In super long scale, yes. But not in the standard long scale.
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.
thomastik jazz flats question
- Thread starter robert neville
- Start date
In super long scale, yes. But not in the standard long scale.
Ah, that would explain it then.
Thanks Michael, goes to show how much i'm paying attention.
I had ditched TI Flats a couple of years ago because I grew tired of the high flexibility and the somewhat lacking low end presence. But reviewing some recordings I had made with those strings, they do have a particular unique voice to them that I like a lot. Might consider trying them again...
Now i have to check what the A actually is on this so called new set of mine, Ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Interestingly enough though, the older "lighter" set i had on there, was slightly lower tension, for obvious reasons.
I'm really diggin the tension on this "newer" set, much more even and balanced across the strings.
I went from roto flats to TIs and over time actually lowered my action. Not a soft player, before TIs I could be a bit heavy handed, I lightened up, while not really being aware that I was.
In other words, you'll likely adjust.
Super long meaning what i now have?
Well, compared to what i had, and now what i have, this new set has just a little bit more tension.
I find this to be quite perfect, because it seems to be more balanced across all the strings, i found the older set to be a little less tension.
A little floppy if i would even call it that.
Sounds like you mean the extra long scale set? So there should be only one set for "long scale" basses.
I'm assuming so, but you know where assuming gets you, or me for that matter.
Says long scale on the packaging.
@-Asdfgh-, @JJR58: I have no idea if and when there where changes in gauge for a given length set; that said, I have measured the unit weight of the (current?) super-long ADG strings vs. the corresponding (current?) long-scale strings based on the scale lengths and tension figures on the [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] found on the Thomastik-Infeld website. In short, they calculate within a hair of each other, leading me to believe that the slight differences in gauge (.072-.057-044 vs. .07-.056-.043) are likely due to an ever-so-slightly thicker layer of silk between the core and the round winding, but no real difference in the amount of metal per inch. In this poorly substantiated hypothesis of mine, the silk would be thicker in order to tame the twanginess of the higher strings on a longer scale. The real difference in tension is to be found between the regular .100 and the super-long .096, but how it translates tone-wise, on an instrument where both versions could fit (say, thru-body vs. top-load), I could not tell.
(My only experience with T-I's is their short/medium .106, and it rocks.)
I do notice that the S-L .096 (also found, trimmed short, in their custom Beatle bass set) seems to be calibrated to have about the same tension as the A, unlike in the regular set where the latter is the laxest.
(My only experience with T-I's is their short/medium .106, and it rocks.)
I do notice that the S-L .096 (also found, trimmed short, in their custom Beatle bass set) seems to be calibrated to have about the same tension as the A, unlike in the regular set where the latter is the laxest.
Well, that makes sense, or at least to me it does.
There is the saying or word "percieved".
And i wonder in this case, what is percieved to me and what is real.
But bottom line is, i love these strings.
No worries. We were referring to the JF344. I do see that there are some variations for short scale strings, and for super long strings.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Thanks Jeff, looks like i've got those long scale JF344's.
Which you already know.
