Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Circle K strings...
- Thread starter James Hart
- Start date
I found a page of single guitar strings here Link Removed which has guitar wounds from .022 down to .017 so i'm guessing CKS uses these in the lightest 9 guitar sets (8-35 to 9-41) to keep it 3 plain and 3 wound? Exciting to see CKS revolutionising guitar strings.
Either way, very exciting!I just got a four string Ibanez SRT800DX and I love it. I tune to Drop Bb/A#. I know everyone says fives are better for that tuning, but I have an SR305 five string and I really prefer a four string. I want to avoid the strings being loose and buzz at the lower frets without having to raise the action too much. I'm looking at the Circle K Drop Tune 4 string sets: .130/ .086/ .065/ .047 or .136/ .090/ .067/ .049. I know I will have to adjust the nut a little, but I can do that. Anyone have any experience with this that could help?
Depends what sort of tension you like, do you have a favourite roundwound gauge for a standard E string? You could use the CKS tension chart to find out what scientific tension you like and use that value to choose your set. Also keep in mind CKs feel very loose/flexy for their gauge so choose the next heavier set to the one you think will work. I'm thinking you may need to go thicker than .136, possibly .142 or .150.
Well the new Ibanez I just bought still has the factory set up tuned to standard E. I believe its a .100, and I love the set up on that bass. If I could keep it close to the action it has now I would love it. You don't think a .142 or .150 would be too big for a four string? Or does it not make a difference as long as the tuning matches the gauge?
- Aug 5, 2005
- 7,243
- 92
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: J.C. Basses
Are you worried that the low B will feel too large in comparison to the other strings? Truthfully, the difference isn't as big as it might seem, although getting used to something larger than a .100 might be a bit weird for you initially, but that comes with the BEAD territory.
I use the CKS .150 B's on two of my basses and absolutely love how low I can get the action. Because the strings are so flexible, I find that the amount of force my fretting hand exerts is equivalent or less than that of usual manufacturer's heavy sets.
I have a five string with a .135 tuned to A# so I'm not worried about the size as far a playability. I just prefer playing a four string and I wasn't sure if a string that size would be too much for the guitar. Now that I've looked at the tension chart, though, it doesn't seem like it would be much of a change. I like a low, quick action myself and after looking at the chart it seems a .150 would be the logical choice. I think I'll have to give em a shot. Crazy, I've been playing bass for 18 years and until yesterday, I didn't even know they made bass strings that big. Guess there's always something new to learn. Thanks guys!
Just to check ... you tune drop Bb meaning Bb F Bb Eb, intervals fifth-fourth-fourth low to high? The CKS drop tune sets are for those intervals.
A big gauge is no problem on a 4 string as long as you choose the right tension and file the nut slots wider. When you have that lowest interval of a fifth, equalising the tension necessarily results in a big jump in gauge such as .102 to .150, that may feel weird at first but you'll get used to it.
Since you like a 100 E, i agree the .150 set seems to be a good place to start.
Affirmative. Bb F Bb Eb. Sounds good. I'm stoked to try em. I'm ordering a set on payday. I'll let you know how they work. Thanks for your help!
I actually read through this entire thread -- albeit in chunks -- at one point, but it's been awhile, so forgive me if this has already been addressed:
Re. thicker vs. thinner strings, this is my understanding: at a given pitch, the THINNER string will have a greater ratio of fundamental to overtones. The THICKER string will have more overtone/harmonic content relative to the fundamental.
Is this correct? If so, it puts me in a quandary: I'd like to tighten up the bottom-end feel and responsiveness on my neck-through Ibanez Prestige sixer, but I'd also like more fundamental vs. harmonics on the lowest notes.
I'm currently using a .136 balanced set. This replaced an R. Cocco set with a .125 B which, on this bass, felt floppy. The .136 B was a substantial improvement (and the overall tension of the set was lower -- I was able to loosen the truss rods a little -- even though the B was tighter), but it's still not quite where I'd like it.
I'm using .102 balanced sets on my Fender and Peavey four-bangers, which I like very much (and which would correspond to a .136 low B), but it's been my experience that different basses "like" different gauges of strings. I put a .136 set on a bolt-on Ibanez and it seems about right on that bass. I don't get the sense that it needs anything heavier.
The neck-through sounds good and plays well now, I just think it could be better.
The .102 set on my Fender kills, if I haven't said that before. Every pickup setting is useable and the bass feels great to play. The same set yields a very satisfying feel and tone from an inexpensive Peavey Grind.
Skip, if you're reading this, I emailed you a similar question to the above, only more geeky and OCD. I know you're a busy guy, so please don't feel you've got to answer it immediately!
I'm not one for "drinking the Kool-Aid" and I don't think one make of strings will be the best match for every bass ever made (I still like Smiths and DRs, and might give them a whirl again at some point to see how well they hold up to my memory of them), but I've been impressed with these strings (they are on four of my six basses) and impressed with the customer service and level of choice Circle K offers.
Re. thicker vs. thinner strings, this is my understanding: at a given pitch, the THINNER string will have a greater ratio of fundamental to overtones. The THICKER string will have more overtone/harmonic content relative to the fundamental.
Is this correct? If so, it puts me in a quandary: I'd like to tighten up the bottom-end feel and responsiveness on my neck-through Ibanez Prestige sixer, but I'd also like more fundamental vs. harmonics on the lowest notes.
I'm currently using a .136 balanced set. This replaced an R. Cocco set with a .125 B which, on this bass, felt floppy. The .136 B was a substantial improvement (and the overall tension of the set was lower -- I was able to loosen the truss rods a little -- even though the B was tighter), but it's still not quite where I'd like it.
I'm using .102 balanced sets on my Fender and Peavey four-bangers, which I like very much (and which would correspond to a .136 low B), but it's been my experience that different basses "like" different gauges of strings. I put a .136 set on a bolt-on Ibanez and it seems about right on that bass. I don't get the sense that it needs anything heavier.
The neck-through sounds good and plays well now, I just think it could be better.
The .102 set on my Fender kills, if I haven't said that before. Every pickup setting is useable and the bass feels great to play. The same set yields a very satisfying feel and tone from an inexpensive Peavey Grind.
Skip, if you're reading this, I emailed you a similar question to the above, only more geeky and OCD. I know you're a busy guy, so please don't feel you've got to answer it immediately!
I'm not one for "drinking the Kool-Aid" and I don't think one make of strings will be the best match for every bass ever made (I still like Smiths and DRs, and might give them a whirl again at some point to see how well they hold up to my memory of them), but I've been impressed with these strings (they are on four of my six basses) and impressed with the customer service and level of choice Circle K offers.
I've always been told that thinner strings are more resonant. I don't know how that factors into fundamentals and overtones, though.
Sad to report that I have encountered my first "bad strings" from Circle K--oddly enough two of the same set that I installed on a fretless bass. Thought it was the bass, but replacing the strings had it functioning normally again. Maybe the strings were just sitting around too long (I bought four sets quite a while ago and just worked through them).
These are great strings! Just thought I would share, they aren't immune to the usual problems, so don't just assume it's your bass.
These are great strings! Just thought I would share, they aren't immune to the usual problems, so don't just assume it's your bass.
- Aug 5, 2005
- 7,243
- 92
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: J.C. Basses
Have you tried EQing the bass/amp differently for this bass? If you've exhausted all efforts there, you might consider half rounds or flats.
Yeah i believe so but seems to me there is perhaps also something working in the opposite direction to this too: the thinner string structure is more flexible, which encourages more harmonic content, the thicker string structure is stiffer, which reduces harmonic content. Whether they balance out or not or which effect is stronger i don't know.
My personal approach to this would be to go for a heavier set to get the tension, playability and feel right first, and then tweak the tone afterwards if necessary by adjusting pickups, EQ and technique.
You could also perhaps try one of the 'traditional tension' sets which are gently top heavy, or create your own bottom heavy set from singles. Whichever of these gives you what you want i don't know, but i personally find great playability advantage in balanced or bottom heavy sets.
- Aug 5, 2005
- 7,243
- 92
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: J.C. Basses
What exactly is meant by "harmonic content"? A string, being an imperfect structure and vibrating in 3 dimensions is vibrating at all of its harmonic frequencies whenever it is plucked, so all of the harmonics are there.
Let's get all physicsy up in hurr.
When a string is stiffer or under more tension, it impedes the string's ability to achieve maximum amplitude for the fundamental frequency. As a result, the fundamental, which requires a larger amplitude for our ears to hear at equivalent volume as the other harmonics, is thus made quieter, effectively emphasizing the first/second (and above) harmonics.
Now, something else to consider, gravity is constantly fighting a string, so we want it to have a nice blend of tension/stiffness to keep the restoring force sufficiently high, otherwise gravity chokes it out. By the same token, we want it under low enough tension and to be sufficiently flexible so that the string's restoring force isn't so high that it also kills the note too quickly.
- Jan 17, 2002
- 1,249
- 23
- Disclosures
- I paid for all my gear myself. Well, me and MasterCard.
- Aug 5, 2005
- 7,243
- 92
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: J.C. Basses
If you're snapping your strings, why would you increase the tension on the string and the likelihood of it happening more often? You should actually choose a smaller gauge for a more flexible string that can undergo the abuse.
