9's on 25.5 scale guitars tuned to concert pitch?

[chunktone]

Myth. Billy Gibbons uses 8s and that's a hell of a fat tone!

<----------------- this!

I agree! I alos heard he uses 7s.

 

[moltenmetalburn]

it is not a myth, the science of physics is real.

its all about the tension of the string.

too loose and it will have loose rubbery, modulating, tone, too tight and its too hard to excite the strings, poor sustain.

for example my dropped C 24.75 guitar is strung with .65 to .13 The scale length unit weight and string gauge were all used to calculate the desired tension which was the same tension the string would be under if it were from a .9 set on the same guitar at standard concert pitch.

 

[JJGray]

EVH uses 9-42's on a 25.5" guitar tuned a half step down during the DLR years. Some people think he has good tone...

Billy Gibbons is notorious for using very light strings. I think he uses 8's. Also good tone.

I like the feel of 10-46 D'Addarios. I used 9-46 GHS boomers for years until I tried 10's. They just feel right to me. No big tone difference.

It's all about what you like and what makes you want to play more!!!

Can't say what he uses currently, but when I bought my EBMM EVH guitar in '93 it came with 9-40. That's what he was using at the time.

Spot on! In Ed's early Guitar Player interviews, he said he used Fender 150XL's. They did and still do make them in 9-40 gauge.

 

[JohnSykes]

IMHO the "secret" to get your best tone is to be comfortable with the guitar. And of course strings are a really important part of the instrument lol.

If our guitar heroes showed us something, is that they play whatever is right for them. At least for me, its doesnt make any sense to use 0.12 for example. Maybe "scientifically" i'd get better tone, but the truth is that i wouldn't be able to bend properly and that in my book means poor tone.

 

[shgshg]

it is not a myth, the science of physics is real.

its all about the tension of the string.

too loose and it will have loose rubbery, modulating, tone, too tight and its too hard to excite the strings, poor sustain.

for example my dropped C 24.75 guitar is strung with .65 to .13 The scale length unit weight and string gauge were all used to calculate the desired tension which was the same tension the string would be under if it were from a .9 set on the same guitar at standard concert pitch.

Your example does nothing to prove - or disprove - your claim.

 

[racerevlon]

Played 9-42 my whole life until D'ADDARIO came out with the EXL120+ 9.5's. Now all my fixed-bridge guitars have 9.5's and the Floyded axes get 9-42, just cuz I don't want to re-float.

 

[supersonic]

Played 9-42 my whole life until D'ADDARIO came out with the EXL120+ 9.5's. Now all my fixed-bridge guitars have 9.5's and the Floyded axes get 9-42, just cuz I don't want to re-float.

Almost forgot I have as set of 9.5s' here to try. How are they?

 

[supersonic]

EVH uses 9-42's on a 25.5" guitar tuned a half step down during the DLR years. Some people think he has good tone...

Billy Gibbons is notorious for using very light strings. I think he uses 8's. Also good tone.

I like the feel of 10-46 D'Addarios. I used 9-46 GHS boomers for years until I tried 10's. They just feel right to me. No big tone difference.

It's all about what you like and what makes you want to play more!!!

Can't say what he uses currently, but when I bought my EBMM EVH guitar in '93 it came with 9-40. That's what he was using at the time.

Spot on! In Ed's early Guitar Player interviews, he said he used Fender 150XL's. They did and still do make them in 9-40 gauge.

I used to buy the EVH branded guage by the box then they stopped making them. I remember you could get a really sweet virbrato on the low E and A strings.

 

[electrophonic.tonic]

Not a difference in tone as much as feel and how hard you play.
When I get nervous or excited I tend to mash the piss out of my
guitar, so heavier strings work out better for me . What ever tool
works for the job.

Yeah Dick Dale uses something like14-58, and he strangles the shit out of his strat.

 

[fishyfishfish]

I think the mind set is how you learned to play. Starting out on a Kay
Acoustic with heavy action/strings equates or translates into
"How it should be" as opposed to an instument that is comfortable
and uninhibiting so proper technique is followed. I guess that's why microphones
Don't weigh 100Lbs.

 

[Magilla]

Jeez, you guys really got me thinking here. I've had 11's on my prs cu24 for over 15 years....maybe I will try some 10's again. My college buddy proclaimed SRV and other blues guys always went with heavier strings, including a wound G string at times. I don't play blues but I followed his lead with the 11's. Good topic!

 

[Anonymous]

Myth - use what works for you.

Steve

 

[rspencer]

If Iommi can get his weak-ass tone with 8s, I figure I'm OK with 9s.

 

[supersonic]

Not a difference in tone as much as feel and how hard you play.
When I get nervous or excited I tend to mash the piss out of my
guitar, so heavier strings work out better for me . What ever tool
works for the job.

Yeah Dick Dale uses something like14-58, and he strangles the shit out of his strat.

thats what im talking about. and his tone is undeniable. Its thick and scary good. but I think its interesting that in this discussion the two Strat players with thicker gauge strings I can indentify with to a degree. there is MORE happening in the low end with thicker strings for me. it always sounds beefier. MUCH beefier. Im playing a 7 string with 56 on the LOW B. that shit sounds fat. much fatter than any 8.9.10's I have heard anywhere else.

It really is a personal thing, Billy Gibbons has dished out some of the fattest tones I've ever heard. I recall a concert back in '87 he was holding one note and the place was about to explode.
Fat strings, Fat tone = Myth busted.

 

[electrophonic.tonic]

Not a difference in tone as much as feel and how hard you play.
When I get nervous or excited I tend to mash the piss out of my
guitar, so heavier strings work out better for me . What ever tool
works for the job.

Yeah Dick Dale uses something like14-58, and he strangles the shit out of his strat.

thats what im talking about. and his tone is undeniable. Its thick and scary good. but I think its interesting that in this discussion the two Strat players with thicker gauge strings I can indentify with to a degree. there is MORE happening in the low end with thicker strings for me. it always sounds beefier. MUCH beefier. Im playing a 7 string with 56 on the LOW B. that shit sounds fat. much fatter than any 8.9.10's I have heard anywhere else.

It really is a personal thing, Billy Gibbons has dished out some of the fattest tones I've ever heard. I recall a concert back in '87 he was holding one note and the place was about to explode.
Fat strings, Fat tone = Myth busted.

I think the difference between a 9 and 11 might be fairly negligible tone-wise. The difference between an 8 and a 12 is pretty apparent though. I personally think it's based more on string tension and pick attack than it is on string gauge. Of course PUs, effects and amp plays a huge role. I'd love to hear Dick Dale through Rev. Billy's rig and vice versa.

 

[moltenmetalburn]

it is not a myth, the science of physics is real.

its all about the tension of the string.

too loose and it will have loose rubbery, modulating, tone, too tight and its too hard to excite the strings, poor sustain.

for example my dropped C 24.75 guitar is strung with .65 to .13 The scale length unit weight and string gauge were all used to calculate the desired tension which was the same tension the string would be under if it were from a .9 set on the same guitar at standard concert pitch.

Your example does nothing to prove - or disprove - your claim.

True , typed this out while walking down the street.

Just an example of one of my guitar setups, not meant as an example to prove the claim, it's already proven for those who care to research and learn.


The point is it is not a myth, start researching tension and string gauge and unit weight.

Look at how a string is actually vibrating ; a sine wave from nut to bridge.

I have done years worth of study that cannot be condensed into a few sentences.

I really just want to impress that there is no snake oil just science and its proven.


Also as a few are mentioning, the metal mass creates more output from the pickup magnetically, more mass also makes the body of the guitar resonate and vibrate more. This all translates to tonal changes.

Straw man arguments about specific players sounding fat with tiny strings do not apply. Did he just turn up the bass on his rig or pedal??? Unless its that guy A/B ing two identical setups other than string gauge this means nothing at all.

 

[rupe]

It's not a myth, and it's not a fact either...there are far too many variables at play to lend any credence to a scientific approach as someone attempted above. It is completely dependent on a player's touch and attack as well as a guitar's inherent tonal traits and how those variables match up with a particular amp/tone. Blanket statements simply do not apply in this instance...it comes down to the player, the gear, and the style.

 

[moltenmetalburn]

Variability in no way negates the factual science.

The pickups magnetics sense more metal and provide more output.
( boosting the amp inputs adds desirable compression and some breakup)

The guitar body resonates and vibrates more.
(Longer sustain ,more dynamic)

String tension directly affects the amount of string modulation happening.
( loose strings can actually produce a sort of chorusing effect)

It goes on...

Sure the players touch can add or detract from the final tone but the three example I used above are proven AND inherent long before the guitarist even picks up the instrument, plays it or amplifies it.

You may be trying to say this resulting in "better" tone is subjective. That I could stand behind, MANY guitarists sound like total crap and think its awesome.

Other than that I completely disagree with you, the facts of my testing have shown me otherwise.

Don't believe me because I said so, do your homework, break out the oscilloscope, consult l some scientists, test some strings at tension , the proof is there waiting for you to discover.

I consulted a collegiate physics professor and an acoustician friend of mine while testing theories. At the time we were designing string sets that never got off of the ground due to my busy touring schedule and actually getting beaten to the punch by another string maker.

 

[rupe]

Variability in no way negates the factual science.

The pickups magnetics sense more metal and provide more output.
( boosting the amp inputs adds desirable compression and some breakup)

The guitar body resonates and vibrates more.
(Longer sustain ,more dynamic)

String tension directly affects the amount of string modulation happening.
( loose strings can actually produce a sort of chorusing effect)

It goes on...

Sure the players touch can add or detract from the final tone but the three example I used above are proven AND inherent long before the guitarist even picks up the instrument, plays it or amplifies it.

You may be trying to say this resulting in "better" tone is subjective. That I could stand behind, MANY guitarists sound like total crap and think its awesome.

Other than that I completely disagree with you, the facts of my testing have shown me otherwise.

Don't believe me because I said so, do your homework, break out the oscilloscope, consult l some scientists, test some strings at tension , the proof is there waiting for you to discover.

I consulted a collegiate physics professor and an acoustician friend of mine while testing theories. At the time we were designing string sets that never got off of the ground due to my busy touring schedule and actually getting beaten to the punch by another string maker.

My point is that the "factual science" doesn't necessarily translate into better/bigger tone. The only test anyone needs to do is listen...anything else just muddies the waters.
I'm not saying that the things you've pointed out aren't true, rather that there are variables that affect these "truths". The science you present misses how a particular electric guitar may respond with a particular amp/speaker at a certain volume and in a certain place...there are mechanics at play in that scenario that aren't accounted for by your explanation (which essentially only holds true for an "unaffected" natural string vibration). You're over-simplifying things a bit when it comes to amplified tone as opposed to natural (acoustic) tone. And of course, as you noted, "better" is completely subjective.

 

[moltenmetalburn]

Variability in no way negates the factual science.

The pickups magnetics sense more metal and provide more output.
( boosting the amp inputs adds desirable compression and some breakup)

The guitar body resonates and vibrates more.
(Longer sustain ,more dynamic)

String tension directly affects the amount of string modulation happening.
( loose strings can actually produce a sort of chorusing effect)

It goes on...

Sure the players touch can add or detract from the final tone but the three example I used above are proven AND inherent long before the guitarist even picks up the instrument, plays it or amplifies it.

You may be trying to say this resulting in "better" tone is subjective. That I could stand behind, MANY guitarists sound like total crap and think its awesome.

Other than that I completely disagree with you, the facts of my testing have shown me otherwise.

Don't believe me because I said so, do your homework, break out the oscilloscope, consult l some scientists, test some strings at tension , the proof is there waiting for you to discover.

I consulted a collegiate physics professor and an acoustician friend of mine while testing theories. At the time we were designing string sets that never got off of the ground due to my busy touring schedule and actually getting beaten to the punch by another string maker.

My point is that the "factual science" doesn't necessarily translate into better/bigger tone. The only test anyone needs to do is listen...anything else just muddies the waters.
I'm not saying that the things you've pointed out aren't true, rather that there are variables that affect these "truths". The science you present misses how a particular electric guitar may respond with a particular amp/speaker at a certain volume and in a certain place...there are mechanics at play in that scenario that aren't accounted for by your explanation (which essentially only holds true for an "unaffected" natural string vibration). You're over-simplifying things a bit when it comes to amplified tone as opposed to natural (acoustic) tone. And of course, as you noted, "better" is completely subjective.

Ahh much clearer, I see your points. Though I am adamantly against the idea of " just listen" or " use your ears" our ears are truly deceiving as they are connected to our brains. So much happens that my et cannot perceive yet is paramount to the resultant sound. I need more evidence than just my ear telling me its "good" ; what if I like bad guitar sounds!

FYI we did also take many other factors into account, resonances, resonant peaks , used an anechoic chamber for some studies. Amplifed, acoustic, different woods etc... Two years worth of fun is not accurrately represented in my post above.

Anyway, not arguing just enjoying some discussion.