New revolutionary strings?

[Kro]

Tone is too subjective to definitively say that an "advancement" like this will actually sound better to everyone.

Color me skeptical.

Full points for being curious and experimenting though.

 

[Spectre1966]

Expensive and 45-146 for 5 string?? 146 for the B seems a bit thick to me. Maybe if they were 45-130.....

 

[jd56hawk]

Sounds good on paper, but I'm not playing paper.

 

[iiipopes]

Spectrum said: ↑
"Every note that guy played in that video sounds awful, nasty harmonics like he's playing through a ring modulator or something. His argument was lost on me."

It was supposed to be that way, with the treble boosted and the fundamental truncated, in order to emphasize the out-of-tune harmonics Dr. Kemp's strings are designed to fix. Yes, out of tune harmonics in that context, being plucked very, very close to the bridge, does indeed make that ring-modulator effect. Another aspect of it, which has to do with the string vibrating longitudinally, that is, from nut to bridge, as opposed to laterally, from which we get conventional pitch and overtones, is a function of the metal of the string itself and is called a "clang tone." I first learned about clang tones when I was first doing my research for my fanned fret twenty years ago.

Clang Tone on Variax Guitars

Listen carefully to the narrative, and Dr. Kemp talks about inharmonicity in piano strings as well, which especially have inharmonicity in the lower octaves, and provided the inspiration for weighting bass guitar strings as well as some piano strings. That is one reason grand pianos have "stretch" tuning to lower the octaves beyond the mathematical numbers, and why there is the inherent metallic clang of the lowest notes of a piano when played forte.

↑

We had a small piano in my undergraduate music department that should have been burned at a frat kegger, because no matter what you did to it, it would not stay in tune with itself in the lowest three octaves. It was not going flat, it just had the worst case of inharmonicity and clang tones I have ever heard in a piano. It had bad scale, bad hammer placement, bad action, and everything else to make a person not want to play piano. But I digress.

Now - in addition to my first experiment in a similar manner, pictured above, and trying it again when my short scale strings get here next week for the bass pictured above, I need to get into my string stash and find a taper core B string to see if it works better on a standard scale bass.

Yes, we have come a long way since Leo wrapped wire around a gut string at the point he mounted his pickup in his original Precision Bass to get it to work at all!

 

[Deleted member 368008]

Oh dear. Yet another string construction to keep track of. What have we now at the ball end side?

1. Open core strings (Rotosound, et al)
2. Regular, keep the final gauge across the bridge saddles.
3. Tapered strings, lesser gauge at the bridge saddle point and behind.
4. Lumped strings... one wrap around the core at lesser gauge, one greater after a while, and then full gauge ... ?

BTW I've seen that at least Newtone has had these strings for years, if not decades. their Platinum bass sets with "finer outer wrap for minimum squeals" and "inner wrap of larger diameter". You can get them tapered, regular, open core or anything in between. While I wont diss Kemp at all, they're sure great strings, but I think "lumped" is just useful with the lowest E and B string at a certain total scale. We others use multi-scale or fanned fret basses, and gets rid of the inharmonicities up there past 15th fret anyway...if we want to play up there...

The thing is, I've had problems with tapered strings no doubt, and the inharmonicty of the open low B, or even low E. But it's because the full gauge begins to far in, along the strings length. If one takes some washer nuts to retract the ball end further back, you move the taper back to the witness point, or even past it, and then it's all clear all along and across the string, no inharmonicies. The YT videos of it displays a tapered strings where the taper starts way too far in, and it's the same as "inconsistent gauge" along the string.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

Another aspect of it, which has to do with the string vibrating longitudinally, that is, from nut to bridge, as opposed to laterally, from which we get conventional pitch and overtones, is a function of the metal of the string itself and is called a "clang tone." I first learned about clang tones when I was first doing my research for my fanned fret twenty years ago.
Clang Tone on Variax Guitars

Yes clang tone I am interested in, too, but in this case it's only heard on pianos, acoustic string instruments. NO MAGNETIC PICKUPS picks up any clang tone or longtidudal transverse oscillation. Acoustic piezo guitars pickups a lot though. You can take a rag and drag it along the string and that 'eeek' that is heard that can wake up the dead isn't picked up by any magnetic pickup. This you can try for yourself. And that clang tone changes with scale length not pitch.I e if you retune the string the clang tone stays the same. This is hardly the target here, and shouldn't be.

Listen carefully to the narrative, and Dr. Kemp talks about inharmonicity in piano strings as well, which especially have inharmonicity in the lower octaves, and provided the inspiration for weighting bass guitar strings as well as some piano strings. That is one reason grand pianos have "stretch" tuning to lower the octaves beyond the mathematical numbers, and why there is the inherent metallic clang of the lowest notes of a piano when played forte.

But the thing is where he states this comes from bass strings on pianos, is that it's ONLY working on bass strings on upright pianos around 1 meters length, because they are too short. If you have a fanned fret bass at "full length" this inharmonic phenomenons are virtually nil, and you don't need to stretch tune full nine foot grand pianos that much, not as much as upright pianos at least. It's like 36 cents deviance on a full length grand piano from the highest treble strings to the low bottom bass string. And our bass guitar resides in an octave range much less than that.

Now - in addition to my first experiment in a similar manner, pictured above, and trying it again when my short scale strings get here next week for the bass pictured above, I need to get into my string stash and find a taper core B string to see if it works better on a standard scale bass.

Again, if you read all about this Sanderson-Accu string for pianos, to which he refers to, the main reason for adding extra mass at the end of the piano strings, is that you have OPEN CORE AT BOTH ENDS OF THE PIANO STRING, and to compensate for the loss since there are less mass when the copper isn't wound around the core all of a sudden before the core hits the stop where it bends around. I know of NO BASS STRING on any bass guitar that has open core string on both ends of the string, both at the nut, and the bridge saddle, and while open core strings DO exists, they are very few and far between, and only at the bridge saddle then anyway. I think it's only Rotosound who got them, but I'm not sure. I think there's no problem so far, in letting any uniform gauge string over at any bridge saddle.

The thing with tapered string is just because the bridge saddle can't be put down enough, for thick gauges to reside. They will be too high above the rest of the strings then. I do not like tapered strings either, because they wreak avoc on the partials. Uniform gauge not.

While I do not diss his idea altogether, it does have merit in a) piano bass strings for upright pianos b) but not ever any grand piano as far as I can tell. I can think that on short scale basses it will have some kind of merit, but the thing with "playing up there" is kind of moot. Those notes on the fat strings are available in "good tone" elsewhere on the fretboard. I think fanned frets/multi scale is a much better solution if you want to get nit picky about those things, but granted, you have to buy special strings there too, extra extra long...

 

[ixlramp]

Expensive and 45-146 for 5 string?? 146 for the B seems a bit thick to me.

> The gauages are 45, 60, 81, 108 and 146 for the five string sets

This is not made clear, but the gauges are chosen to create similar tensions (adjacent gauges have a 4:3 ratio) and a more even feel and response, like his guitar string sets.

 

[ixlramp]

1. Open core strings (Rotosound, et al)
2. Regular, keep the final gauge across the bridge saddles.
3. Tapered strings, lesser gauge at the bridge saddle point and behind.
4. Lumped strings... one wrap around the core at lesser gauge, one greater after a while, and then full gauge ... ?

BTW I've seen that at least Newtone has had these strings for years, if not decades. their Platinum bass sets with "finer outer wrap for minimum squeals" and "inner wrap of larger diameter". You can get them tapered, regular, open core or anything in between.

Newtone, or any bass guitar string manufacturer, have never had lumped strings.

While I wont diss Kemp at all, they're sure great strings, but I think "lumped" is just useful with the lowest E and B string at a certain total scale. We others use multi-scale or fanned fret basses, and gets rid of the inharmonicities up there past 15th fret anyway

But the thing is where he states this comes from bass strings on pianos, is that it's ONLY working on bass strings on upright pianos around 1 meters length, because they are too short. If you have a fanned fret bass at "full length" this inharmonic phenomenons are virtually nil,

I think fanned frets/multi scale is a much better solution if you want to get nit picky about those things,

Inharmonicity is caused by stiffness, so is always present to some degree in strings of any gauge.

Extra long scales do not eliminate inharmonicity. They allow a .005-.010 smaller gauge to be used for the same tension, and the string is also longer, both of these increase flexibility and therefore reduce inharmonicity.

I did some approximate calculations that showed that an extra-long scale of around 37"-40" can reduce the stiffness of the B to that of a 34"/35" E. That gives an idea of how much inharmonicity is reduced. Although reduced, it is still very much present and these lumped bass guitar strings can reduce it further, which is useful.
Many people do not want to use an extra-long scale.

The thing is, I've had problems with tapered strings no doubt, and the inharmonicty of the open low B, or even low E. But it's because the full gauge begins to far in, along the strings length. If one takes some washer nuts to retract the ball end further back, you move the taper back to the witness point, or even past it, and then it's all clear all along and across the string, no inharmonicies. The YT videos of it displays a tapered strings where the taper starts way too far in,

Too long a tapered section in the vibrating length does cause additional inharmonicity, but that is 'in addition' to the inharmonicity caused by stiffness. Non-tapered strings also have inharmonicity.
It is a good idea to move the taper point close to the saddle, but that therefore does not eliminate inharmonicity.

The YT videos of it displays a tapered strings where the taper starts way too far in,

So, that is not the cause of the all the inharmonicity.
You seem to be implying that these lumped strings are a solution to a problem actually caused by the string design error of having too much tapered section in the vibrating length, this is incorrect.

Again, if you read all about this Sanderson-Accu string for pianos, to which he refers to, the main reason for adding extra mass at the end of the piano strings, is that you have OPEN CORE AT BOTH ENDS OF THE PIANO STRING, and to compensate for the loss since there are less mass when the copper isn't wound around the core all of a sudden before the core hits the stop where it bends around.

That may be true, but ...

I know of NO BASS STRING on any bass guitar that has open core string on both ends of the string, both at the nut, and the bridge saddle, and while open core strings DO exists, they are very few and far between, and only at the bridge saddle then anyway.

These lumped bass guitar strings are not created to deal with the effect of exposed core at both ends.
Mr. Kemp was inspired by lumped piano strings, then worked on the relevant theory to discover that lumps could reduce the inharmonicity of a bass guitar string (tapered or not, exposed core or not).

The thing with tapered string is just because the bridge saddle can't be put down enough, for thick gauges to reside. They will be too high above the rest of the strings then.

? ... this is unclear. Saddles almost always have enough height adjustment to cope with tapered and non-tapered strings, so tapered strings have nothing to do with overly high strings.

I can think that on short scale basses it will have some kind of merit, but the thing with "playing up there" is kind of moot. Those notes on the fat strings are available in "good tone" elsewhere on the fretboard.

These lumped bass guitar strings are not just for playing on the very high frets, inharmonicity is present on the lowest frets and open string too.
With a fourths tuning you are forced to play at least up to fret 4, and usually a little higher, there is a lot of inharmonicity on a B string at fret 4, even with a 35" scale, too much for my taste.
Certain notes are not available elsewhere with high-harmonicity tone.
Besides this, it is useful to be able to play higher up the fretboard.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

Newtone, or any bass guitar string manufacturer, have never had lumped strings.

No, you're right, my bad, I should say "but I'm not sure". The company was called Octave4plus. Sorry, my bad.

octave4plus.com

nothing new adding led weights to the end of a) fishing lines b) piano strings.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

> The gauages are 45, 60, 81, 108 and 146 for the five string sets

This is not made clear, but the gauges are chosen to create similar tensions (adjacent gauges have a 4:3 ratio) and a more even feel and response, like his guitar string sets.

It's actually his guitar strings that intrigues me way more than his bass strings. That's what he should flaunt, and strut about. He demostrates a stock strat with stock whammy bar, floating tremolo, how 4 of the strings can bend with relative pitch intact just like the old Stienberger trans trem systems. I could make a lot more mileage out of that musically than caring about inharmonicities above 13-14th fret on a low B string on a bass that's too short.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

Inharmonicity is caused by stiffness, so is always present to some degree in strings of any gauge.

You forgot... length?
Yes, any gauges at the same lenght, yes. But as you draw it out it diminishes. Now, having to get rid of inharmonicity would get unwieldy lengths approaching church organ pipes and is very impractical, not that it has been made in certain concept pianos, but it diminished to such a degree that the inharmonicity is so subtle that it is neglible, at a certain a) length b) gauge c) pitch, of course. One must all of the time take that into account, all three things and not leave any of those three out when discussing. The design of a piano is a compromise. To produce a lower pitched (bass) note, a string cannot be either: (a) thicker; (b) longer; or (c) under less tension. It has to be all three factors combined. But options (a) and (c) only, degrade the quality of the sound. Inharmonicity. Nevertheless, manufacturers, at the risk of introducing harmonic distortion, do use thicker, stiffer strings for the lower notes to make the piano a reasonable size.

The comparison he does with piano strings has its own flaws when considering bass strings on a bass guitar:

a) Piano strings is optimized for one open note at once. No one ever frets a longer string to get a shorter note. The inharmonicities changes as you fret down at different nodes one the string, i e what you do is "change open string". The string does give a **** if you fret it down somewhere or not. It is a new "scale" instroduced and fretting at *th fret could just as well be a new open string so to speak.

b) the added mass technique - lump - on these piano strings was just made to compensate for the open wire at both ends of the piano string. No bass string on bass guitar I know of has open core at both ends of the string.

c) The piano strings that are suspected of these inharmonicities is just by it's too short length and has nothing to do with gauge. These lumps are only on upright pianos, and on grand pianos they are not needed because there they have perfect length. Or really, optimal length.

Yes, concept pianos do exist. Just for that. 3 meters bass strings to get rid of inharmonicty.Totally.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

? ... this is unclear. Saddles almost always have enough height adjustment to cope with tapered and non-tapered strings, so tapered strings have nothing to do with overly high strings.

They do. The reason tapered strings came around, especially low B and low E was that the bridge saddles diameter wasn't large enough to accomodate them. They'd look like this when seated:

The full gauge of the string couldn't fit in with in the shaped sadde/nut sluts. So you have to make that part a gauge that will fit the saddle slot. And then right after it, it would have another wrap around it making it full gauge. However, where this taper begins or ends, is totally dependent of the distance from the ball end (back of it) to the bridge sadde, and this is VERY different from bass guitar to bass guitar, not speaking of body through stringing. As I don't know anyone has yet produce a bass bridge saddle where you can relocate the ball end without moving/retuning/reintonating it all in one package, such ideas like a) taper b) lump is totally moot.

When they build a bass that incorporates the bridge designs of headless basses where you actually have to move the ball end while tuning, these strings as well as tapered will have some slight merit perhaps. Not until then no one's going to shove down my throat that this will work. Lumped or not. I mean that you combine still the headstock tuner with a retractable ball end, so you put down the strings ball end first and then adjust it so the taper or lump ends up as close in front of the bridge saddle as possible and then attach the string to headstock tuner and starts to tune up. If you have to change the saddle position due to intonation is out, then you have to slack all of the string again, and move the headless tuner bridge (the ball end) forward and backward again, should the taper end up on the wrong side of the saddle slot.

EDIT: Actually this thing with tapered strings eluded me from the first time that I saw them. I naturally, by gut reaction thought "why is that they're getting thinner/small in gauge as the peter out at the end?" I automatically thought they should - ought to - get thicker/larger in diameter at the ends. Just like the lump string.

BTW I can go out and buy led balls that you put on fishing lines and put on my existing bass strings. And line them up perfectly just in front of the saddle, and achieve the very same results.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

Fishing sinkers, the smallest ones. Buy dime a dozen, 0,6 grams. made of lead (not led as I errouneously spelled before). What are they, like 5 dollars apackage of 100 pcs? The thing with these is that you can attach them at various places along the string, making sure they'll end up just in front of the bridge saddles. Or anywhere else along the strings speaking length for avant garde music excursions.

This is what they used on the piano strings above anyway. You may inhibit sustain though on the open string note. But again, only if you have open core bass string, or ...tapered.

 

[ixlramp]

I could make a lot more mileage out of that musically than caring about inharmonicities above 13-14th fret on a low B string on a bass that's too short.

This again understates the problem of inharmonicity. It is a problem on standard scales (34"/35") and not only above the octave on the B.

I wrote:
> Inharmonicity is caused by stiffness

You forgot... length?

Yes, i agree with you.
What i mean is that construction, gauge and vibrating length affect stiffness, so by mentioning 'stiffness' i do not need to also mention 'length'.
As you play up a string its vibrating length decreases and it becomes stiffer, because its width becomes larger relative to its vibrating length, this is what causes inharmonicity to increase.
If you hold a string in your hands and bend it, the shorter the length you try to bend the stiffer it becomes.

The comparison he does with piano strings has its own flaws when considering bass strings on a bass guitar:

Kemp Strings only referred to lumped piano strings briefly as a somewhat similar approach, which they are.
It does not matter how different the situations are because the lumped guitar strings are backed up by theory and are shown to work by experiment.
The accuracy of the comparison is irrelevant and does not delegitamise the lumped guitar strings. I think you are making too much fuss about this reference.

a) Piano strings is optimized for one open note at once. No one ever frets a longer string to get a shorter note. The inharmonicities changes as you fret down at different nodes one the string

As you play up the string, the lump becomes longer relative to the vibrating length. It seems to me this would increase the effect on the higher harmonics, which compensates for the increase in inharmonicity.
The effectiveness is probably compromised somewhat, but the experiments show the lumped guitar strings reduce inharmonicity along all the frets.

b) the added mass technique - lump - on these piano strings was just made to compensate for the open wire at both ends of the piano string. No bass string on bass guitar I know of has open core at both ends of the string.

Probably not 'just', lumps on piano strings would reduce inharmonicity even without exposed cores or tapering.
It seems to me the lump being on one end only works in a similar way to lumps on both ends.

c) The piano strings that are suspected of these inharmonicities is just by it's too short length and has nothing to do with gauge. These lumps are only on upright pianos

This point is irrelevant because wherever there is problematic inharmonicity the approach of lumped strings is valid.
Bass guitars are indeed too short when playing up the B, and certainly for strings lower than B.

They do. The reason tapered strings came around, especially low B and low E was that the bridge saddles diameter wasn't large enough to accomodate them.

I see what you mean now, thanks.

As I don't know anyone has yet produce a bass bridge saddle where you can relocate the ball end without moving/retuning/reintonating it all in one package, such ideas like a) taper b) lump is totally moot.

Not totally moot. Despite the problem of the length of tapered section in the vibrating length, the advantages of tapering still outweigh that disadvantage for many people, like myself.
The lump can still be effective despite differing lengths of tapered section in the vibrating length, although it might be compromised.

When they build a bass that incorporates the bridge designs of headless basses where you actually have to move the ball end while tuning, these strings as well as tapered will have some slight merit perhaps. Not until then no one's going to shove down my throat that this will work. Lumped or not.

Scientific experiment has shown the lumped strings work, see the scientific paper and the video.
Tapered strings sell well so work for those who like them.
But its okay if you do not personally like either.

BTW I can go out and buy led balls that you put on fishing lines and put on my existing bass strings. And line them up perfectly just in front of the saddle, and achieve the very same results.

Not really, as the lump has to be of a specfic length and mass, as determined by theory, to work properly.

 

[Deleted member 368008]

Not really, as the lump has to be of a specfic length and mass, as determined by theory, to work properly.

So then, if my bass is 35" and the strings are "lumped" with a perfect added mass, it must be "gauged" for open pitch E and a 34" inch length, and then if I tuned down to Eb or D on a 35" all this lump is thrown out the window then? It fails to do its work. IMHO it must do that if we should follow physics pedantically really. And to put it on a fanned frets bass with 36.25" will jinx and exacerbate the inharmonics even more out of specific bounds made by the string manufacturer.

There are thicker mass at the end of a non tapered string anyway, so why shouldn't that matter? Please explain...
BTW there are "Lumps" on these non-saddle bridge strings anyway, and must be "added weight" too to them don't you think?

And what if my bass had this bridge, then? Would lumped Kemp strings work?

Look I am more interested in his guitar strings, which he should flaunt. Those are way more intriguing. I am not slamming his idea at all, but the comparison to piano strings with open core, is not mentioned in a bypassing way, and should not be neglected. It simple isn't that at a regular bass guitar. And BTW having strings made perfectly for each bass guitar eludes me. If I have higher action than anyone else, and intonate differently the lump may end up at the bridge saddle point or even behind it. Not with the Ray Ross Bridge above though...

Not to speak of the sudden jump in total gauge in the string, bass gauge goes from an even .020 increase all acroos the string .40 - .60 -.80 - .100 and the all of a sudden a .146 for the low B. And the asking price too. Big no no for me, just to get heard without inharmonics when playing above 15th fret on a fivers lowest string. Those notes are available on the g-string anyway, without inharmonics....

 

[gigetto]

Interesting...but....the big producers don't say anything

 

[Deleted member 368008]

The title was "new revolutionary strings" and a question mark. Since I think it's very valid to question all things on the market, that flaunts, struts about its novelty, innovation, invention, I think very well that we are allowed to debate, discuss its merits here.

I figured out too, that if I would order his strings (5 string set) from Scotland to Sweden, before added taxes, customs, shipping, a set ends up ... 85.99 sterling pound, which is today at 118.95 USD ( ) which is 1,014.38 SEK. I get 3 pcs 5 string sets of ordinary brand and repute, in that price elsewhere. OK, so 25 % added VAT (Swedish) 12 % customs, + shipping it ends up at 1.454 SEK which translates to USD = 170.5 $

A steal!!!!

The title should read "new revolutionary price" instead. FWIW I still think I am going to try his guitar strings which are more normally priced. BTW I did that "inharmonics" sound test the other day on my fanned fret Dingwall which is - actually - a 4 string with BEAD tuning and a) 36.25 scale on low B string b) No taper (as in no open core anywhere) c) at .125 gauge, and found the very same non-existent/reduced inharmonicity on the low B string up there, at the highest frets, as in these lumped ones.

Granted, you do have to buy special strings for that one too, but it's a fraction of that price of Kemp strings, and if you're stingy, cheapskate, you need only to buy the low B at that scale/length.


Now, the raining on the parade has been going on a little bit overboard, but I still say:

His guitar strings? A resounding and definitive YES on those. I think those ones are more revolutionary than the bass strings.

The reason major manufacturers hasn't chimed in yet, is maybe they have been courting him in the backyard, for licensing the patent. They don't want to disclose negotiations ongoing in the shade...

 

[Deleted member 368008]

BTW regarding that someone hasn't made them "lumped" before. Here's from Octave4Plus fb page, although you don't see where the lump ends, it's not only a regular tapered string, the lumps "gauge" turns down to its regular gauge after a while:

 

[Dan_reeves]

I wish instead scientists would figure out how to prevent piano players from stomping all over us with their left hand, or teach guitarists to play with more taste and a true ear for the band.

 

[Deleted member 368008]