The fatter the string, the fatter the tone?

[Guest ixlramp]

For a particular pitch, increasing gauge increases tension, so creates more harmonics. But there is also an opposite effect (probably a smaller effect for most strings in most situations), a larger gauge is also stiffer which tends to reduce harmonics.

The 2 opposite effects may perhaps become close to cancelling each other out for B strings and lower, where gauge is very large and stiffness is very high.

Some people find a small loose B like .110 preferable to a large tight B like .145.

Edited February 14, 2019 by ixlramp

[itu]

This probably has a lot to do how the strings are played, too. Close to the bridge or the neck, slapping etc. One more issue sure is that how old the strings are: after a year the amount of gunk has changed the performance drastically.

[Jay2U]

8 hours ago, itu said:

This probably has a lot to do how the strings are played, too. Close to the bridge or the neck, slapping etc. One more issue sure is that how old the strings are: after a year the amount of gunk has changed the performance drastically.

A year? Eight weeks is all roundwounds get, ten if I'm having a holiday. Flatwounds stay on way longer.

The tests were performed with brand new strings.

 

[itu]

Yes, I do change my strings far more often, too. Just an example.

[tauzero]

If I play the same note on three different strings - say a B on the B, E, and A strings - the sound is, for want of an objective term, thicker and fatter on the lowest string and gets thinner and more trebley on the thinner strings. Are you saying that I'm breaking the laws of physics?

[Jay2U]

Nope! Different active (vibrating) lengths are involved. Because the strumming position doesn't change, a shorter (fretted) string is strummed relatively closer to its centre. This affects the number of audible harmonics produced. Try strumming an open string at the 12th fret. It'll produce a relatively dull tone without the second harmonic. Of course the position of the pickup(s) plays an equal role.

Also the length/gauge ratio isn't equal, which makes this even more complicated. A shorter piece of string means less mass, so less energy. That's why I chose equal fret positions (2nd) for producing the sound samples. The only variable was the string gauge, resulting in different tensions.

It's a complicated matter with many variables. Not to mention how the behaviour of the neck and body, with a partly vibrating string compared to an open string, affects the composition of the tone. 

Edited February 23, 2019 by Jay2U

[tauzero]

I've just checked, plucking the strings at the midpoint of the speaking length (so plucking at 24th fret when fretting E string at 12, 19th fret when fretting A string at 7, 14th fret when fretting D string at 2) and the E string is more bassy, the D string the most trebly. Admittedly I haven't moved the pickups around, I suppose I should try it with a piezo bridge bass.

[Jay2U]

Would be interesting to have a bass with a pickup that could be moved back and forth. I once played one, see pic below.

[hooky_lowdown]

1 hour ago, Jay2U said:

Would be interesting to have a bass with a pickup that could be moved back and forth. I once played one, see pic below.

There's been a few basses with a sliding pickup, Gibson's Ripper or Grabber had one.

[Jay2U]

...and rotating, but then it's two positions only.

 

[Guest ixlramp]

To clarify, what this thread is about is the affect on tone resulting from choosing the gauge for a particular pitch, with all else being equal: scale length, note being played, method of exciting the string etc. It's not about whether the thicker or thinner strings on a bass sound fatter, or playing the same note at different places on the fretboard.

This addresses the situation where someone is discussing gauges for a tuning and writes in a forum, as they often do, "I prefer larger gauges for more low end/bass" and shows that this is not the case. The tone they prefer actually has less amplitude in the lower harmonics relative to the higher ones.

[Stub Mandrel]

On 18/12/2018 at 20:32, Jay2U said:

I don't think so!

A fatter string requires more tension in order to make it's higher mass resonate at a given frequency. More mass and tension require more energy for the same amplitude. Apart from the fundamental tone, harmonics appear along the string. The more energy, the more harmonics. As those harmonics are multiples of the fundamental frequency, the result will be a richer tone, not a fatter tone.

As the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I analysed the waveforms produced by both, thin and fat strings. It can be clearly seen that the percentage of harmonics versus the fundamental frequency depends on string gauge. In other words: Thinner strings produce more boom.

In the graph tone, gauge and tension are listed.

There's more going on than simply the amount of harmonics there. There are some really complex mixes. Lots of even harmonics will tend to give a saw-tooth shape like the 0.055 string.  This will sound smooth and rich (like  bowed strings) while lots of even harmonics will tend towards a square wave (fuzz box) and sound harsh. A pure sine wave tends to sound a bit 'meh'.

The fatter strings aren't really looking like square waves but loook harmonically richer across the boards.

It would be interesting to see a spectrum analysis that shows the energy in the different harmonics and with the odd and even series mixed in.

As has been mentioned, moving towards the bridge increases harmonic content. In theory a pluck right on the end should give a triangle wave but in my experience this works with washing lines better than basses....