# What sorts of basses are best suited to tune to F#?



## amassivetree (Feb 26, 2009)

So as I wait for my intrepid, I'm thinking my 4-string bass might not cut it anymore, and thinking about F# tuning. I've read the threads on the pros/cons, realize that its going to be difficult to amplify, and having seen Meshuggah live recently its obvious that you can sound plenty heavy without tuning so low ... but something about the ridiculousness of F# tuning seems to appeal to me still. Having seen MF_kitten's seven string has given me a bit of GAS as well. And now finally, the question: 

What sorts of basses are best suited to tune to F#?

Ive seen and heard some on this forum doing it with a schecter I think, warwick dark lords ( a bit pricey for me) and these seven string monsters (Woodo, Conklin). And I'm partly trying to talk myself into a seven string, thinking that a massive neck, double truss rods, etc. might better handle the tension. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Variant (Feb 26, 2009)

First, the idea that big strings = more tension is not true , it's going to be respective to the tuning. I have a .195 on my Conklin GTBD-7, which I tune to D0 and E0, and its somewhere around 17-19 lbs. of tension. 

The most important factors with a subcontra bass setup is going to be instrument mass, wood density (merely to get the most energy into the low string, not necessarily to affect its tone so much) and good pick-ups / electronics. The Conklin GTBD-7 and Warwick Dark Lord were both designed with those things in mind, so that's probably a good place to start... but I believe that any good quality bass, with decent pickups on it, can give you a usable F#0 . Also, keep in mind that you're going to want the other notes on the bass (not just the uber-low ones) to sound good as well, so choose wisely.


----------



## XeoFLCL (Feb 26, 2009)

Yeah, I'm getting a 6 string bass today in a trade and I'm considering tuning it to F# because I'm not sure how I would use that high C. I'd prolly tune it to B because that C would just get in the way, or experiment with an F# like you plan to. The bass I'm getting has a Hard Ash body.. I'm pretty sure ash would take well to an F#, or I can hope, at least. What I can say is just get a 6 string bass and take off the high C so there's nothing that wasn't already there lost. Alot of people do that with 6 strings, eitherway so it's not like taking a 4 string and tuning it to F#BEA . Anything past 6 strings is a luxury, and a rarity at that and will prolly cost quite a bit more then the usual.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Feb 26, 2009)

Warwick Vampyre BO Dark Lord was designed for F# tuning and came with a .175 gauge F# string.

http://www.warwick.de/modules/produkte/produkt.php?katID=14460&cl=EN


----------



## knuckle_head (Feb 27, 2009)

XeoFLCL said:


> ....so it's not like taking a 4 string and tuning it to F#BEA .



I don't see the problem - my 4 string is tuned to octave down E (yes - 20 Hz).


----------



## XeoFLCL (Feb 27, 2009)

knuckle_head said:


> I don't see the problem - my 4 string is tuned to octave down E (yes - 20 Hz).


There's definitely no problem with it. It's just by doing that, you lose alot of highend range if you don't tune in 5ths unfortunately..


----------



## knuckle_head (Feb 27, 2009)

Variant said:


> I have a .195 on my Conklin GTBD-7, which I tune to D0 and E0, and its somewhere around 17-19 lbs. of tension.



When you kill that string or get tired of it I'd like to know something about it...

When it's off your bass and never going back on clip the string on both ends so that any taper is gone, then it take it to a grocery store and have the meat counter weigh it for you. As accurately as possible measure the length of the clipped string and divide the weight by the length.

That will give you unit mass more or less. I have a spread sheet that can calculate tension based on mass, scale length and tuning - I suspect the .195 is a bit tighter than 19 pounds but I can't say that with certainty. I could with the unit mass data.

You need a project any way, don'tcha? 



XeoFLCL said:


> There's definitely no problem with it. It's just by doing that, you lose alot of highend range if you don't tune in 5ths unfortunately..



True dat - I was being a bit cheeky. 

Best bet for a F# bass is one that has a solid neck joint and as much mass as your back can support. It might almost be worth setting the neck in with glue if you are willing to go that far.

Electronics matter some - but what works well with F# works well on any bass. You don't need anything active really. You just need something that is as uncolored as possible and has as much output as does not compromise tone/harmonics.


----------



## Spinedriver (Feb 27, 2009)

if you look at the specs, the Vampyre has a scale of 35" (vs normal 34") which could account for that extra little bit of tension.

For a more 'affordable' 35" scale, check out the Ibanez BTB line. They're designed for lower tunings, hence the longer scale.

Ibanez :: Electric Guitars


----------



## ugmung (Feb 27, 2009)

although i know i'm probably wrong, but i always thought the bassist for Meshuggah used a four string tuned UP to F, to compensate for the lows. it made sense to me since low + low + extremely low, might fuck things up a bit. i just thought that how they distorted the bass covered it up in the mixes and stuff and helped it blend in with the guitars... being the noob i am, i always thought that's where they got the ridiculous attack that they have, is from the highs and the snap from the tuned up four string.  



chew on that... because i'm confused.


----------



## Coobanez (Feb 27, 2009)

^ Low C on his 5-string Warwick's.
Most bassists Don't tune that low, because it's very unrealistic and would take a really expensive rig. I read an article on the Warwick with the Low F#, and it recommended expensive patch-chordes with gold entwined to help conduct the single, as that could be a problem with your average $15 cable, and to use very high-end amplification, as a low F# on a bass is almost inaudible. Ryan Martinie used to have a low F# on his 5-string Warwick thumb bass's long ago, that's how he got those cool bend sounds in Dig and other songs, but he used that low string very sparingly.


----------



## XeoFLCL (Feb 28, 2009)

Well, I got my 6 string bass not long ago, and I'm currently tuning it to G# for cannibal corpse stuff. I haven't had too much trouble, but that might be because the bass itself easily tops 12 pounds (all hard ash body, maple neck.. really heavy stuff.) I'll prolly end up trying drop F#, as I already have whats a .135 on there and going to a .150 would prolly let me tune to F# without being TOO floppy.. or so I think.

Didn't Chi (Get well soon chi ) tune to F# on Deftones' Saturday Night Wrist?


----------



## knuckle_head (Feb 28, 2009)

Spinedriver said:


> if you look at the specs, the Vampyre has a scale of 35" (vs normal 34") which could account for that extra little bit of tension.
> 
> For a more 'affordable' 35" scale, check out the Ibanez BTB line. They're designed for lower tunings, hence the longer scale.


If you consider a standard tapered B string of .135 you would only gain 2 pounds of tension going from 34" to 35" - you might feel that and you might not. When you get up into the .175 range there will be about a 1 pound difference in tension.

Best to consider a 36" or 38" scale if it's the bass end of things you want to switch out. Getting a thicker string for a 34" scale would be the cheaper option.



Coobanez said:


> ^ Low C on his 5-string Warwick's.
> Most bassists Don't tune that low, because it's very unrealistic and would take a really expensive rig. I read an article on the Warwick with the Low F#, and it recommended expensive patch-chordes with gold entwined to help conduct the single, as that could be a problem with your average $15 cable, and to use very high-end amplification, as a low F# on a bass is almost inaudible.


Most bassists don't tune this low because they don't realize it is a viable option.

The Warwick string is a better G string than F# string - I played the Vampyre with the .175 and it was too loose for F#. 

You don't need expensive gear or high tech patch cables to have an effective F# or E. If the bass is solid and rigid and your strings are tight enough to have a complete harmonic overtone structure then any rig that does 45 Hz or lower will give you a stellar F# or E.



XeoFLCL said:


> Well, I got my 6 string bass not long ago, and I'm currently tuning it to G# for cannibal corpse stuff. I haven't had too much trouble, but that might be because the bass itself easily tops 12 pounds (all hard ash body, maple neck.. really heavy stuff.) I'll prolly end up trying drop F#, as I already have whats a .135 on there and going to a .150 would prolly let me tune to F# without being TOO floppy.. or so I think


The Conklin site offers up what Jauqo III-X uses - a .165 bare core - for F#. The Warwick Black Label .175 is the better bet at the moment.

IMO I really doubt you would be happy with a .150 tuned to F#


----------



## ugmung (Feb 28, 2009)

well, thinking cost effectiveness, we are not sure how willing or needful the threadstarter is to pump out that much cash for all the necessary equipment, we are unsure of what he has at this point. if you put all of this in play, he would spend twice the money of his guitar rig, just to have a bass rig that could handle the low F#.

so the real questions at this point, now that we have possible solutions in place, are, how much would all of this cost, and is it THAT necessary to spend the money on all of this equipment. 

i don't think it would be worth it.


----------



## knuckle_head (Mar 1, 2009)

The cost of entry is $34.

It is likely the bass he has will work fine with some adjustments he can probably make himself. If he has a rig that works at present it will probably be fine for now AND going forward. He can ad another cab when he has the cash and knows that he wants more from his rig - he may not like the F# so there is no immediate need to dump or ad to his rig.

The answer is $34 - I think its worth it to see if the F# serves his personal and band needs.


----------



## Variant (Mar 2, 2009)

knuckle_head said:


> > Originally Posted by *Coobanez*
> > Most bassists Don't tune that low, because it's very unrealistic and would take a really expensive rig. I read an article on the Warwick with the Low F#, and it recommended expensive patch-chordes with gold entwined to help conduct the single, as that could be a problem with your average $15 cable, and to use very high-end amplification, as a low F# on a bass is almost inaudible.
> 
> 
> ...



 Coobanez's comments prompt me to use a term favored by previous generations here: *Hogwash! * 

While some pieces of gear will work *better* with a bass tuned that low than others, F#0 is very achievable and does not require any special amplification or connections. In fact, I choose to go direct with my bass and have recorded stuff down too C#0 (17.32 Hz) without any trouble. It is true that the fundamental becomes harder and harder to hear & differentiate as you venture below E0, but I can walk notes up and down the E0 string and *clearly* separate the tones through my 8" two-way studio monitors (my sub is not working right now) and my headphones. The psychoacoustic effect of the overtones generated allows for this, while a decent sub will generate all the necessary audible and non-audible low end notes for you to hear and feel. 

I *will* say the sound of the sub string is different than a B0, just as a B0 sounds different than a E1 and that must be kept in mind when working in this territory (but the same goes for guitars) and your tonal settings and playing style may vary accordingly... but I can say with certainty that taking the sub bass out of my mixes makes them sound very different.


----------



## demolisher (Mar 2, 2009)

knuckle_head said:


> stuff



A 175 at 35 inches isn't enough for *you*, I use a .150 for F# at 34 inches because my right hand technique is light and huge strings sound like shit(at this scale), I have went *down *from the sit .165 becuase it didn't work for me. You're not the only one who has played the dark lord, the tension is damn tight for me and it doesnt sound too good. I, and probably everyone else, is in understanding that a 36 and up will sound the best (39.5 probably being the best at this point*cough*) and be easiest to play but I don't think he wants to drop three thousand on an instrument right now*doublecough*. 

I have had people play my bass and it sounded like shit and then I take it and it sounds alot better. My tone isn't godly clear and no audiophile is going to beat off to my F0 fundamental, It might not be good enough jazz or solo wanking but in a band setting it sounds damn good. Sure If I increased my scale 4 or 5 inches it would sound awesome and have great tension but is that really cost effective vs the tone I have now? No.


----------



## knuckle_head (Mar 2, 2009)

Right - nor could I play your .150 as I am ham-handed and have lousy technique.

My only point here is that to get into the F#/E game the ONLY thing that is really required is a new string - and not even a full set either. Just the single string. And as you deftly pointed out he has a fair number of options.

I hope that cough gets better...


----------



## demolisher (Mar 2, 2009)

knuckle_head said:


> Right - nor could I play your .150 as I am ham-handed and have lousy technique.
> 
> My only point here is that to get into the F#/E game the ONLY thing that is really required is a new string - and not even a full set either. Just the single string. And as you deftly pointed out he has a fair number of options.
> 
> I hope that cough gets better...




Don't worry, your one of the few that makes an instrument worth that much, that is deserving of the price.


----------



## ixlramp (Mar 3, 2009)

I have a neck through Ibanez BTB 676 6 string on order. I like these basses since they are affordable, have a 35 inch scale, large heavy body, strong wide neck with 2 truss rods and a 45 degree break angle over the saddles for lots of down force. Ideal for low tunings


----------



## amassivetree (Mar 4, 2009)

Thanks for all the useful discussion, guys. I dont actually have much of a rig at the moment, Im playing bass for recording or when we can't find a real bass player. Looks like the consensus is something solid, heavy strings, and it may or may not make sense. But $34 sounds like its worth it for some fun.


----------



## knuckle_head (Mar 4, 2009)

amassivetree said:


> Thanks for all the useful discussion, guys. I dont actually have much of a rig at the moment, Im playing bass for recording or when we can't find a real bass player. Looks like the consensus is something solid, heavy strings, and it may or may not make sense. But $34 sounds like its worth it for some fun.



I'd like to hear what you find out when you do this - fill us in, 'kay?


----------



## Scarpie (Mar 25, 2009)

i just thought i would chime in with my two or half cent. i'm experimenting with basses and tunings cause i am looking to go full force with my new guitar. 

i figured i could go with mesh's strategy which seems silly to me or mnemics and go the octave down. so i went with trying the octave lower. bought that .165 from conklin and i think it sounds aweful at F#. it sounded very dull and lifeless. quite frankly did better at C#0 where as the when i tried F# with the .125 it actually sounded better and clearer. doesn't make much sense cause it contradicts all i know as far as theory and audio fundamentals. but this just pays to the one thing i learned from dimebag, "think outside the box and do what sounds best even if it makes no damn sense"


----------

