Thinner strings and tone

Re: Thinner strings and tone

Rid said:
Yeah what does he know??;)
Maybe he is a dork, but his sound was never bad nor thin!

THat is open for debate....Great player yes, tone was marginal at best to these ears.
 
Re: Thinner strings and tone

Quick physics lesson. All the strings have the same i wavelength down on the string which gives the note. The type of wood, how you play and STRING guage will effect how much there will be of 2, 3 or more waves on the string.
 
Re: Thinner strings and tone

if you want the best of both worlds, grab some Ernie Ball Skinny Top Heavy Bottom strings. I use them and they're awesome. Thick on the low strings for great rhythm, and lighter up top for some great leads.
 
Re: Thinner strings and tone

flipside said:
if you want the best of both worlds, grab some Ernie Ball Skinny Top Heavy Bottom strings. I use them and they're awesome. Thick on the low strings for great rhythm, and lighter up top for some great leads.

I can vouch for these. They're what I use on my "live" guitars. Mine are stainless steel, which aren't packaged as such by EB, but I buy a dozen sets of each guage and put them together into that same format.
 
Re: Thinner strings and tone

I tried some 'Crome' (I think by D'addario) strings because they were supposed to have the least bright sound. Guess what, it was right! Very dull and definatly not bright. And definately not buying them again. :rolleyes:

But as far as thickness, I think there is a audible difference. Like stated before, thinner is more twangy, and thicker is fatter, IMO :fing2:
 
Re: Thinner strings and tone

the guy who invented fire said:
SRV used huge strings and got a pretty chimmy tone from time to time, and Iommi has always used real light strings and got a very dark tone

SRV's tone was pretty darn dark for a strat though. Chimey, yes (like in Lenny) super dark, yes. He didn't get the thin kind of chime hendrix got though.
 
Re: Thinner strings and tone

Conventional wisdom is (and I agree whole heartedly that) the heavier the string, the "bigger" the sound. It's not really an "EQ" thing. It's not as simple as that.

You can always add treble at your amp if you need more brightness with heavy strings, but you can't artificially create more "mass" by tweaking EQ controls if you have thinner strings.
 
Re: Thinner strings and tone

This is really good thread. It has busted the myth for me that "Real guitarsist play heavy strings, .011 minimum" on their strats like ol' SRV did.

But, it does seem to run contrary to the direction that others have advised. That thicker tone comes from thicker stringes. What exactly does thicker tone mean? Thicker to me means more mids and more bass? Thin is trebly.

FWIW, Claptons prefers according to the the Fender Players Club which reports that he uses: Light. Ernie Ball Super Slinky: .009, .011, .016, .024, .032, .042. (Also uses Slinky, or .010s.)

This thread is messing with me a bit. I associate clapton with a Mid-Rangy tone. He uses lighter strings than SRV who I associate with a brighter tone and heavy strings. Overall tone must have much more to do with pickups and amp settings than the strings?
 
Last edited:
Re: Thinner strings and tone

flipside said:
if you want the best of both worlds, grab some Ernie Ball Skinny Top Heavy Bottom strings. I use them and they're awesome. Thick on the low strings for great rhythm, and lighter up top for some great leads.


i tried those & hated them, they sounded TOO bright & thin, i had almost no bass at all

then again i prolly got the steel ones

nonetheless i get a more bassy & solid tone with my dean markley 11-52's

which brings me back to the theory about how material makes the biggest difference

i could prolly use d'addario 10-48's (nickelwound) and get a VERY similar tone, with easier bends & all that, but i like the feel of a solid guitar. I can still do whole step bends & all that, but for things like that, i dunno, i like it more when you can FEEL the whole step, instead of only hearing it
 
Back
Top