low F# woes...

uethanian · #1 08-24-2007, 11:56 PM

well i'd really like to get my hands on a low F# (not quite ready for the C#), but they're so unavailiable! now i want to use a four string for this, so i've been considering getting the 'warwick black label dark lord' set. problem is, nobody sells them (and i dont really like warwick strings). now, i can order a set of those from britain for about 50 bucks -or- i can buy the $14 F# from conklin and then buy a fiver set for the rest of the strings. anyone have experience with conklin's F# (the cheaper one)? would this single be hard to match up with other strings? it says it has 'exposed saddle core,' but im thinking that its low enough that there won't be too much of an audible difference between itself and regular strings.

nastyn8c · #2 08-25-2007, 12:18 AM

Just buy all the same brand singles! That will probably save money anyway since you'll be tossing two from every fiver set out.

JAUQO III-X · #3 08-25-2007, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uethanian

anyone have experience with conklin's F# (the cheaper one)? would this single be hard to match up with other strings? it says it has 'exposed saddle core,' but im thinking that its low enough that there won't be too much of an audible difference between itself and regular strings.

I have first hand experience with the F# string you are talking about,because I co designed the string with the SIT string company,Conklin orders that string and the Low C# from SIT.I can only speak for myself but the exposed core Low F# works perfectly for me,very clear and evenly balanced on my sub contra basses(C# F# B E) the B string is a .125 and the E string is .100 and the entire set is well balanced sonically and I have used it on two solo recordings(the second I will be releasing next year).

Here's my Conklin subcontra bass with the C# and F# string on it,check out the exposed core on the C# and the F#.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g161/jauqo/4sub1.jpg

fullrangebass · #4 08-25-2007, 02:36 AM

I have been using the Conklin F# on my Conklin 7str as well as on the Aries 7str that I traded. It's a nice balanced string, not overly bright or zingy IMHO

greenboy · #5 08-25-2007, 09:44 AM

I'd get past the brand name and look for the Warwick .175 myself (it's OEM'd anyway).

I had intonation problems up the neck with the Conklin/SIT .165 unless I put a brass spacer at the ball end to get the exposed core closer to the bridge barrel, and I felt the tone wasn't what I was looking for. I like taper core with more meat wrapped over the barrel instead of just core wire and think the string would vibrate better if it didn't have so many fine wraps, which I think chokes it down compared to what I prefer.

I definitely felt the .150 was too light for even lighter sets I've put together. Even the D'Addario .145 worked better for me.

The best I've tried was a .185 tapered 3-wrap from Skip of Knuckle Quake infamy who got some prototypes built by Labella. I love that full midrange it supplies and it works all the way up the neck and sits well with a tapered B and non-tapered for the rest. But it's not really available. I think the Warwick .175 best resembles its construction philosophy.

knuckle_head · #6 08-25-2007, 10:07 AM

Seems the Black Label stuff is starting to creep out there - try harder to track those.

You can also come by the .195 C# SIT through Conklin and use it for your F# - you'd have to build out the balance of your set with singles (.135 .100 .080 .060) but it would work if you REALLLY wanted to go there.

uethanian · #7 08-25-2007, 11:38 AM

thanks for the pic jauqo, that gives me a good idea of what i'm dealing with.

so that 'conklin snakeskin' F#, which is a .150, costs $14. well either i could buy that and then the matching snakeskin fiver set, but that would be another $56 (56 dollars for a set??!!). total comes out to be...$70. its either that, or i could buy a fiver set from a store for $20. a lot cheaper, especially when talking about replacements. now i need to know, do these exposed core strings sound significantly different than non-exposed ones? if i can avoid buying a full set from conklin...well hey, saves me quite a bit of money.

JAUQO III-X · #8 08-25-2007, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uethanian

thanks for the pic jauqo, that gives me a good idea of what i'm dealing with.

so that 'conklin snakeskin' F#, which is a .150, costs $14. well either i could buy that and then the matching snakeskin fiver set, but that would be another $56 (56 dollars for a set??!!). total comes out to be...$70. its either that, or i could buy a fiver set from a store for $20. a lot cheaper, especially when talking about replacements. now i need to know, do these exposed core strings sound significantly different than non-exposed ones? if i can avoid buying a full set from conklin...well hey, saves me quite a bit of money.

You're welcome.

So as not to cause any confusion,Conklin offers two different gauges and brands of low F# strings,The Snakeskin 150 is not the same brand or gauge as that of the SIT low F# 165 gauge.

And yes there is a difference in sound between a exposed core and a none exposed one.

The strings on my Conklin sub contra in the attached link are the strings made by SIT with the 165 F#.

uethanian · #9 08-25-2007, 01:43 PM

just wat im getting at is that conklin sells a $14 dollar F# and a $28 dollar F#. of course i want to buy the $14 one (snakeskin model), but the more expensive string sounds more standard from its description. from wat i understand, both models have an exposed core, perhaps because the string is too thick to fit in a regular bridge? well i'll probably end up just buying it and see how it goes.

eyvindwa · #10 08-25-2007, 02:58 PM

Hey Jauqo, that subcontra sounds _really_ interesting. Do you need a bass that is built specifically for this purpose, or could a regular 4 or 5 work?

JAUQO III-X · #11 08-25-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyvindwa

Hey Jauqo, that subcontra sounds _really_ interesting. Do you need a bass that is built specifically for this purpose, or could a regular 4 or 5 work?

Thank you.
The full function of the sub contra bass has a lot to do with the proper body,neck and fingerboard woods,pickups and electronics etc. as far as converting it for standard 4 or 5, it could be done with lighter gauge strings but the sound would be drastically different.

Here are some sound bites of my Fretless Adler subcontra bass.
myspace.com/jauqoiiix

Bass Below · #12 08-25-2007, 08:17 PM

I got the .165 here for $22:

http://www.bassguitarstrings.us/stor...cat=361&page=1

Then I pieced together the rest of my 5 string set with Ken Smith stainless singles here:

http://www.juststrings.com/stainless...lestrings.html

The set worked out well for me and cost much less than $70, in fact you can probably get two sets for your bass this way for around $70

My lowest string is tuned to G# and the .165 works OK. I would prefer something heavier, but that's another story.