That is probably true for most players in most situations, but there are times when the differences in actual tension can mean a great deal (for example, if you want to be able to detune without increasing string gauge).
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.
Flatwound strings with the least tension in *relative* numbers
- Thread starter Phaidrus
- Start date
That is probably true for most players in most situations, but there are times when the differences in actual tension can mean a great deal (for example, if you want to be able to detune without increasing string gauge).
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
Not a concern for this old coot - in over 50 years as a bassist, I've never had the slightest desire to detune. Different strokes...
I don't have as much experience and don't detune either but I do like the idea of a medium gauge (45105) set of flats with low tension and high flexibility. So far the closest to that I've come across are the Dunlop flats but wouldn't mind still less tension.
Since tension is directly proportional to unit weight (assuming a fixed scale length and frequency), then you want a lower unit-weight set of strings. So it need to use lower density metals or it needs to have more air gaps in the string. Have you tried the half-round, ground-wound strings? They would have gaps between/under the round wires that wrap the core, reducing the unit weight compared to a more tightly packed wrap (flat wrap). The Magma strings are round wound and polished, I think similar to the GHS Brite Flats. If Nickel is more dense than SS (you could look that up), then the Magmas might be lower unit weight since they use pure SS, not Nickel-SS alloy like the Brites. Both series have a 45-105 set available.
Edit: Oops GHS does not have a 45-105 set. You could get close to that by mixing sets - there is a 103 in the Med-Light set and a 45 in the Medium set.
Edit #2: It looks like these points were hashed out earlier in the thread. But still might be worth looking at those Magmas as a lower unit weight option. They don't have a spec so you might have to try them to find out.
Last edited:
Checked their site and only saw normal SS flats. It seems though that for lowest tension one should indeed look for SS flats, which is what also the Dunlops currently on my Pbass are. So are the Markbass flats that at 183lbs for the 45105 set seem to be on the lighter side tension wise. Unfortunately no tension specs for the Dunlops; they feel not too tense but have no idea what the actual tension is.
Yes, and also in situations where you have an instrument that is behaving sub-optimally. I have one bass that I need to keep the lowest tension strings I can manage on, as the neck has the stability of wet noodle.
GT
The old version Sadowsky Blue Label Flats had low tension.... Just an eighth of a turn more on the truss rod than TIJF's, with an action that is a 64th of an inch lower than TIJF's. However, they are just stiff enough that that action is perfect, and I can still dig in without fretting out. Thank goodness, Sadowsky says they are coming back out with these (I hope Black Label Flats too)!
The current version of the Blue Label Flats are on par with similar gauge Labellas regarding tension, but they are really flexible (I thought they were round core at first). Drape them over your finger, and you'll see they hang much like TIJF's. They are super comfy to play.
The current version of the Blue Label Flats are on par with similar gauge Labellas regarding tension, but they are really flexible (I thought they were round core at first). Drape them over your finger, and you'll see they hang much like TIJF's. They are super comfy to play.
Last edited:
Trying to assess the tension of your flats based on feel is tough..... Construction of the string itself has a huge impact on how the string feels. See my post above about the Sadowsky flats. Without actual pull weight data, the only thing you can do to judge tension is by the amount you need to turn your truss rod to get to desired relief, and then make comparisons. But using tension alone to make a judgment on how the strings will feel can lead to some bad decisions.... Especially with flats.
Simply put: No.
Since it's hard to determine the feeling of flexibility on a string and press that into a number, you resort to tension because it's possible?
I can distinctly remember swapping strings, where I took an unknown set off and put on LaBella DTF strings.
I had to adjust the neck for less string tension, but the overall feeling was much stiffer.
If you're after boiled spaghetti on your bass neck, look for round core strings first and for tension after that.
This.
I like spaghetti al dente but bass strings well done. I'm sure TIs are great but their thin gauge puts me off.
When I put Ti Flats on my P (for the first time and still using them) I immediately missed the booty/thickness of my .45-.105 Rotosound 77 flats.. but I did not miss the tension. I think most of what I felt like is missing is due to the string gauges. I love how they play.. and I've been able to dial tones out of them that I can live with with EQ, but I pickup one of my two 5 strings with .45-.130 gauge rounds and love how my tone gets thicker/more full
LaBella has Low Tension Flats and there was a thread here recently, looking for round core strings where you might find some more suggestions.
I thought it was weird too at first, but now other strings feel like I’m using some sort of Stone Age technology.
- Sep 9, 2007
- 5,309
- 4,977
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Eventide, GHS Strings, G&L Guitars, NS Design, Tsunami Cables
That raises the question as to how you could objectively compare something like stiffness/pliability. So many things come into play with this, as neck relief, string height, etc.. will all add/remove stiffness. And we're not even getting into the variables of the person playing the bass, and how they approach it.
I'd be happy with all of the manufacturers publishing the tension (pulling weight) of their strings. It's getting there, but is still not a priority for many. Of course, that would mean all of the companies that don't make their own would have to either rely on the manufacturer of them, or destroy some of their inventory in order to weigh it.
Physics being physics, there would almost certainly be a correlation.
I’ve found (and I quote other board denizens here, but agree wholeheartedly) that using different strings can transform an instrument - both sonically and feel-wise. So the more knowledge of the data available, and the more players can correlate the physical data to their own subjective feel/sound evaluations and share those evaluations, the easier it will be for others to make suitable string choices without burning hundred$ (or in the case of upright, perhaps thousand$) of dollars in their quest for the strings that feel and sound right to them and their musical cohorts.
If someone wants to send me segments of strings I can weigh them on a calibrated precision scale and measure the length, yielding the unit weight of the string. From that you can calculate the tension since all that is needed is scale length, tuning frequency and unit weight. The method could be tested by checking against the published D'Addario data.
They would need to be cleaned first so the weight of finger gunk is not included (assuming used strings). And I would need to trim the string to only weigh the part that has constant diameter (no ends, no tapers, no wraps). That could be a little tricky - might need something like a bolt cutter to get a clean cut. But I could probably figure that out.
Finally you have to deal with the small sample size problem. There will be some variation and what you really want is multiple samples to get a measure of that.
