Labella / JMJ mustang

[martyplaysbass]

Any body ever try a set of 760 -fl on the JMJ. I realize they make (or made) a mustang set but I have a used set of 760’s already.

Any feedback appreciated.

 

[michael_t]

Any body ever try a set of 760 -fl on the JMJ. I realize they make (or made) a mustang set but I have a used set of 760’s already.

Any feedback appreciated.

La Bella strongly advises against using their regular flats (760xx) for thru-body. The Mustang set is specifically designed for thru-body installation.

 

[michael_t]

La Bella also recommends only the silked end wrap around the tuner post. If you use the regular "long scale" 760FL on a thru-body Mustang, the full winding on the E will end up wrapping around the post.

 

[martyplaysbass]

La Bella strongly advises against using their regular flats (760xx) for thru-body. The Mustang set is specifically designed for thru-body installation.

I was thinking I’d read somewhere before that the standard string wasn’t recommended for string thru, Thanks for the info. I was hoping to use my already broken in set, but I think I’m going to try to find some mustang strings.

 

[HelpImaRock]

FWIW, I use LTFs on a thru-bridge Mustang and they've been great.

 

[michael_t]

I was thinking I’d read somewhere before that the standard string wasn’t recommended for string thru...

It's right on the La Bella website: (NOTE: The warning against thru-body installation applies to "Deep Talkin' Flats", but not to "Low Tension Flats".)

All standard bass sets are LONG scale length. The 1st (G), 2nd (D), 3rd (A) strings are 38” from ball-end to silk/taper. The 4th (E) string is 36 ¾” from ball-end to silk/taper. Only the silk portion of the string should wrap around the tuning post or else the string will break. This particular set is NOT suitable for basses with bridges that require strings to pass through the body of the instrument.​

 

[Luckydog]

I wonder what the design difference is that makes the MUS set through-body loadable but standard 760 not? Perhaps some portion of the ball end of the MUS strings have more space between the windings which allows a sharp bend angle without breaking?

 

[michael_t]

I wonder what the design difference is that makes the MUS set through-body loadable but standard 760 not? Perhaps some portion of the ball end of the MUS strings have more space between the windings which allows a sharp bend angle without breaking?

There is about an inch of material added at the ball end that's flexible enough to be strung through the body without breaking.

The one with the blue silked end is the thru-body (TB) version. The Mustang flats have the same design.

 

[Luckydog]

There is about an inch of material added at the ball end that's flexible enough to be strung through the body without breaking.

The one with the blue silked end is the thru-body (TB) version. The Mustang flats have the same design.

View attachment 7366611

Ah, so it appears to be a strand of wire that is wound over the ball end section, then silked. I suppose that actually stiffens and reinforces the “bend area”, rather than a design which makes that bend area even more flexible.

 

[michael_t]

Ah, so it appears to be a strand of wire that is wound over the ball end section, then silked. I suppose that actually stiffens and reinforces the “bend area”, rather than a design which makes that bend area even more flexible.

Actually the silked portion of the thru-body design is more flexible and pliable so it can handle the sharper break angles with thru-body installation.