The Steel Guitar Forum

Brint Hannay wrote:Dennis Schell wrote:

Nothing to do with "overdriven tube amps" vs "clean solid state".

?????

My point was, when you play through an overdriven amp, any differences there might be between lighter and heavier strings are largely lost, as the effect of the amp clipping has exponentially more influence on the sound produced. It might, however, make a difference when playing "clean".

I understand that. Maybe we have "tone" and "sustain" confused here....
I agree that a heavier string might sustain slightly longer, I don't agree that it's tone is necessarily "better". Just different....

Consider a mandolin's strings...

Dennis

Granted--but I was never trying to make a point one way or the other about strings--just pointing out that the examples of Santana et al. were not really relevant.

put your wound strings in a jar with denatured achol let em sit for awhile and shake em up when you take em out they look and plat like new
jerry

srrrry about the spellling it''s been a long dayyyy
jerrrry

Ol' Mickey still hasn't 'fessed up, has he?

Hmmm... looking more and more like a fishin' expedition... for ideas...

Mike, I think he spilled the beans toward the bottom of the first page, right above your post about the I-beam. He strung his pedal steel with lighter gauge strings across the whole neck. Decreasing the string tension that way would tend to decrease the cabinet drop. But some people might not like the feel, tone, and intonation of lighter gauge strings.

Oh... thanks, David... guess I fell "Asleep at the Steel"...

My point was that I'm just not sure that the research has, or hasn't, been done relating to tone, sustain and string gauge. Sustain would be fairly easy to study - you could hook up a steel with a .009, .010, .011, .012 and a .013" string, tune them all to the same pitch(s), hook it to a rack box with some kind of LED volume level display, and see which sustained longest (muting the others to eliminate sympathetic effects & adjusting for initial output differences). Quite a few six-string players feel that lighter strings sustain longer, once you adjust for the relative output differences, but again I don't know of any objective proof. I do suspect that finding "objective proof" for the common assertion that "Heavier strings always sound better" could be a long time coming.

The stories about SRV's string gauges that "prove" tonal superiority tend to gloss over the fact that he tuned down a half step, equivalent to dropping at least a gauge, and he started each tour with .011's on there - equivalent to full-tuned .010's. (Those Dumbles were reputed to sound OK too). Stevie Ray could really work that squeaky microtonal stuff, but I don't consider him to be a really fluid bender in the way that Duane Allman or some of the better country guys are, with quick, inside bends against other held notes and in-tune multi-string bends. For what it's worth, I use .009's, .010's, .011's and .012's (and wound 3rds) at different times on different guitars, and they all sound... different.... But for some strange reason, contrary to the ads in Guitar Player magazine, NONE of them make me sound as good as Duane Allman or SRV or Johnny Hiland - maybe I need a better pick....

My point was that I'm just not sure that the research has, or hasn't, been done relating to tone, sustain and string gauge.

Maybe we can get Ed Packard and company on this one?

Quite a few six-string players feel that lighter strings sustain longer, once you adjust for the relative output differences, but again I don't know of any objective proof.

I recently have been trying out using a .012 for 3rd string G#, looking to get a less "thin" tone on that string. But I've been thinking (purely subjective, I know) that the .011 may sustain longer. Not sure. The physics of the interrelationship between tension, mass (for inertia), and stiffness of the string are beyond my knowledge, but I speculate that perhaps the thicker string is stiffer, and thus resists vibration more? Again, Ed P. and some of the other people with expertise in physics might be able to throw light on this.

I do suspect that finding "objective proof" for the common assertion that "Heavier strings always sound better" could be a long time coming.

Amen to that! That won't come until after the objective definition of "better" is established!

I have NEVER haerd a six-string player claim light strings sustain longer. I'd love to know where that was claimed. It's completely counter to any string testing that's ever been done.

There are also stability issues, tuning issues (light strings, when hit hard, will go sharp immediately and fade back to "in tune".)...it's a proven bad idea. On six-string ultra lights are used for two reasons - by unsuspecting beginners because theri fingers hurt less, and for bending.

OH -

since we are talking about this stuff..has anyone ever tried boiling their strings before putting em on the guitar? I ask because I read that Eddie Van Halen used to do that claiming the striongs stayed in tune better after boiling them for a few minutes.

Urban legend stuff. There used to be a popular idea of boiling OLD strings to make them last longer, but that died out as well.

It is well known that a longer thinner string tuned to the same pitch (and tension) will have richer overtones and will sustain longer than a shorter thicker string. That's why more expensive pianos have longer strings. But the question before us here is different. We are talking about going to a thinner string with lower tension, but the same length. The lower tension and thinner string obviously has less acoustic volume, but on an electric instrument that may be no big deal - just turn the amp up higher. One would think that at some really low tension all the sustain would be lost. But as the tension and apparent sustain decrease, the acoustic volume also decreases, so who knows what the RATIO of volume to sustain does? If the sustain decreases to match the acoustic volume decrease, but then you amplify to compensate for the volume decrease, maybe the sustain holds it own.

On the other hand it is pretty well accepted that on steel guitars when you increase the neck length and thereby increase the tension, the sustain improves. Therefore, decreasing tension would be expected to decrease sustain. But again, something else is going on in our example. The string gauge is also decreased. Thinner strings sustain better (as discussed in the previous paragraph). So we are decreaseing tension, which decreases sustain, but we are also decreasing string gauge, which increases sustain. Who knows what the balance is?

The problem is that experimentally we are changing two independent variables (string gauge and tension) with opposing effects on the dependent variable (sustain). The only way to know the result is to test.

Ed, get out the test equipment.

David,

I have some choice 'relic-ed' picks available for purchase if you want. Each model available in closet classic (like a pick I bought in the 80s, played a few times a year and put back in the guitar case), time machine (like a Jim Dunlop purple tortex that I bought in the 80s but lost down the back of the sofa, and only found last year) or full relic (like the almost-round pick I'm cleaning my toenails with as I type).

Of course they cost a bit more than a new pick, but the tone is to die for...

btw, I also have some relic-ed strings available if you're interested.

I have NEVER haerd a six-string player claim light strings sustain longer. I'd love to know where that was claimed. It's completely counter to any string testing that's ever been done.

I too have never heard that claimed in the six-string world. But what is the string testing that has been done that you are referring to?

Jim Sliff wrote:
OH -

since we are talking about this stuff..has anyone ever tried boiling their strings before putting em on the guitar? I ask because I read that Eddie Van Halen used to do that claiming the striongs stayed in tune better after boiling them for a few minutes.

Urban legend stuff. There used to be a popular idea of boiling OLD strings to make them last longer, but that died out as well.

Boiling strings is something I've done a lot of and it works. I have really "sweaty" hands and can kill a set of guitar strings in a couple of sets. Those who are also cursed with this malady know how dirty their strings become too, it's easy to see "gunk" built up on the thinner strings. It doesn't matter how much you wash your hands, this junk builds up in a hurry and kills strings tonewise....

Boiling for a few minutes gets this stuff off and brings back "new string tone" albiet for a short time.

As to a boiled string staying in tune better, I think it's more a case of the string already being "pre stretched" and nothing to do with the boiling process. I always bend the heck out of new strings as I tune and try to get them on final pitch "from below" and not from a sharp condition. I find that keeps me tune best, even with a lot of string bending during a set...

If it works for 6 string guitar, I don't see why it wouldn't work just a well for PSG....

FWIW,

Dennis

Give that man a cigar. Dennis you hit that nail right on the head.
Not to factor out the volume pedal which is a basically, at least sometimes, a sustain enhancing tool. If you run it at 30% on the average, then you have Alot of potential for controlled sustain when you need it. The amp is of course set louder than it would be for 'wide open' playing, and that extra headroom being what is 'tapped' when you need it, which is a different scenario altogether than the description of the SRV's and EVH's setups. Any (i assume) slight differences in sustain time between differnt gauges could be compensated in most cases with VP technique.

My site

Guys, with the price of strings being very reasonable, why in the world would you go through the trouble to take off old strings, boil them in water, restring and then retune. Why not just put on a fresh set of strings?
Or did I miss something here?

Wally

One tip I can give those who are having problems with string life is to wipe them off religiously, and individually, after every set you play. It only takes a minute, and especially if the rag has a little oil (or silicone) on it, you'll find your strings will last about twice as long!

Wally Taylor wrote:Guys, with the price of strings being very reasonable, why in the world would you go through the trouble to take off old strings, boil them in water, restring and then retune. Why not just put on a fresh set of strings?
Or did I miss something here?

Wally

Haven't you ever heard the term "starving musician"? Been there, done that! (Really!)

Dennis

It seems more logical to do that with bass strings; I used to. More $ per string, fewer strings to put back on.

Please explain "Cabinet Drop"

Charlie McDonald wrote:It seems more logical to do that with bass strings; I used to. More $ per string, fewer strings to put back on.

Yep, I boiled bass strings all the time. I like groundwound style strings and a boiling every couple days keeps the strings clean and the tone alive with my sweaty hands...

FWIW,

Dennis

Robert Harper wrote:Please explain "Cabinet Drop"

Simply, it's when the pitch of the strings that are not being pulled by the pedals you're engaging shift.

Just to add to what Michael said, the reason for the term "cabinet drop" is the theory that the unwanted pitch change he described is due to the guitar's body, or cabinet, flexing from being pulled on by the pedals being pressed. That may or may not be the case; there are other theories.

One other big problem I discovered with thin guages (.010 and under) is that they're not nearly as loud as the heavier guages. Using .008 and .009 would require re-engineering the pickups to balance out the volumes of each string. Real good players might be able to compensate, but I'm not one of 'em.

The cent or two of cabinet drop you might eliminate by using super-lights would be overwhelmed by a myriad of other problems that the lighter guages created.

Bad idea, really.

Or you might try this..works better over the A/B pedals