This makes good sense... The whole idea behind the exposed core is to let the thicker strings vibrate more freely without undue stress at the saddle, isn't it?
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.
GHS Progressives, why aren't these more popular?
- Thread starter Polka1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ghs ghs progressives popular
This makes good sense... The whole idea behind the exposed core is to let the thicker strings vibrate more freely without undue stress at the saddle, isn't it?
forgot to ask...Exposed cores on B and E:One of the things I read more often regarding tapered/exposed core low B's than anything else is the intonation issues. So, I was a little concerned about how the exposed part extends beyond the saddle by half an inch. You know what, no issues whatsoever!
how long exactly the taper measured from the ball end?
- Aug 21, 2003
- 11,607
- 18,655
- Disclosures
- A-Designs Mike Lull GK Tsunami Cables GHS Strings RMI Basswitch Nordstrand Pickups Darkglass
The more I play Progressives the more they spoil me and I don't enjoy playing other basses not strung up with them.
They feel just right tension wise...
They feel just right tension wise...
Wow! How did I miss this thread. I have been buying Progressives since they were a new string in early '90's. I wanted something with more growl and longer life than Boomers. Also, I have been doing "balanced sets" since before it was a term, and so I always (pre-internet days) custom ordered 45-60-80-105 Progressive singles for my Rickenbacker 4002 (yes, "2," not "1" or "3"). Occasionally I will used another set of strings for a particular purpose, but always come back to the Progressives.
Interesting note (pun intended): if you have a really bright bass, or the G string is just too twangy for you, use a GHS Pressurewound 44 G string instead of a Progressive 45 G string. It is essentially the same string, since the Pressurewound strings are also wrapped with "Alloy 52," but running the string through the rollers takes a little edge off the top end of the tone, and for my bass, matches better.
Interesting note (pun intended): if you have a really bright bass, or the G string is just too twangy for you, use a GHS Pressurewound 44 G string instead of a Progressive 45 G string. It is essentially the same string, since the Pressurewound strings are also wrapped with "Alloy 52," but running the string through the rollers takes a little edge off the top end of the tone, and for my bass, matches better.
I've been wondering when you might chime in. It's about time!
You should check out this other thread as well:
GHS Progressives?
I'll be trying something similar in terms of mix and matching, but the opposite...
What sold me on the Progressives is how the 130B with the exposed core has transformed the way the low B performs on my 34" scale 5-string Yamaha. So, I'd like to try it with a 4-string set of the Pressurewound to see how they match up.
Progressives 2.0 are now available on the GHS web site. I have PM'ed Jon Moody for the tension specs.
BASS PROGRESSIVES™ 2.0
BASS PROGRESSIVES™ 2.0
Last edited:
- Sep 9, 2007
- 5,309
- 4,977
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Eventide, GHS Strings, G&L Guitars, NS Design, Tsunami Cables
Yeah, it should've never been up in the first place. I had it taken down.
I loves me some Progressives. I want to add a set to my Fender 5 string. I need the lowrider set for the B string though. Current strings have the saddle bottomed out. Whats new with the 2.0's? I'd love to grab some.
From other posts I have read, "what's new" is that they are going to a more balanced approach in tension and tone like on the Balanced Pure Nickels. And if I understand correctly, the "saddle hugger" will only be available on the B-string, if at all. That, and a new marketing approach so players understand these are premium strings with their own identity, as I have known since GHS first started making Progressives in the early 1990's, and are my standard strings on my Rickenbacker 4002. If they have the feel of the Balanced Pure Nickels, which I have currently on my 4002 until the Progs 2.0 are available, then I will be a very happy player, indeed.
One thing to keep in mind, though, is the Progressive will continue to be hex core, while the BNs are round core. We'll just have wait and find out how that would translate in terms of overall playing feel (= stiffness/flexibility).
Yes, I have known that for the Progs for all of their thirty years plus of history, and was in dialog with Jon Moody regarding the BN's when they were released regarding the same. Due to the nature of the mass of the iron-rich wrap of the Progressives, which is less dense than pure nickel, as well as the core differences, the overall raw tension figures of the BN 40-101, which I have on my 4002 currently, will be about the same as what will be expected on the Prog 2.0 44-106. Jon told me the D-60 and the A-80 of the new Progs will be the same as before, which the tension on these two strings is actually slightly less than the BN D-56 and A-76, and you can compare that tension on the GHS tension chart. And for the slightly shorter Rickenbacker 33.25 scale compared to "standard" Fender 34 scale, I have always preferred the slightly stiffer Progs ever since they were the "new" string in the early '90's.
Here's the main thread on the Progressives, where the discussion on the new version (2.0) was started (see post #151 and on). It would make it simpler for all of us if we could keep all the future discussions in one place.
GHS Progressives?
GHS Progressives?
