Circle K strings...

[knuckle_head]

I understand the idea of the balanced tension, but the wild difference in the B to the normal seems a little exaggerated. I may just buy two B's and see how the .142 is and have a .124 on backup.

I strongly recommend against a .124 as the B string for the set listed above. If you feel compelled to purchase insurance against the .142 being too big then I suggest getting a .136.

Sets are recommended based on a player's preference for standard E. The .142 set is for guys who like a .105. If you're a .100 guy go for the balanced .136 set.

I suggest you play with your ears and fingers and not let convention sway you. The .142 is a three wrap string that is likely more pliable and more sonically lively than the .145 you experienced.

If balanced tension runs contrary to your intention consider a traditional set, but the balanced set may just pleseantly surprise you.

 

[Doodaddy]

I strongly recommend against a .124 as the B string for the set listed above. If you feel compelled to purchase insurance against the .142 being too big then I suggest getting a .136.

Sets are recommended based on a player's preference for standard E. The .142 set is for guys who like a .105. If you're a .100 guy go for the balanced .136 set.

I suggest you play with your ears and fingers and not let convention sway you. The .142 is a three wrap string that is likely more pliable and more sonically lively than the .145 you experienced.

If balanced tension runs contrary to your intention consider a traditional set, but the balanced set may just pleseantly surprise you.

This is what I keep telling myself. The strings I was using were the Ken Smith Bass Burners and I was over all, very displeased. I used them before you guys had come around, otherwise, I may not have sold the Conklin...

I was sitting down to order a set of strings and saw the gauge sets and I had some questions and posted here since there is no number to call.

While I have you here, are any of your strings tapered?

 

[James Hart]

If you read my posts in the treads on Circle K strings you will find that at least I find no issue with really thin B or E strings. My basses are both 34" scale.

I've quoted my earlier post in this thread below yours.

A .125 gauge B string is considered too light to be used for a low B.

Maybe the 34" scale or the particular string had something to do with it.

Full Fledged Convert here

So I've had my super ultra light set of Circle K strings on my Bee for about a week now... I love them!

I ended up with a balanced set of .106 - .080 - .061 - .046 - .033 - .025 - .018p and the Depth and Girth of tone from the .106 B and .080 E are thunderous. Excellent focus and clarity... good over all tone across the board.

I'm a die hard Stainless Round guy and these have NONE of the typical nickel round traits I dislike... yet they are clearly not stainless rounds either. They hit it pretty good as a happy medium between Stainless and Nickel rounds.

I can't wait to try my .118 Balanced set on my fretless 6 (might take the time to install them tonight)

 

[Doodaddy]

If you read my posts in the treads on Circle K strings you will find that at least I find no issue with really thin B or E strings. My basses are both 34" scale.

I've quoted my earlier post in this thread below yours.

Worth a shot for sure.

I just hate how subjective strings are from player to player. The Dunlop Nickels are the closest I've ever come to being completely happy with a set of strings and in this thread, there are several "flaws" to them. I'm trying to get passed the idea of the strings being so different in size.

 

[knuckle_head]

E and larger are tapered - and a tight taper at that. It's why through body guys can't use Circle K's - yet.

 

[Doodaddy]

E and larger are tapered - and a tight taper at that. It's why through body guys can't use Circle K's - yet.

Works for me. Any sort of taper will be plenty. I'm just trying to anticipate the .142 string.

 

[Chris Breese]

So no thru-body stringing. Got it. So regular scale (34-35") is what I need for my lakland 55-01 (thru the bridge, of course)? I won't have to worry about too much winding around the tuning posts on the lowest strings? I'm pulling the trigger VERY soon! Anyone here use these for modern country?

 

[knuckle_head]

So no thru-body stringing. Got it. So regular scale (34-35") is what I need for my lakland 55-01 (thru the bridge, of course)?

Yes.

I won't have to worry about too much winding around the tuning posts on the lowest strings?

Your call - at least once to twice around the post on your lowest string, three or more on everything else.

 

[KingRazor]

All I know is I have a .125 gauge D'Addario Prosteel B string right now and it's floppy and it rattles if I play with anything but the lightest touch. I'm very impressed that someone in this thread has a .106 gauge B string and likes it, but I guess that's just a testament to how good Circle K strings are. I agree with Knuckle, try the .142 or the .136 and see how you like it you may wind up wanting a lighter or heavier gauge. I'm getting a relatively heavy gauge to try but I may go lighter as well.

 

[Chris Breese]

I went with this balanced set.
.130 .096 .072 .052 .037

Can't wait! It seems to me that 35" scale is good for the low B, but the higher strings are too taught. Looking forward to having these in my bass.

 

[Flatwound]

OK, I've read the entire thread, so I hope I can ask a couple of intelligent questions. A little background - I've had lots of basses, but now I don't have very many. I'm looking for a good-sounding set of strings for my Washburn XB-600 that I haven't had very long. The first set of strings I tried was GHS Boomers .030-.126, which sounded surprisingly good considering that they were Boomers . They died in about two weeks of intermittent playing. Now I have a set of Warwick EMP .020-.130 strings on it, which I am very disappointed in. Not sure why they would put a twangy little .020 C in this set, and the .130 B is floppier than the .126 of the Boomers was.

I'm thinking that I want the Balanced Regular .130 set. This is a 34" bass. Does that sound right? I play with a pretty light touch.

Also, are your strings Alloy 52 or something like it? That's a nickel/iron alloy, right?

Thanks.

 

[Mr wiggl3s]

4 String Set - Balanced Standard 254

.254 .190 .142 .106

I'd like to see these.

 

[ixlramp]

I'm just trying to anticipate the .142 string.

If you download the Link Removed you'll see that the .142 B is roughly the same tension as a .106 E, in fact the B is very slightly looser.

.142 just sounds big because mainstream sets have such loose floppy B's, we get used to seeing .125 and .130. Traditional sets are a bad habit we get used to, they becomes familiar.

 

[cassius987]

.142 just sounds big because mainstream sets have such loose floppy B's, we get used to seeing .125 and .130. Traditional sets are a bad habit we get used to, they becomes familiar.

Yep!

 

[recnsci]

(from another thread - 'bout what causes "piano tone")

Rigid bass, high tension flexible strings, minimal EQ.

Do you think your 106 balnaced set would fit the bill (yes, I want my bass to have that "ringy" tone)?

Few more more questions:
I currently have Fender J HighwayOne with Badass bridge. I've had few Daddario packs, now I starded to chew last one. I'm using EXL165 (105-45 , tension is 40-48-51-42). What I don't like 'boute these (and what would like fix with new string choice):
1)uneven output string2string , D in particular is weak compared to E for my preference (even with p'ups tilted as far as they go)
2)short life
3)noticable variations in tone during aging - I accept as fact of life that HF gets reduced, but have noticable and annoying variation even in lower harmonics balance 'bout every 3 days
4)wierd harmonic structure in tone (especially after string age a bit: wierd dips and peaks in spectrum)
5)better attack deffinition (btw, I play with pick)
6)E feels flabby, D feels too rigid

Would Circle K (and what set) cure these problems?

 

[knuckle_head]

(from another thread - 'bout what causes "piano tone")

Do you think your 106 balnaced set would fit the bill (yes, I want my bass to have that "ringy" tone)?

Few more more questions:
I currently have Fender J HighwayOne with Badass bridge. I've had few Daddario packs, now I starded to chew last one. I'm using EXL165 (105-45 , tension is 40-48-51-42). What I don't like 'boute these (and what would like fix with new string choice):
1)uneven output string2string , D in particular is weak compared to E for my preference (even with p'ups tilted as far as they go)
2)short life
3)noticable variations in tone during aging - I accept as fact of life that HF gets reduced, but have noticable and annoying variation even in lower harmonics balance 'bout every 3 days
4)wierd harmonic structure in tone (especially after string age a bit: wierd dips and peaks in spectrum)
5)better attack deffinition (btw, I play with pick)
6)E feels flabby, D feels too rigid

Would Circle K (and what set) cure these problems?

Steels help but aren't a requisite for 'piano tone' - Circle Ks are a hybrid steel/nickel and can get you where you're headed. They won't be as bright as steels out of the package but the tone you get from them will last longer than the zinginess you find in new steels. Tone will shift with any string, mine included. I believe the shift is slower and less radical with my stuff.

Balanced tension goes a fair ways in evening out volume disparages from string to string - you ought to see some improvement there.

You will get plenty of attack using a pick.

Do you feel the .105 you have is too floppy, or is it too floppy as compared to the rest of the set? The answer to this question will let me know what to suggest to you.

 

[recnsci]

Steels help but aren't a requisite for 'piano tone' - Circle Ks are a hybrid steel/nickel and can get you where you're headed. They won't be as bright as steels out of the package but the tone you get from them will last longer than the zinginess you find in new steels. Tone will shift with any string, mine included. I believe the shift is slower and less radical with my stuff.

On EXLs tone shifts a lot with ageing IMHO. And I'm not anal abut that HF ziiiing, I don't crave for it, and I don't mind it as long as it's not overpowering rest of the spectrum. Basically, something like this, with clear and present 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th harmonic, even spectrum and long harmonic decay - but I wouldn't mind at all more open and present mids/highmids.

Balanced tension goes a fair ways in evening out volume disparages from string to string - you ought to see some improvement there.

Yes I certanly hope so (in EXL165 set, D has >20% more tension than E, and it is noticable). I was ready to buy EXL singles to form more balanced set untill I'v found out bout Circle K.

You will get plenty of attack using a pick.

Do you feel the .105 you have is too floppy, or is it too floppy as compared to the rest of the set? The answer to this question will let me know what to suggest to you.

That is quite a complex issue. First about attack, I feel that EXL has strong but flabby attack, like when you compare badly tuned bass drum with properly tuned one, you get loud FLAB instead of tight BAM. Since most of people comment on how Circle K are "focused" I hope to mitigate a bit this issue.

About floppy-ness, well I really can't tell if 105/40lbs feels floppy by it self or compared to whole set, since whole set feels off. For some time I was set on about getting 50lbs set, "tighter is allways better" idea, but recently I figured out two things: A and D actually feel too tight, my left hand in particular seems to struggle a bit when fretting, and I strated to play with dropping tune on D and G and I noticed that both plays nice and easy even droppped to A and D. Dropping tune on E is a problem since E quickly loose tone, and 8th note runs become indistinct mush (maybe I should learn to avoid 8th note staccato lines on E string anyway).

What bugs me is that I've read lot of comments (your website included) that Circle K feels more flexible than other similiar tension strings. While it sound logical that also means more even and richer harmonic contet, do they actually feel flabby-er (I allways strive for lowest action possible, will this "higher flexibility" set me off?).

To cut a long story short, I figured out that .106 E based balanced set would be safest bet (106 80 58 43, right?) but, judging from what I wrote feel free to recomend me some other option (I would really like to try 3 different tension balanced sets but that would be quite a leap of faith and budget).



Finaly, one weird question: have you tried, or you know someone has tried, "inverted tension" set, something like 106 76 55 40 ?

thanks
Urosh


edit: one more thing, do Circle K have more friction (under fingers) than average nickel like EXL?

 

[Jon Moody]

What bugs me is that I've read lot of comments (your website included) that Circle K feels more flexible than other similiar tension strings. While it sound logical that also means more even and richer harmonic contet, do they actually feel flabby-er (I allways strive for lowest action possible, will this "higher flexibility" set me off?).

I found that to be true. I was coming from Rotosound Swing 66s and it was a very noticeable tension shift. It took a little extra practicing to get the feel of the strings, and what I can do with them. It ended up with me adjusting my playing just slightly; I play with a lighter touch now for my "regular" tone and dig in to get some of that fingerstyle slap sound.

 

[recnsci]

I found that to be true. I was coming from Rotosound Swing 66s and it was a very noticeable tension shift.

Hmmm. But nevertheless, I think I'll take the plunge even with looser strings, I figured out most of my "problems" come from tension-wise and tonaly unbalanced strings.

BTW, aren't 66 quite high tension strings (last time I used rotos 2-3 years ago, I only vaguely remember their feel) ?

BTW2, how do K's sound compared to 66?

thanks
Urosh

 

[Jon Moody]

Hmmm. But nevertheless, I think I'll take the plunge even with looser strings, I figured out most of my "problems" come from tension-wise and tonaly unbalanced strings.

BTW, aren't 66 quite high tension strings (last time I used rotos 2-3 years ago, I only vaguely remember their feel) ?

BTW2, how do K's sound compared to 66?

thanks
Urosh

I found the same problems were remedied with a balanced set. When switching to a 6 string, the top 2 were always very tinny and thin when compared to the other strings. A balanced set took care of that problem, as well as making the B string useable above the fifth fret.

Yep, 66s are fairly high tension, but I liked them because I could get that "close to the bridge" tight tone between the pickups.

They're night and day, sound wise. The Ks are clear, focused, bright without that metallic sheen, and pretty much sound the same note-for-note across and up the fingerboard. The 66s always hit me as aggressive, bright and metallic. They also get overly boomy above the 8th fret. I didn't really notice the difference until after my first set of Ks finally died, I replaced them with Swing 66s again. After a week of solid playing in rehearsals during a show, I emailed Chris and begged him to ship me a set of Ks.