly. Now, you could tune drop A and then use the pedal to go down another whole step, but if your rig is already on the edge of the tone you find acceptable for drop A, it might not actually sound too good at drop G, even with the pedal only pushing down a whole step. Let's keep in mind that this pedal is almost $200. For a few dollars more, you could grab one of the Brice 37" basses that are a lot more down-tuning-minded. I think you'd be happier with that decision in the long run, since the build quality on the Brice should be on par or better than the Toby, the added scale length will give you more EQ meat to cut into, and the pickups and electronics are designed with lower tunings in mind. Then you won't need the pedal. For drop G, you could use everything stock on the Brice, IMO, and I believe it'll give you a wider band of high fidelity tone to shape. Plus, then, if you want, later, you can upgrade the bass with Dingwall pickups or a Darkglass preamp (I would recommend the former over the latter, but both are good quality choices for downtuning) and be in a much better place still.

Either way, though, drop pedal or instrument swap, I think you will be making progress.

Best of luck!


----------



## WintermintP

Some points I can't help but disagree (it's already doing wonders in Drop A but I'm thinking it's probably either my playstyle or the fact that I know a thing or two about dialling good bass tones) but at the same time I do wish I could get that Brice bass... :'<

What's a good mass-produced bass I could look into if I somehow can't obtain the Brice? Due to the inflation going on with the CAD I don't know if I can afford anything above $420 USD (it would still have to be available in a Canadian store... but at the same time, I don't even know if there is a viable one at all anymore). I would normally have a preference toward active pickups but beggars can't be choosers in this instance I guess... (also, Gabe Crisp makes some pretty powerful bass tones out of a passive set so I'm starting to reconsider)

Also, I have been setting my eyes on getting this off of Bellone's if possible and have the 145 done through that. Viable? https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/JS3VMBB

If I had the choice I would've outright bought the Gabe Crisp bass but the price point is really steep in CAD and I don't think there is any other retailer that sells it here in London (Ontario) other than L&M.

Thanks,
WintermintP


----------



## bostjan

I feel like we're going in circles now, but http://www.rondomusic.com/Brice_HXB2_405_37_NatB.html is $380USD


----------



## ixlramp

WintermintP said:


> The strings load from the bottom of the bridge rather than the back of the bass.


I misunderstood, i searched some photos and the bridge is top loading and you have to thread the whole string through a hole in the bridge tailpiece. So a taperwound .145 will work as in the tapered section will sit on the saddle.

The only issue is whether the .145 will pass through that hole, if a .135 does a .145 probably will, you can judge this by unstringing your .135 temporarily, passing the string backwards a few inches through the bridge, then looking at the gap with some light behind. if it needs filing wider it will only need to be very slightly wider and a diamond needle file or a drill bit made for metal can do that.
Remember that .135->.145 is the width of a guitar's top string.

If using a drill with a bit suitable for metal, you can use the largest bit that will fit through the hole and ream out the hole slightly with a continuous circular motion and gentle outwards pressure.

Maybe get a friend or family member who is good with tools to widen the hole for you.


WintermintP said:


> A needle file? If only I knew where to get one


Best order online in case a tool shop doesn't have what you need. They're cheap, but make sure it is a small diamond needle file with a round cross-section.


bostjan said:


> I don't get the impression that the Toby is particularly well suited for extreme down-tuning.


Meh i wouldn't judge it by online videos, that could be EQ or amp issues. I can see nothing that makes this bass unsuitable for low tunings (apart from having to pass the whole string through a bridge hole, if that needs widening). You really don't need a new bass, at least try a thicker string first, it's much cheaper. The cost of a pitch shifter will pay for years of slightly thicker strings, the .145 singles are only slightly more expensive than the .135 singles. Just make sure to get a taperwound string, and since your bass is 34" scale, if buying a D'Addario string get the 'long scale' version, not the 'super long scale' version.


----------



## bostjan

ixlramp said:


> Meh i wouldn't judge it by online videos, that could be EQ or amp issues. I can see nothing that makes this bass unsuitable for low tunings.



Well, to be particularly exact, I carefully worded that statement so as to say that I did NOT see anything convincing me that it was SUITABLE for low tunings. Lack of supporting evidence is not evidence of the contrary, but that's only part of the equation in this case.

I have a bunch of basses. More than I'd like to admit. Some of them just don't handle low tunings as well as others, but, as a pretty good general rule, the ones that are specifically made to handle low tunings, like the Brice and the Dingwall, sound a hell of a lot better tuned down than the ones that are not. Even my Fender J Bass sounds pretty decent with low tunings, for what it is, but the Brice that cost me $100 less just plain old goes lower better. Others, like the Parker bass, which is a phenomenal instrument, just loses every little bit of sonic power tuned lower than C or C#. I guess this all sounds very subjective, and I'm probably too lazy to post a couple dozen clips just to support this point that someone will try to undermine by saying my EQ settings or whatever were not optimal, but FWIW, I really think it's pretty obvious how bad some of these basses sound tuned down when you actually play them. I don't know which the Toby is, maybe it sounds phenomenal tuned to G without any fuss, but then this thread would not exist, would it?


----------



## ixlramp

Sorry, i took the wording the wrong way, you are correct.


----------



## WintermintP

Sorry for another necro! I do have big news, though.

After trying out the Digitech Drop for a while, I did find use for the pedal, but not for bass. As for bass, I ended up buying an Ibanez SR405QM at a discounted price due to a discontinued blue finish which I really love! *AND* they're going to put the 55-110 + 145 on it just for the price of the strings alone! (i.e. the setup is going to be for free and I just have to pay for the strings!) T3T Such a sweet deal at long last...

WintermintP


----------



## lewis

WintermintP said:


> Sorry for another necro! I do have big news, though.
> 
> After trying out the Digitech Drop for a while, I did find use for the pedal, but not for bass. As for bass, I ended up buying an Ibanez SR405QM at a discounted price due to a discontinued blue finish which I really love! *AND* they're going to put the 55-110 + 145 on it just for the price of the strings alone! (i.e. the setup is going to be for free and I just have to pay for the strings!) T3T Such a sweet deal at long last...
> 
> WintermintP


oooh sweet!
I will look out for more when it arrives!


----------



## WintermintP

lewis said:


> oooh sweet!
> I will look out for more when it arrives!



MHM! Also with that blue it's going to be so dreamy...







WintermintP


----------



## WintermintP

Okay, I'll post the pic of the new bass later but I'm going to do another update on the bass.

As it turns out, the bass just needed some time in order for the tension to set in, and by the time it did, lo and behold... that note definition just blew all other basses I've played out of the water. Can't wait to sell that Toby Deluxe. That completely cheap-ass bullshit bass can go to the scrapyard for all I care.

That new SR405EQM bass is going to be my new favourite bass for the rest of my life, especially with that blue finish...






WintermintP


----------

