• 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.

Dean Markley SR-2000 vs SIT Power Core

kirkdickinson

kirkdickinson

Supporting Member
Feb 25, 2012
4,046
10,737
Belmont County, Ohio - USA
#1
I have a Lightwave Saber SL-5 and when I replaced the factory strings have always used the Dean Markley SR-2000 strings. I really like the because of the brightness and sustain.

I saw the SIT Power Core strings advertised as having brightness and sustain. They have an exposed core and the ends are very similar looking to the SR-2000's.
SITvsSR-2000.jpg

The Dean Markley SR-2000 "B" string on the left and the SIT Power Core "B" on the right.

I notice that he DM string has a tiny wind around the core and it also looks like there are three layers of strings wound on the rest of the string, where the SIT has nothing on the core and only two layers of thicker winding on the balance.

Code: 
String Gauges
DM  44 60 78  98 125
SIT 45 65 80 100 125

I have not installed the SIT yet. I ordered two new sets one of each in case I decide I don't like the.

The SIT set was cheaper and made right here in Ohio.

Kirk
 
#3
OzzyGreg said:
.
I'm a fan of exposed core Rotosounds.
Click to expand...

i didn't know that Rotos had an exposed core string?

I will probably put them on this week and see what I think.

The old strings still have a little life in the, so I may not switch right away though. Gets costly changing strings too often.

I really like the sound of new strings. If I were rich, I would change them once a month or more.

On my electric bass, my quest is for bright strings that sound new for a long time.

If I want dead sounding strings, I will pick up my ABG with the tape wounds on it.

Kirk
 
#4
Haven't tried the SIT strings, but I really like the Markley set. They aren't too expensive, they last a long time, they sound good, and they don't feel bad, either. It looks like the SIT has bigger windings, but not sure what that would do for tone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GTHintz
#10
Well, I put the SIT Power Cores on last night. First impressions were that they are very bright. Of course the Dean Markley SR-2000's are always very bright when new also. One thing I noticed is that it seems to have more volume acoustically. I always like it when the strings have more acoustic presence. I feel that it translates to more presence overall.

No way to measure it of course, but I think that these strings overall have less tension at the same pitch than the SR-2000's. I had the biggest three strings hitting the frets. If I had been going from a normal core to exposed, that alone would have been the reason, but the difference between the core on the SIT Power Core and the taperwound on the SR-2000 is imperceptible. I would need a micrometer to measure it. Anyways, I had to take the B string up 3 turns, the E up 2 and the A up 2 turns. I am going to have to work on the intonation tonight, they are a little different. A string is pretty sharp at 12.

Since I have a Lightwave bass, I also need to check the pickup adjustments on the strings I moved.

Didn't have my amp here, so only got to hear it with my Pandora Mini to practice on some songs for Sunday. So far so good. I will report back after I play it through the amp.

I hope that these stray bright for a while.

Kirk
 
#11
I have had the SIT Powercores on since Friday. I still haven't decided if I like them or not. First observation when I put them on was that they are very bright, almost obnoxiously so. But they also had more projection when the bass wasn't plugged in. I usually like like that.

Strings didn't feel like they had as much tension and were buzzing a lot on the fretboard. I had to raise B, E, and D from where the SR-2000's were. B had to be raised 3 full turns. Looks high, but that is where it had to be to work. Didn't adjust the pickups that day and it was a mistake not to.

Dropped by the music store in my area to look at a new SWR amp, but was kind of stupid to go with new strings that I wasn't familiar with to listen to a new amp. Wasn't liking it much. Don't know which? Guy at the store that I know is a slapper, (I am not) he took a turn with the bass and I didn't think I was going to get it back. I don't know which he liked better the SL-5 or the SIT-Powercores. He loved them. He was DIGGING IT! Sounded really great with slap.

I played for church Sunday and with the Aviom and bad in-ear monitors, I frankly have no clue what I sounded like. The sound guy told me that he had a heck of a time controlling my levels. Even though I have a compressor pedal, he told me that my level would be at 2 bars, then peaking, then 2 bars, he had to fight it all through the service. Should have adjusted the pickups. Did so last night. Also required a completely different intonation setup than my SR-2000's

Spent about an hour last night with my Hartke Kickback (familiar equipment) and playing with the strings. Observations.
B sounds pretty solid.
Overall, the bass response isn't as deep, or fat as the SR-2000's I don't know how to describe that.
More powerful mids
Some obnoxious overtones that may go away when broken in.

I don't think I would like these strings at all without having the Aguilar Tone Hammer to get them back to a tone I like better.

I never could properly intonate the B string. I reached the limitation of the adjustment and am still a few cents sharp at 12. (Peterson strobe tuner)

Will leave them on for a month and see if my opinion gets any better but I am strongly inclined to go back the Dean Markley SR-2000's

I have a feeling that they are probably better strings for Slap and probably for Speed Metal than the SR-2000's.
 
#12
kirkdickinson said:
I have had the SIT Powercores on since Friday. I still haven't decided if I like them or not. First observation when I put them on was that they are very bright, almost obnoxiously so. But they also had more projection when the bass wasn't plugged in. I usually like like that.

Strings didn't feel like they had as much tension and were buzzing a lot on the fretboard. I had to raise B, E, and D from where the SR-2000's were. B had to be raised 3 full turns. Looks high, but that is where it had to be to work. Didn't adjust the pickups that day and it was a mistake not to.

Dropped by the music store in my area to look at a new SWR amp, but was kind of stupid to go with new strings that I wasn't familiar with to listen to a new amp. Wasn't liking it much. Don't know which? Guy at the store that I know is a slapper, (I am not) he took a turn with the bass and I didn't think I was going to get it back. I don't know which he liked better the SL-5 or the SIT-Powercores. He loved them. He was DIGGING IT! Sounded really great with slap.

I played for church Sunday and with the Aviom and bad in-ear monitors, I frankly have no clue what I sounded like. The sound guy told me that he had a heck of a time controlling my levels. Even though I have a compressor pedal, he told me that my level would be at 2 bars, then peaking, then 2 bars, he had to fight it all through the service. Should have adjusted the pickups. Did so last night. Also required a completely different intonation setup than my SR-2000's

Spent about an hour last night with my Hartke Kickback (familiar equipment) and playing with the strings. Observations.
B sounds pretty solid.
Overall, the bass response isn't as deep, or fat as the SR-2000's I don't know how to describe that.
More powerful mids
Some obnoxious overtones that may go away when broken in.

I don't think I would like these strings at all without having the Aguilar Tone Hammer to get them back to a tone I like better.

I never could properly intonate the B string. I reached the limitation of the adjustment and am still a few cents sharp at 12. (Peterson strobe tuner)

Will leave them on for a month and see if my opinion gets any better but I am strongly inclined to go back the Dean Markley SR-2000's

I have a feeling that they are probably better strings for Slap and probably for Speed Metal than the SR-2000's.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the review! It's good to be able to refer to. The SITs don't seem like something I'd care for, so now I won't have to find that out by trial and error.
 
#13
kirkdickinson said:
The sound guy told me that he had a heck of a time controlling my levels. Even though I have a compressor pedal, he told me that my level would be at 2 bars, then peaking, then 2 bars, he had to fight it all through the service. Should have adjusted the pickups. Did so last night.
Click to expand...

Update on the level inconsistency. Took the bass to practice tonight and tested with the same sound guy. No compressor. After the adjustment last night, sound is even. Not a string problem, was a bass adjustment problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: One Way
#15
B string is still slightly sharp at 12th and higher. Only a few cents. Not really noticeable. I don't find myself up that high on the B usually anyways.

Not the string, that is a limitation of the Lightwave intonation. There are 5 individual bridges and intonation is set buy loosing and moving the bridge. Not my favorite feature of the lightwave. I much prefer the way the most basic Fender bridge intonates. The only worse bridge I own is my Rickenbacker 4001. My Rick is the only bass I have ever taken somewhere else to have the intonation set.
 
#18
kirkdickinson said:
Ohh, that feels so much better... Dean Markley SR2000's back on. All is right with is bass now. Had to completely re-set it up again. String height, pickup height, intonation. 1-1/2 hour string change. I think I will stay with the same strings from now on.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you got it back where you wanted! That's why I'm not as adventurous with strings as I could be...it can really be a hassle when they don't work out! Anyway, thanks for your review; now I know not to try the SITs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kirkdickinson

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back