Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

[ratherdashing]

Currently I have all but one of my electrics strung with D'Addario 11-49's. The Tele is 10-46.

Lately I've noticed that my fretting hand is cramping up and feeling tired after a short time. Part of this is due to my technique, and I'm working on that, but I also think I should use some lighter strings to make bends a bit easier. I love the tone of the heavier strings though.

My thought was that a Light Top Heavy Bottom set would be a good compromise. Something like this:

http://www.daddario.com/DADProdDetail.aspx?CodaID=628&ID=1&Class=AABA

I rarely ever bend on the EAD strings, and I suspect that the change in tone on the GBE strings won't be as big a deal as one might think.

Does anyone else use a set like this?

 

[the guy who invented fire]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

I run 10-52's on all my guitars...I like having the heavier strings for the big chord sound but the lighter top is great for bending...

 

[Loserchief]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

If your hand cramps up with 11s and 10s on the high strings why not go for 9s ? Playing-wise switching from 12-52 down to 9-46 was one of the best things i ever did. The high strings bend like butter and the lows are still tight enough and for the music i play the thinner low strings have a more defined attack and more clarity

 

[Diego]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

I used to use 10-52 strings, but I found an even better compromise on my new Strat: 11-49 Ernie Ball, pure nickel strings.

They feel less tense than regular nickel wound strings, so they don't wear me out after playing for long, and sound better on a bright instrument like mine. If you don't mind strings a bit warmer, you could try that out too.

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

If your hand cramps up with 11s and 10s on the high strings why not go for 9s ? Playing-wise switching from 12-52 down to 9-46 was one of the best things i ever did. The high strings bend like butter and the lows are still tight enough and for the music i play the thinner low strings have a more defined attack and more clarity

I should point out that my problem is with the 11's. I don't play the Tele as much as the other guitars. 9's feel like spaghetti to me. I think that would be too much of a change.

I used to use 10-52 strings, but I found an even better compromise on my new Strat: 11-49 Ernie Ball, pure nickel strings.

They feel less tense than regular nickel wound strings, so they don't wear me out after playing for long, and sound better on a bright instrument like mine. If you don't mind strings a bit warmer, you could try that out too.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

If your hand cramps up with 11s and 10s on the high strings why not go for 9s ? Playing-wise switching from 12-52 down to 9-46 was one of the best things i ever did. The high strings bend like butter and the lows are still tight enough and for the music i play the thinner low strings have a more defined attack and more clarity

+1. Use strings that don't make your hands hurt & cramp, whatever gauge that is. A lot of big name players use .009's, especially guys who bend a lot. Messing up your hands just so you can have a deeper tone from thick strings is not particularly intelligent. Change your tone thru your PU's, pots, magnets, amp, etc, and not by torturing your hands. You can end up with arthritis & carpel tunnel. Guitar-playing is supposed to be comfortable & pleasurable, not a punishing macho ordeal. There's better ways to show you're a man.

 

[DazH]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

gotta agree with blueman - use whatever is comfortable. I'm experimenting with thicker low strings to see if I can reduce the vibration / rattle on the frets (my frets & set-up are fine - it's actually the string wobbling half way down the fretboard when I hit them hard that annoys me) been using 9-42's for ages - gonna trry 10-46 - if that works out I think d'addario make a 9-46 which would suit me.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

I used to use big strings. I've weaned myself down to 9-46. My hands are strong enough that I didn't have to struggle before (11-50), but I've found I can play better on thinner strings.

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

+1. Use strings that don't make your hands hurt & cramp, whatever gauge that is. A lot of big name players use .009's, especially guys who bend a lot. Messing up your hands just so you can have a deeper tone from thick strings is not particularly intelligent. Change your tone thru your PU's, pots, magnets, amp, etc, and not by torturing your hands. You can end up with arthritis & carpel tunnel. Guitar-playing is supposed to be comfortable & pleasurable, not a punishing macho ordeal. There's better ways to show you're a man.

Thanks for the lecture Dad ... can I have my allowance now?

 

[Vetteboy]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

I've used 9-46 on my Soloist for many years, and finally went 10-52. It required a complete re-setting of the Floyd trem but I'm much happier with it...I can have a very agressive pick attack at times and there's definitely not as much flop on the low end.

I'm currently playing 10-46 on the Taylor and probably wouldn't mind going larger there as well, except I've got two sets of Elixirs in that size I'm gonna use up first. When it comes to big bends I'm not exactly 'delicate'...I'll rock minor- and major-third bends on the upper strings all day long. The 10's seem to hold up fairly well for that.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

I use Dean Markley NickelSteel 009-046 (wound string from 010 set) on most of my electrics, 010-052 (wound from 011 set) on some.

I even do this on my classical/nylon. La Bella Gold discant, Blue Augustin or Savarez yellow in bass.

I actually consider trying a reverse headstock because of this.

 

[karpathion]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

i use the eb skinny top heavy bottom. worked out great for me. i bought a case of em, iliked them somuch. there on my gibson that stays standard and a half step down.
and on my esp thats a full step down. there great for lower tuning.

 

[rashayritto]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

changing string gauges really throws me off because you have to really change the little things in your picking (and fretting!). i use what i'd call heavy strings (52 on the low E) and playing feels effortless enough, but then i play on my friend's 9's (which are slinkies!) and i cant play half as good!

premier guitar did a thing on George Lynch and he hates the skinny top heavy bottom deal so he goes for a less dramatic increase from e to E. something like 11 to 40 or something

 

[Virtual Kevorkian]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

The thing I prefer about light top, heavy bottom sets is that the tension is much more uniform throughout the set.

On a standard 10-46 set, the 10, 13, and 17 all have about the same tension (within a pound or so of eachother), but the low strings just decrease as you go. The low 46 has something like 3-4 less pounds tension than any of the high strings. If you pick or fret with the same strength on the low strings as you do on the high strings, you're going to throw it out of tune and waste energy.

Since realizing this I've been using http://www.pacificsites.net/~dog/StringTensionApplet.html to design sets of strings that are all within a pound or so of eachother, and I couldn't be happier! Playing becomes much easier and more natural, IMO, when you have the same amount of tension and resistance across the board. If I want to bend the A string, I'll bend it just as hard as I would the B string, for the same result in pitch change.

 

[drew_half_empty]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

DM blue steel 10-52

awesome strings

 

[Perry D]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

i love EB 10-52's. i just have a regular set on my tremolo guitars but on the non trem guitars i have 10-52's for the heavy feel and if i go to dropped d theres no chance of slack in the string.

 

[Lucid_Lunatic]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

I use 10-52 EB's or Markleys now. I used to use GHS Wylde 10-60's before Dunlop started making the strings. I have always liked a heavier bottom string just for the big powerful chord tones.

 

[frankfalbo]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

I have only ever used hybrid strings for over 20 years. 9-46, 10-52, 10-56 (DR's Jeff Healey gauge). I can't really get on too well with normal string gauges. The low strings seem too weak by comparison.

I would always get mad whenever Guitar Center or Musician's Friend or whoever runs those "10 sets for $30" deals on D'Addarios or whoever, because it is always only regular 9's and 10's.

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

Wow, sounds like light top heavy bottom is a popular option.

I will get myself a couple sets to try - maybe 9-46 on one guitar and 10-52 on another, and see which I prefer.

Thanks everyone.

 

[wanmei1]

Re: Strings: light top, heavy bottom ... anyone?

Lately I've noticed that my fretting hand is cramping up and feeling tired after a short time.

I think convential medical wisdom suggests that if you start to notice pain, cramps or a lack of flexibility then it's definfitely time to act and put less strain on the fingers.

I think light/ heavy's are a great comprimise between tone and potential finger injury/damage.

If you play a hollow or semi hollow you will notice a difference in tone more so than a solid body as the top soundboard needs to be driven driven hard through string vibration to make it resonate and produce all those lovely rich harmonics.