Circle K strings...

[FunkMetalBass]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

This is my experience and why I chose to have all my sub contra basses made with a mahogany body and gaboon ebony fb.

The mahogany body gives very even and none muddy lows.

That gaboon ebony fb is brighter than rosewood and definitely not as bright as maple. The gaboon ebony fb acts kind of like a compressor, in that it allows the highs not to jump out all over the place and balances well with the mahogany body.

And the pickups should be voiced (wound) for frequencies so low.

And I would like to respectfully suggest slightly lighter gauge strings. Or strings with a little more flexible core.

Why? because they allow the low frequencies to breath.

There are a few more keys but I think you get the point.

I'm actually leaning toward the pickups as the culprits. Although both are custom, neither of them was really wound with such low notes in mind. I put my ear on each bass body and pluck, and the notes are loud and clear (albeit a bit bright on one of them, which might warrant a lighter gauge in the future), so the wood certainly is not stifling the frequencies.

[bootsox]

Originally Posted by JAUQO III-X

It's not ridiculous at all. What makes tuning that low so ridicules? It is bass.


Here are some tracks of me playing my freless Sub contra bass. The tuning is C#(.195) F#(.165) B (.125) E (.100).


These tracks are from my unreleased cd called Trioplicity, featuring Bernard Purdie on drums and Kudzai Kasambira on guitar.



Another Side Of The Blues/Featuring Fretless Sub contra Bass

Some Fretless Sub contra Bass

Jauqo III-X, Bernard purdie and Kudzai Kasambira







Thanks for the shout out.


It's interesting when bass players say that bass is to low

I can't imagine strings like that being reasonably tuned to within a normal person's hearing range is all. I don't face any issue with people tuning low but at a certain point I can only imagine a gross flappy sound that my speakers can't properly reproduce

C#F#BE I'd call well within acceptable ranges (though personally I wouldn't go any lower than F#), but imagine how low the tuning would be with .254s assuming the same tension was used. I'm not sure I'd even be able to hear it

[TheEmptyCell]

My strings arrived! Really interesting way of packing them. There were also 6 stickers in there! I'm excited to get them on, maybe tonight, but definitely by tomorrow.

[Razman]

Stickers? They have stickers now?? Cool, I need to order new strings soon - maybe I'll get some.

[TheEmptyCell]

Yup, pretty cool stickers. They're a QR tag with the Circle K logo within the QR. 3x3inch square. How did they know that I've plastered my MacBook with stickers?!

To put it bluntly these strings are the s*^# on my ABZ5. I got the set Sheldon Dngwall recommended, which only has a slightly lighter D than the CK stock 36-37" Traditional .130 set.

These are the ultimate balance between nickel and steel. Not scooped like SS strings I've used before, but they've got this immense harmonic content; they're louder compared to the stock Dingwall string set (SS) or the Paysons I had on after that (nickel). The only SS I've played and liked are DR Hi Beams.

They are basically the same gauge as the Paysons, but much more flexible. I think I read a review where someone said their .130 B felt more like a .120 or lighter, flexibility-wise, but I'd say that these feel maybe one gauge more flexible, so equivalent tony other companies .124.

They have an interesting tactile feel, smoother than an SS string, but with just a bit more grip than a nickel. They slap beautifully, and don't seem to get lost in a mix like a lot of SS strings I've slapped on before. I think that whatever blend of nickel and steel they're using is perfect, it really is the best of both worlds. I get no finger creak like I did with D'addario Prosteels the few times I tried those on a couple parallel fret basses.

Is play in B standard, but I think the B could handle drop tuning to A, not that I have the need to (maybe if I start a metal band). I love the flexibility, the tone, the feel, the price is right. I believe I ordered on a Saturday around midnight and they arrived by Wednesday or Thursday.

I will definitely be keeping CKs on the ABZ, and probably give them a try on my round-wearing parallel fret basses, though next time if I'm playing In standard I may go one set lighter (.124). I can imagine a set of .098 balanced being the cats meow for 4 string finger style and slapping funk.

[bunkaroo]

So I finally took the plunge and ordered a bunch of sets to try on several of my Spectors, all of which are 35" scale. Ordered a drop balanced 124 set for my 4-string drop C bass, a drop balanced 118 set for my drop C# 4-string, a balanced 150 set for my A standard 5-string and both 130 and 136 balanced sets for my standard B 5-strings.

I put together an Excel spreadsheet to help me calculate the tension based on 35" scale since the Circle K charts show values for 34" scale. So for all the sets except the balanced 136 set, I'm looking at an average tension of 40lbs or so per string. The 136 set should be more like 42 lbs. I think.

This is going to be interesting since I have never used balanced string sets before. I'm used to playing low B strings with tensions ranging from 32 to 36 lbs., so these low strings will feel tighter, but then the higher strings will be less tense. I'm most curious to see the difference in feel between the balanced 130 and balanced 136 set on the same bass. I had typically been using 130-105-85-65-45 sets on my Spectors which results in pretty tight high strings.

Looks like I have a lot of setup work ahead of me!

[iiipopes]

Tension varies as the square of the scale length, so the tension on your 35 inch scale bass will be 35^2/34^2, or about 6% more, or about the difference in tuned up a half step tension (the figure for g# instead of g in the table).

[bunkaroo]

I used this formula:

T (Tension) = (UW x (2 x L x F)2) / 386.4

So the UW are supplied, I used 35 for L and the note frequency for F.

[Grateful]

If you haven't done so already, go to Facebook and add Circle K as a friend. Skip promises a big sale when they get to 2,500 Facebook friends, and they only need 105 more!

Daddy needs new strings!

http://www.facebook.com/circlekstrings?clk_loc=3

[Kopfjaeger]

Circle K strings rock!! It's like that Frank's Red Hot commercial. Circle K, I put that sh*t on everything!! Seriously!! 7 out of my 9 basses are all strung with Circle K!

Sepp

[socialleper]

I'd like to get some advice on getting a set of the Cricle K strings for my two five string basses. All of the reviews of these strings have been very positive so I thought I'd give them a whirl, after all I've tried just about every other string out there. What I'm concerned about is the how to get the gauge right for what I want. A .136 for a B sounds cool but I can't imagine wanting an E lighter than .105. The .142 set has a .106 E but then the A and D seem a little light, plus that's a pretty beefy B.

I've read that some people think they are more "flexible" or "loose" then the strings they are used to. Do they mean Hi-beam (round core) vs Lo-Rider (hex core) looser, or even more than that? I tend to like tighter strings because I down tune the E to a D or go one whole step lower across all the strings sometimes. I'm not interested in drilling out my bridge or nut just to try a string.

What gauge do they start using put a taper on them? I like tapered Bs but a tapered E sounds little excessive.

If it makes a difference, I'm considering putting these on a Warwick German Corvette $$ or a Pedulla Rapture J2 5 string.

[bunkaroo]

Originally Posted by socialleper

I'd like to get some advice on getting a set of the Cricle K strings for my two five string basses. All of the reviews of these strings have been very positive so I thought I'd give them a whirl, after all I've tried just about every other string out there. What I'm concerned about is the how to get the gauge right for what I want. A .136 for a B sounds cool but I can't imagine wanting an E lighter than .105. The .142 set has a .106 E but then the A and D seem a little light, plus that's a pretty beefy B.

I've read that some people think they are more "flexible" or "loose" then the strings they are used to. Do they mean Hi-beam (round core) vs Lo-Rider (hex core) looser, or even more than that? I tend to like tighter strings because I down tune the E to a D or go one whole step lower across all the strings sometimes. I'm not interested in drilling out my bridge or nut just to try a string.

What gauge do they start using put a taper on them? I like tapered Bs but a tapered E sounds little excessive.

If it makes a difference, I'm considering putting these on a Warwick German Corvette $$ or a Pedulla Rapture J2 5 string.

The B's and E's are definitely tapered - can't remember about the A's - would have to check when I'm at home.

I put a 150 on my Spector Euro 5LX for low A and I didn't have to touch the nut. Plus the taper let it fit the bridge no problem.

I've started using them after using a 45-65-85-105-130 set of DR Nickel Lo-Riders for a while. The nickel Lo-Riders felt way tight to me on 35" scale. The Fat Beams were better.

The CK's just feel easier to play to me due to the balanced tension, but not necessarily "looser". The down-tuning does present a challenge but you can always put together a set of singles. If you're dropping D or playing in standard D, you'll have to compromise on gauge/tension somewhere. Some guys aim for the middle so the E is a little tighter than they like and the D a little looser. Rather than try to bounce around tunings on one bass I just tuned one of my Spectors to ADGCF so I have that available when I need it, and can put gauges on my main player tailored to BEADG tuning.

My advice would be to find out the actual tension values for the strings you're using now at the pitches you're playing them at, and then use the CK tension chart to determine which ones are in the ballpark. Keep in mind the tension chart on the CK site is for 34" scale so if either of those basses you have is 35", the tension will be a little higher than listed in the chart.

Personally, if I was on a 34" scale 5-string, I would look hard at the 142 set. On 34", a 142 tuned to low B is about 42.6 lbs. of tension. That's higher than your typical B string in a traditional set, but it matches the feel of the E much better. A 106 tuned to E on a 34" scale bass would put you at 43.2 lbs. of tension which should feel pretty good. That same string dropped to D would be 34.3 lbs. of tension. This is what I mean about having to compromise.

They have a coupon code going right now on their FB page for 20%. Maybe just grab a couple different sets of varying gauges and give them a shot.

[MarkA]

Not sure I can help with advice on downtuning, but I can tell you that a .136 B does indeed feel well balanced with a .102 E in standard tuning. I've run that on two bases with good results.There's a PDF tension chart on the site you should take a look at. If you know you like the feel of a .105 E, though, I might go for the .142 B/.106 E set. Thinking about trying that myself on one bass. They offer traditional sets, too, but I really dig the balanced sets. Skip's knowledgeable and helpful if you have questions. They do also carry drop-D/A sets if you're interested in those.

EDIT: See better, faster answer above

Originally Posted by socialleper

I'd like to get some advice on getting a set of the Cricle K strings for my two five string basses. All of the reviews of these strings have been very positive so I thought I'd give them a whirl, after all I've tried just about every other string out there. What I'm concerned about is the how to get the gauge right for what I want. A .136 for a B sounds cool but I can't imagine wanting an E lighter than .105. The .142 set has a .106 E but then the A and D seem a little light, plus that's a pretty beefy B.

I've read that some people think they are more "flexible" or "loose" then the strings they are used to. Do they mean Hi-beam (round core) vs Lo-Rider (hex core) looser, or even more than that? I tend to like tighter strings because I down tune the E to a D or go one whole step lower across all the strings sometimes. I'm not interested in drilling out my bridge or nut just to try a string.

What gauge do they start using put a taper on them? I like tapered Bs but a tapered E sounds little excessive.

If it makes a difference, I'm considering putting these on a Warwick German Corvette $$ or a Pedulla Rapture J2 5 string.

[socialleper]

Originally Posted by bunkaroo

The B's and E's are definitely tapered - can't remember about the A's - would have to check when I'm at home.

I put a 150 on my Spector Euro 5LX for low A and I didn't have to touch the nut. Plus the taper let it fit the bridge no problem.

I've started using them after using a 45-65-85-105-130 set of DR Nickel Lo-Riders for a while. The nickel Lo-Riders felt way tight to me on 35" scale. The Fat Beams were better.

The CK's just feel easier to play to me due to the balanced tension, but not necessarily "looser". The down-tuning does present a challenge but you can always put together a set of singles. If you're dropping D or playing in standard D, you'll have to compromise on gauge/tension somewhere. Some guys aim for the middle so the E is a little tighter than they like and the D a little looser. Rather than try to bounce around tunings on one bass I just tuned one of my Spectors to ADGCF so I have that available when I need it, and can put gauges on my main player tailored to BEADG tuning.

My advice would be to find out the actual tension values for the strings you're using now at the pitches you're playing them at, and then use the CK tension chart to determine which ones are in the ballpark. Keep in mind the tension chart on the CK site is for 34" scale so if either of those basses you have is 35", the tension will be a little higher than listed in the chart.

Personally, if I was on a 34" scale 5-string, I would look hard at the 142 set. On 34", a 142 tuned to low B is about 42.6 lbs. of tension. That's higher than your typical B string in a traditional set, but it matches the feel of the E much better. A 106 tuned to E on a 34" scale bass would put you at 43.2 lbs. of tension which should feel pretty good. That same string dropped to D would be 34.3 lbs. of tension. This is what I mean about having to compromise.

They have a coupon code going right now on their FB page for 20%. Maybe just grab a couple different sets of varying gauges and give them a shot.

I ordered a 142 106 82 61 47 set and tried to put them on my Warwick $$. The tapers ARE NOT long enough to fit properly in the saddles. I even tried winding the saddle for the B all the way back but it wouldn't go any further because the spring was fully compressed. I'm going to try these on my Pedulla instead. I'm not blaming anyone, the responsibility for accurate measuring is on me, but I wanted it on the record that the tapers on these are about a 1/4 inch too short to work with the Warwick two piece bridge.

[bunkaroo]

Originally Posted by socialleper

I ordered a 142 106 82 61 47 set and tried to put them on my Warwick $$. The tapers ARE NOT long enough to fit properly in the saddles. I even tried winding the saddle for the B all the way back but it wouldn't go any further because the spring was fully compressed. I'm going to try these on my Pedulla instead. I'm not blaming anyone, the responsibility for accurate measuring is on me, but I wanted it on the record that the tapers on these are about a 1/4 inch too short to work with the Warwick two piece bridge.

That sucks - I'm really surprised. I know I've seen mention of Warwick guys using these before. I would have thought that would be a known problem otherwise. I'm not familiar with that Warwick bridge or why it's a two-piece, but maybe CK can start making longer tapers - I would shoot them a note to let them know your experience.

[Clark Dark]

Originally Posted by Grateful

If you haven't done so already, go to Facebook and add Circle K as a friend. Skip promises a big sale when they get to 2,500 Facebook friends, and they only need 105 more!

Daddy needs new strings!

http://www.facebook.com/circlekstrings?clk_loc=3

He only needs 104 now. I pulled the trigger on a .118 B set for my Gecko5 and I'm pleased and impressed at the same time. He's made a customer of me too.

[SoVeryTired]

After thinking about it for ages I've just ordered the .136 balanced 5-string set with some Christmas money. I don't actually have the bass yet - it a race now between strings and bass to see which arrives first! I'll probably give the bass a few days of play first to see how it feels with the stock standard-gauge nickels so that I can appreciate the difference properly.

[chucko58]

I'm a big fan of the .136" low B balanced sets for 35" scale basses. I prefer the .142" for 34" scale.

[bunkaroo]

Originally Posted by chucko58

I'm a big fan of the .136" low B balanced sets for 35" scale basses. I prefer the .142" for 34" scale.

Same here. The 136 set on my Alex Webster Euro feels like cutting through warm butter, but still enough resistance against my heavy picking.

[SoVeryTired]

Originally Posted by chucko58

I'm a big fan of the .136" low B balanced sets for 35" scale basses. I prefer the .142" for 34" scale.

Its 34" but I'll see how I go. If I find the .136 a bit light I'll give the .142 a trial in the future. The lighter set is closer to the sort of average tensions I'm used to but I accept that these are going to feel different. It's trial and error buying completely new strings for a bass I've not seen or held yet.