GHS Balanced Nickel strings

[pcake]

Well, lead is softer still but more massive nonetheless.

To be fair, nickel is indeed reported by several sources as having a higher specific weight than stainless steel (or, to be precise, than the weight range of various SS alloys):
Invalid Link Removed
Metals and Alloys - Densities
Mass, Weight, Density or Specific Gravity of Different Metals

Would that alone account for the difference in tension between the new strings vs. the round core Boomers, without any need to assume a larger core? I have no idea. (But my hunch is no, if the nickel one is only the outer wrap.) And neither do I know if "same number of wraps" means that they managed to use more than one on the G string, which Mr. Moody once said to be difficult to obtain (but he didn't say impossible, IIRC). Also, how does the number of wraps on the G string correlate with this core debate? are the wraps much thinner than is usual? Again, beats me.

specific weight isn't the same as MOS hardness, which - i would think - would be a major contributing factor here. nickel has a mos hardness of 4; steel is around double that, varying depending on the type of steel.

the number of wraps on the same thickness of core could make for more tension as more wraps when that close would cram the wraps together, in essence, allowing the wraps to support each other more, no?

 

[HaphAsSard]

specific weight isn't the same as MOS hardness, which - i would think - would be a major contributing factor here. nickel has a mos hardness of 4; steel is around double that, varying depending on the type of steel.

the number of wraps on the same thickness of core could make for more tension as more wraps when that close would cram the wraps together, in essence, allowing the wraps to support each other more, no?

Hardness of the wrap alloy in an of itself wouldn't translate to more tension, but is certainly a very important factor in engineering a string: even though the wrap is not under tension and need not have a great tensile strength, it mustn't disintegrate against the frets either.
Hmm, the number of wraps might make for a tighter fit of the same and a higher mass per length unit (->tension) if they're made of thinner wire, or if they're (made to become) oval in shape, otherwise something has to give, either the diameter of the core (thinner) or the final diameter of the string (larger).
Or at least so I think I grasp. Dammit, I'm an amateur linguist, not a string maker!

 

[matante]

specific weight isn't the same as MOS hardness, which - i would think - would be a major contributing factor here. nickel has a mos hardness of 4; steel is around double that, varying depending on the type of steel.

the number of wraps on the same thickness of core could make for more tension as more wraps when that close would cram the wraps together, in essence, allowing the wraps to support each other more, no?

No. I don't know it for a fact but it's been my experience that pure nickel strings are have more tension than nps, and nps more tension than stainless steel. I think it's because nickel has a darker sound, so you have to wind the string a bit tighter to achieve the same pitch. Just a guess though.

 

[jwilson67]

Me likey! I will be very interested to try these once they hit BSO!

 

[Jon Moody]

A question for @Jon Moody ...

What has been your experience so far with these new Balanced Nickels vs. Round Core Boomers in terms of overall output?

I haven't noticed a difference in output between the Balanced Nickels and Round Core Boomers, and I've specifically changed a couple basses from BN to RC strings. There's definitely a difference in attack; the RC sound a lot more "angry" than the BN do. If that translates to perceived volume, maybe?

I presented the numbers because I thought it was interesting GHS chose to go heavier with the core size for the Balanced Nickels than the Round Core Boomers.

I most certainly did not go heavier on the core diameters with the Balanced Nickel strings.

 

[dagrev]

Just great. Now need to buy another set of strings to try.

 

[Fender_Bender]

I used to like the Fender pure nickels until they seemed to change (pretty sure they changed who was making them). And they were definitely lower output than other strings. I think it's a physical fact of life due to lower magnetic attraction that there's no getting around.

 

[michael_t]

I most certainly did not go heavier on the core diameters with the Balanced Nickel strings.

Interesting... I would have thought greater tension numbers were the result of larger cores. I guess I was mistaken.

I'm going to make it a point of trying all three sets - RC Boomers 45-105, Balanced Nickels Light & Medium - to see how they do in real life.

 

[Jon Moody]

I used to like the Fender pure nickels until they seemed to change (pretty sure they changed who was making them). And they were definitely lower output than other strings. I think it's a physical fact of life due to lower magnetic attraction that there's no getting around.

I can't speak for the Fender Pure Nickels, or how they were made. Given that only the final cover of these ones is pure nickel, and everything under it is NOT, I didn't notice that much of a difference when switching out strings. I haven't heard anything about that from anyone that's tested them either but to be fair, they may not have been specifically looking for a volume change. As mentioned, the biggest difference I heard was in attack.

Interesting... I would have thought greater tension numbers were the result of larger cores. I guess I was mistaken.

Greater tension is a result of more mass, which may or may not be the result of larger core diameters.

 

[michael_t]

Greater tension is a result of more mass, which may or may not be the result of larger core diameters.

Tension numbers aside, how would you rate the real-life playing feel of the 44-106 set in terms of overall stiffness/flexibility compared to the hex-core Boomers 45-105 and RC Boomers 45-105? What about the 40-101 set?

 

[Jon Moody]

Tension numbers aside, how would you rate the real-life playing feel of the 44-106 set in terms of overall stiffness/flexibility compared to the hex-core Boomers 45-105 and RC Boomers 45-105? What about the 40-101 set?

Haven't played a hex set of Boomers in a while, and didn't demo the 40-101 set yet. But as mentioned, the 44-106 is slightly more tactile than the RC Boomers, but not by a lot.

 

[markjazzbassist]

Wow awesome. I need to try these

 

[Phalex]

Jon, I've been using Boomers on my Ric since the late 80's. They are the strung that makes my Ric sound like my Ric, but I've always thought the G string could be..... More?

Is this the set of Boomers I've always thought there should be?

 

[Fender_Bender]

I can't speak for the Fender Pure Nickels, or how they were made. Given that only the final cover of these ones is pure nickel, and everything under it is NOT, I didn't notice that much of a difference when switching out strings. I haven't heard anything about that from anyone that's tested them either but to be fair, they may not have been specifically looking for a volume change. As mentioned, the biggest difference I heard was in attack.




Greater tension is a result of more mass, which may or may not be the result of larger core diameters.

The lower volume on the Fender nickels didn't bother me. That's what the volume knob is for .

 

[TomB]

Jon, let me be first to ask - how far off in time is a B-string? Thx!

 

[JW56789]

Jon, I LIKE the new look to the packaging.

A 'general' question: What does the designer look at, and what does either offer, when you decide on a round or a hex core for an EB string? I've often visualized the wraps lapping the 'corners' of a hex core wire (maybe better purchase) or the wraps laying smoothly around a round core (how do you make sure they don't slip or slide along it), or any number of 'sidewalk expert' guesses. From experience, round cores are easier to bend, seem more flexible, or is it just me ?>

Appreciate you hanging with us, and since I'm a nickel guy, I look forward to trying these once the pipeline is running.

All the Best !

 

[LanEvo]

They differ quite substantially. Most of it's in the copy, but the gist is that they're a pure nickel wrap (as opposed to nickel-plated steel) wound over a round core. The G and E strings are designed in such a way that they're tonally very similar to the D and A, as well as being balanced within 3lbs total swing.

GHS is lucky to have you, John. I tried them in the '80s and wouldn't have given them another chance if it weren't for you. Now, I'm running round core Boomers on my Yamaha BB and looking into these balanced nickel sets.

 

[DaveAceofBass]

Sounds like great new strings...but I have a hunch that you still didn't make them long enough for through body stringing. My 34" scale Kinal basses require at least 37.75" ball end to silk, 38" is even better (which is why those basses typically wear DRs, even though I like some of the GHS sets quite a bit). I do have a couple of other basses though, and these might be worth trying on them.

Question: When can we expect GHS to offer a balanced round core set of stainless steel strings? Or how about a balanced round core set of Pressurewounds (the best strings for fretless IMO)?

 

[Jon Moody]

Jon, I've been using Boomers on my Ric since the late 80's. They are the strung that makes my Ric sound like my Ric, but I've always thought the G string could be..... More?

Is this the set of Boomers I've always thought there should be?

I'm gonna say "no," because these are a different flavor that Boomers are. They don't have that bite or attack that the Boomers do.

Jon, let me be first to ask - how far off in time is a B-string? Thx!

Already in process.

Jon, I LIKE the new look to the packaging.

THANK YOU! It's partly out of necessity to get all the packaging updated (and moved in-house, so we don't have to rely on outside designers as much), and also to make somewhat of a "family" look to the strings.

A 'general' question: What does the designer look at, and what does either offer, when you decide on a round or a hex core for an EB string? I've often visualized the wraps lapping the 'corners' of a hex core wire (maybe better purchase) or the wraps laying smoothly around a round core (how do you make sure they don't slip or slide along it), or any number of 'sidewalk expert' guesses. From experience, round cores are easier to bend, seem more flexible, or is it just me ?

In terms of picking round or hex core, for me it comes to sound. All things being equal, round core strings have a smoother top end and a bit more low-mids. It's a little more refined.

Part of that is due to how that first cover is going to wrap around the core, but to be honest, that type of production is handled by machines so I don't even think about it. The production manager has been on the floor for nearly 30 years, so when I have ideas about strings, I run it by her and get her input in terms of if/how it can happen.

But yes, round core strings ARE more flexible, due to the shape itself. As for HOW much, that's up to interpretation.

GHS is lucky to have you, John. I tried them in the '80s and wouldn't have given them another chance if it weren't for you. Now, I'm running round core Boomers on my Yamaha BB and looking into these balanced nickel sets.

High praise, sir, thank you!

Sounds like great new strings...but I have a hunch that you still didn't make them long enough for through body stringing. My 34" scale Kinal basses require at least 37.75" ball end to silk, 38" is even better (which is why those basses typically wear DRs, even though I like some of the GHS sets quite a bit). I do have a couple of other basses though, and these might be worth trying on them.

Sadly no, they're 37.25" which is too short for your Kinal for thru-body, but not top load. Fender and their many offshoot siblings do pretty well with thru-body on this length, if you want to do that.

Question: When can we expect GHS to offer a balanced round core set of stainless steel strings? Or how about a balanced round core set of Pressurewounds (the best strings for fretless IMO)?

Probably no time soon. There isn't a huge demand for our existing Super Steels, so offering a round core set of those wouldn't make sense.

Pressurewounds "could" happen, but it would still be quite a ways off.

 

[michael_t]

Pressurewounds "could" happen, but it would still be quite a ways off.

I personally think the PWs are great as they are. Hex core + Alloy 52 + rollerwound = Smooth punch and crunch. The factory sets are very well-balanced already.

If the Balanced Nickels work out for my P, I'd put the PW ML7200 back on my J and call it a day.