• From: Manchester, England
  • Registered: 2010-10-20
  • Posts: 27

Topic: The case against heavy strings

Read an interesting old article that advocates lighter strings = more sustain. Thought I'd share for others thoughts as it got me thinking. Its written by Dean Farley, chief designer of "Snake Oil Brand Strings.

http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazine/I … _Pt_1.aspx

In the world of using heavy strings that we inhabit it seems contrary to opinion but as Farley outlines it, it seems to make a lot of common sense. Iommi and May etc were known for using light strings and they certainly didn't lack tone or sustain.

So why use heavier strings. More mass more signal? To compliment a heavier playing style?

Used Power Slinky's (11/48) for a good deal of time and got used to them. I went heavy after reading that SRV used heavy strings and who wouldn't want that tone. More recently I moved to Regular Slinky strings (10/46s) for the last few years and they have suited me fine. However, I've just started to put Brite Wires (9/42s) on the Les Paul and really like the sound. Have had to adjust playing style on the high strings and get used to using less force but get no less sustain and actually think there are more overtones coming out of each note.

Heavy strings seems to be the thing in Blues Rock and I wondered whether this is actually helping or hindering get good tone? Would more finesse and a lighter touch serve just as well or are heavy strings really helping?

If you have a heavy attack then heavy is the way to go but if not then is this just a macho thing? Does SRV have a lot to answer for his influence in this area?

Gibson Flying V Faded Cherry (Crescent Moons), Reverse Head Stock Custom Strat HSH, Vintage V100 Icon Lemon Drop LP, Blackheart Handsome Devil and Blackheart Killer Cab, BSM TrebleBooster, Metal Muff, Dunlop Wah, Vox Time Machine
  • From: N.Wales, UK
  • Registered: 2009-03-06
  • Posts: 2,183

Re: The case against heavy strings

What about Koss? Amazing feel and tone from heavy strings. Then BFG...tasty licks from 7s now?!

There is no correlation in players I like to what strings they use. They just do what they do...
Personal preference to each player.

  • From: Manchester, England
  • Registered: 2010-10-20
  • Posts: 27

Re: The case against heavy strings

DaveWammbarro wrote:

What about Koss? Amazing feel and tone from heavy strings. Then BFG...tasty licks from 7s now?!

There is no correlation in players I like to what strings they use. They just do what they do...
Personal preference to each player.

Dave, Absolutely agree. Both have bags of sustain and both using completely diffrent string gauges. That's what intrigued me when giving it some thought after reading that article. I wouldn't describe Billy Gibbons as having a light pick attack either but he makes it work with super light gauges.

Perhaps I'm wrong on this but from what I read on this forum and in guitar press it seems that more guitarists go heavy than light in their string choices.
It now seems to be perceived wisdom in Blues/Rock that heavy string = more sustain. If that is not the case (Billy Gibbons for instance) then why has string gauge etiquette made it so now using 11s are considered more normal or more desirable?

Straw poll on string gauges- What is everyone using?

I'm on Brite wires 9/42s.

Gibson Flying V Faded Cherry (Crescent Moons), Reverse Head Stock Custom Strat HSH, Vintage V100 Icon Lemon Drop LP, Blackheart Handsome Devil and Blackheart Killer Cab, BSM TrebleBooster, Metal Muff, Dunlop Wah, Vox Time Machine
  • From: Ridgeland, MS
  • Registered: 2009-08-12
  • Posts: 1,248

Re: The case against heavy strings

11s on Les Pauls, 10s on Strats for me. I like the way they feel.

  • From: North Carolina
  • Registered: 2008-10-26
  • Posts: 2,926

Re: The case against heavy strings

It makes perfect sense to me.  It takes less tention to tune to pitch on lighter strings.  The tighter the string the less vibration.  The bigger the string the tighter you have to tune it to reach the same note as the lighter string.  It physics 101.

AD3THREE's Website

  • From: N.Wales, UK
  • Registered: 2009-03-06
  • Posts: 2,183

Re: The case against heavy strings

9s...and I can see myself going lighter even. They have the more 'quack' I'm looking for...

  • From: Canterbury
  • Registered: 2010-05-27
  • Posts: 310

Re: The case against heavy strings

I like the thicker sound from 11's compared to 10's. I've never tried anything lighter than 10s, will give it a go sometime.

  • From: Adelaide, South Australia
  • Registered: 2011-10-14
  • Posts: 1,339

Re: The case against heavy strings

AD3THREE wrote:

It makes perfect sense to me.  It takes less tention to tune to pitch on lighter strings.  The tighter the string the less vibration.  The bigger the string the tighter you have to tune it to reach the same note as the lighter string.  It physics 101.

Ah but the more tension on the string the longer it will take for the entire amount of energy to leave the string. It's same principle as to why a les Paul sustains longer than a strat, the sheer mass of the les Paul does not resonate and expel the energy as a fast as a light resonate strat causing the notes to ring longer. Having more tension on them they vibrate in a narrower field, meaning you can also run your action lower with thicker strings.

http://www.stefanhauk.com

stefanhauk's Website

  • From: East Lancashire, UK
  • Registered: 2011-06-24
  • Posts: 3,019

Re: The case against heavy strings

I've gone from 9's to 10's and recently to 11's and I find I prefer the 11's personally and to me they sound and 'feel' the best on the les paul, however I used 9's on ther strat style I used before.  It seems to be horses for courses, guitars and construction. It would be nice to know why Joe uses 11's. Did he use them in his strat etc or does the instrument influence his choice?

You could then go on to action, low and high.

Come on the Blades (sorry Idolbone just had to borrow your line)
  • From: Ireland
  • Registered: 2010-10-25
  • Posts: 57

Re: The case against heavy strings

I use 11-52 and somehow I can see myself going bigger in the future as my hands get more used to them, I just prefer having to put effort into bends and the like. I just can't play anything less than 10's and I feel I can play a lot faster with heavier strings.

Guitars: Epiphone JBLP, Epiphone Les Paul Custom
Amps: Marshall Vintage Modern, 18 watt clone

11 Reply by BBJ

  • BBJ
  • BBJ
  • Platinum
  • Offline
  • From: Edinburgh
  • Registered: 2006-09-25
  • Posts: 299

Re: The case against heavy strings

Pure Nickel 9-41s

'Try as you might to keep a lid on a good time, you can't do it. When people want to have a good time....' - Billy Gibbons
  • DougH
  • DougH
  • BONAMETAL
  • Offline
  • From: Toronto, Canada
  • Registered: 2011-04-01
  • Posts: 1,705

Re: The case against heavy strings

I saw a video of ZZ Top's Billy Gibbons guitar tech..
They take his Perly Gates 59 run it through a gutiar processor and then they take every other guitar and run the same chords through the processor and adjust the EQ so each guitar (single coil or hum-buggies) have the same profile in sound.
That way he has consistant sound for the entire show..
And he's now using 7's (was 8's)

So what would the guitars sound like without this guitar processor.

almost like seeing a performer Lip Sync their songs.

---------------

(If only I had 1% of Joe's guitar talent)
  • tag2
  • tag2
  • Silver Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2012-02-03
  • Posts: 63

Re: The case against heavy strings

Effects and equipment can make up for any perceived loss of tone with thinner strings.

I was using 9s and have bumped to 10s, but have some 11s on the way to try them. I figure I will try them for a while and at least will help in building hand strength. It will be a bonus if I like the tone better.

  • From: Detroit
  • Registered: 2006-06-02
  • Posts: 5,807

Re: The case against heavy strings

I think people like to use 10's, 11's or higher to stay true to "vintage."
In the 1950's electric guitar strings came in 12's or 13's with a wrapped G string.
So does "vintage" tone require that? Some would probably argue for it.

I'd like to try 11's on one of my Les Pauls and 9's on the other and really see what ones I like best. Been using 10's for over a decade.

- Nic from Detroit... posting on JB's Forum since 6-2-2006
Ask me about my handwound Great Lakes Guitar Pickups
Since 2010, Bonamassa fans have taken advantage of my JB friend discount = my cost + shipping. cool
  • macg1
  • BONAMETAL
  • Offline
  • From: St. Petersburg, FL
  • Registered: 2010-01-21
  • Posts: 1,020

Re: The case against heavy strings

I started out with 11's on a LP and played that for years.  Then it was 11's on a strat.  It really was for no good reason, other than to train my hands and gain strength.  I have been playing 10's for a good part of 15 years now, and personally see no reason to go down a gauge. Especially tough to go down in gauges on a guitar that is setup for a higher gauge without changing the nut.  You can file a nut slot wider, but you cannot make it narrower.  but then again changing a nut is not that big of a deal.  Maybe in my olden days I will go lower. 

But yeah I support the main point of the thread;using bigger gauge is not necessarily better.  At the end of the day tone is part of that esoteric equation of touch, style, picking, amp, and whatever else is mixed in for flavor.

Amp: Firebird Musical Amplifiers
Guitars:62 LP SG , 02 FB VII, JB FB I, 76 Electra Omega, 64 Firebird V, 73 LPC, 61 Custom Tele, 59 and 60 Melody Maker
Effects: Mythos Chupacabra, Strymon Deco/Flint
  • From: North Carolina
  • Registered: 2008-10-26
  • Posts: 2,926

Re: The case against heavy strings

No Fair switching guitars!  You can only do this test on 1 guitar, doesn't matter if its a Strat, Tele, Les Paul or what ever.  If you go down in size the string tention is less.  If you increase length of neck your right the string travel is more narrow, but thats a different test.  Lets say you put these strings on a weight guage and pull on them until you either reach the note you want or you pull on it until it breaks.  What will the difference be?

stefanhauk wrote:
AD3THREE wrote:

It makes perfect sense to me.  It takes less tention to tune to pitch on lighter strings.  The tighter the string the less vibration.  The bigger the string the tighter you have to tune it to reach the same note as the lighter string.  It physics 101.

Ah but the more tension on the string the longer it will take for the entire amount of energy to leave the string. It's same principle as to why a les Paul sustains longer than a strat, the sheer mass of the les Paul does not resonate and expel the energy as a fast as a light resonate strat causing the notes to ring longer. Having more tension on them they vibrate in a narrower field, meaning you can also run your action lower with thicker strings.

AD3THREE's Website

  • Registered: 2011-03-15
  • Posts: 120

Re: The case against heavy strings

A simple test for anyone playing 11's, compare B's.

Your Hi E string is 0.011 inch thick. In a set of 9's, the E is 0.009 but the B string is 0.011.
With your guitar setup with 11's, tune down your hi E to B, unison. Pluck each string and listen to the difference.

Same trick goes for those who play 10's and want to compare to 8's.

www.raysguitarstraps.com
'12 Teye La India Mora 2P, '10 Teye La India S 2P, '64 Fiesta Red Strat, '14 Les Paul CC#18, '14 Les Paul R0ltd, '13 Les Paul R7, '12 Les Paul CC#3, '07 Les Paul CR8 x2, '04 Les Paul R9, '65 Super Reverb, '93 Koch KC50dlx, JB Fuzzface #775
  • From: North Carolina
  • Registered: 2008-10-26
  • Posts: 2,926

Re: The case against heavy strings

Great point!

AD3THREE's Website