Low G tuning with standard strings?

mikelz777

mikelz777

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
3,248
Reaction score
3,016
Location
MN metro suburbs
Can you do a low G tuning using standard strings?

If the standard GCEA strings are numbered 1 (string closest to floor) to 4 (string closest to ceiling) and you reordered them from 1, 2, 3, 4 to 1, 4, 2, 3 would that work properly? The reordering would put the largest gauge string closest to the ceiling and then each string below that would descend to the lowest gauge string closest to the floor in order.

Example: Martin M600

(A)1 - .0191
(E)2 - .0256
(C)3 - .0340
(G)4 - .0216 (standard G tuning)

reordered:

(A)1 - .0191
(E)4 - .0216
(C)2 - .0256
(G)3 - .0340 (tune to low G)

I may have a 2nd uke soon and would like to see what it would be like to tune the "spare" uke to a low G. I already have spare strings so I'm hoping I could achieve a low G tuning using them rather than having to find/buy a low G.

Maybe I'm totally off and the above approach wouldn't work but if not, is there another way to achieve a low G tuning using a standard set of strings? (assuming you're starting with a new set)
 
Last edited:
If you do, you'll wind up with a very slack 3 and 4.

The normal 4 will be tuned a fifth low, and the normal 3 a 4th low.

I would call that "Unplayably slack." A single low-G would be better, but best would be getting a dedicated low-G set, of which there are dozens available.
 
String sets are really inexpensive. It's your ukulele and you can do what you want, but I don't understand the need to reconfigure strings made for re-entrant G tuning to get low G tuning when for somewhere between $5 and $10 you can get a set made for that purpose.
 
mds725 said:
.... I don't understand the need to reconfigure strings made for re-entrant G tuning to get low G tuning...
Click to expand...

-Because I already have several sets of re-entrant strings, I don't have any low G string sets
-Because I have re-entrant strings I like here and now with no added expense whereas to get low G strings I have to find them, order them, wait for them, incur additional expenses and hope that I like them.
-If I can achieve a working low G set up with what I already have, why wouldn't I?
 
mikelz777 said:
-Because I already have several sets of re-entrant strings, I don't have any low G string sets
-Because I have re-entrant strings I like here and now with no added expense whereas to get low G strings I have to find them, order them, wait for them, incur additional expenses and hope that I like them.
-If I can achieve a working low G set up with what I already have, why wouldn't I?
Click to expand...

Well I suppose were that a feasible solution it would be a reasonable approach, yes.
:cool:

Unfortunately it isn't.
 
cdkrugjr said:
Well I suppose were that a feasible solution it would be a reasonable approach, yes.
:cool:

Unfortunately it isn't.
Click to expand...

That was kind of my point. The OP would be asking at least three strings to do something other than what they were designed to do. Even if those strings could do something other than what they were designed to do, I can't imagine they'd do it well. I like experimentation as much as the next person, and I hope the OP tries reentrant strings as low G strings. I'd be curious to see how it works, if it does. But if it doesn't work, maybe he can swap a set of his reentrant strings for a set of low G strings.
 
keep the first 3 of the re-entrant set but buy a single string for classical guitar at your local music store, probably a D string, nylon wound, cost $1-2
 
clayton56 said:
keep the first 3 of the re-entrant set but buy a single string for classical guitar at your local music store, probably a D string, nylon wound, cost $1-2
Click to expand...
Thats what i'd do as well.
 
Well, I'm a big fan of trying to make due with what I already have but it doesn't sound like it's going to work. It was an idea that sounded good in theory but apparently won't work in practice. Maybe I'll still try it out with an old set of strings if I can make the lengths work or if I feel like fussing around with a lot of changing around strings next time I put a new set on. Thanks for the replies.
 
Last edited:
mikelz777 said:
Can you do a low G tuning using standard strings?

If the standard GCEA strings are numbered 1 (string closest to floor) to 4 (string closest to ceiling) and you reordered them from 1, 2, 3, 4 to 1, 4, 2, 3 would that work properly? The reordering would put the largest gauge string closest to the ceiling and then each string below that would descend to the lowest gauge string closest to the floor in order.

Example: Martin M600

(A)1 - .0191
(E)2 - .0256
(C)3 - .0340
(G)4 - .0216 (standard G tuning)

reordered:

(A)1 - .0191
(E)4 - .0216
(C)2 - .0256
(G)3 - .0340 (tune to low G)

I may have a 2nd uke soon and would like to see what it would be like to tune the "spare" uke to a low G. I already have spare strings so I'm hoping I could achieve a low G tuning using them rather than having to find/buy a low G.

Maybe I'm totally off and the above approach wouldn't work but if not, is there another way to achieve a low G tuning using a standard set of strings? (assuming you're starting with a new set)
Click to expand...


you are gonna end up with a floppy g string and it won't sound right it wont have the right tension to give it a powerful bass boom.
i would just buy a single low G string for whatever size you have it should be pretty cheap and just install the one string.
 
iamesperambient said:
you are gonna end up with a floppy g string and it won't sound right it wont have the right tension to give it a powerful bass boom.
i would just buy a single low G string for whatever size you have it should be pretty cheap and just install the one string.
Click to expand...

I agree. :cool:
 
I have done this with Aquila strings on a TENOR scale and it works fine:

Low G Tuning Using A Set Of 'High G' Re-entrant Strings:

For G use the C string
For C use the E string.
For E Use the G string.
For A use the A string

Did it once on a CONCERT scale and it was acceptable.On a Soprano,it does not sound good!
I got the idea from a site that said that IZ used to string his ukes this way,and that was good
enough for me to try!
 
The tension would definitely be pretty low on the G and C strings. If you can adjust to that it might work "ok" or might not and a lot of the answer probably depends on the uke in question. While you might get it to work, I don't think it would be optimum, and I'd be especially concerned about intonation on those slack strings if you play up the neck at all.

All in all probably better to get a single classical guitar string for the low G. On baritone ukes I've found that a guitar string up a fifth from the intended note works well (i.e. a "D" guitar string for the "G" on a baritone uke). I think that G on the baritone is the same pitch as the low G so a "D" string would be a good start but on a shorter scale (tenor or concert) you might end up needing to try an "A" string.

John
 
It is interesting to me that people spend hundreds if not thousands on a ukulele and then try to skimp and save $5 - $10 on strings
Cliff
 
Osprey said:
It is interesting to me that people spend hundreds if not thousands on a ukulele and then try to skimp and save $5 - $10 on strings
Cliff
Click to expand...

The whole point of starting the topic was one of expediency and convenience, not skimping and saving. I was hoping that I could achieve a low G tuning here and now with what I already had on hand and proposed a method I hoped would work. From what I'm hearing in response it's not going to work and that's fine, it's part of the learning process. It's not like I'm never going to experience a low G tuning because of a perceived stubborn refusal to air out the wallet and spend $5-$10. I guess implying I'm cheap is one way someone might interpret this thread but it's not what was intended in starting it.
 
Hi, I think Glen Rose did it with his baritone uke. He used a concert strings set and reordered it.

I tried it once with my baritone using aquila baritone gCEA set.
So the order of the strings goes like this CEgA and I tuned it into GCEA. The top three strings that I reordered worked well and the tension felt nice to me but the A string kept breaking, wonder why...

I'm not an expert, just wanna share and hope this can be a little help for you :D
 
Use a normal set to make a low G string set up

I’m strictly a jazz ukulele player and as you may know from my Jazzy Ukulele books, I only play with a low-G configuration.
I do this easily enough by taking a new set of strings and just rearranging them in order of thickness. You pretty much just take the high-G and put it where the A string is. You’ll probably want to get a new set because if the strings you have on now are cut they might not be long enough when swapped. I’m quite satisfied with this sound. All the tensions are just fine. You’ll hear how it sounds on all of my YouTube video postings. I have a page devoted to it at the end of Jazzy Ukulele Workbook One, but you can get a free PDF download explaining in detail from the first page of the Jazzyukulele.com web site. I’m not saying that this is the best or only way, only what I do and am happy with. That’s my two-cents worth. I typically use Aquila strings.
Glen Rose – Jazzy Ukulele
 
Last edited:
Another way that has worked for me in the past is to just use another 'C' string as the low G. Tension for me was fiine.
Give it a bash............
Cheers
Gary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Captain Simian
Low Standard Tuning
Replies
7
Views
320
kissing
kissing
rreffner
  • Poll
Poll: Low G vs. Standard tuning
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
UkuLeLesReggAe
UkuLeLesReggAe
M
Low G tuning
2
Replies
26
Views
754
Timm_S
Timm_S
M
Set of strings for a EAC#F# tuning with a Low E
Replies
6
Views
296
anthonyg
anthonyg
hollisdwyer
Strings What diameter string to achieve a low C tuning instead of low G?
Replies
8
Views
350
keenonuke
K
Top Bottom