• 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...

#1,101
I'm thinking a bit about a .222 balanced set to tune one of my less played 4 strings to octave-down EADG. Anyone doing this? I don't have a super high-end cabinet for reproducing these low tones, just a nice LDS 3-way 1x12"... would it even be worth it to get the strings and mod the bass?
 
#1,102
I'm using the .210 set for EADG (34" scale) and it's rather taught. I haven't been able to give the bass a proper setup yet, but in its current state, I don't think I'd go any heavier. .222 for the low E might be okay, but I think the rest of the strings would feel too tight with the .222 set. For reference, I typically play the .150 sets on my 35" scale 6-strings (tuned to B-standard), so I'm a big fan of the heavy tension.

As for your amp, you could give it a shot. Not sure about how well your cabs would reproduce it, but I know I have to boost my 1x18" (I crossover at 140Hz and biamp) quite a bit to get the low end to come through and really be felt. If you are wanting to reproduce those low frequencies, you could always get a lighter set, like the .190 or .200, which would significantly improve output to your amp.
 
#1,103
You're welcome! I can't stop yakking it up about these strings! It's been over a year since I first started using Circle K's and I still use no other brand, except for flats.

Hobobob said:
I just slapped a set on my Jazz 24 - 102 balanced set. These things deliver. I was a little hesitant at first to try em because I'm not really a fan of stainless steel (don't like the low-treble gank) and these strings are described as a nickel-steel blend. Thanks to Grateful giving me a spin on his new Circle K-equipped Reverend, I took the plunge. These strings do cut more than nickel plated strings, and have more sheen, but are not ganky. These strings give me the most satisfying slap tone I've ever gotten out of my Jazz. Bright enough to please a stainless convert, but the tone also has a lot of fundamental to it - a good tone for a dense mix. The feel is a little rougher than the D'Addario nickels I had on the bass before, but not much. I bet they'd feel downright silky compared to some of the stainless strings I've tried. I believe I'll be trying these on all my electrics now.
Click to expand...
 
#1,104
Thanks, maybe .210 would be a better place to start. I don't know why I want to do this, maybe after seeing octobass stuff posted on the UB side of the forum. I think that a subcontra 8 string would be amazing ('bass' strings an octave down EADG, 'octave' strings regular octave EADG).
 
#1,105
TheEmptyCell said:
Thanks, maybe .210 would be a better place to start. I don't know why I want to do this, maybe after seeing octobass stuff posted on the UB side of the forum. I think that a subcontra 8 string would be amazing ('bass' strings an octave down EADG, 'octave' strings regular octave EADG).
Click to expand...

I've been wanting to do an octaved 8-string like that (brought it up in the 8-string club thread many months ago). I did some experimenting with a .182 and a .100 E-string on a long bolt and a 36" long piece of wood. The bolt threads allowed me to adjust the string spacing to get a feel for just how far apart the strings would need to be, and I can tell you that it's certainly farther than a typical 8, so you'd need to modify the saddles or get a custom bridge.

My personal opinion is that Circle K's are not right for the task of a (sub)contra 8-string. Because they are so flexible, they have a nice wide arc when plucked, which increases that distance and makes it harder to fret multiple strings under one finger. Instead, I think the better option would be to go with smaller gauge by a manufacturer that makes less flexible strings - that way you could get them closer together without much sacrifice in feel (tone is a different story, but there isn't much to be had on a 20Hz low E anyway). I know Octave4Plus has various winding options to allow for more stiffness, so if you're serious, a discussion with Gary Goodman might be a good place to start.
 
#1,108
FunkMetalBass said:
My personal opinion is that Circle K's are not right for the task of a (sub)contra 8-string. Because they are so flexible, they have a nice wide arc when plucked, which increases that distance and makes it harder to fret multiple strings under one finger.
Click to expand...

Why not go with a longer scale length to increase tension and lower the action?
 
#1,109
FunkMetalBass said:
Holy cow. I just went and checked out the Octobass - it's located at the MIM only 10 minutes from me! I'll have to go see it in person sometime.
Click to expand...

I am angry at you for living that close to MIM :bawl::mad:. If you see the video they have on Youtube of a person recording with it for a demo, you actually see that it is "fingered" (using the term very loosely) using levers that the player controls. Link right here:
 
#1,110
Razman said:
Why not go with a longer scale length to increase tension and lower the action?
Click to expand...

The issue is really less about the tension and more about the flexibility of the strings. They're just really flexible. My Circle K .150 B-string feels more flexible than my old Fodera .135 B-string, despite being about 10 lbs heavier.

You could increase the scale length to about 39" and go with smaller gauges, but that's not the easiest, and it's assuredly more expensive to get a custom neck than a custom set of strings (unless you build your own necks). I have no idea how they compare exactly, but I would think that O4P's ultra stiff .169 @ E0 could feel as stiff as a CKS .210 @ E0, but with O4P, you could get the strings closer together, which makes it easier to play. As well, if you're just modifying a 4-string, the lower tension means that you could get away with only one truss rod.
 
#1,111
I just put a Circle K balanced .136 set on my Ibanez SR1306 six-string. As I'm new to the 6' I found that the D'Addario set that was on there felt really weird. The B and E strings were too loose and the A and D strings were really tight. The balanced set made a HUGE difference. Not only is it easier to play the center strings, the low strings are tighter. The strings don't sound so drastically different anymore either.
 
#1,112
jcerio said:
I just put a Circle K balanced .136 set on my Ibanez SR1306 six-string. As I'm new to the 6' I found that the D'Addario set that was on there felt really weird. The B and E strings were too loose and the A and D strings were really tight. The balanced set made a HUGE difference. Not only is it easier to play the center strings, the low strings are tighter. The strings don't sound so drastically different anymore either.
Click to expand...

Another convert (can't you hear the harp music?) I went from D'Addario's on my fiver to a .150 balanced set. Just wait till you get into the heavier guages.
 
#1,113
TheEmptyCell said:
I'm thinking a bit about a .222 balanced set to tune one of my less played 4 strings to octave-down EADG. Anyone doing this? I don't have a super high-end cabinet for reproducing these low tones, just a nice LDS 3-way 1x12"... would it even be worth it to get the strings and mod the bass?
Click to expand...

I have my .210 tuned to Eb and it's a little too loose for my liking. It feels great when it's tuned just to E. Definitely try the .210 instead of the .222.
 
#1,114
Alright guys, I want to try out a set of CK's on my ABZ5. I've currently got a set of Payson Nickel's on there that are nearly dead, although I'm going to construct a denatured alcohol tube soon.

My problem is that I read from Chip (I believe it was one of his old posts, maybe someone else though) that a traditional 36 to 37" scale set will be balanced tension on a Dingwall.

However, Sheldon Dingwall himself posted recently on the DW forum:

Using Skip's spreadsheet here is my recommendation for a balanced set.

Medium Light
G - .041"
D - .053"
A - .070"
E - .094"
B - .124"

Medium Light, (slightly higher tension)
G - .043"
D - .055"
A - .076"
E - .098"
B - .130"
Click to expand...

Piecing together either set is only about $1 difference from a premade set.

I love the snappy, light feel of the stock strings, which are: .045 .055 .075 .095 .127, and it's been said they are constructed very much like DR Hi-Beams, which I also enjoy the feel of. The Paysons felt great tuned down to A standard, but I generally play in B.

Since CK's are a softer/ lighter feeling string than their gauge suggests, I'm thinking of going with Sheldon Dingwall's suggestion of .130-.043 set.

Any thoughts or recommendations before I order?
 
#1,118
TheEmptyCell said:
Alright guys, I want to try out a set of CK's on my ABZ5. I've currently got a set of Payson Nickel's on there that are nearly dead, although I'm going to construct a denatured alcohol tube soon.

My problem is that I read from Chip (I believe it was one of his old posts, maybe someone else though) that a traditional 36 to 37" scale set will be balanced tension on a Dingwall.

However, Sheldon Dingwall himself posted recently on the DW forum:



Piecing together either set is only about $1 difference from a premade set.

I love the snappy, light feel of the stock strings, which are: .045 .055 .075 .095 .127, and it's been said they are constructed very much like DR Hi-Beams, which I also enjoy the feel of. The Paysons felt great tuned down to A standard, but I generally play in B.

Since CK's are a softer/ lighter feeling string than their gauge suggests, I'm thinking of going with Sheldon Dingwall's suggestion of .130-.043 set.

Any thoughts or recommendations before I order?
Click to expand...

If you order a balanced tension set from Circle K, the fanned frets will give you a gradually falling tension. Some players like this. I've found that I actually do prefer it for tapping.

Skip also sells traditional sets (although his webpage for the 5-string 36-37" scale sets is incorrect; it only shows drop-tune string gauges). They were actually designed by Skip based on the Dingwall construction. If you're looking for balanced tension on a Dingwall, you want the traditional set.

You could also piece together your own sets, but look how close his set is to Sheldon's suggestion: .130 .098 .076 .057 .043
 
#1,119
FunkMetalBass said:
If you order a balanced tension set from Circle K, the fanned frets will give you a gradually falling tension. Some players like this. I've found that I actually do prefer it for tapping.

Skip also sells traditional sets (although his webpage for the 5-string 36-37" scale sets is incorrect; it only shows drop-tune string gauges). They were actually designed by Skip based on the Dingwall construction. If you're looking for balanced tension on a Dingwall, you want the traditional set.

You could also piece together your own sets, but look how close his set is to Sheldon's suggestion: .130 .098 .076 .057 .043
Click to expand...

I was about to ask about this. I thought CK was all about balanced tension but I saw the bass whisperer mention that he is using a traditional tension set.

Why is CK offering a traditional set if balanced is the way to go? I"m just curious.

I'm considering ordering a set and not sure which to go with. :hmm:
 
#1,120
Some players actually don't like balanced tension, mainly old guys that are stuck in their ways, so CK offers traditional sets. Just so happens that traditional sets give balanced tension on a Dingwall.

Balanced tension is awesome. I think Thomastic Infeld sets are balanced tension, or really close, and those are my favorite strings ever. I built Daddario sets for balanced tension after getting TI's.

I took Sheldon's advice, even though his suggestion was so close to a CK set. Honestly, the difference is probably negligible.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back