balanced tension sets in 2013

[khutch]

Technically I could put a .105 steel rod on my bass, just set it there from nut to bridge really, and it would be a very low (zero if is just sitting there) tension string, but I wonder how comfortable it would be to fret...

I happen to have a 0.125 stainless steel rod that is 36 inches long. That is real close to the diameter of my C string. I did not try to lay it on a bass but I did prop it up over a board with the "action" set quite a bit higher than I normally would. Pressing it against the board at the first fret location did take more force than you would want to have. Everywhere else it was very easy to fret actually, much easier than any bass string I have played. Seems to me that even with a "string" that stiff the perceived stiffness is the result of string tension. The real issue with a string that stiff is that if you fet it at a low fret it automatically frets itself half a dozen frets up before you get it against the fret you are trying to hit. As a result you could not play that string even though the fretting force is not excessive.

Ken

 

[FourBanger]

But a poorly constructed string might be stiff with very little tension, that was the point of the rod example. The tension number is near meaningless, the rod being under no tension but still stiffer than a bass string.

To bring it back into the real world look again at flats vs rounds. Bring two of equal diameter to the same pitch and their tensions will be close, but the flat will feel markedly stiffer.

D'Addarios numbers:

Chromes .105 tuned to E is 41.5 lbs tension and considered a stiff string.

XL Nickels .105 tuned to E is 40.3 lbs tension and most would not say it is a stiff string at all.

The difference between the two is no greater than the difference of two strings in one of the new balanced sets.

But, guys who try Chromes often step down in size for a 'less tense' string closer to what they are used to for rounds, well it was not the tension that all that greater, but the stiffness of the string. So a .100 Chrome 'feels' more like a .105 XL than a .105 Chrome does, but the difference in tension is actually about 2lbs the other way, greater but still not extreme.

But what does the post in the forum say? "I needed less tension." No you didn't, flats are less flexible, you needed smaller strings for more flexibility, not for less tension.

One could do a similar comparison with Hi-Beams and Lo-Riders, but we don't have tension numbers for those. I would wager same-sized strings in each line are closer in tension than we would say they feel. They would have to be if the core sizes were similar, and that we can check. But one goes bendy bendy more so is referred to as a lower tension string.

 

[khutch]

But a poorly constructed string might be stiff with very little tension, that was the point of the rod example. The tension number is near meaningless, the rod being under no tension but still stiffer than a bass string.

Yes the rod is quite stiff compared to any bass string. Yet the "playing feel" (except very near the nut), at least in terms of the fretting force, is quite a bit floppier than the strings on my basses. It is true that an untensioned bass string requires no force to fret, it just lays against the frets. It is also true that the much stiffer steel rod requires almost no force to fret it. So it seems to me that this aspect of the playing feel is due far more to the string tension than its stiffness. I have no way to mount this rod to a simulated neck and bring it up to pitch by putting tension on it so I have no way to investigate other aspects of its playing feel.

You and many others say that playing feel depends on string stiffness as much as tension. What proof do you offer? What proof can you offer if you don't control, or even know, the tension? The answer to the second question is none. You cannot even begin to give me any proof unless you compare two strings of differing stiffness that are at the same tension. They do not have to be at the same pitch but they do have to be at the same tension to allow you to remove tension differences from your tests. Knowledge is always a good thing, ignorance is bliss only occasionally by a happy accident.

Ken

 

[michael_t]

But, guys who try Chromes often step down in size for a 'less tense' string closer to what they are used to for rounds, well it was not the tension that all that greater, but the stiffness of the string. So a .100 Chrome 'feels' more like a .105 XL than a .105 Chrome does, but the difference in tension is actually about 2lbs the other way, greater but still not extreme.

But what does the post in the forum say? "I needed less tension." No you didn't, flats are less flexible, you needed smaller strings for more flexibility, not for less tension.

This is exactly my experience.

I used to use D'A XL Nickels 45-105, then when I switched to the Chromes, I decided to "downsize" to 40-100, not because of increased "tension", but due to increased "stiffness".

Once again, if I can be the devil's advocate's advocate (), part of the issue is the terms "tension" and "stiffness" are used interchangeably, often resulting in confusion. For example, I once read a post from a fellow member who was considering switching from rounds to flats but was concerned whether it would affect the neck on his bass, thinking the flats would exert considerably more weight on the neck, which is not always the case as FourBanger has pointed out.

Having said that, though, I would be very curious to find out what kind of "tension" (ie linear pulling force) some of those strings that are considered to be more "flexible" (ie round core, eg Hi Beams) would actually have.

 

[FourBanger]

I thought the Chromes vs CLs example was good proof. Same tension, different stiffness. If you don't see it as such I have failed in the communication but feel fully the example is what you want for proof.

Ken, I still disagree semantically with one of your points. I feel knowing one variable out of two in this case leaves us still closer to knowing none than both. Half-reasoned can't get you all right.

I would say that when comparing strings of one type by one maker it is okay, because the variable of stiffness should be nearly eliminated. Ergo Balanced-tension XLs could feel better than regular sets of XLs, but it is possible that the regular XL sets were simply not as balanced as what somebody like La Bella or Rotosound or whoever was putting out.

But we use the term tension to compare across makers and string types, and cause a fallacy to enter in to the arguement, the fallacy that tension alone tells us the flexibilty of the string.

 

[bumperbass]

I may be over-simplifying this, but I see it differently in terms of balanced tension. I look at it backwards, maybe; maybe I don't, but here's my process:
I might want balanced feel WITH A CERTAIN TYPE OF STRING, so if I like XL's and know I like XL's, then I might like a more consistent tension across THIS STRING TYPE. If I like Chromes, I might want a balanced feel WITHIN A CHROMES SET.
I am not saying there's not a difference in STIFFNESS between a round and a flat of the same gauge. There is. I am trying a set of Chromes on a second P-Bass I'm purchasing today. I use 45-105 XL's (165, I think), but I bought the 40-100 Chromes because of the difference in stiffness. After I play the Chromes, and happen to like them, I just might be happier with a balance set of these. I say MIGHT. I also have to agree that publishing tension is a pretty cool thing for a manufacturer to provide, and I predict that all string manufacturers will have to go this route eventually. Everything evolves. What doesn't seem important today might become very important in the future as we discover how different strings feel....good or bad. More information is better than less information. Let me have it and I can decide for myself.

 

[ilmaio]

La Bella now publish strings tension data on their website:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

This set of stainless steel M45 (previously called hard rockin' steel) seems more balanced tension-wise than D'addario XL; the M46 ([Invalid or Expired Link Removed]) set is even more balanced.

 

[Ian_Flash]

Word of caution: I too am a fan of "Balanced tension" as I've been buying individual gauges for years, since most brands' "Sets" are no balanced HOWEVER: The "Pull Tension" at pitch may not necessarily indicate an even "Feel Tension". If you buy or create a set whereby each string is (For example) 42.5 Lbs at pitch, you may still feel that one string is tighter or looser than another. Also, you may create a tonal or volume imbalance from string to string. Your individual Instrument's Design, your Playing Style, Setup EQ etc. all play a part in what feels and sounds best. Finally, how a particular string is wound will have an effect on its feel and flexibility. Case in point: a .065 Flatwound feels a lot stiffer that a .065 roundwound... AND... a .065 Roundwound with a Hex Core, feels stiffer than a .065 Roundwound with a Round Core... ASSUMING... that both strings are wound at the same speed.... WITH the same Wrap-to-Core diameter ratio. Remember: Any time you make an ASSUMPTION, you make an ASS out of U and UMPTION!!!

 

[FourBanger]

This goes perfectly with what I've been trying to convey. We assume imbalanced tension was both a hinderance to playing and somehow an oversight on the part of all manufacturers, and we were assuming this based on data from only a few manufacturers.

 

[khutch]

Ken, I still disagree semantically with one of your points. I feel knowing one variable out of two in this case leaves us still closer to knowing none than both. Half-reasoned can't get you all right.

You can either cast about in the darkness or you can light one candle. You advocate casting about in the darkness, I use the candle when it is available. If we had stiffness data too I would use it but we don't so I can't.

We assume imbalanced tension was both a hinderance to playing and somehow an oversight on the part of all manufacturers, and we were assuming this based on data from only a few manufacturers.

Actually a lot of us assume nothing. We look at the data from manufacturers that provide it, we pick a tension arrangement that we think we would like, and we test the results by playing with those tensions. Some people find they like balanced tension, some progressive tension, some regressive tension, and some apparently like the mish-mash of tensions that typical string sets provide. Using one manufacturer's data to predict the tension for another's strings is subject to error but all strings are made from similar materials and similar geometries so it really is not possible for one string to be vastly different from an obviously similar one. If the standard sets from one manufacturer have random tensions then similar strings from other manufactuers will too, perhaps to a greater or lesser extent.

The one thing I have yet to see any evidence of is the assertion that the stiffness of a string has anything to do with its playing feel. The apparent stiffness of a string increases dramatically when you bring it up to pitch by putting tension on it. It is many, many times as stiff under tension than it is when relaxed. So, really, how much effect can the relaxed stiffness have on the final result? Personally when I do the tension calculations on a set of strings and then put them on a bass and play them I find the results match my expectations very closely.

I am glad to see La Bella joining the party. Those of you who like to wander around in the dark can just close your eyes. From the sounds of things you are happy with things just as they were so why waste your time trying to claim the room is still dark? The data doesn't hurt you. I don't mean to be mean but knowledge is never a bad thing and I don't see any reason to claim that it is.

Ken

 

[mmbongo]

Funny thing is...if Leo Fender would have started putting balanced tension sets on his basses in 1950, people would be starting threads here today titled "Why does nobody use a 45, 65, 85, 105 set????"

 

[markanini]

mmbongo, I cant tell that is that's honest or facetious.

 

[mmbongo]

mmbongo, I cant tell that is that's honest or facetious.

Let's just say...I think a lot of folks just accept pre-packaged sets without questioning it. "Well I guess it's just supposed to be like this...everybody does it."

 

[khutch]

Funny thing is...if Leo Fender would have started putting balanced tension sets on his basses in 1950, people would be starting threads here today titled "Why does nobody use a 45, 65, 85, 105 set????"

Yep, they certainly would have. We don't all like the same bass, no reason to think we should all like the same strings. No reason at all. There is also no reason to argue with people about the strings that they like or to argue about the validity of using data to guide your choices. Even among those who pay attention to string tension there is no consensus about which tension pattern is ideal and there never will be because we are all different.

As I have said the advent of single string sales has ushered in an era where everyone can have exactly what they want in a set of strings. However the large variety of available string choices means that arriving at your personal optimum strictly by trial and error would be a long and expensive process. Some of us find that tension data gives us a huge shortcut to strings that suit us. If you don't, you don't. I tune in fifths. If I use standard sets the low string will be floppy and the high string will be near its snapping point, I know this because I have snapped one trying to tune it up to pitch. Using tension data has gotten me to a set of strings that plays nicely on every single attempt even though I have used data from a different maker to pick strings from one that does not provide data. And I have not snapped a string since I started paying attention to tension. There are other ways to get to the same point but my way works and works quite well and as a result it is pointless to claim that string data is pointless!!

Ken

 

[markanini]

Yep, they certainly would have.

What would be the rationale for it?

 

[mmbongo]

What would be the rationale for it?

Because it would have been different, just like balanced tension sets are now.

Keep in mind that there was no such thing as a 10-46 guitar string set until Ernie Ball starting putting it together from singles and selling it. Now it's the most widely used set of guitar strings on the planet, and Leo Fender refused to package that set.

 

[markanini]

Different or yet another shot in the dark?

Balanced tension sets are more than just something different for me. For example going from grooving to walking to chording to arpeggios to wide runs it's effortless on a balanced set compared to a standard set. Every note gets the dynamic I intended it to have, I don't have to think twice about it. Looks good on paper and for me has proven to work well in practice. Yeah, I'm a fanboy.

How does your history lesson about guitar gauges tie in with your point btw?

 

[mmbongo]

Different or yet another shot in the dark?

Balanced tension sets are more than just something different for me. For example going from grooving to walking to chording to arpeggios to wide runs it's effortless on a balanced set compared to a standard set. Every note gets the dynamic I intended it to have, I don't have to think twice about it. Looks good on paper and for me has proven to work well in practice. Yeah, I'm a fanboy.

How does your history lesson about guitar gauges tie in with your point btw?

I think you're missing my point. I love balanced tension strings for pretty much the same reasons you said. More specifically, I can't stand sets where the A and D strings are twice as stiff as the E and G strings, which most 45-105 sets are. I'm not too picky on the G string, I can use 40, 42, or 45. I'll usually go no bigger than 55 on the D and 75 on the A, and 100 or 105 on the E. It depends on the string.

Anyway, my whole point was just pondering. Back the 50's, Leo..like you said...threw together sets of bass strings that we still use today, despite that exact problem. They are waaaaay out of balance. Somebody had to like them though. Or maybe those were he only gauges available at the time.

What if he had started with a balanced set? THAT would be the norm, and people would be trying 'mixed' unbalanced sets folks would be buying singles to put together a 45-105 set. It's just bass players nature.

The guitar string thing was just to show that exact thing happening. Leo threw together whatever stiff as hell set he came up with, 13's or whatever, and Ernie Ball saw the need for a better..more 'Slinky' feeling set of strings. Leo wouldn't do it, so Ernie did.

 

[markanini]

I play guitar too, the stardard 009 and 010 sets have jumpy tension. Development of guitar guages arent unparalleld in the bass world, sets with ultra low gauges are popular enough for all the big string makers to package but balanced tension is still a new concept, yeah..."If its good enough for daddy"

 

[Freez]

Word of caution: I too am a fan of "Balanced tension" as I've been buying individual gauges for years, since most brands' "Sets" are no balanced HOWEVER: The "Pull Tension" at pitch may not necessarily indicate an even "Feel Tension". If you buy or create a set whereby each string is (For example) 42.5 Lbs at pitch, you may still feel that one string is tighter or looser than another. Also, you may create a tonal or volume imbalance from string to string. Your individual Instrument's Design, your Playing Style, Setup EQ etc. all play a part in what feels and sounds best. Finally, how a particular string is wound will have an effect on its feel and flexibility. Case in point: a .065 Flatwound feels a lot stiffer that a .065 roundwound... AND... a .065 Roundwound with a Hex Core, feels stiffer than a .065 Roundwound with a Round Core... ASSUMING... that both strings are wound at the same speed.... WITH the same Wrap-to-Core diameter ratio. Remember: Any time you make an ASSUMPTION, you make an ASS out of U and UMPTION!!!

Umption is an ass...