same strings .. different basses

pfschim · #1 11-17-2007, 03:21 PM

so, kind of an off beat question perhaps, but here goes.

I use a Lull MV4 (w Fralin pups and 2 band bart pre), and a Fender American Deluxe Active Jazz 4 banger (stock except the bridge). I have used may different string types over my 40 years of playing, but have settled on the all nickel Fender 7150's in a medium light gauge as my favorites. It's not religion, I just like the tone, feel, durability and consistency of these strings from set-to-set.

Anyway, here's the situation/question:

It seems as if the playable tone of the 7150's last longer on the Fender than they do on the Lull. At first I thought it was just maybe an inconsistency on one set, but after a few set changes I noticed that there was a pattern developing of these stings fading faster on the Lull.

For use reference, I practice about an hour, just about every day, Rehearse once a week and gig about 4-6 times a month on average. I make a point to rotate the basses fairly evenly; the Lull is a little better slapper, and a bit "quicker" feeling bass, the Fender is a bit meatier sounding bass. My playing time on these two basses is further diluted by using my other 2 basses too (FWIW, Lakland 44-02 deluxe fretless and a Turner fretless Ren), I also change my strings about every 5-6 months or so. I do not like that old totally dead string sound (also don't much care for the totally brand new string sound either).

So, all I'm saying is that the 2 Jazz basses get about equal playing time/string wear but the useful playable tone (to my ears) of the 7150's seem to fade faster on the Lull than the Fender.

Nothing earth shattering, just an idle question for a sunny Saturday. Does anyone else have this happen, or want to put forward ideas as to why this might happen ?

Shoewreck · #2 11-17-2007, 03:42 PM

Eh, errmm... Seems like you put more stress to strings on the Lull? Strings die not only because of dirth but also because of mechanical damage (especially nickels - steels prefer to eat your frets instead). You can look for fret marks on strings from different basses - I suppose more slapped strings to have deeper marks.

pfschim · #3 11-17-2007, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoewreck

Eh, errmm... Seems like you put more stress to strings on the Lull? Strings die not only because of dirth but also because of mechanical damage (especially nickels - steels prefer to eat your frets instead). You can look for fret marks on strings from different basses - I suppose more slapped strings to have deeper marks.

Shoewreck .. strasvitse (sp?)

well, that's not a silly response, but I did say that I rotated the basses playing time pretty evenly. I'll clarify on the slapping thing; I slap both basses (ha, sounds kinda funny

), it's just that the Lull does the vintage-modern thing a bit more than the Fender. I don't feel that usage levels is the answer ... but who knows.

Shoewreck, I suppose your answer means that you have not experienced this un-even wear on the same strings but different basses phenomenon ?

still curious to hear the thoughts of other TBers on this question

dasvidanya

Jerry Ziarko · #4 11-17-2007, 06:30 PM

Not only have I experienced the same phenomenon, but have even sold some great basses because of it. I had a Pedulla Thunderbolt some years back that was one of the best playing, best looking, and best sounding basses I have ever owned. It also was the most unforgiving of string life ever. I could not get a set to last more than a week or two and the sound of the bass went to hell. I kid you not! I tried several brands. After a very expensive lesson I finally let it go. Now to answer your question in another round about way. I really believe there is a perfect string match for every bass. You and I may have totally different opinions of what we WANT to hear, and probably arrive at different conclusions. For example, I know the sound I am looking to achieve with a particular bass. I may get lucky and find that sound after trying just one brand/type. Sometimes it takes a bunch ($$$$$$) of tries. My all time favorite strings (Thomastik Infeld Super Alloys) sound amazing on my Cirrus 5, but sound average at best on my Roscoe LG3005. You may think they sound great, but again it's not the sound I am looking for. Now let's take the exact set of TI SA's. They may sound amazing on another Roscoe LG3005. Years ago, I owned two Fender P basses at the same time. One sounded best (to me) with Rotosounds, and the other, GHS Boomers. These were both alder body, rosewood neck basses but sounded different from one another. I did try swapping string types between the two and the results were less than stellar. Now this mind you was with two "nearly" identical instruments. So when you say you see a pattern with the same string brand on different basses, in my experience, that indeed is the case.

pfschim · #5 11-17-2007, 07:11 PM

thanks Jerry, at least I am not alone in experiencing this phenomenon then. Any thoughts on the "whys" of this ?

The rest of your thoughts on specific sting type matches to specific basses I get too. OTOH, as you point out, much of that is driven by the "ear of the beholder".

I too am a fan of TI stings on some of my basses. Jazz Rounds on the fretless Lakand 44-02 deluxe, and Accousticores on the fretless Turner.

$$$$$$$$ OUCH! $$$$$$$$$

. But they are certainly worth the tone to me.

DavePlaysBass · #6 11-17-2007, 10:28 PM

It stands to reason that different basses are different in the frequencies that they exaggerate and they suppress.

pfschim · #7 11-17-2007, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavePlaysBass

It stands to reason that different basses are different in the frequencies that they exaggerate and they suppress.

not a bad thought, but I am talking about 2 basses (Lull MV4 jazz clone and Fender jazz) that are fairly close, really, in their general tone characteristics. The Lull with the Fralins is a bit brighter and has a bit faster feeling neck (as I mentioned .. it also has 22 frets to the Fenders 21), and the Fender generally has a guttier, grittier tone.

But really, it's string wear; playable tone, that I'm asking about. The 7150's on the Lull clearly seem to wear out, get dead-er, sooner than on the Fender. You'd think that the somewhat brighter tone from the Lull/Fralins would make the strings seem livelier longer .. no ?

please keep discussing

DavePlaysBass · #8 11-18-2007, 01:50 AM

Different pieces of wood cut to the same shape can be different in density. Then throw things like neck profile differences, bridge differences, and pickup differences and you will have a unique set of frequencies being exaggerated or suppressed. Each bass has its own unique natural EQ sorta like people and their DNA. I suspect that the strings on one bass are not wearing faster than the other. It would be interesting to take the strings from the bass that wears them faster and put them on the one that supposedly wears them slower. I am betting that the bass that wears them faster really just has a different natural EQ than the other and that natural EQ requires the frequency content associated with the fresher string to sound good to your ears.

Jerry Ziarko · #9 11-18-2007, 02:31 AM

Dave said it better!

Shoewreck · #10 11-18-2007, 02:09 PM

I tried to move strings from one bass to another. They sounded dead on one (i.e. the E string had lost definition) but aged on another (still not much highs, but the tone was much more solid). No wonders, the basses were a Hohner and a Warwick.

BillytheBassist · #11 11-18-2007, 02:24 PM

I experienced the same thing with a Warwick that i just sold. I play Fenders mainly and use DR sunbeams on most of my basses. I noticed that the Warwick would realy take the life out of the strings after a few weeks, mind you.... the DR's have realy long life IME. They last 3 to 4 months easily on most of my basses but, like i said, after a few weeks on the warwick they sounded dull. I'm not to sure if it has something to do with the frets on the wick being made out of brass or, perhaps the overall tone of the wick is unforgiving of a good "broken in" string. I thought it was weird though.

fullrangebass · #12 11-18-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavePlaysBass

It stands to reason that different basses are different in the frequencies that they exaggerate and they suppress.

+1

I have tried nearly every string that's out there too on many basses of mine and I have come into terms that Different basses require different strings to sound best. A stellar example is Ken's own Ken Lawrence Brase I. Ken send me the bass with a fresh set of strings and 2 sets of Fodera strings. I enjoyed the sound of the bass a lot. when I changed the strigns I noticed that the sound had changed. after few weeks I changed angain to the other set (first was stainless steel, second one nickel) and still the sound was different. I asked Ken what the original string was and he informed me it was MTD!!! After a call to Master Luthier Tobias I ordered some MTD sets (few calls later I ordered my fantastic MTD bass; thank you Mr Michael Tobias)

Shoewreck · #13 11-18-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillytheBassist

I experienced the same thing with a Warwick that i just sold.

Not quite the same! WW was the bass that made dead strings sound better! I'm not a zing keen, I appreciate solid lows and mids, that were achievable only with a fresh set of GHS bassics on Hohner, but with anything-that-is-a-set-of-strings the WW does it.

BillytheBassist · #14 11-18-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shoewreck

Not quite the same! WW was the bass that made dead strings sound better! I'm not a zing keen, I appreciate solid lows and mids, that were achievable only with a fresh set of GHS bassics on Hohner, but with anything-that-is-a-set-of-strings the WW does it.

Well, the warwick i had didn't sound to hot to my ears with a set of 2 week old strings on it. Maybe it was just that particular bass... who knows. It didn't sound bad.... just more mute and thumpy than i prefer.

pfschim · #15 11-19-2007, 08:12 PM

hmmm, not sure we are reaching any conclusions yet ....

Jeb · #16 11-19-2007, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfschim

So, all I'm saying is that the 2 Jazz basses get about equal playing time/string wear but the useful playable tone (to my ears) of the 7150's seem to fade faster on the Lull than the Fender.

Nothing earth shattering, just an idle question for a sunny Saturday. Does anyone else have this happen, or want to put forward ideas as to why this might happen ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfschim

hmmm, not sure we are reaching any conclusions yet ...

This one's easy. The Lull bass sucks? I mean, really... what else could it be?

I got nothin'

Mayers · #17 11-19-2007, 10:54 PM

I put Elixir string on all my basses and on the Yamaha sound more muddier and the same set on one of my Carvins they sound very bright and slappy with lot of bass. On the carvin they don't sound dead after 8 month but on the Yamaha , they sound dead or almost dead.

7flat5 · #18 11-20-2007, 01:18 PM

Although the idea one bass, due to its tone response, is more sensitive to string wear, might carry some truth, I think it probably has to do with the fact one bass is actually harder on strings. Probably due to differences in the frets, placement of the last "slap plate" fret, or subtle differences in the action that make you play one harder than the other--just enough to make the difference in string wear/damage over time.

DavePlaysBass · #19 11-20-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfschim

hmmm, not sure we are reaching any conclusions yet ....

To quote Willian Edward Deming: "In God we trust. All others bring data".

Take one of the old sets from your Lull that sounded dead and put them on your Fender.

Any chance your Lull is ash / maple? Your Fender is probably alder / rosewood. The latter IMO has a richer / thicker tone that would probably sound better with aged strings. I had a basswood / rosewood L-2500 that sound great in a mix with DA XLs and TI flats. I sold it. Missed it. And picked up a maple / ash Tribute. I cannot get the same sounds with the same strings as the former. And everyone talks about how the G&L electronics are so over powering that wood differences are not typically heard. But my ash / maple G&L is sort of thin sounding in comparison and I have not found the right string for it yet. I have not played the bass that much, but I can see given its thinner tone that it may rely more on fresh strings to sound good.

Dave

pfschim · #20 11-20-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavePlaysBass

To quote Willian Edward Deming: "In God we trust. All others bring data".

Take one of the old sets from your Lull that sounded dead and put them on your Fender.

Any chance your Lull is ash / maple? Your Fender is probably alder / rosewood. The latter IMO has a richer / thicker tone that would probably sound better with aged strings.

The Lull is Ash/Rosewood and the Fender is indeed Alder/Rosewood .. and with the basses active electronics both eq'd basically flat, the Fender does have a bit richer/darker tone. You could be on to something with this train of thought.

Also, I took a very close look at both basses this week and it seems as if the Lull fretwire is perhaps a bit smaller. It's is a small difference for sure, I'll have to get out my calibrated rule to really check. But if the frets were smaller vs the Fender, it may be that the smaller fretwire makes divots in the fairly soft all nickel 7150's faster. Just a possibility.