I'm in the habit of doing that with all new strings as part of my string change routine.
Here's what I used to get off of brand new Fender 9050 flats, which incidentally come from the same factory as the D'A Chromes.
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.
Dunlop Flats Out, What Now?
- Thread starter Grinderman
- Start date
I'm in the habit of doing that with all new strings as part of my string change routine.
Here's what I used to get off of brand new Fender 9050 flats, which incidentally come from the same factory as the D'A Chromes.
That’s a lot of dirt … sheesh.
From what I understand, the black stuff is actually residue of the compound used in the final polishing process. The very first set of flats I ever tried was D'A Chromes, and I kept wondering why my finger tips were turning black.
I used a piece of an old black cotton t-shirt to wipe my new 9050 flats so whatever dark filth came off shall remain a mystery.
From what I understand, the black stuff is actually residue of the compound used in the final polishing process. The very first set of flats I ever tried was D'A Chromes, and I kept wondering why my finger tips were turning black.
My fingers turn black whenever I play new phosphor bronze acoustic guitar strings. I always wondered about this, and it makes sense it's finishing compound.
When I was an acoustic guitar player in my younger days, my finger tips reacted to bronze strings. That's a little different, though, as roundwound strings generally don't get the same polishing treatment as flats.
I've now that I've been using the 40-100 flats, that Dunlop sent me, for about a week. One set on my JB and the other on my new '58 type PB that I just finished building.
To answer your question, these string set did intonate, yes.
A few other observations:
The pop-creak issue:
I've figured out that pops or creaks originate around the ball ends of the strings, not surprisingly, and there is an issue involving friction but it's at the bridge, not the nut or nut slots. I believe the cause of the unfortunate amount of friction is probably unusually long silk ends that extend out at least 1" from the ball ends. That's compared to roughly 5/8" on Fender 9050L flats. Because the silk ends on the Dunlop flats are so long they ride over the top of the bridge saddles and beyond the witness points. There's no such issues with the one set of Fender 9050 flats I'm using on my other P bass (Nash PB).
I don't know why Dunlop makes these strings with such long silk ends but I think it's problematic.
Ease of setup and use: Based on my experience Dunlop stainless flats are on difficult end of the spectrum getting them set up; intonation and settled in to hold stable tuning. By comparison setting up new Fender 9050 flats seemed routine in this regard. There were no surprises; easy.
String flexibility: I think the Dunlop 40-100 flats feel a bit more flexible than Fender's 9050 40-100 flats. I prefer the amount of stiffness in the 9050 flats. I think the general stiffness of Dunlop stainless flats in 45-105, rather than 40-100, is more to my preference.
String finish: The outer winding on Dunlop stainless flats is tight and polished smooth. The outer windings on 9059 flats aren't as tight and the finish isn't polished. Fender flats are dark grey in color with a flat sheen and a bit of texture that I actually like, probably because I've used rounds for so long.
Tone: The Dunlop and Fender flats don't sound drastically different to me, for what it's worth, but there are subtle differences. It's hard to judge because I'm using a set of each on two different P basses, Dunlops on one and Fender on the other. The differences between the two P basses I have are substantial enough to cloud the matter of comparing how the strings sound. I also need more much time using both string sets to see how they mature or change over time; months, not days or weeks.
Overall: I think the Fender 9050 flats are a better sorted out product than Dunlop's stain flats. I think Dunlop has room to make improvements, including eliminating whatever what could be the cause of intonation problems (they've evidently had similar problems with other strings line they make) and by making the silks at the ball ends shorter so they stay clear of bridge saddles and witness points.
Update: Now that I've had more time with these strings sets and paying more attention with the intent to compare to form better impressions about the tonal differences what I think about is better informed and become more firm.
Mainly it simply a matter of A/Bing or A/B/Cing between the basses with the strings in question enough times, playing very close attention, while being mindful about playing and listen in the sweet spot. With the 4x10 cab I'm using that's about 10' out in front.
I find the relatively fresh set of Fender 9050L flats on my Nash PB with slab rosewood, Lollars and .1uf cap can have more of a bright piano type tone that would be expected from round-wound strings, provided that the tone is between flat and turned up to full on.
On the other hand, the fresh new set of Dunlop flats on my '58 type P bass with chunky 1-pc maple neck, Klein Epic '58 pickups and .1uf cap can sound somewhat bright or modern for flats but they can't produce any of that round wound piano type tone the 9050 strings can do with my Nash. Compared to the Fender flats, the Dunlops on the '58 P sound relatively more like traditional flats but with plenty of rasp and bark.
The Dunlop flats on my '60s type Jazz bass, which again do not have the piano-like brightness associated with rounds, also can have a good amount of bark or growl though there's expected nuanced differences to be expected from a Jazz bass vs a '50s P bass.
Last edited:
