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".
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.