Praise Report: GHS Precision Flats

[michael_t]

I think that the round core Boomers came out after the Balanced Nickels, and the CM3050 flats were not initially an option as a set, but were introduced along the way.

RBCs were there before BN; however, the "balanced construction" concept wasn't applied to RCBs until sometime after the introduction of BN.

The Precision Flats CM3050 set was introduced sometime between March and September of 2017.

Also it seems that D'Addario's balanced sets came as a response to GHS Balanced Nickels, though am not sure whether or not D'Addario mimics the equal number of windings from string to string in the construction, or just the overall diameters and tension.

D'A came out with their "balanced tension" sets way before the introduction of BN, and they're strictly about tension, not about construction or even tonal balance.

However, as part of his responsibility at GHS, he has to walk a fine line between tradition and change

My hope is GHS won't start fixing what doesn't need fixing for the sake of innovation. I do understand the idea behind this balanced construction concept, but the difference it has made in real-life applications (at least for me personally) is not night-and-day.

If I could pick out one specific feature that I wish GHS would start applying to more than one model, that would be the "roller-winding" method. As a huge fan of the Pressurewound (Alloy 52 rollerwound), I would love to see the same concept applied to other models. Rollerwound Super Steels, Rollerwound Pure Nickels, etc. I would take that over "balanced construction" any day. But that's just my personal wish...

 

[Jon Moody]

I think that the round core Boomers came out after the Balanced Nickels, and the CM3050 flats were not initially an option as a set, but were introduced along the way.

Also it seems that D'Addario's balanced sets came as a response to GHS Balanced Nickels, though am not sure whether or not D'Addario mimics the equal number of windings from string to string in the construction, or just the overall diameters and tension.

Nope, that timeline is all wrong.

D'Addario Balanced Tension sets came out first. By a few years.

Round Core Bass Boomers came out second, however not in the current configuration.

Balanced Nickels came next and, to my knowledge, no one else has taken the balanced construction concept to this degree. Or if they have, it hasn't been mentioned at all.

From there, the Pressurewound Bronze strings were introduced, which also feature the same balanced construction. What's interesting with these is while the gauges are very light, the rollerwinding process stiffens the strings so they are not loose feeling.

At that point is when the boss asked me if we need to do a "balanced construction" thing with Bass Boomers, which is when I suggested the RC. That platform is a better fit and could be the whole series, instead of just 1-2 sets.

At some point the Precision Flats CM3050 set came out. Which is nice, but the M3050 still outsells it by 10:1.

Hopefully when the stars align, Progressives 2.0 will come out, which are built around the same balanced concept, but with the flair that make this set still in demand.

I only just wish that they would apply the same thinking to more of their types/models of strings, and if I live long enough, it would not surprise me if they and other string makers do eventually offer further such designed sets.

From my outline, that's roughly HALF of the GHS String offerings that I've put into a more balanced selection. I believe that's "showing the courage," right?

And as @michael_t already mentioned, many of the existing sets are pretty close already. Or, closer than competitors sets when you compare tension charts.

But part of what I was lamenting was not only whether or not we can choose from what is already being built, but also a need to broaden the choices in some instances, especially the offerings for short and medium scale basses, which, as many of us are discovering as we age, are more comfortable for old geezers like me to play.

That's a different discussion for another day. What you really want is not a larger selection for short and medium scale basses, but a selection of strings that's actually designed FOR short and medium scale basses. Until recently, the string specs for short/medium were identical to the long scale strings, save the winding length.

It may have worked, but was it the best way to do it? And that involves more than just a tension chart, or a larger number of available gauges.

And in that last observation, I KNOW that I am not alone !
~

When I work from home, my cats are here. So in a way, I'm not alone either

 

[NKBassman]

Hopefully when the stars align, Progressives 2.0 will come out, which are built around the same balanced concept, but with the flair that make this set still in demand.

Anxiously wanting to try these, but actively trying not to bring that up in this particular thread.

 

[trothwell]

Anxiously wanting to try these, but actively trying not to bring that up in this particular thread.

I know! GHS could beat Apple to being the first 4 trillion dollar company.

 

[DavesnothereCA]

You're gonna have to explain this to me a bit more, in regard to "showing the courage." I'm not following you.

Ah, but you are.

Your below continuation shows that you get it.

Perhaps a better choice of words on my part would have been 'going out on a limb', as I agree with you that at all levels of the marketing chain, someone would be taking a chance that a new item for sale, regardless of what makes it new, may or may not catch on, all the way from the maker thru the wholesalers, and on to the dealers.
~

....It's inventory management at the dealer level, and customer perception, that are the issues.

A dealer that's planning to buy 10 sets of medium bass strings (that he knows he'll move) is going to be a hard sell to buy any additional medium balanced tension sets. He won't buy more; he'll buy less of his guaranteed movers to try out these other ones (let's say 7 reg and 3 bt). And when they sit on the shelf longer than the others?

And while we know on Talkbass that there are some benefits to balanced tension, the general musician population doesn't care. I've spoken at plenty of conventions about strings; different materials, construction techniques, etc.. all in the hope of cutting through marketing and, as I put it, "unlocking the string wall" at your local dealer.

Many appreciate the information, but aren't swayed enough to try a different set.

They like what they like....

~
And again, you do get it, because regardless of whether an idea came from one of us, or it was your own, or both, you still have to try to pitch it if you agree with it, but that still is no guarantee of who at the corporate level would be willing to let it be tried/implemented, nor how well the public would embrace it if it was put into motion.
~

 

[DavesnothereCA]

....Grab a tension chart and talk to either the folk at JustStrings.com or Jason over at FretNation.com , and you can do exactly that.

That was the driving force behind putting together our tension chart. I'd rather open up the entire string catalog to someone that wants to experiment with "balanced tension"....

~
And I am almost endlessly impressed that GHS has given the time and effort to publish such a detailed document, and explain as much as they have about how to use it.

I have not found any other string maker who has offered that much info without an explicit case by case inquiry, and some not even THEN.

I took the tension formula and put it into a spreadsheet, to allow me to predict what the tension would be, of a given string under different circumstances than what was intended, and learned some interesting stuff.

For example, you have mentioned in the past that GHS has sometimes made strings of the same type and gauge, but with different unit weights, to optimize them for use at a different scale length.

The strings to which I have paid the most attention [because I had unknowingly at first used them for decades on my Ric 4001, prior to them being offered with GHS branding], are Brite Flats, which I believe to have been offered as my beloved Dean Markley Ground Round Wounds [long scale, light gauge] at the time.

And I note that most of the strings in the medium gauge version of those, exhibit varying unit weights in each scale length.

I would be curious as to what was the desired result of each of these changes, and whether you feel that the result was achieved in each of the finished products.

However, to go into much detail might be better done in another thread, though that said, the same reasons and observations might apply to the Precision Flats too.
~

 

[DavesnothereCA]

My biggest beef is usually the lowest string feeling floppier than the rest of the set. I'd prefer a standard medium set with a 110 E in most instances. And a 130 or 135 B string for most 5-string sets. Even on a 35" scale 5-string, the typical 120 or 125 B is just way too floppy. But at the end of the day I'll take what I can get for tension if it gets me the sound I like. I've played around with custom Kalium string sets before, but the cost (shipping to Canada) and effort just wasn't worth it at the end of the day.

I used to think the same way. But after trying both La Bella 760FL (43-60-82-104) and Fender 9050CL (45-60-80-105) on my P bass and finding the E's a bit too muddy for my taste, I finally decided to try the light set of the Precision Flats (45-60-75-95). Sure, they're not the best balanced set in terms of TENSION, but I was pleasantly surprised how nicely balanced they were in term of TONE. The 95E was cleaner and clearer with better note definition compared to the other two. That's what made me rethink this whole "balanced tension vs. balanced tone" thing.

I used to be a very heavy handed player, and loved super tight strings to compensate for that strong right hand attack. In that instance, if the low strings get too loose then they just rattle against the fret board and sound terrible, and so actual tension was important for performance and control while playing complicated and demanding metal riffage, and achieving a balanced tone was kind of secondary to that. Since I put a set of TI flats on my P bass, which are VERY loose feeling, I've had to really lighten up my right hand, which was very hard to get used to at first but I'm getting better now. When I really get going I still tend to dig in, but it's a lot more under control now. I'm also not playing super demanding metal riffs anymore, so that simplifies what I need out of my basses as well.

So long story short, these days I'm playing with a lighter touch and prefer balanced tone over balanced tension, but still favour a low E and B on the stiffer side of "balanced" tension.

Edit: Also @michael_t, there comes a point where increasing tension will relieve a muddy [or otherwise poor] sounding string as well. A 105 E might be right in the middle of the mud zone for most string sets lol. I've never tried light gauge strings for the performance reasons I listed above.

~
That last observation is most interesting !

I think that I've never had as heavy a touch as you described having, but still, I see your point, and feel that it might especially apply to short and medium scale basses, where most string makers offer us limited choice of gauges in most types of strings, and in some instances offer only the lighter gauges.
~

 

[Stan_da_man]

Slow day?

 

[Jon Moody]

~I would be curious as to what was the desired result of each of these changes, and whether you feel that the result was achieved in each of the finished products.

However, to go into much detail might be better done in another thread, though that said, the same reasons and observations might apply to the Precision Flats too.
~

You're asking questions about a set that is decades old and created by folks that have either retired, or most likely, passed away. I don't have those answers for you.

 

[DavesnothereCA]

You're asking questions about a set that is decades old and created by folks that have either retired, or most likely, passed away. I don't have those answers for you.

~
Jon, this question has haunted me for several years, not just the last few days.

Even if it was begun before your tenure at GHS, I would still be curious to know your opinion, as to what the specific objective might be, to deliberately make 2 or more versions of the same gauge of the same type of string, with different unit weights, when the only difference in application is the scale length, and whether you think that their doing it seems to have accomplished that objective.

I'm not sure as to whether or not you play all scales of basses, and for most of my own time, I only played long scale [mainly my Ric 4001] until fairly recently, a change which in and of itself has led to many of my questions, comments, and wishes, both about strings and the instruments themselves.

Best as I can tell from their not as complete charts, D'Addario [and likely many other string makers] keeps the unit weight the same for strings of a given type and gauge, for a variety of scale lengths, and GHS tends to vary the unit weight when it would clearly be easier to not adjust the tooling as much.

This applies to Brite Flats, Precision Flats, and most other GHS designations, one notable exception being the Balanced Nickels, where the published unit weights remain constant between the long and short scale editions.

Thanks.
~

 

[Jon Moody]

~Even if it was begun before your tenure at GHS, I would still be curious to know your opinion, as to what the specific objective might be, to deliberately make 2 or more versions of the same gauge of the same type of string, with different unit weights, when the only difference in application is the scale length, and whether you think that their doing it seems to have accomplished that objective.

I'm not going to go in-depth speculating on what they were thinking or their objectives were when many of these sets were created. It would be neat if I knew, but I really don't care.

My guess? They were more focused on making a set of strings that sounded good and played well, over having it fall within parameters on a sheet of paper.

And because 30" scale basses respond differently than 34" scale basses, they took that into account. As do I.

I'm not sure as to whether or not you play all scales of basses

My main players are 32" scale, but I go between nearly all the scales fairly regularly. I have a fanned fret (with the Dingwall 34-37 fan) that I play, although I'm not a fan of the concept.

I'm also a classically trained double bassist, and keep those chops up when I can.

 

[Ricky Rioli]

There should be a computer game, Fantasy Bass String Designer. Once you've put together your range of flatwound this, roundcore that etc etc, you sit back and see your sales figures, before heading off to TwerkBass to reply to everyone asking, but why didn't you.....?

I would play it just enough to create a set of 50–65–85–110 Balanced Construction Hexcore Boomers, and then buy the entire production run myself.

 

[Phaidrus]

There should be a computer game, Fantasy Bass String Designer. Once you've put together your range of flatwound this, roundcore that etc etc, you sit back and see your sales figures, before heading off to TwerkBass to reply to everyone asking, but why didn't you.....?

I would play it just enough to create a set of 50–65–85–110 Balanced Construction Hexcore Boomers, and then buy the entire production run myself.

Fantasy Bass String Designer would no doubt require a most powerful CPU & graphics card running at full tilt.

 

[Stan_da_man]

GHS P Flats users - how many inches of string do you go past the capstan before trimming?

Unsure how much to take off due to the silks.

 

[TomB]

I grab the string and cut a bit beyond the width of my fingers when placed next to the post. It gives about 3 wraps on a Fender-sized post. Depending on the string brand (length), I usually use the G-string full length on a long-scale Fender. You do need to watch for binding at the bridge end of things as you start winding.

 

[Stan_da_man]

I grab the string and cut a bit beyond the width of my fingers when placed next to the post. It gives about 3 wraps on a Fender-sized post. Depending on the string brand (length), I usually use the G-string full length on a long-scale Fender. You do need to watch for binding at the bridge end of things as you start winding.

Cutting around 5 inches gives me 3 wraps around the post. Not used to silks on strings!

 

[DavesnothereCA]

There should be a computer game, Fantasy Bass String Designer. Once you've put together your range of flatwound this, roundcore that etc etc, you sit back and see your sales figures, before heading off to TwerkBass to reply to everyone asking, but why didn't you.....?

I would play it just enough to create a set of 50–65–85–110 Balanced Construction Hexcore Boomers, and then buy the entire production run myself.

~
Those gauges would suit me too, cut for a short scale bass, though in something other than roundwound.

After playing long scale for many years, and more recently short, I'm about to try medium scale basses [2 of my pandemic purchase have been those], which as we all know have the least choice of proper wrap length strings.

One of them happens to have proper wrap length black nylons on it, brand uncertain, royal blue-ish silks, which I will give a chance, and the other has rounds, which per my general preference will likely get summarily replaced, possibly with GHS Brite Flats, which have been my main string choice for many years, even prior to them being sold branded as GHS.

Another choice might be LaBella 760FL DT Flats [43-104] in medium scale - Uh-Oh, am I allowed to mention those in here ?
~

 

[foal30]

Well after a few weeks use I really like these GHS Flats on the Fretless Jazz

Quite pleased.

 

[Bass4ThePublic]

Got another set of P flats coming in the mail! Gonna pair it up with a 1963 pre-cbs pickup that just got done being rewound by Tom Brantley, should be lovely. I really really like these flats. I was a die hard LaBella fan but wanted and "old school" flat with better QC and less mud, Precision Flats fit the bill. For any Deep Talkin Flats fans out there, GHS P flats are a MUST TRY!

 

[Phaidrus]

Got another set of P flats coming in the mail! Gonna pair it up with a 1963 pre-cbs pickup that just got done being rewound by Tom Brantley, should be lovely. I really really like these flats. I was a die hard LaBella fan but wanted and "old school" flat with better QC and less mud, Precision Flats fit the bill. For any Deep Talkin Flats fans out there, GHS P flats are a MUST TRY!

Put a La Bella 760FS set on my PV63 pup Pbass three days ago, sound good but still too new. I think I can hear their potential, time will tell. If they don't get there, GHS P flats are next on the list.