GHS Precision Flats vs Labella 760FS - My Impressions

[fourstringdrums]

I did some searching around and wasn't really able to find any decent comparisons from people who have played both GHS Precision Flats and Labella Flats. I used to play the Labella 760FM 49-109 set for years until I discovered the GHS Precisions. I've played the GHS Precisions for so long that I couldn't remember what the Labellas were like and I was itching to try them again.

So these are my impressions of the GHS Precision Flatwound 45-105 set vs. the Labella 760FS 45-105 set.

Feel wise, out of the pack, the Labella's are much more "glassy" feeling. They're not necessarily smoother than the GHS's but they're more slippery. Some people have described the GHS's as sticky, at least at out of the pack but I wouldn't call them that, though they do feel slower. The Labella's are almost effortless and my fingers feel like they glide over them more.

When it comes to tension, the Labella's and the GHS's are about the same, at least on the right hand. I didn't feel like there was much of a difference when it came to plucking, but when it came to fretting, the Labella's seem to be a little looser feeling. It's subtle, but I find them easier to fret, especially in the first few frets on the E. Taking my setup, nut slot height etc.. out of consideration, just figuring out one set feels next to another, the Labella's feeling a little easier to play in that position. I was able to get the action just as low between both sets of strings, so that wasn't any different, but there is just something about the Labella's that make them feel like they're a little more toward effortless to play.

Tonewise I was expecting to find the Labella's to be too bright after playing the GHS's for so long. I remember when I went from Labella to the GHS's years ago, I remember a light going off in my head because the tone was perfect. They sounded broken in right out of the pack where as the Labella's always seemed too bright to me and had more sustain than I wanted. Well something must have changed or I got a better pack this time because the Labella's don't strike me as sounding that much brighter than the GHS's. They are a little clearer sounding, with slightly more high mids, but I don't find myself wishing they had less sustain. They have plenty of thump and to me sound perfect out of the pack. I'm not waiting for them to get broken in, though I do look forward to how they'll sound when they do break in more. The GHS's in comparison have plenty of thump, actually more thuddy attack than the Labella's. I'd say that the GHS's are thuddy (though not dead) and the Labella's are punchy, but both have plenty of old school thump. Putting foam under the strings to get into Jamerson territory, the Labella's win. The lower mids come out and they still sound clear and punchy. The GHS's get a little muddy with foam.

So as much as I love the GHS's and have for years, I think for now I'm back with Labella. To my ear they are just as thumpy out of the pack and still have the low mids, though just enough high mids to make them a little clearer and punchy. In the end I think they'll be just about equal in the sustain department, though the GHS's will have more of a thuddy attack and will be a little darker.

Either way if I had to play either one I'd be happy, but for now the Labella's are sitting right where I want to be.

Hope this helps. I'm not great at describing tonal differences, but hopefully I made some sense

 

[michael_t]

So these are my impressions of the GHS Precision Flatwound 45-105 set vs. the Labella 760FS 45-105 set.

Tonewise I was expecting to find the Labella's to be too bright after playing the GHS's for so long. I remember when I went from Labella to the GHS's years ago, I remember a light going off in my head because the tone was perfect. They sounded broken in right out of the pack where as the Labella's always seemed too bright to me and had more sustain than I wanted. Well something must have changed or I got a better pack this time because the Labella's don't strike me as sounding that much brighter than the GHS's. They are a little clearer sounding, with slightly more high mids, but I don't find myself wishing they had less sustain. They have plenty of thump and to me sound perfect out of the pack. I'm not waiting for them to get broken in, though I do look forward to how they'll sound when they do break in more. The GHS's in comparison have plenty of thump, actually more thuddy attack than the Labella's. I'd say that the GHS's are thuddy (though not dead) and the Labella's are punchy, but both have plenty of old school thump. Putting foam under the strings to get into Jamerson territory, the Labella's win. The lower mids come out and they still sound clear and punchy. The GHS's get a little muddy with foam.

Thanks for this assessment.

One question...
What bass is it you have?

 

[fourstringdrums]

Thanks for this assessment.

One question...
What bass is it you have?

G&L LB-100 Empress/Maple

 

[petrus61]

Excellent comparison. I'm making the same swap soon so I'll chime in with my 2 cents, but it's refreshing to hear someone actually highlight the action/relief relationship. This all too often is completely ignored in the multitude of string comparisons here.

 

[shawshank72]

Played both and agree with what your are saying.
If ghs would use a 110 E on their 55/70/90/105 set I would give them another chance.

 

[Root 5]

Played both and agree with what your are saying.
If ghs would use a 110 E on their 55/70/90/105 set I would give them another chance.

I'd like to see a .110 GHS flat, too.

 

[Camaro]

Me too, for D-Standard.

 

[seanm]

My two main basses are strung with GHS Precision flats and the LaBella 760FL flats. I had the 760FS flats many years ago, but I much prefer the FL. IMHO they have the same thump and old school sound of the FS with less tension. They may even have a bit more thump... the FS (IIRC) when actually a bit duller.

But for a rock band I am really enjoying the GHS flats. For rock I tended towards chromes... but I find the GHS brighter than the LaBella but more "flatwound" sounding than the chromes (for lack of a better word). I still kinda prefer the heavier gauge G string on the chromes but I can live without it. I don't use the G string that much Although when I first started using the GHS after the chromes I was hitting the G string way too hard

Our last gig (and next gig if the weather is nice) was outdoors. I was getting a really nice grind from the GHS flats that I don't associate with flats.

And, as always, YMMV.

 

[Selim]

I had a similar experience to yours and agree with your assessment.

I used LaBella flats in varying gauges on my '66 P bass for 25+ years. A couple of years ago I tried the GHS and was struck by their very different vibe that being their almost over the top thumpiness. So I had a lot of fun with the thump for awhile. But ultimately I changed back to LaBella - I think you can do more with them.

But if I had an extra bass, I'd definitely consider putting some GHS thump masters on them. That would be my ultimate thump bass.

 

[iiipopes]

Played both and agree with what your are saying.
If ghs would use a 110 E on their 55/70/90/105 set I would give them another chance.

I'd like to see a .110 GHS flat, too.

Me too, for D-Standard.

Contact Jon Moody and let him know.

 

[Jon Moody]

Contact Jon Moody and let him know.

I've been paying attention.

I've actually gotten a lot more requests for a .050 for the REGULAR set over a .110, but given some other goings on currently a .110 might be sooner than we think.

 

[Frank Orlando]

My experience was a bit different. I was happy with LaBella flats. I tried my first GHS Precision "Regular" set after I got a run of 3 damaged E strings on the FS sets I ordered. Each replacement set of LaBella FS that I received from the store I order from came with an E string with a pretty good bend in it about two inches from the ball end due to the factory rolling up the very stiff string to fit it in their envelope. The bend did not go away after the string was unwound. It would almost disappear under tension but that was not something I was willing to live with. So I tried a set of GHS Precision Regulars (.055 -.105) and was immediately impressed by the noticably better string to string balance, right amount of sustain (slightly more than the FS), reasonable tension and an excellent vintage tone as good as or better than the FS. The string "smoothness" felt about the same but the FS did look more shiny. Also, I didn't have to cut back the silk wrap on the ball end of the E string like I did with the LaBella set. Otherwise the silk would just about sit on the saddle.
PS... LaBella did the right thing and replaced the bent E's and the new ones were not bent. But by this time I was digging the GHS strings.

So... after I broke in the GHS set I took off the GHS D string and put on a broken-in FS A string. Now I had two A strings side by side for my test... one GHS A string and one LaBella A string. That test is what convinced me to stay with the GHS strings. The GHS A was very "musical" with a huge fundamental while the FS was noticably duller. Maybe less noticable in a mix but that test did it for me. The GHS went "thump"... the FS kind of went "thunk". Try it.

 

[Selim]

The GHS A was very "musical" with a huge fundamental while the FS was noticably duller. Maybe less noticable in a mix but that test did it for me. The GHS went "thump"... the FS kind of went "thunk". Try it.

I completely agree about the huge fundamental of the GHS and also that they are more thumpy than the Labellas. Those are the 2 defining characteristics of these strings in my experience.

But what I don't understand about these strings are the varying reports about their string to string balance. I've seen many reports about them being extremely UNbalanced when new, and even complain about the very long break-in period needed for them to become more balanced. Specifically, when new, the set ranges from a deadish, thumpy E string, with less deadness/thump as you move up the set. I am assuming that players end up happy after 6 months or so when all the strings have the thump and deadish tone of the E string? I played on a set for almost a year, the result being that by the time the ADG strings started sounding more like the E, the E above the 10th fret or so was so inarticulate as to be practically unusable -- the notes didn't sound correctly (and no, it's not a setup issue).

But then others experience a very balanced set right off the bat. In my experience, Labellas (and Sadowskys, made by Labella) are the kings of string to string balance when it comes to flats.

(I think it's important to point out the recent thread on TB reporting that GHS has developed a new E string addressing this issue - that is, to make the E more tonally balanced with the other strings right off the bat.)
GHS Precision Flats - weak E string? | TalkBass.com


So what's going on here? Is it all just bass-specific?

 

[Jon Moody]

So what's going on here? Is it all just bass-specific?

A lot of what I've heard has been more set specific. In the post you quoted, @Frank Orlando is using the 3050 Regular Set (55-105), of which I haven't heard much complaint - if any - on the E string. A few times I've heard people ask for an FB50 for the G string, but not the E string.

The set that we sell a LOT of is the M3050 Medium Set (45-105), which is where I've heard the lionshare of complaints about the E string. Personally, the times I've used that set myself I haven't encountered the E string issues people are having (used a couple P basses and a J), but that doesn't discount their concerns. So, I looked to see if we could remedy this issue so that the M3050 set would sound great - together - off the bat. And from the feedback I've received over the past month or two, I think we did that.

Now, that raised a concern to me. We just "fixed" the E string, which is in 4 of our sets; three of which are 45-105 (the other two are 5 string sets, with different winding lengths for the B string). Is this E string going to make the Regular 3050 Set "out of balance" now? That's what I'm working on at current, but all reports point to no, it won't.

 

[Selim]

Thanks, Jon - that info is very helpful. I've only used the 45-105 set on P and J basses.

Maybe I should try the 55-105 set (or give the new medium set a try). But a heavier set for strings with this kind of tone and response makes sense.

 

[michael_t]

I completely agree about the huge fundamental of the GHS and also that they are more thumpy than the Labellas. Those are the 2 defining characteristics of these strings in my experience.

I've heard a lot about the "percussive" nature of the GHS, but what about the sustain? Which of the two has smoother sustain?

In my experience, Labellas (and Sadowskys, made by Labella) are the kings of string to string balance when it comes to flats.

This is encouraging to hear. My trusted J will finally have a long-awaited sibling (it's a boy!) within the next two weeks. And I already have a brand new set of La Bella 760FL for it all ready to be put into action. Can't wait to get into the classic thump zone!

So what's going on here? Is it all just bass-specific?

My experience is specifically with the D'A Chromes ECB84 (40-60-80-100).

I had a set on an MIM P bass and another set on my J bass. The set on the P sounded well-balanced even after 3 years, while the one on the J went all wacky on me with a very thuddy 100E and an annoyingly bright ("twangy") 40G after 4 years.

So yeah, based on this, I would say it could possibly depend on the bass itself as to how balanced a set of flats sound.

 

[valloti]

my grain of sand to the subject. I usually use GHS Precision 45 on my long scales, i love the tone, dead right out of the package, thumpy and definitely with that vintage tone which i use on all my basses (on my german short scales i do use Pyramid Gold, really really really good strings!!!). But now i just got a '71 Fender P and wants to give the LaBellas a try. Well, they've been on the bass for one day and one thing for sure, they are super bright and they have a lot of sustain right out of the package, not a bad thing but definitely not what i desire. I tried the Labellas just because of the balance issue on the E string of the GHS and also because they were supposed to be THE strings of choice back in the good old days and blablabla.
I will have to let the Labellas to break in to see what happens but so far, if the E string thing wouldn't be a thing i would have totally gone for the GHS, plus they are quite a bit cheaper than the LaBellas (in Germany at least).I'll report again when the LaBellas are broken in!

 

[michael_t]

i just got a '71 Fender P and wants to give the LaBellas a try. Well, they've been on the bass for one day and one thing for sure, they are super bright and they have a lot of sustain right out of the package, not a bad thing but definitely not what i desire.

Just realized my last post in this thread was when I was still waiting to acquire a P bass to put the 760FL on.

So, here I am a week later, with my new 2014 Am Std P and a fresh new set of 760FL - the very first thing that caught me off guard was the initial brightness and the sustain! I had read so much about the "old-school thump" these La Bella flats were known for, so I was expecting an instant Jamerson vibe right out of the package, only to learn there was a lot more to how JJ got his tone than just the type of strings he used.

The initial brightness does eventually wear off after 2-3 months, but these La Bellas are not quite as "thumpy and thuddy" as I had thought. Again, not necessarily a bad thing as I do like the sustain on them.

I have yet to try the GHS Precision Flats, but from what I have been reading, they're more "old-school" right out of the package with some "woody" character in their tone.

 

[shawshank72]

I've been paying attention.

I've actually gotten a lot more requests for a .050 for the REGULAR set over a .110, but given some other goings on currently a .110 might be sooner than we think.

Mr. Moody,
Now that it's been almost a year is a 50G and/or 110E still on the table or just a dream?

 

[Jon Moody]

Mr. Moody,
Now that it's been almost a year is a 50G and/or 110E still on the table or just a dream?

At this point, still on the table but there really hasn't been any real demand since we initially discussed it here. Nearly all of the artists that I've talked to that use that specific set (because I was really curious at how the reformulated 105 was going to play with it) haven't expressed any desire for a 50 or a 110.