# Optimum scale length / string gauge for F# ?



## ra1der2 (Feb 23, 2015)

Hey guys, I want to use a 35" scale length 5 string tuned F# B E A D

I don't want it to sound like king kong farting when I hit the F#. 

A conundrum? 

I did a search but nothing really gave me a definitive answer. I haven't attempted to work out string gauge / tensions for it on my own yet but from what I've read here I'd be looking at around a .170+ for the F#.

Does anyone have any experience on getting it sounding as tight as possible at this scale length?

Opinions on what scale length would be optimal for a reasonably tight sounding F#?

I'm also interested in any string tension data (in lbs of tension per string) on standard B E A D G -vs- F# B E A D tuning at 35" scale. I've spent a lot of time working on getting my 8 string guitars setup with optimal string tensions but have no knowledge of bass string tensions.

BTW When I say tight I mean like not flubby sounding, just to clarify.

Thanks in advance for any further insight!


----------



## beavis2306 (Feb 24, 2015)

Hey, my mate has a 35inch and we put a kalium .182 on it for g#. Tension is ok but it sounds a bit ordinary. I'm reasonably sure this is pickup/preamp related though. For what it's worth i'm trying to talk him into getting a dingwall ng2 as i think the longer scale would be helpful and the darkglass preamp sounds tits.

I'd be keen to know how you go with this. Good luck


----------



## akinari (Feb 24, 2015)

I would use either a .182 or a .174 from Kalium for F# at 35". That's between 37 and 41 pounds of tension, which may seem excessive to you when you look at the numbers but is actually quite reasonable. Right now my 5 string J bass is in drop F# with a .166 and it's a little bit floppy, but I use really thin picks when I play so it works out alright. Sounds surprisingly bright and punchy considering how low it is. .174 5 String 34 to 35 Scale Length Balanced annnnnd .182 5 String 34 to 35 Scale Length Balanced are the sets I'd recommend for balanced tension


----------



## bostjan (Feb 24, 2015)

F# at 35" is either going to sound clunky or flubby or both. It's low enough of a tone, though, that you just have to live with it. If you use a light attack, it's better, in my opinion, to go on the flubby (lighter gauge) side. If you are patient, you can snag a used Dingwall Combustion for under a thousand bucks to get a couple extra inches on that low F#, which makes a difference, as it'll sound noticeably less clunky with a thicker gauge string.

That's not to say it's not worth tuning that low, if that is what your heart desires, unless you have extended range, it is merely a fact that the tone is going to be restricted by the lack of scale length.


----------



## RV350ALSCYTHE (Feb 24, 2015)

I'm finding the problem isn't scale length for tuning this low. I've compared (with many uncontrolled variables ) two different scaled basses with different strings and found nearly the same result.

Im my experience it (F# and lower) never produces the same rich overtones (or maybe it's the fundamental that's weak), OR the volume that the rest of the string set does.
I've tuned a CK .166 down from F# to E and all the way up to B on a 37" scale and it never sounded good. It always had a muffled sound and lower volume. The .130 string rang like a glorious bell in comparison, regardless of tuning at 37".
Through a Lace Bassbar pickup, supposedly very clear and open but the low string still lacked clarity and volume.

Comparing that to a D'Addario .130 at 35" tuned down to F# to the above example, I've found that the same issue is there that tuning this low just doesn't have the fullness or volume to match the rest of the stringset. Yes it also lacks a lot of tension, but it was still marginally usable for a really clanky attack. The rest of the string set was audibly fine and much fuller/louder than the .130 at such a low tuning.
Through an EMG 35DC.

I'm starting to believe it all comes down to EQ and having control over the right frequency bands. With a lot of knob turning I can improve the tone from both examples, but the underlying issue is still there and has caused me to tune up and forget about F# and lower. The Fundamental frequency is so close to the limit of what Speakers can produce that it probably will never sound as clear and loud as the rest.

I've also tuned a 30" ten string down to G#-E below standard bass B and found the same results that the guitar strings tuned bass B and above produce a clearer tone, whereas the strings tuned G# and lower were really lacking. All the Overtones are present and it sounds guitar-like but there is a very noticeable difference in volume and loss in the low-end.

I'm going to try a 40" scale out of curiosity as a longer scale seems to improve low note definition, but I'm nearly convinced the issue is the small range of audible frequency left to tune down and our ability to reproduce it.


----------



## Tom Drinkwater (Feb 24, 2015)

I made a 36" neck for my jazz bass to see what I could tune to using available string sets and no mods to the bridge and I got her down to drop E with Kalium .166 and what I found was that the pickups really weren't keeping up. I think that on a lot of basses the electronics and possibly even the amp/speakers may end up being the weakest link when tuning way down.


----------



## ra1der2 (Feb 25, 2015)

Thanks guy I really appreciate the help, there is a lot of great input here.

I definitely have my eye on a lower end dingwall in the future, but currently need to work with what I have, which is a pretty sweet white pfg warlock 5 stringer w/35" scale length, active electronics, and an atrocious neck dive. 

I agree this problem appears to be more an issue of the lower frequency not being produced adequately through the pickup / amp / speaker, and maybe even the string, or some combination of two or more of each of the above.

When I was thinking about this one of the first things that came to mind was EDM genres that pump out some pretty deep electronic bass tones. If they can be produced electronically then it only seems logical that the gap in this bridge must be more in the capability of the bass string, electronics and/or amplification as opposed to the actual capability of the speaker output to some extent.

I plan on snagging a few different gauges around the .150 to .180 range and play around with them a bit to see what transpires.


----------



## ixlramp (Mar 1, 2015)

Kalium strings should be tried, they are apparently clearer and more flexible than other brands. Big strings will always sound dark but they can still sound good at 34"/35". F# on a 35" scale is not that extreme, many ERBassists use much bigger strings on that scale. Kalium recommend a minimum tension of just over 30 pounds for their big strings. Here's the very useful tension chart that can also roughly approximate other brands http://circlekstrings.com/CKSIMAGES/CircleKtensionChart130105.pdf
I recommend buying some singles from Kalium, try a .166 first (minimum recommended tension) and work your way up if not tight enough. The smaller gauges have more chance of intonating on a standard bridge.


----------



## ra1der2 (Mar 3, 2015)

I did some research on my own and discovered the warwick vampyre dark lord, a 35" scale 4 string tuned F# B E A from the factory and I decided to try out the warwick red label .175 first.

Shortly after that I discovered that rotosound makes a set called drop zone *

Rotosound RS66LH+*

that uses the exact same gauges as the warwick set .085 .105 .135 .175 and the entire rotosound set only cost a few bux more than I paid for the single warwick .175

I also did a search fro 4 string basses with a 35" scale length and am considering selling the 5 string warlock to go for a #F B E A setup 4 string instead.

I've never had any complaint with rotos, and I've never tried circle k / kalium, so I figured if the bigger names are offering them, I want to try those first and go from there.


----------

