It's back! - Fender 9050CL 45-60-80-105

[lowfreq1]

I'm a huge fan of Fender 9050L (45-60-80-100) - they have a tight, punchy and warm bottom end with growl, punchy mids and nice well rounded top end as well as a great definition and clarity. Plus, they can really growl.
The E-105 is just too stiff and lack of growl and definition. To me, the E-100 sounds way better. (On my CS P bass).

 

[michael_t]

The E-105 is just too stiff and lack of growl and definition. To me, the E-100 sounds way better. (On my CS P bass).

You mean you've actually had a chance to try the CL set and still prefer the L with the 100E?

 

[shawshank72]

You mean you've actually had a chance to try the CL set and still prefer the L with the 100E?

Cant be possible!
Ive become so addicted to balanced tension that i cant play anything else.

 

[lowfreq1]

You mean you've actually had a chance to try the CL set and still prefer the L with the 100E?

I took a E-105 from a set 9050M I had. E-105 may be more balanced tension wise. But, to me, E-100 sound better, IMO.

 

[michael_t]

I took a E-105 from a set 9050M I had. E-105 may be more balanced tension wise. But, to me, E-100 sound better, IMO.

Alrighty then. I'm not here to argue. Thanks for sharing your experience.

My order for the CL set should be arriving this week, so I'll be able to see for myself which works better. If the 105-E on the CL set can do for my P bass what the 104-E does on my La Bella 760FL, then I'll be happy.

 

[Yahboy]

I'm a huge fan of Fender 9050L (45-60-80-100) - they have a tight, punchy and warm bottom end with growl, punchy mids and nice well rounded top end as well as a great definition and clarity. Plus, they can really growl.
The E-105 is just too stiff and lack of growl and definition. To me, the E-100 sounds way better. (On my CS P bass).

I dint feel the 100E sound better than 105E, but 105E less floppy with my finger.
After few days with 9050CL set, i can feel the lower note on E string (F,F#,G and G#) sound better focus than 100E. But the set is still fresh now, better i judge them 3 months later.

 

[michael_t]

Just an update...

I finally got my order of the 9050CL this afternoon. Didn't waste any time putting them on my Am Std P.

Out goes the red (760FL); in comes the green (9050CL):

(Due to different lighting conditions between the two photos, the Fenders look a LOT darker than the La Bellas. The actual difference is not quite as drastic, though the Fenders are still not quite as shiny as the La Bellas.)

EDIT: The photo on the right has since been updated for a better comparison.​

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed] [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

I will give them a good workout for the next month before commenting on their performance vs. the 760FL.
​

 

[michael_t]

I'm here to remind myself - and those who are thinking of trying the Fender 9050CL for the first time - the two essential rules for flats:

1. Never judge a set of flats based on their first impressions; instead, make sure to give them adequate time (minimum 1-3 mths) for the initial break-in as they never show their true characters when they're brand new right out of the package.
2. Never judge a set of flats until you've had a chance to try them in a live band situation. It's how they sit in a mix that counts, not how they sound all on their own when noodling on them in your bedroom.

Having said that, just a couple of casual observations, keeping in mind my new set has been on my P less than 24 hrs so far:

• Going from the La Bella 760FL (43-60-82-104) to the Fender 9050CL (45-60-80-105), not a significant difference in terms of stiffness and overall playing feel - not too tense/not too loose, with an excellent string-to-string balance. Very similar overall tension (pulling weight on the neck) between the two as well, based on the fact no truss rod tweak has been needed so far. And yes, the 105-E DOES feel better-balanced with the rest than the 100-E on the 9050L.
• Brand new out of the package, these Fenders do have a noticeable amount of rather annoying metallic clang that I didn't experience with the La Bella or the Sadowsky when they were brand new. Compared to the 5-mth-old La Bella they replaced, they sound kind of "hollow and airy". I realize this is not a fair comparison, knowing the Fenders will eventually settle into a mellow, full-bodied goodness. Now I know why @1stnamebassist always keeps telling us how he hates the Fender flats for the first month.

I'll be back in a month or so. So, stay tuned... (pun intended)

 

[iiipopes]

Part of the issue with the .100 versus the .105 E string is the position of that segment of a P-pickup. Remember that being farther north, the E string is going to be sampled with slightly more fundamental and slightly less overtones than the D & G strings, and the .080 A string is still flexible enough that the difference in tone may not be that noticeable.

This is, with all due respect, why I don't like the traditional P-pickup, as I have set forth in other threads, and use a different pickup - a RIC HB-1 - with narrowed string spacing, on my custom half-fanned P/J.

In my experience, getting the string sampled in the same relative location across all four strings did more to help consistency and retain growl than anything else. As others have posted, they sound magnificent on a J-bass.

Another aspect everyone forgets is the history of how the '57 P-pickup came to be: noise reduction, the need to get more fundamental out of the limited amplifiers of the day, and with single size drivers in a cab (1X15 for the "TV" model amp, or 4X10 for the "classic" Bassman model), there was not that much top end to start with, compounded by a .1 tone capacitor that was usually rolled off at least somewhat, and foam under the bridge cover, damping down everything even more. So consistency of tone was not an issue, and thump or bloom to emulate a double bass with gut strings, rather than growl, was the tonality goal.

So as the tonality goal changed to sustain and growl from double bass emulation, then something else has to change. Fender changed the strings from the woody-sounding older flats formulation to the current forumulation, but not the pickup orientation. Other companies have either changed pickups or flipped the orientation of the segments.

On my bass, the .100 and the .105 had the same tone, with the .105 having a shade more tension that let me "dig in" a little more when I wanted to without setting the action too high or getting string slap on the frets. The .105 felt better to me. Only after two years of gigging did the .105 E string start to get a little bit thumpy, and only then did I replace it with a .105 Ernie Ball stainless flat, to complement the settled in A-D-G strings, which still sounded great, since you couldn't then, and still can't, get Fender flats as singles.

When Fender first discontinued the CL set, about that same time my band circumstances changed, so I moved on to other sets, especially since in the band I am now with I use a 5-string. But I may go back to the CL set if the circumstances arise. It is still my favorite flat wound string set.

Like everything else, as the above posts illustrate, YMMV.

 

[lowfreq1]

Well...hm... I'll give the E-105 another chance now. I'll have the E-105 on my bass for a week or so, and then make a decision. Maybe you guys are right. I DO admit that the E-105 sound fatter and bigger.
But to me, Growl and definition are important even though it's flat wounds.

 

[michael_t]

Well...hm... I'll give the E-105 another chance now. I'll have the E-105 on my bass for a week or so, and then make a decision. Maybe you guys are right. I DO admit that the E-105 sound fatter and bigger.
But to me, Growl and definition are important even though it's flat wounds.

Again, my observation is based on a brand new set at this point.

I will be re-assessing this thing about 100 vs. 105 in 3 mths.

 

[michael_t]

Brand new out of the package, these Fenders do have a noticeable amount of rather annoying metallic clang that I didn't experience with the La Bella or the Sadowsky when they were brand new. Compared to the 5-mth-old La Bella they replaced, they sound kind of "hollow and airy".

Just an update to my earlier comment about these Fenders being "clangy, hollow and airy"...

After a couple of days of playing on them, I started noticing the E-string was behaving rather strange. It not only sounded a lot more clangy than the other three, but it was sounding kind of wobbly with strange overtones. Then all of a sudden it dawned on me - could it be a result of being twisted?

I'm usually very meticulous (read: ANAL) when it comes to installing/uninstall strings but decided to re-install the E-string anyway to remove all doubts. And lo and behold, it appears as though there was just enough kink in it to cause the annoyance. No more wobbles or weird overtones!

 

[lowfreq1]

Well...hm... I'll give the E-105 another chance now. I'll have the E-105 on my bass for a week or so, and then make a decision. Maybe you guys are right. I DO admit that the E-105 sound fatter and bigger.
But to me, Growl and definition are important even though it's flat wounds.

OK. NO! The E-105 is NOT for me. I can feel it strongly that the E-105 does not have the same nice feel, definition, growl, touch sensitivity as the the E-100.
The E-100 sounds like the other three, the E-105 does not. The E-100 is very firm and stable on MY bass.
This is how I feel. - My tone is pretty clean but FAT and round. The Fender 9050L is what I've found, the only flat wounds that barks and growls like H*ll.

 

[michael_t]

OK. NO! The E-105 is NOT for me. I can feel it strongly that the E-105 does not have the same nice feel, definition, growl, touch sensitivity as the the E-100.
The E-100 sounds like the other three, the E-105 does not. The E-100 is very firm and stable on MY bass.
This is how I feel. - My tone is pretty clean but FAT and round. The Fender 9050L is what I've found, the only flat wounds that barks and growls like H*ll.

Just curious... What kind of bass do you have the 9050L on?

I just happened to be listening to some of my old live recordings of the church services from last spring the other night. That was when I had a set of 9050L on my J bass. And you know something - you're right about the nice growl on the 100-E. I was pleasantly surprised at how good my J actually sounded with the 9050L.

A different story with my P bass, however... When I tried the same set of 9050L that used to be on my J on it, the very first thing I noticed was how the 100-E sounded somewhat weaker and even indistinct compared to the other three. Maybe that's only because I had gotten so used to the deep thump from the 104-E of the La Bella 760FL that was on there before.

The moral of the story: Different basses need different strings - even different gauges of the same strings - to bring out their best tonal characteristics.

 

[lowfreq1]

Just curious... What kind of bass do you have the 9050L on?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The moral of the story: Different basses need different strings - even different gauges of the same strings - to bring out their best tonal characteristics.

I have them on my Fender custom shop '59 Precision, it's my No.1 bass, it has a pretty chunky maple neck, very nice and playable neck. This bass has an open clear and deep tone.
Before the Fenders I actually played La Bella 760FS, great bassy classic thump, but I missed the things that the Fender 9050L HAVE. I'm glad I found these strings.

Yes, Different basses need different strings. *thumbs up*

 

[michael_t]

Before the Fenders I actually played La Bella 760FS, great bassy classic thump, but I missed the things that the Fender 9050L HAVE. I'm glad I found these strings.

I have to admit I was initially underwhelmed going from the 760FL to the 9050CL; it almost felt like getting into a Toyota Camry after having gotten used to driving around in a Lexus. (Please... no offense intended for Toyota owners.) Compared to the shiny silky-smooth finish on the La Bella, these Fenders don't have the same visual appeal, although they do feel smooth enough like true flats should.

Quite different tonally as well - less of the thick classic thump and more of the metallic clang and grind, at least when hearing my bass by itself through the headset of my home practice rig. I was particularly annoyed by the "clang" part, which I would expect to diminish as they age.

Now all that said... If what happened this past weekend is any indication of what these Fender flats can do, I have a good feeling they will stay on my P for a very long time! I just LOVED the way they felt and sounded in the live band mix, including the notes from the 105-E, which were full-bodied yet tight and well-defined.

Like I always insist, never judge a set of flats until you've had a chance to hear them in a live band situation. All I have to do now is to give it more time to break in nicely for the next few months.

 

[michael_t]

Just to add to my post above...

I got to play my P bass with 9050CL again last night at a special event at my church.

So, how would I know I'm on the right track with my bass/strings combination? When I receive compliments on my bass tone from both the audio tech and a vocalist.

The audio tech commented on how my bass was so much easier to mix for the house due to the better note definition compared to when I was using the La Bella 760FL, while one of the vocalists told me how she appreciated the idea of being able to hear and feel the bass while singing. I do have to agree with her that even I could hear the bass myself better than usual through my amp on stage (GK MB200 with a 210).

 

[ecadad]

I've been following this thread; I'm about to put flats on my bass for the first time... and I can't decide between the Fender 9050CL or the La Bella 760FS. I'm just wondering if it'll really make a difference, or should I just get a set and stick with them. Fender's are cheaper and lots of folks on here are saying great things, but I've heard so much love for La Bella over the years.

 

[shawshank72]

I've been following this thread; I'm about to put flats on my bass for the first time... and I can't decide between the Fender 9050CL or the La Bella 760FS. I'm just wondering if it'll really make a difference, or should I just get a set and stick with them. Fender's are cheaper and lots of folks on here are saying great things, but I've heard so much love for La Bella over the years.

Depends what sound your after.
2 very different strings.

 

[michael_t]

I can't decide between the Fender 9050CL or the La Bella 760FS. I'm just wondering if it'll really make a difference

Depends what sound your after.
2 very different strings.

Based on my experience so far with the 9050CL and the 760FL, here's my take on them...

760FL - For the classic thump with a thick and heavy bottom end, it suits a P-style bass better than a J-style bass, not as versatile in the sense there are certain types of music it's not suited for. The "Continental Dark Roast" of flats (in coffee terms).

9050CL - Not as thick and thumpy and the 760FL, but still full-bodied with a very nice low-mid grind, they sound good both on my P bass and my J bass. Can be used for just about any style of music. The "Colombian Supremo Medium Roast" of flats (in coffee terms).​