68 vs. 70 gauge for C6 10th string?

Nicholas Dedring · Post by **Nicholas Dedring** » 13 May 2004 8:56 am

I've got SITs on my guitar right now, and they came with .068 wounds for the C6 10th string... that string is so flabby, that you practically have to lift the weight of the bar off slightly to keep it from raising that string in pitch.

Are there any downsides to using a .070 gauge on that C6 10th string?

The slackness makes it seem sort of thunky, and it's even worse when you use the boo-wah pedal... any bad experiences or negatives about the heavier string?

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 13 May 2004 9:26 am

I don't like anything lighter than 070 and prefer 074 or even the GeoL 079CW (compound wound). Much more solid sound. No other problems I've run into. I do lower the nut roller slightly -- and use a 058 for the next string. This is the same as GeoL uses in the 'Tension Balanced' C6 set. I play E9/B6 on a S-12, but used the same gauges on my 10-string guitars.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps
[This message was edited by Larry Bell on 13 May 2004 at 10:29 AM.]

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 13 May 2004 10:21 am

I made an Microsoft Excel plot of typical string guages versus pitch. It indicated that C6 10th string should be 0.072, and a B6 uni should have 0.074 on the 12th string. I think most string packagers just use lower guages because they are off-the-shelf and cheap from the string manufacturers. The higher guages we need would have to be custom made, and would be expensive. Also, some tuning keys might not accept the larger guages. I wasn't aware George L had these heavier guage strings. I'll have to check them out.

MALCOLM KIRBY · Post by **MALCOLM KIRBY** » 13 May 2004 4:05 pm

FWIW: G H S offers a compound wound .080(DY80) and a .090(DY90).

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 13 May 2004 4:15 pm

Interesting bit of information that I don't really understand.

Over the years I have owned an Emmons' P/P, A Sierra Session D-10, a LeGrande II. Along with my last guitar which is the Excel Superb model universal. On the Emmons I was never pleased because I wanted the sound BE gets on the bottom of C6. All I could ever get is a thud.

But on the Sierra, I got a much better sound. On the Excel it is again even better than the Sierra. From day one, even though all use a .068, the Excel gives me very close to the sound I have been searching for.

I am not sure why. Just know that on the Excel it is vibrant and a "22 rifle" like sound. Could it be the scale length being 25 and 1/2" does this? I do not know. Just know I love it. Sierra's was 25". Both Emmons' were 24 and 1/4".

carl

Jim Bob Sedgwick · Post by **Jim Bob Sedgwick** » 15 May 2004 11:19 am

I recently changed from 68 to .70. The tone is much better, and balances against the rest of the tuning very well. It really adds to the bottom end. The only downside I've found is pedal travel is lengthened. As soon as I quit procrastinating, I will re adjust the rod on the bell crank. That should solve the (small) problem.

Bobby Bowman · Post by **Bobby Bowman** » 15 May 2004 12:17 pm

I use for my last three strings on C-6 a .046, a .058 and a .079, George L's. Over the years I've tried just about every guage and brand from a .064 up to a .090 on string 10 (or string 12 when I played a universal), from a .048 to a .068 on string 9 and from a .038 to a .056 on string 8. I like what I hear best with the 46, 58 and 79. I've been using this combo for about the last 8 years. The pick responce and intonation, in my opinion, just can't be beat for the C-6'th tuning.
Strangly though, I prefer the lighter guage George L Nashville E-9 set for my E-9'th neck. The only exception there,,,is that I use a .012 for my 3'rd string G#.
BB

------------------
If you play 'em, play 'em good!
If you build 'em, build 'em good!

[This message was edited by Bobby Bowman on 15 May 2004 at 01:19 PM.]

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 17 May 2004 6:17 am

Carl, longer necks will sound better with the lowest strings. You can get the low pitches by fattening up the strings to a point. But this makes the strings less flexible, so they just go thud, with less sustain and fewer overtones. Then you need a longer neck with a thinner string. The same thing is true for pianos. That is why the big concert grands are nine feet long.

On the other hand, using a too thin string gives the correct pitch with less tension, and again you get a thud. Somewhere between too thin/too slack, and too thick/too dull is the optimum for that lowest string, and it will be different for different length necks.[This message was edited by David Doggett on 17 May 2004 at 07:20 AM.]