String set gauges: somewhat arbitrary?

[jmattis]

Was just involved in a discussion that has sparked my curiosity. The question was whether or not it'd be a bad move to pair a light 4 string set with a 130 B. I said no problem, as Lakland has a similar set that has worked for me.

After looking at a bunch of string tension charts, it seems that almost every set includes a D string with higher tension than all the other strings. Could there be a reason for a higher tension D string? Or is this way simply because we have been bred to accept the fact that 45-65-85-105 is "standard" and 40-60-80-100 is "light" with no real reason but the gauges flow nicely?

It seems that a more uniform tension light set would be something like 40-55-80-100-130, and standard would be more like 45-60-80-105-135.

Thoughts?

[knuckle_head]

It's an always-been-that-way thing...

There isn't enough gauge variety as you get lighter to make the set right - a .005 difference between gauges is too much and needs to be significantly smaller the thinner the strings get.

[RickenBoogie]

Interesting.

[knuckle_head]

A .005 difference between a .095 and a .100 is only 5% - the difference between a .040 and .045 is 11%.

It gets worse as you get skinnier....

[jmattis]

knuckle head- just checked out your site. Very cool stuff. Will you guys offer a set between your balanced 125 and 135 sets anytime soon? I'm afraid a 135 may not fit into my nut, but don't want to go with the super light 125 set.

Also, when you say there isn't enough gauge variety, do you mean with the total string gauge, or with the individual parts that make up the string (core/ wrap)? I definitely do not have a good understanding of the string industry, but they are the one thing we all purchase way more than anything else, and I'd love to have a better understanding of whats going on behind the scenes.

Do most companies make their own cores and outer wraps, or does someone supply them to them? It seems if they made their own parts, they could offer .041, .042, etc.

[knuckle_head]

I opened the site up in June, then revised the entire inventory after trying to put together 10 and 11 string sets. It was precisely because of this little gauge interval thing that I thought it was necessary.

By the end of September there will be a bit more variety below .136 - specifically a .130, .124, .118 and .112.

It always comes down to final size as opposed to the individual wraps. It is indeed amazing, though, how big a difference different sized wire in the formula can sway the mass of a string - which is the more critical factor rather than purely size.

You can do variety for variety's sake but there is diminishing returns IMO - choice is awesome but function is more important. It's tricky - there is alot of inventory (read that as money) tied up in packaged strings. They know what has sold so they aren't inclined to reinvent their wheel.

As for who does what with wire - there is no answer there really. If a company is desperate for inventory they need to deliver they may have their cores run by someone else, they may have whole gauges run by other companies or they may do it all themselves - it's all circumstance and bottom line.

[jasper383]

I read somewhere (here? maybe the amp forum?) that some early amps had a hard time with the D string if it matched the tension of the others, and over time, that tight D became standard.

The D string on most sets is really tight. A super light set with a .130 B and an even lighter D is usually a better tension match than the regular sets.

[jmattis]

Awesome. Put me down for a 5 string .130 set. Are you ready reveal the rest of the gauges that will come with this set?

Originally Posted by knuckle_head

By the end of September there will be a bit more variety below .136 - specifically a .130, .124, .118 and .112.

[knuckle_head]

The .130 set is;

.130 .096 .072 .055 .040 .029 (string count notwithstanding)