String Tension Charts - Page 4

DarthLamer · #46 03-10-2008, 02:39 AM

In the past, representatives of Ernie Ball have replied to this assumed accusation regarding the supposed need for obtaining equal tension on all strings. Basically, the representative noted that with a so-called "balanced" set, the tonal quality of the strings sounded like ****. If there was a benefit/need for such a set, don't you think this would have already been addressed/developed by popular string manufacturers? I seriously doubt the R&D employees of such companies sit on their asses waiting for a forum member to reveal the holy grail of string design.

RSVampire · #47 03-10-2008, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthLamer

In the past, representatives of Ernie Ball have replied to this assumed accusation regarding the supposed need for obtaining equal tension on all strings. Basically, the representative noted that with a so-called "balanced" set, the tonal quality of the strings sounded like ****. If there was a benefit/need for such a set, don't you think this would have already been addressed/developed by popular string manufacturers? I seriously doubt the R&D employees of such companies sit on their asses waiting for a forum member to reveal the holy grail of string design.

D'Addario reps have also noted on "equal tension string sets" sounding like turd so they didn't make sets of them.

Straight from their website: http://www.daddario.com/DADFaqSoluti...0000000KEkvAAG

"Do you make a set of strings that are more evenly balanced in terms of tension?"

"After many hours of research, we developed an evenly weighted bass set that sounded quite miserable. Oddly enough, what seemed would work wonderfully on paper didn't work out in application. The output of the strings was far from balanced. Only by altering the gauging, as we have in our string lines, have we been able to maintain a balance of gain and gauge."

screamndemon69 · #48 03-10-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

Scream, where are you buying bulks for $99 from?!

MF has them as well as Mistake 123 so I'd guess since they are all related that GC online has them too but I haven't looked for them on their page.

screamndemon69 · #49 03-10-2008, 12:10 PM

You guys brought one of the most impotant points of "balanced string tension", tone.

I've always been a member of the school of thought that thicker strings = thicker tone. It is a "balance" between personal feel for the gauges you use without sacrificing the tone.

I believe Dee (and others) make great points for the balanced tension but finding the "sweet spot" betwen the perfect tension (feel) and tone is where personal preference thru trial and error comes in.

Dee · #50 03-10-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSVampire

D'Addario reps have also noted on "equal tension string sets" sounding like turd so they didn't make sets of them.

Straight from their website: http://www.daddario.com/DADFaqSoluti...0000000KEkvAAG

"Do you make a set of strings that are more evenly balanced in terms of tension?"

"After many hours of research, we developed an evenly weighted bass set that sounded quite miserable. Oddly enough, what seemed would work wonderfully on paper didn't work out in application. The output of the strings was far from balanced. Only by altering the gauging, as we have in our string lines, have we been able to maintain a balance of gain and gauge."

See the comments underneath. We are not even wanting "equal tension string sets".

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarthLamer

In the past, representatives of Ernie Ball have replied to this assumed accusation regarding the supposed need for obtaining equal tension on all strings. Basically, the representative noted that with a so-called "balanced" set, the tonal quality of the strings sounded like ****. If there was a benefit/need for such a set, don't you think this would have already been addressed/developed by popular string manufacturers? I seriously doubt the R&D employees of such companies sit on their asses waiting for a forum member to reveal the holy grail of string design.

First of all, it's not "an accusation". Secondly, it's not about "equal tension on all strings".

Have you not read the thread?

Now, I agree with them when they suggest that having equal tension on all strings would sound like sh*t. The point is, tension is supposed to increase along with string diameter", otherwise, it will and does sound like sh*t. That's the whole reason for making this thread. Do you understand? As strings get thicker, tension should increase so the tone and feel are at their best.

A common complaint is the low-B string in 7-string sets. How many complaints have you read about this? I have read hundreds. Low-B's are usually always too slack and the tone is very poor, hence the complaints. Go to sevenstring.org forums and see how many threads you can find where someone is complaining about this one string alone.

Myself, I change two strings in the usual 9-42 set. Instead of a .042", I use a .044" for the low E. For the B string, I use a .012" instead of a .011". I used a regular 9-42 set for about 26 years, then I changed, and the tone and feel IMPROVED. Do you really think doing this would make a string set sound like sh*t? If so, why, then, would a manufacturer such as Ernie Ball make a set like the Skinny Top Heavy Bottom? Surely, with wild changes in string tension, it's gonna sound like sh*t, right? Maybe ask Zakk Wylde about that, or Yngwie Malmsteen, both of whom use thin strings on top and heavy ones on the bottom. Do those guys have a bad tone?

It's really annoying to have to argue with people who don't understand what they are talking about. Not only that, but "I seriously doubt the R&D employees of such companies sit on their asses waiting for a forum member to reveal the holy grail of string design" is just plain rude. Oh, but D'Addario and Ernie Ball said so... they must be right! CRAP.

I suggest re-reading the charts and coming up with a convincing argument as to why a string which is thicker should have less tension than one that is thinner. Good luck. And next time, there's no need to be so rude. I stated very clearly in the first post that this is a personal thing, not a thread to start flaming each other, and if YOU are happy with your strings, that's fine. Others are not. Live and let live.

screamndemon69 · #51 03-10-2008, 01:45 PM

I think the custom 9-42 (adding the 12 and 44 in place of the 11 and 42) set has been working out wonderfully for feel and tone for me.

I personally prefer to keep the 10 rather than a 9.5 just for the "more tone with thicker gauge" concept. I believe there is a happy medium between the custom sets and standard sets. I think there are valid reasons why to use the custom sets. The science behind "even tension" sets makes complete sense to me but in the end people should do their own testing between the "custom sets" and standard sets to see what works best for them.

I appreciate the insightfullness Dee has brought on this subject and the time and thought he has put into this subject. I'm going to try adding a .049 to my standard 10-46 set on my new RGT42fx and if the feel is not right for me I'll stick to the standard gauge or possibly try a couple other sizes to find the right feel for my taste. What I appreciate about this topic the most is it is getting people thinking about trying things outside of the box and for me, anything that makes you think for yourself outside of the box is always a good and positive thing. Thanks for this Dee

~Bones

Dee · #52 03-10-2008, 01:50 PM

You're welcome mate.

RSVampire · #53 03-10-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee

See the comments underneath. We are not even wanting "equal tension string sets".

First of all, it's not "an accusation". Secondly, it's not about "equal tension on all strings".

Have you not read the thread?

Now, I agree with them when they suggest that having equal tension on all strings would sound like sh*t. The point is, tension is supposed to increase along with string diameter", otherwise, it will and does sound like sh*t. That's the whole reason for making this thread. Do you understand? As strings get thicker, tension should increase so the tone and feel are at their best.

I think they use the "equal tension sets" like most of us are using it incorrectly instead of saying "progressive tension sets"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee

A common complaint is the low-B string in 7-string sets. How many complaints have you read about this? I have read hundreds. Low-B's are usually always too slack and the tone is very poor, hence the complaints. Go to sevenstring.org forums and see how many threads you can find where someone is complaining about this one string alone.

Myself, I change two strings in the usual 9-42 set. Instead of a .042", I use a .044" for the low E. For the B string, I use a .012" instead of a .011". I used a regular 9-42 set for about 26 years, then I changed, and the tone and feel IMPROVED. Do you really think doing this would make a string set sound like sh*t? If so, why, then, would a manufacturer such as Ernie Ball make a set like the Skinny Top Heavy Bottom? Surely, with wild changes in string tension, it's gonna sound like sh*t, right? Maybe ask Zakk Wylde about that, or Yngwie Malmsteen, both of whom use thin strings on top and heavy ones on the bottom. Do those guys have a bad tone?

Zakk Wylde also uses EMG's which people say are terrible. I'm not saying anyone has good or bad tone here with or without these "progressive string designs" or with active or passive pickups. I'm just stating why big companies aren't making these strings, because they think they sound like crap and nobody will buy them... so whatever. Do I think they are right? Maybe... but I couldn't care less either way. Just shedding light on the opposite side of the post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee

It's really annoying to have to argue with people who don't understand what they are talking about. Not only that, but "I seriously doubt the R&D employees of such companies sit on their asses waiting for a forum member to reveal the holy grail of string design" is just plain rude. Oh, but D'Addario and Ernie Ball said so... they must be right! CRAP.

I'm not trying to argue at all, I don't have experience with these "progressive tension strings" but I don't consider myself stupid by any stretch (nor do I think you are for using them, sir)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee

I suggest re-reading the charts and coming up with a convincing argument as to why a string which is thicker should have less tension than one that is thinner. Good luck. And next time, there's no need to be so rude. I stated very clearly in the first post that this is a personal thing, not a thread to start flaming each other, and if YOU are happy with your strings, that's fine. Others are not. Live and let live.

I think it comes down to tone and ease to purchasing power. Like D'Addario has stated, "what works out fine on paper doesn't work out in the real world" and that's probably true for any piece of gear for anybody. Nobody really NEEDS a half stack these days but people buy them anyways, because they are classic and just work great. Regular "crazy" strings work fine for most people (if you want to throw names out, how about Joe Satriani, or Eric Clapton, or BB King and Randy Rhoads all use regular strings... and they have great tone). I think you like your "progressive tension strings" because of your hands and your ears... and unfortunately everyone's hands and ears are different.

I just think "progressive tension strings" are just like EMG's some people love the crap out of em and other people think they sound like donkey poop (which is also a palindrome!). I'm not saying your wrong, stupid or have terrible tone because you use the strings you use, I'm just showing why other companies aren't making them and why most people aren't switch or don't even care enough to read this stuff.

CalledToArms · #54 03-10-2008, 07:51 PM

I use C standard tuning (C F A# D# G C) with a custom set of

.012
.016
.022
.032
.044
.060

feels pretty good

and for the record i swear by the zakk wylde emg set. i think it sounds GREAT on my ibanez guitars through my mesa dual rec

Dee · #55 03-11-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalledToArms

I use C standard tuning (C F A# D# G C) with a custom set of

.012
.016
.022
.032
.044
.060

This set looks like it'd work pretty well on paper too.

Code:

C:  .012" [PL] = 14.71 pounds
G:  .016" [PL] = 14.68 pounds
D#: .022" [PL] = 17.48 pounds
A#: .032" [NW] = 17.70 pounds
F:  .044" [NW] = 18.07 pounds
C:  .060" [NW] = 19.18 pounds

Total Tension = 101.82 pounds

CalledToArms · #56 03-11-2008, 01:20 PM

probably because i think one of your posts in another thread referring to a calculator was what brought my attention to this in the first place.

it really does play very comfortably. Its a tad thick for people that are trying to do HUGE bends but I can still get good enough bends and i get very thick/rich tone in my tuning.