Author Topic: Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?  (Read 1806 times)

ox_junior

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 357
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #15 on: May 03, 2004, 08:59:03 PM »
Frank,
 
I have only had to replace the frets on one of my basses after using Rotos, my '62 reissue Fender Jazz, a bass I've had for about 13 years.  I haven't had a problem on my Alembic but I've only had it for less than a year.  Haven't tried the nickle-plated version.
 
Hope this helps.  Mike

flaxattack

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2491
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2004, 05:47:39 AM »
thats the only bad rap on rotos- i dont know if its true or an attempt o make you buy something else
but i wont risk it- there are soooo mnay strings out there...
www.status-graphite.com
i am gonna try the roundwires for $40 delivered- roger smith swear buy them and for  a shot- how bad could it be
wil plug in phil tonight and check out the ken smiths i put in and report back

gbarchus

  • club
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 139
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2004, 03:20:33 PM »
With roundwounds, I think it depends on how much force you play with your left (fretting) hand. I play very forcefully and bend (vibrato) the strings a lot. With Rotosounds I was repeatedly dressing my frets. Now that I use flatwounds, the problem has all but disappeared.

gbarchus

  • club
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 139
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2004, 03:24:52 PM »
By the way, when the fingerboard on my '66 Precision got so scalloped that it couldn't be re-fretted, I went fretless.

ox_junior

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 357
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2004, 03:54:33 PM »
I don't play that hard with my left hand, perhaps that's what makes the difference for me.  I hit fairly hard with my right hand, either picking or finger style.
 
gbarchus - clever solution!

frank_orlando

  • club
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2004, 07:45:04 PM »
Thanks... I am going to invest a few bucks and do some testing. I'll post my opinions when I'm done. Frank

dfung60

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 637
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #21 on: May 04, 2004, 09:55:57 PM »
With regard to Rotosounds (RS66 is my favorite 4-string set)...  Rotosound Swing Bass was the very first stainless steel roundwound.  Stainless is harder than nickel plated high-carbon steel and much harder than pure nickel winding wraps.  That hardness is what gave them the super-bright tone when they were first introduced back in the late 60's.  They retained that sound a little longer since fretting wouldn't deform the harder windings, too.  The windings were less prone to corrosion from handling which helped keep the bright tone too.
 
The problem is that the additional string hardness could cause more wear on the softer nickel-silver (which is really mostly nickel and no silver) fretwire.  
 
One of the popular combinations in the early 70's was Rotosounds on Rickenbacker 4001s which would be somewhat disasterous.  The Rick had very small frets to start with and they normally came from the factory with flatwounds, so it would be hard to find a worse combination.  I was the original owner of a 1973 Rick 4001, I used Rotosounds and did find that playing seemed to cut more grooves into the tops of frets than any other bass I've ever played them on, so perhaps their fret wire was a little softer too.  I used them on a really bad Fender P-bass around that time too and didn't really see any signficant wear (of course, the action was so poor on that bass I probably wasn't strong enough to fully fret the strings!).
 
These days, I doubt that Rotosound is any better or worse than any other stainless roundwound.  I prefer the less bright sound of nickel-plated wraps myself, but I doubt that there would be much difference in wear there.  Pure nickel wraps would defintely have less fretware, and these days they've become common again for guitar (and are awesome!), but pretty rare for bass (Fender seems to have a set which I've never tried).  
 
The funny thing about Rotosounds are that the classic RS66 are stainless steel but to me behave more like a nickel-plated steel string.  When you first put them on, they have an amazingly open, grand-piano tone.  That bright edge goes away for me after just a day or two even if you only play a little.  The less bright sound that it degrades to stays that way for quite a while.  Other stainless strings I've played - Markley Blue Steels and DRs seem to be bright when you put them on and basically never change their tone.  I think this is why most basses come with stainless steel strings as original equipment - they will maintain most of their sound for the life of the time on the dealer's wall.  The behavior of the Rotos is much more like nickel-plated rounds like GHS Boomers.
 

frank_orlando

  • club
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2004, 08:15:40 PM »
Well, I started my string testing adventure by trying to locate the model numbers for the brands I wanted to try. I play short scale Alembics which require medium scale length strings. I wanted a roundwound, about .045-.105 that was bright but wouldn't eat my frets. I called each manufacturer below and found that:
-Elixer doesn't make a medium scale.
-Hot Wire doesn't make a medium scale.
-Ernie Ball doesn't make a medium scale.  
-Sit only makes it in .040-.095.
-Roto doesn't make their nickle plated RS66 in a medium scale(I won't use their other fret eaters).
-DR DOES make strings meeting my needs (Hi-Beams and Lo Riders).
 
Wow... that was a cheap and easy. I either like the DR's or stick with my GHS Boomers. I am going to try their Hi-Beams since they are the brighter ones and even though they are not nickle plated they are NOT supposed to eat frets. I'll let you know.  
 
Here are some links to string reviews and comparisons that I found along the way:    
 
http://www.bgra.net/reviews/string-index.html
http://www.bgra.net/features/strings.html
http://www.bassinside.com/2003/january/strings.htm
 
Frank  

flaxattack

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2491
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #23 on: May 05, 2004, 09:50:32 PM »
 
 
(Message edited by flaxattack on May 23, 2004)

flaxattack

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2491
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #24 on: May 08, 2004, 10:53:28 AM »
the ken smiths- well......
mixed review...
they do sound good.. clean, good sustain, abit brighter than the elixirs
my beef? and again- remember that i play out through headphones- but this is a new concern  
the b string- .130 dia- is just too frkn overpowering. now my front pickup is set way down low on the b side- if i just touched the b string, it is just way too fat and loud- if i lower the bass control- then i lose the fullness on the other stings. if i dare to smack the string?- rutroh- distortion- i may just throw on the elixir b string and leave the rest on.
so either i adjust the pickups again or move on- i dontt hink i will use these again
for those who lie the dr hi beams?
i found this site- so fare the chepeast $25 for the strings and they have light and medium guage
http://store.yahoo.com/stringthis/index.html

effclef

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 572
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #25 on: May 15, 2004, 09:43:56 AM »
Frank, I wonder if there could be a hardware solution to the short scale string problem. Seems to me I saw an Alembic on Ebay which had been modified so it took normal 34 scale strings. Someone had moved the tailpiece further from the bridge.
 
Now, wouldn't that work out for a custom build? The scale length wouldn't change, but moving the tailpiece means the extra length of string out of the package hangs over the bridge instead of hanging over the nut and winding on the pegs.
 
I wonder what the difference in outer winding length for a maker's 30 vs 34 string is.  
 
Bet the tailpiece would only have to be an inch or two away to make it fit.  
 
EffClef

David Houck

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15596
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #26 on: May 15, 2004, 10:16:30 AM »
Moving the tailpiece would change the degree of angle where the string passes over the saddle; which might not be a good thing to do.

effclef

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 572
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #27 on: May 15, 2004, 11:46:51 AM »
Dave - OOPS - you are right. I wonder by how much. Simple trigonometry to figure out, but it seems nobody publishes string measurements that include winding length.  
 
EffClef

dfung60

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 637
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #28 on: May 15, 2004, 10:10:41 PM »
With regard to moving out the tailpiece...  You do want to maintain the string break angle over the bridge saddles or you may find that you have intonation problems or buzzing.  
 
But if you really want to move the tailpiece out, you can do so by adding the equivalent of a headpiece string tree in the location where the tailpiece was (hey, you've got screw holes there already!).  I would think that a simple brass rod or strip on standoffs with enough clearance underneath to pass the strings through would do the trick for cheap.
 
Not many basses where you have the option of moving the tailpiece out another 2 or more!
 
David Fung

bob

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 808
Strings, strings,strings- what are you using?
« Reply #29 on: May 15, 2004, 10:32:58 PM »
David's solution is great, especially since you have to do something with those holes anyway. Another possibility might be to recess the tailpiece into the body, or at least shave down the bottom, because you probably have more there than you really need.
 
Break angle is important, but I don't think you should assume that what you have today is necessarily at a critical or optimum point - style, looks, and available space all factor in to this to some extent.
 
If you're intent on this approach, draw some pictures, do a little math, and maybe just try it, before you get into exotic solutions. Might turn out to be easier than you think.
-Bob