40-135: am I the only one??

[greenboy]

Originally Posted by alexclaber

In more normal sizes 40 55 75 100 130 is closest to balanced tension.

Or using 40-55-75-95-130/135 or even putting a 70 in for the 75. It depends on what you are after: initial attack tone, or sustained tone, and what the default voicing is of one's head and enclosure, and their EQ habits and technique.

[greenboy]

I'll give another example: I was using a set that 145 B looked like it would be better than the 135 I had there. But like a lot of string manufacturers, this company went from 3 wrap wires over the core for 135, to 4 wrap wires on the 145. This made the string a lot stiffer, less flexible, so it actually spoke less well than the 135 did. It stifled producing a natural overtone series well, unless you really laid into the string it didn't have good lower mids and the top end was more inharmonic.

That's one thing Skip has done at Circle K strings; he's looked at better core-to-wrap ratios (low F#0 strings get even trickier than low B strings so its important to leave no stone unturned!) so that all the strings balance well tonally together, and don't have such huge mass changes that the pickups of the bass are having problems with volume/output changes.

[LowB-ing]

Your praise of CircleK was actually what got him on my radar a few months ago. I just wish he'd hurry up and get that .145 string out. There's this huge hole in his product line between .135 and .175.

[greenboy]

Originally Posted by LowB-ing

I just wish he'd hurry up and get that .145 string out. There's this huge hole in his product line between .135 and .175.

About a fourth, more or less ; }

[knuckle_head]

Originally Posted by ZolkoW

< snip >

is there any reason, why the string tension is not equal across the string sets?

< snip >

Interestingly, yes there is. It used to be that speaker cabinets came nowhere near close to the 40 Hz a bass does - when all things were new it was likely closer to 80Hz. It was compounded when a 5th string was added.

A looser string makes more pronounced the fundamental at the expense of upper harmonics. This gives more audible volume to frequencies that rigs had/have a hard time with. This isn't evil if you amplify strictly, but when you go about using a DI live or for recording this gets dicey quick.

....and the 'hole' is nearly filled.

[HogieWan]

Originally Posted by knuckle_head

....and the 'hole' is nearly filled.

any chance of flats in those gauges/lengths?

[groovenut57]

Originally Posted by knuckle_head

A looser string makes more pronounced the fundamental at the expense of upper harmonics. This gives more audible volume to frequencies that rigs had/have a hard time with.

A very interesting perspective. I find this quite enlightening!

[greenboy]

If you believe it entirely true. I myself find that what Skip just said applies more to the inital attack... but during/sustain decay a looser string seems to vibrate more freely (if not constrained by hitting the frets/board) and thus produces more of the overtone series than one that is damping down to only the lower few harmonics due to its lesser flexibility.

[LowB-ing]

Good to know, I'm itching to order

Originally Posted by knuckle_head

....and the 'hole' is nearly filled.

[TheMutt]

Originally Posted by knuckle_head

Interestingly, yes there is. It used to be that speaker cabinets came nowhere near close to the 40 Hz a bass does - when all things were new it was likely closer to 80Hz. It was compounded when a 5th string was added.

A looser string makes more pronounced the fundamental at the expense of upper harmonics. This gives more audible volume to frequencies that rigs had/have a hard time with. This isn't evil if you amplify strictly, but when you go about using a DI live or for recording this gets dicey quick.

....and the 'hole' is nearly filled.

If only you offered flatwounds in the gauges you have.

[ZolkoW]

yesterday I put some older strings on my P... 45-60-80-105. the result? the best balance ever!
FOR ME, the G is a little stiff, maybe between 40 and 45 would be perfect for me.. but i'ts not an issue, much better in this way, than the thin-sounding .040. and at last, I don't have to care about loose E, because now it blends to the others quite well. my right hand feels it more even. great!

[groovenut57]

Originally Posted by ZolkoW

yesterday I put some older strings on my P... 45-60-80-105. the result? the best balance ever!
FOR ME, the G is a little stiff, maybe between 40 and 45 would be perfect for me.. but i'ts not an issue, much better in this way, than the thin-sounding .040. and at last, I don't have to care about loose E, because now it blends to the others quite well. my right hand feels it more even. great!

Using the D'Addario EXL Nickel Rounds as an example, the tensions on 45-60-80-105 would work out to be as follows:

G - 42.8 lbs.
D - 42.9 lbs.
A - 42.0 lbs.
E - 40.3 lbs.

So, this makes perfect sense and your fingers know it, too.

[knuckle_head]

I'm working on flats. No timeline to it yet as right is more important than right now.

I need a bowable string at a near-future point..

[HMZ]

I wish Daddario would make a set of XL's 45-65-85-105-130 in super long.

[HogieWan]

Originally Posted by knuckle_head

I'm working on flats. No timeline to it yet as right is more important than right now.

I need a bowable string at a near-future point..

I'm glad you mentioned bowable. I have a 5 -string cello and a light guage bass E works well for the low F. I got a GHS flat and the windings had gaps that the bow hair would get into and catch.

[Impostor]

Just having started a similar thread - Nickel rounds with a tighter low B

Wondering to find a decent .045-.135 nickel wound set.