• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

La Bella '54 Originals Fellowship

#41
Silly me. I just realised that the 110 95 73 and 52 of the 54's set tuned to DGCF would have at least, if not more tension than your garden variety standard set of 45-105's on your typical 34" bass tuned to E standard ( what the bass had on it originally and the tension baseline I use for it) but heaps more than the custom Chrome set I had on the bass tuned to D standard that I was going to put the 54's on. The bass has a thinnish neck. Only around 21mm at the 12th fret. I really don't wanna push total tension over 180 lbs on this particular bass. Preferably keeping it between 140 to 150 lbs max due to a slight jump that currently only affects the 3rd string at the 18th fret ( I have slightly higher action on that string). So I will keep the Chromes I have tuned to BEAD on it ( 132 100 75 55) on it and use the 54's on another bass with a beefier neck.
 
Last edited:
#43
HaphAsSard said:
Did you play the 50-110 Roto 77 set (or the Steve Harris signature one)?
Click to expand...
What difference is there between the two sets.....aside from a slightly alarming typo in one of the tension charts!

Screenshot_20230916-085603_Chrome.jpg


Screenshot_20230916-085522_Chrome.jpg


The individual strings have the same codes, JBL110, etc
 
#45
Ricky Rioli said:
What difference is there between the two sets.....aside from a slightly alarming typo in one of the tension charts!

View attachment 5191029

View attachment 5191030

The individual strings have the same codes, JBL110, etc
Click to expand...

I swear, I was just about to post the same thing. It must be a typo.The Tone and Output bars are different for each set though. Maybe some special monel sauce added. Seems only real dif is the silk colours thingie. The monels are high tension. Roughly 10% more than a Chrome of the same gauge for example. You'd think la bella would publish tensions. Some do like to know
 
Last edited:
#46
Ricky Rioli said:
What difference is there between the two sets.....aside from a slightly alarming typo in one of the tension charts!

View attachment 5191029

View attachment 5191030

The individual strings have the same codes, JBL110, etc
Click to expand...
Prodigus Filius said:
I swear, I was just about to post the same thing. It must be a typo.The Tone and Output bars are different for each set though. Maybe some special monel sauce added. Seems only real dif is the silk colours thingie. The monels are high tension. Roughly 10% more than a Chrome of the same gauge for example. You'd think la bella would publish tensions. Some do like to know
Click to expand...
AFAIK the RS77LE and the SH77 are indeed the same, save for silk colours and the fact that the Harrises get polished ever so smoother, as I'd already relayed recently. Sources:
D'Addario Chromes vs. Rotosound Steve Harris
polish strings?
Roto 77 flats w/ blue tapering?
Point of Signature strings?
Point of Signature strings?
Do Extra Long 50-110 Flatwounds exist?

What I meant in my post above was, "is the set you have experience of either one of the 50-110, as opposed to one of the others (40-100, or 45-105)?"
johnh89 said:
Just checked and found they were the 45-105 . Great strings but I'm a LaBella convert now .
Click to expand...
So it's not really surprising they were lower-tension than the Jamersons. Gauges matter. I remember reading from folks who tried both the '54s and the largest (110) Rotos, who concluded that the latter are higher-tension, or higher-stiffness, or both. I may be misremembering, though, or others' mileage may well vary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butterfingers1 and johnh89
#47
I did OK with LaBella 49-109, I'm very happy with Chromes 45-105, but Rotosound Monels 40-100 were too much for me, took them off within half an hour. That alloy seems to be something quite different, very unyielding.

I know from going between three sets of strings that the 760FL 43-60-82-104 is definitely in the range of 180 — 196 lbs (and in my estimation, at the lower end)

Far more vaguely, I found that a 197 lbs set of rounds only a little less than the 769FM 49-69-89-109 set. And I couldn't be sure if that was just more flexibility or less actual tension. At any rate, they were in the same neck of the woods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: butterfingers1
#48
HaphAsSard said:
AFAIK the RS77LE and the SH77 are indeed the same, save for silk colours and the fact that the Harrises get polished ever so smoother, as I'd already relayed recently. Sources:
D'Addario Chromes vs. Rotosound Steve Harris
polish strings?
Roto 77 flats w/ blue tapering?
Point of Signature strings?
Point of Signature strings?
Do Extra Long 50-110 Flatwounds exist?

What I meant in my post above was, "is the set you have experience of either one of the 50-110, as opposed to one of the others (40-100, or 45-105)?"

So it's not really surprising they were lower-tension than the Jamersons. Gauges matter. I remember reading from folks who tried both the '54s and the largest (110) Rotos, who concluded that the latter are higher-tension, or higher-stiffness, or both. I may be misremembering, though, or others' mileage may well vary.
Click to expand...
So I guess the polishing is the reason for the tone and output differences between the signature and the regular that Rotosound site displays.
Interesting about the Rotos reportedly being more of a wrestle than the 54's, if I could put tension and percieved stiffness in such terms. I have or should I say had, ( strings off to do fretboard replacement) a single R77 050 short scale on my Mikro. I have also had on a Chrome 050 and a La Bella DTF 049. The La Bella was more stiff than the Chrome. The Roto 050 was more taught and really stiff. When I finish the new board on the Mikro I am just gonna prob do all Chromes for D standard because I already have the 132. Do you know if La Bella do singles?
Anyhow, getting back to the 54's, I have read that a tapered 128 can have issues La Bella 760FS-TB - dead B string?
Will find out for myself soon enough.
 
#50
HaphAsSard said:
I'm afraid I do not.
Click to expand...

Ahh Just Strings has some Link Removed

And I see a single 128 is offered Link Removed
This would be a good option for me to marry up with the La Bella DTF 089 069 and 049 I already have and tune to D standard on the Mikro. But then again, nearly 70 aussie bucks for a single string including shipping dampens my ardour
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HaphAsSard
#51
Still waiting for Original 54's. The perils of buying strings online and sourced from overseas ( I in Aussieland). No fault of the the sender. Once they hit Sydney they have disappeared off the radar as far as tracking is concerned. If they don't turn up 60 days after putting order in, then the sender wil kindly re send. I was asked if I could wait 60 days. To which I replied 'good things are worth the wait'. Such a shame these strings aren't more readily available Downunder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HaphAsSard
#52
I’m not a fan of the feel, or how exhausting they are. They hurt my knuckles! But, I have story to share. I had a bass with LaBella LTFs and for some reason the G kept breaking. At first I put on an old TI G and it was a great match, but it was so old it soon broke as well (almost 10 years old). So instead of buying a new set I dig deeper into my stash and found an old set of 54s that came on a P bass I bought used.

The results- there was a noticeable difference in output volume between the LTFs and the 54 G. Like very noticeable!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jefenator
#55
I like stiff strings.

Based on my experience with LB 760M "'54" and 45-105 Roto 77 Jazz flats (214.4 pounds) I reckon it's not a bad estimate to surmise that 50-110 Roto 77 flats (RS77LE or SH77, 253 pounds) have more pounds of pulling tension and are even stiffer than LB 760M flats. I estimate a set of LB 760M flats have close to 230 to 240 pounds of pull. I'd be surprised if not true and if they're not then they're very close.

Other flats I like for an additional frame of reference are 55-105 GHS 3050 (229 pounds) and 55-105 Fender 9050M.

I have to wonder how flat the neck relief is or can be set on Harris's P Bass with those strings on that 1-pc P Bass neck.

I've heard--it stands to reason--and my experience with both types is that 2-pc Fender bass necks with a laminated fretboard cap typically make them stiffer necks than 1-pc type Fender bass necks.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HaphAsSard
#57
Rayjay said:
the 54 had a much higher output level



yes
Click to expand...

My plan is to do BEAD with them first using the Low B, but use what would be the A D and G strings for EAD. If that don't do it for me, I will swap out the 128, put the 110 on and try DGCF. I have no plans to do E standard with them as I don't do standard anymore. Downtuning should make things easier wrestling these strings from what I hear
 
#58
These strings are definitely worthy of their own fellowship. They play like the proverbial brick ****house. But, talk about thump!
I am a little wary of the extra pull. I've used these on a couple of different vintage Fender necks, both 1-piece maple. Those truss rods aren't the strongest IME. My '78 is maxed out with more conventional strings, and the neck bolts have begun to strip occasionally. The '72 Tele neck truss was a real basket case, with a big crack at the nut. Using the '54s with that was stupid - but fun. For a while.
I expect my Warmoth neck could handle the '54s a lot better. Except, I've got some Pyramid Gold flats on there right now that are working great. (Actually somewhat close to '54s IMO. Not quite as hardcore, but definitely on the more substantial side, with some tangible nickel suppleness.) After I wear those out, I have a set of DTFs meant for thru-body.
LOL - it might take me 30 years to wear out two sets of flats. So I might have to figure out some other project to incorporate '54s with. I would concur that they are special - perhaps enough so to warrant their own build & their own spot in the arsenal. (For when you want to go super duper old school!!)
Speaking of thru-body, I did use my '54s that way, then at the bridge on another axe. Not the easiest or smartest way to go - but I did get away with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prodigus Filius
#59
For those of you with the Jamersons on, do you play that bass live, and if so, what styles? I had them on a P-bass many years ago, but found it was just too much work to play long sets, and while they sounded huge, I thought that in the mix they were too limiting for some styles.
 
#60
Well I finally got a 5 string set of these strings delivered. I've been doing BEAD with a custom set of Chromes, .132 .100 .075 and .050. Still found the B string on a 34" still a bit loose feeling for my tastes. So enter the 54's. I put the .128 .093 .073 .052 on for BEAD. The EAD gauges felt fine and sounded fine. But the B, even with the extra core stiffness of the .128 compared to the Chrome .132, still didn't feel or sound right to me. I took it off and replaced it with the .110 tuned to D. And changed the tuning of the other strings to GCF. And things sound and feel good now. Even tuned to DGCF, these strings feel more tense than any string I have tried. I didn't have to tweak the set up much though. A bit of truss rod tigtening. And adjust the intonation of the saddle that I had the B string on. All in all, I'm happy with these strings. And will see how they settle in
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back