[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Emanuele Carbone

Thanks for your reply.

I wouldn't say my bass suffers from a bit more tension (in fact it proved the contrary), the top has a good curvature, it's not sunk at all, and though not overly thick it's not at all like one of those instruments which look like they would crack just by looking at them. It's like one of those new "9mm/1cm instruments" in their thickest top spot, if you know what I mean.

What leaves me a bit dubious is that they chose to add some sort of "side braces" on the inner parts of the ribs (parallel to the soundpost, I mean), I'd say two for each side on the bottom part and one over the C bout, if I'm not wrong.. they'd surely prevent the sides from warping, is that extra wood really necessary, though?

BTW, I'd personally go for a mellower, deeper and more robust kind of string than the Flex 92s the next time (they weren't my choice on that bass), a model you'd associate with "the orchestra sound", also because that bass is very young and rather bright for now.

That set of Flex sounds quite evenly when tuned up as solo, when tuned normally my feedback would be, from top to bottom and referring to my standpoint while playing:

G - A bit harsh at times, especially the open note. Acceptable, anyway

D - Quite warm and resonating, light-gauge feeling. The best sounding string

A - The worst. Thin, little body which "starts" later than the attack and anyway still sounds nasal to me, gets very scratchy especially in fast passages

E - Quite full sounding and resonating, way better than the A string... still a bit floppy and light-gauge in terms of feeling... we're talking of Flexs anyway!


So it seems that strings tend to sound better alternately (D and E), with the worst one being by far the A and the G being a bit harsh at times.

Recently, during an orchestral rehearsal, I asked another bassist to listen to my open strings some 6-7ish meters away. She said she heard them way more evenly sounding and less problematic than what I feel and fear. Still, they were long, open notes and I don't really like the response I get when I play at all when it comes to the A string.

I wasn't implying your top was thin. I was just showing the opposite of what your bass can be. Now that you say it is a newer bass, I think you have to look at the bass for your problem and not just the strings. You just can't take just any bass and make it sound how you like with a different string. I have the 92s on some of my basses now and they sound better than many other types of strings and with much more color. One of the darkest bowing strings are the Jargars. But these are completely different types of strings. I have them on my Panormo school bass now and I like the bigger more plush sound they give. I had Original Flatchromes on it before and while it was louder and sweeter on top, it wasn't as smooth feeling. The bass is self is a bit of an organ so I think even Spiros would work on that bass. The Flex 92s in the Stark gauge are darker then the regular set. The Belcantos are slightly louder but have a slight metallic sound in comparison and have a looser feel with a thicker string under the fingers. There are not many, if any choices for strings I know of to make a new bass sound old other than having an old bass with a big plush sound. I have had basses that sounded dark and smooth with Spiros on them so that's the opposite of what you have.

Try the Stark 92s and, have someone move your soundpost if it is straight under the bridge a cm down. Try moving it a half cm more down and a bit towards the f-hole away from the center but no more than 5-10mm. That will darken up your bass as well.