What makes strings balanced?

[Rolling Thunder]

I'm curious because I see people ask "What do people think of these strings?" and invariably someone will reply with "those aren't balanced". So how do you tell?

Are you looking at the gauge numbers, or manufacturer tension charts, personal experience/taste, or because the word "balanced" is printed on the pack?

FWIW, the two sets I'm considering are Labella 760-M Jamersons (52-73-95-110) and Rotosound RS-77LE (50-75-95-110). I know these are both "bridge cable" sets, but they will go on a double-action truss rod equipped neck and I prefer thicker flats.

I want to avoid having one string as taut as a hunting bow and have another be a wet noodle in comparison (exaggeration, I know).

 

[Bushmaster]

Are you looking at the gauge numbers, or manufacturer tension charts, personal experience/taste, or because the word "balanced" is printed on the pack?

Yeah, the latter 'acourse

Well, "balance" obviously may refer to two different things: sound and feel. To evaluate the former, use your ears, to evaluate the latter use you fingers. In either case, do not simply use your eyes (measurable tension is not elasticity. Feel is determined by the latter. Not to speak of gauges which won't tell you either.).

Try playing open strings with hammer-ons on the 3rd, 5th and 7th fret, both acoustically and amplified. Their volume, sound and feel should be nearly identical. Also switching between various techniques (pizz, pick, slap, doublethumbing, touchstye) should sound plausibly good (four your individual taste). Then play across the fingerboard, both vertically and horizontally.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Yeah, the latter 'acourse

Well, "balance" obviously may refer to two different things: sound and feel. To evaluate the former, use your ears, to evaluate the latter use you fingers. In either case, do not simply use your eyes (measurable tension is not elasticity. Feel is determined by the latter. Not to speak of gauges which won't tell you either.).

Try playing open strings with hammer-ons on the 3rd, 5th and 7th fret, both acoustically and amplified. Their volume, sound and feel should be nearly identical. Also switching between various techniques (pizz, pick, slap, doublethumbing, touchstye) should sound plausibly good (four your individual taste). Then play across the fingerboard, both vertically and horizontally.

Thanks for the explanation. I always wondered how people claim a given set is not balanced. It's as if they can just tell from looking at them. I suspect some people are BS-ing. I would venture to say that big-name makers like Labella, Rotosound, TI, etc. are all balanced.

 

[Jon Moody]

I would venture to say that big-name makers like Labella, Rotosound, TI, etc. are all balanced.

Eh, no. In fact, the release of tension charts for all the available strings of a certain brand shows that most packaged sets, in terms of pulling force tension, are NOT balanced. Some are closer than others, but no. And that's for only the few companies that have taken the time to release this data.

 

[JKos]

I would posit that there are at least four possible aspects of "balanced."

1. Tension
2. Feel
3. Timbre
4. Output

To me, feel, timbre, and output are much more important than tension.

 

[ixlramp]

I agree with JKos, 'balanced' is used in several different ways by people and string manufacturers, at least the 4 ways JKos listed, and the various combinations of those, so one has to first specify how the word is being used.

I want to avoid having one string as taut as a hunting bow and have another be a wet noodle in comparison (exaggeration, I know).

So in this case you seem to be referring to 'scientific tension', the force value in 'lbs' (pounds) found on tension charts.
But you might instead be referring to 'perceived tension'/'feel', the 2 are different.
Are you concerned with the actual scientific force each string exerts on the headstock, or 'how tight each string feels to the hands'?

Well, "balance" obviously may refer to two different things: sound and feel.

You missed out probably the most common meaning: 'scientific tension', which is different to 'feel'.
More recently, since Circle K Strings helped to popularise the concept of 'equal tension sets', 'balanced' is increasingly used to mean 'equal scientific tensions'. This is the meaning D'Addario uses for its 'balanced' sets.

(measurable tension is not elasticity. Feel is determined by the latter. Not to speak of gauges which won't tell you either.).

Gauge is a fairly reliable but approximate indicator of scientific tension, your statement implies no relationship.

Try playing open strings with hammer-ons on the 3rd, 5th and 7th fret, both acoustically and amplified. Their volume, sound and feel should be nearly identical. Also switching between various techniques (pizz, pick, slap, doublethumbing, touchstye) should sound plausibly good (four your individual taste). Then play across the fingerboard, both vertically and horizontally.

That is only one very specific combination of aspects as a definition of 'balanced'.

I always wondered how people claim a given set is not balanced. It's as if they can just tell from looking at them. I suspect some people are BS-ing.

If one assumes the meaning is 'scientific tension', then you can look at the gauges which are an approximate indicator of scientific tension. For example .107 .080 .060 .045 is probably close to having equal scientific tensions, there is a way to approximately tell by looking at the gauges (there is a rough rule that can be derived scientifically, as i have done).
But, gauges are not an exact indicator of scientific tension, so this is an approximate guess until one can look at the actual measured scientific tension values on a tension chart.

But it is valid to look at something like .105 .085 .070 .050 and say 'that is unbalanced' (in terms of scientific tension) because that indicates a very high probabllity of a very top-heavy set. So it is not necessarily 'BS' =)

 

[DCCat]

To me, there are two aspects of string-to-string balance that are most important:

- Similarity of perceived stiffness/flexibility across strings. Most strings are not great in this regard and many players can really feel when there are differences, enough so that it can affect their playing. One example of such differences (and there are many, but this one is often cited) is the extra flexibility of the A string in the TIJF set. Many players have trouble with the flexibility of that set to begin with, and the extra flexibility of the A string is just a bridge too far. Fortunately, this issue usually doesn't bother me that much, though I do notice it.

- Similarity of perceived tone (perhaps timbre is the right word) across strings. Specifically, what I mean by this is how the same note sounds on one string and the strings next to it. When there are problems, they're most obvious (in the 4-string world) in the E and G strings. When you play a note on the D string and the same note 5 frets down on the G, on many sets they sound pretty different. The fundamental might be the same but the overtone profile is quite different, so the G often sounds thinner, tinnier, brighter, etc. Same thing on the E vs. A, with the E sounding boomier, muddier, thuddier, etc. This bugs me more than flexibility imbalances, and I've been going through a process of finding the right strings for my basses to exhibit better tonal balance. No strings are perfect on this, but some are better than others. On my P-bass, at least (could be different on other basses, I dunno), there were a lot of things I liked about the LaBella LTFs, but recently I decided the E and G strings are not well balanced enough with the A and D. Since I criticized the TIJFs above, I'll praise them here, because I've determined that their tonal balance on that bass is quite good.

The so-called "balanced tension" strings try to address at least the first of these problems, and from what I've read, the GHS Balanced Nickels address both problems pretty well, but I haven't tried them (not a rounds guy), so I can't say for sure. Maybe others can cite additional strings that are particularly good at one or both of these types of balance.

 

[ixlramp]

Something to keep in mind: 'balanced' does not necessarily mean 'equal' (it certainly cannot mean that for the tone as the strings are different), it is often used to mean 'a carefully adjusted optimum combination or compromise'.
It is possible that sometimes 'balanced tensions' does not actually mean 'equal tensions', although it usually does.

LaBella have 'Perfectly balanced sets' printed on their envelopes, this probably means 'we have carefully adjusted each string in the set to what we consider the optimum combination and compromise in terms of tone, perceived tension and volume'. Obviously it does not mean 'equal scientific tensions' because most of their sets are certainly not that as is clear from the gauges.

When someone claims a set is not balanced by looking at it (i do this), they are referring to the scientific tensions as approximately indicated by the gauges, they cannot judge anything else without using the set.

 

[Bushmaster]

Maybe others can cite additional strings that are particularly good at one or both of these types of balance.

Alembic CX-3/40L (.040 - .060 - .080 - .100) excels at both.

 

[ixlramp]

FWIW, the two sets I'm considering are Labella 760-M Jamersons (52-73-95-110) and Rotosound RS-77LE (50-75-95-110).
[...]
I want to avoid having one string as taut as a hunting bow and have another be a wet noodle in comparison (exaggeration, I know).

I forgot to write, the tensions of the Rotosound set are here Tension comparison chart for Rotosound guitar and bass strings
G 62.52
D 70.92
A 68.78
E 50.78
'Perceived tension' is primarily determined by scientific tension, so these will indeed feel uneven in 'tightness'.
The LaBella set has similar gauges so will also feel uneven.

 

[JRA]

one string as taut as a hunting bow.... another be a wet noodle

an example of "unbalanced."

 

[Rolling Thunder]

an example of "unbalanced."

An exaggeration, of course, but the only analogy I could think of. FWIW, after extensive searching I think I'm going to give tapewounds a chance (never tried them).

The main theme of this thread is wondering how people seem to have knowledge of how something will be by looking at the package. For some its personal hands-on experience and others are clearly just looking at the numbers on the pack.

 

[JRA]

The main theme of this thread is wondering how people seem to have knowledge of how something will be by looking at the package. For some its personal hands-on experience and others are clearly just looking at the numbers on the pack.

i think serious players have to have the "hands-on" ---- the proof has to be 'in the hands of the beholder'!

 

[Bushmaster]

I may have had quite some complaints about the Rotosound set, but their feel wasn't all that bad (IIRC). Maybe it was one of those experiences coming about by having the wrong instrument (fretless!) for a particular set of strings. Had I put them on a Steve Harris type of Precision I even might have been impressed.

The LaBella Jamerson set is a classic. Maybe here it's more about the tension being just way too high for my hands – on all strings

i think serious players have to have the "hands-on" ---- the proof has to be 'in the hands of the beholder'!

The proof of the pudding gear is in the eating playing

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I may have had quite some complaints about the Rotosound set, but their feel wasn't all that bad (IIRC). Maybe it was one of those experiences coming about by having the wrong instrument (fretless!) for a particular set of strings. Had I put them on a Steve Harris type of Precision I even might have been impressed.

The LaBella Jamerson set is a classic. Maybe here it's more about the tension being just way too high for my hands – on all strings



The proof of the pudding gear is in the eating playing

I'm going to put these on a fretless and I think the Labella Jamersons might not be the best match in hindsight. Like i said in an earlier post, I'm going to give tapewounds a shot (I have zero experience with them). I see a few fretless players who swear by them (Labella or Roto black nylons).

 

[Bushmaster]

I think the Labella Jamersons might not be the best match in hindsight.

Agreed, they're better suited for playing soul and funk in a particular way.

On a fretless, the left hand plays an important role in tone-shaping. This is easier to achieve with a string that does not feel like a steel tube

Also, I tend to be a bit neurotic about intonation on fretless. Whereas part of Jamerson's style was to occasionally play notes that with a clean clear sound might have been considered somewhat out of place. But here this just feels too good

Like i said in an earlier post, I'm going to give tapewounds a shot (I have zero experience with them). I see a few fretless players who swear by them (Labella or Roto black nylons).

Yes, especially the LaBella Deep Talkin' Bass Gold White Nylon Tape, from what I read, seem to be brighter, provide more mids, have more attack and more sustain than the black tapes I back in the day couldn't get used to.

(Although on double bass I do like synthetic strings. But these are constructed radically different.)

 

[JW56789]

I've played the 'balanced' tension sets from GHS and D'Addario. Jon Moody could fill in the gaps in my knowledge, but at least from the published tension-at-pitch charts, these sets seem to fit within a smaller window of tensions relative to each other that's less than the usual spread for a given set. The engineering and manufacturing skulduggery I'm sure falls into the usual black arts of string making, but: They work.

In real life, at first it seemed a strange sensation: I could look down at the strings and obviously see they were indeed 4 (or 5) different gage strings as expected, yet my hands thought they all felt nearly identical, especially in 4-string sets. The big B in a 5-string set still felt a bit on its own, but not near the sensation of 'THIS string and the other four' you often get with typical five sets. I was surprised at how long they felt just a bit strange until my mind forgot about it.

I've been playing a long time, and don't know if they're really for me long term, but might be just the thing for others. But generally, while not totally identical in feel across the set(s), it's mighty close, especially for 4-string sets. And the GHS Balanced Nickels are wonderful, like most GHS strings I've ever used.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

especially the LaBella Deep Talkin' Bass Gold White Nylon Tape

Interesting. I looked these up and am pleased that they aren't literally white. Why any manufacturer would label their product in a confusing or misleading way baffles me. Anyhoo, you had me "more mids".

 

[Bushmaster]

Interesting. I looked these up and am pleased that they aren't literally white. Why any manufacturer would label their product in a confusing or misleading way baffles me.

Probably in opposition to the old black nylons.

Seemingly, for double bass they also offer the same or at least similar material as an alternative to the old Ray Brown set: LaBella Orchestral Series 7710T clear nylon on rope core (.061 - .077 - .100 - .134)*. So, here it is called Clear Nylon.

There also have been other strings in clear nylon on whatever cores. I think these made a good slap string. But I tend to forget as I can't play slap on double bass

Anyhoo, you had me "more mids".

-----
*For arco paying, use a synthetic bow with rosin.