String Tension Charts

[Ibateur]

I wonder if these sets are already for sale here. I'll check on Saturday

[Kemono]

Originally Posted by Devo

Have you guys put together a non-confrontational email about string tension choice and sent it to dean markley, daddario, ernie ball etc etc and see if you get any replies? would be interesting to get their official line on string tension choice....

could simply be that the b-string is the most bent string...

Weak! Who wants to start a business?

I want money!

(And strings)

[dreamyreality]

Could you please work out the string tensions and your recommendation for this set, please?

.009
.011
.016
.026
.037
.046

[Dee]

Originally Posted by dreamyreality

Could you please work out the string tensions and your recommendation for this set, please?

.009
.011
.016
.026
.037
.046

Gauge: 9-46 Suggested Set
Scale: 25.5"
Tuning: Standard

E: .009" [PL] = 13.13 pounds
B: .011" [PL] = 11.01 pounds
G: .016" [PL] = 14.68 pounds
D: .026" [NW] = 18.41 pounds
A: .037" [NW] = 20.56 pounds
E: .046" [NW] = 17.48 pounds

Total Tension = 95.27 pounds

First off, I'm not aware of any manufacturer making a .037. Regardless, I will answer your question.


Possible bad points:

B = too light
D = too heavy
A = too heavy

This is not a set I'd recommend. In my opinion, an .011" shouldn't follow a .009", as instantly it's out of whack as far as progressive / graduated tension goes. Using a .012" is the solution, unless of course you need a looser B string for extreme bends?

The D and A strings are a little too heavy compared to the strings right next to them. (The string with the highest tension should be the thickest in diameter, which of course is the low E).

3 options:

* Take a look at the set I use (9-12-16-24-32-44), if you want to keep your guitar easy to play while retaining good tone.
* Use your suggested set above with a heavier low E (a .050" or .052").
*Replace other strings. If you must use a .026", follow it with a .036". The gives you 19.54 pounds of tension. I would then try a .049" or a .050".

To recap: 9-12-16-26-36-49 (or 50) should work pretty well as a light top heavy bottom kind of set.

[dreamyreality]

Thanks, Dee! In numbers how much tension the custom set you suggested will give?

Btw, the above set is used by Carl Verheyen to compensate for tonal irregularities on his vintage strats, probably a different world altogether, I asked 'cause I want to try that set on mine (RG)

I'm currently using .008 on a 9-42 set, works great, and simple, thanks to your starting out this thead, the Low E sure is wabbly.

[Kemono]

Originally Posted by Dee

Gauge: 9-46 Suggested Set
I'm not aware of any manufacturer making a .037.

Me neither.

This is not a set I'd recommend. In my opinion, an .011" shouldn't follow a .009", as instantly it's out of whack as far as progressive / graduated tension goes.

That's the problem. And the 'A' String is too tight compared to the low E string.

The problem with getting tigher B and E strings is that overall tension is affected. If you've got a floating trem, it's going to be down, a bit, the action will be off.

D'addario nickel wound 9-42

E   .009" PL == 13.13#
B3  .011" PL == 11.01#
G3  .016" PL == 14.68#
D3  .024" NW == 15.77#
A2 .032" NW == 15.77#
E2 .042" NW == 14.77#
total == 85.13#

Adjusted to:

E   .009" PL == 13.13#
B3  .012" PL == 13.11#
G3  .016" PL == 14.68#
D3  .024" NW == 15.77#
A2 .032" NW == 15.77#
E2 .044" NW == 16.1#
total == 88.56#

3.4lbs heavier. Thats bad, because it means you need a new setup. So the other approach would be to take it down a little, starting with the high E.

E   .0085" PL == 11.72#
B3  .0115" PL == 12.04#
G3  .015" PL == 12.9#
D3  .022" NW == 13.34#
A2 .030" NW == 14.05#
E2 .042" NW == 14.77#
total == 78.82#

Now it's 7 lbs lighter overall. Too light! And the High E is light. An 8.5 is a little more breakable, for those of us who pick hard on high E bends.

To get better tension curve. Not too steep, like the Zakk set. Want keep overall tension about the same, and avoid problems (such as too loose high E) Starting with an .0089 for the high E:

E   .0089" PL == 12.85#
B3  .012" PL == 13.11#
G3  .0155" PL == 13.79#
D3  .023" NW == 14.56#
A2  .0315" NW == 15.34#
E2 .043" NW == 15.43#
total == 85.08#

That's overall, slightly heavier. But it's a fantasy. Only one of those strings can be actually purchased!

Likewise, for my set in Eb:

Eb   .0095" PL == 13.04#
B3b  .013" PL == 13.7#
G3b  .0165" PL == 13.92#
D3b  .025" XS == 15.06# <-- Does not exist.
A2b .034" XS == 15.42#
E2b .047" XS == 15.89# <-- Does not exist.
total == 87.03#

Imperfect:

Eb   .0095" PL == 13.04#
B3b  .013" PL == 13.7#
G3b  .017" PL == 14.76# <-- A little too tight
D3b  .026" XS == 16.22# <-- too tight
A2b .036" XS == 17.09# <-- too tight
E2b .048" XS == 16.52# 
total == 91.33#

Of course, that's only with D'Addario Steels. Dean Markley does not disclose their string tension, but instead tries to sell some lame "sexy" story that reads kind of like a cigarette advertisement.

Targeting desparate guys who are inept with women doesn't seem like it would be an effective marketing strategy, and could be taken insulting.

http://www.deanmarkley.com/Strings/E...eSteelEl.shtml

The guitar string industry can be improved. Lazy. Relying on mktg garbage and endorsements from names.

If a few guys on a forum can figure this out, I would surmise that this might not be the only area where strings could be improved. I think from the mfr standpoint, there might possibly be more improvements to strings.

[Dino]

I might mention here that you can buy tension optimized sets from "He that cannot be mentioned" and save your self the trouble of finding the strings and putting sets together yourself.

[DarthLamer]

I still say, the engineers for numerous string manufacturers are ROFL at this thread, due to nobody having taken into consideration the correlation between the diameter of the core, tensile strength and tension.

In reality, what would these so-called engineers know anyhow? It's not as if they have spent numerous years studying to attain a higher education/skillset. Due to your strong desire to purchase CRAP, they in turn have been given a preference for marketing CRAP. It's all a consipiracy!!

[bakerman]

Have you understood and considered the correlation or received a more detailed explanation from someone at a string company? You've listed measurable properties of strings but given no further information. How does the correlation indicate the 1st, 2nd and 3rd strings in a typical set of .009s should be what they are?

If an engineer considered those things, I'm not sure how they'd arrive at thinking an .011 2nd string is a good companion for a .009 1st and .016 3rd. Using a .012 seems like a better match on paper as well as to my hands. The .011 is significantly lower tension and far too easy to bend. It's the same thing with the .042 E in a .009 set, or the "just add .010 to E gauge" low B you'll find in many 7-string sets. Is it acceptable to bump up the lowest 3 strings as in readily available hybrid .009-.046 sets, yet unacceptable to make a custom .009-.044 or .009-.046 set that keeps the 3rd-to-4th tension change from being so great?

I don't believe that changing certain gauges by a small amount will make or break your tone/music, but there are ways to even out the required bending force for a given interval from string to string. That may be desirable to some players, and there are few (if any) pre-packaged sets that accomplish it as well as what can be done with thoughtful selection of individual gauges.

[Dino]

11.5

Originally Posted by bakerman

Have you understood and considered the correlation or received a more detailed explanation from someone at a string company? You've listed measurable properties of strings but given no further information. How does the correlation indicate the 1st, 2nd and 3rd strings in a typical set of .009s should be what they are?

If an engineer considered those things, I'm not sure how they'd arrive at thinking an .011 2nd string is a good companion for a .009 1st and .016 3rd. Using a .012 seems like a better match on paper as well as to my hands. The .011 is significantly lower tension and far too easy to bend. It's the same thing with the .042 E in a .009 set, or the "just add .010 to E gauge" low B you'll find in many 7-string sets. Is it acceptable to bump up the lowest 3 strings as in readily available hybrid .009-.046 sets, yet unacceptable to make a custom .009-.044 or .009-.046 set that keeps the 3rd-to-4th tension change from being so great?

I don't believe that changing certain gauges by a small amount will make or break your tone/music, but there are ways to even out the required bending force for a given interval from string to string. That may be desirable to some players, and there are few (if any) pre-packaged sets that accomplish it as well as what can be done with thoughtful selection of individual gauges.

[Dee]

Originally Posted by DarthLamer

I still say, the engineers for numerous string manufacturers are ROFL at this thread

And I still say you're acting like an ass! Nothing new here. You do this all the time in various threads.

The fact is there are people out here who are not happy with the tone and feel of string sets that are on the shelves. It's inconvenient to put our own string sets together and it's also expensive, but due to the improvements in tone and feel, we do it anyway. I don't care what YOU think the string manufacturers think of this thread, we'll post up and talk about it regardless. You wanna know what some of us think about the string manufacturers? Well, I shouldn't need to go into any more detail than I have already done in this thread. We ROFL at string manufacturers, because, frankly, they are idiotic and don't appear to think or act logically.

Clearly there is a market for optimized tension sets, however small that may be... it exists.

Are you happy with your strings? Cool, if so.

Are you unhappy with your strings or do you feel you can make improvements? Then please go ahead and add something useful to the thread.

[Dee]

http://www.elderly.com/brand/ZACHARY.html

ZOG (Zachary Optimum gauge) sets now available on Elderly.com

These are made by D'Addario, btw.

[jacoby66]

Hey i want to know if this set is balanced well

I currently tune to C-F-A#-D#-G-C
and the gauges are use:013 017 026W 036W 046W 059W


Does that seem like a balanced set?

[jacoby66]

bump?

[pwnzor]

Well the best set i could come up with was....
08-11-16-22-34-49 The legato/tapping on those higher strings is really nice.
Kind of like an yngwie set... but improved to my taste
A true balanced... really skinny top/heavy ish bottom

Here ya go jacoby!!! Enjoy

Gauge/tension
13-26.58
17-26.18
26-36.19
36-38.15
46-34.17
59- ?

The A string seems really off to me.... But other than that it should be good. Wow that set would suck in standard E lol...