A study into string gauge: Is thicker REALLY thicker?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMagicEight
  • Start date Start date
TheMagicEight

TheMagicEight

New member
I wanted to hear for myself how string gauge affects tone. I'm told over and over that bigger strings = bigger tone, and as a fan of thin strings, it was bothering me.

The test:
Identical everything, except string gauge. One take is 11-49, and the other 8-38. Same guitar into a '67 plexi replica --> G12M --> MD409. No EQ. I played to a click track, so the clips line up if you want to flip back and forth. I have more clips that I'll upload soon, but it's a little easier to hear the difference on the neck pickup.

Results:
More than anything else, I learned string gauge is so much less important to tone than playing what you're comfortable with! The biggest difference for me was when playing, the 11s allow you to hit much harder (duh). The 8s take a lot more precision, but bending and playing quick leads is much easier. I'd comment on perceived tonal characteristics, but I figure I'll leave that alone for now.
 

Attachments

Track B seemed a bit louder out of the gate overall, I couldn't really tell much different until the little licks on the higher strings, but you didn't play the same exact riff so it's hard for me to compare...

...and this was a useless post brought to you by me...
 
"More than anything else, I learned string gauge is so much less important to tone than playing what you're comfortable with! The biggest difference for me was when playing, the 11s allow you to hit much harder (duh)"

THIS.

I completely agree.
 
Strings to me are all about how they feel to play not how they effect the tone (not counting old vs. new of course). It's more about the right gauge for what I want to play and what tuning I need. Best example I can "thick" of is Billy Gibbons. One of the fattest tones in creation and uses maybe the smallest gauge any electric guitarist would use.
 
The thing I noticed when moving from, say, a 9-42 set to a 10-52 set is that I can play the 10-52s until they sound like shit and then change them, rather than playing the 9-42s until one breaks and then change them.
 
10 to 46 just feels right, right amount of work to get what I want. Whack the strings and the low E doesn't go way sharp etc etc. I do however really like the way 10-46 feels in Eb tuning. That's what I like best for sure..more give and easier wiggle. The tone thing is a small part for me, also last longer on my Floyded guitars.
 
I never believed that heavier strings = "better tone." I guess scientifically, lighter strings SHOULD vibrate longer as long as everything else is the same, so they SHOULD have longer sustain. Having said that, it would make sense that heavier strings would have a tad bit more clarity when playing chords that may otherwise sound muddy, but I would think it would be pretty hard to tell the difference to the audience. I play slightly heavier strings just because I play too hard, and I bend light strings out of tune too much when chording.
 
Here's another set of clips. From what I can tell, the 8s have a slightly extended high end. They're a little creamier, but the 11s are a hair more present in frequencies just a little lower. However, from what I hear, they both produce the same inherent tone. That surprised me in a really good way since it's such a controversial subject; I'd actually bet there would be a far bigger difference with a pickup swap or different guitar altogether
 

Attachments

I notice a huge, positive difference when using higher gauge strings. I'm currently rocking 10-52s. Chords particularly sound much more defined & brighter to me & my picking & vibrato feels to be done with more authority.
Matter of preference of course. Some of the greatest players ever used lighter gauge strings. Malmsteen etc. Think he used 8s.
 
Seems Billy Gibbons gets mentioned in every single string gauge thread. What Billy Gibbons tone are we talking about? Tres Hombres where he once did have great tone or Afterburner where it sounded like he was using an Ibanez into a Rockman?
 
danyeo":2f4klh3p said:
Seems Billy Gibbons gets mentioned in every single string gauge thread. What Billy Gibbons tone are we talking about? Tres Hombres where he once did have great tone or Afterburner where it sounded like he was using an Ibanez into a Rockman?
Click to expand...

Yeah, because Afterburner is considered their peak and they haven't done much since then :confused:

I'm talking about the many live performances I've seen in the last 10 years and their last few CD's had fat tone for days. Now whether you think it's a good tone is subjective but it isn't thin.
 
moronmountain":1i0bvrnt said:
I never believed that heavier strings = "better tone." I guess scientifically, lighter strings SHOULD vibrate longer as long as everything else is the same, so they SHOULD have longer sustain. Having said that, it would make sense that heavier strings would have a tad bit more clarity when playing chords that may otherwise sound muddy, but I would think it would be pretty hard to tell the difference to the audience. I play slightly heavier strings just because I play too hard, and I bend light strings out of tune too much when chording.
Click to expand...

I think it's actually the opposite. I'm almost certain the science would suggest that thicker strings, which require more tension to tune to the same pitch, would vibrate longer than thinner ones. Because you have to impart more energy into the string to begin with to get it moving. And once you do, they can store more energy compared to thinner ones. This is not to say a 1/2" A string would do the same. I think there are diminishing returns. It's only up to a certain point.
 
FourT6and2":2z3zgyul said:
I think it's actually the opposite. I'm almost certain the science would suggest that thicker strings, which require more tension to tune to the same pitch, would vibrate longer than thinner ones. Because you have to impart more energy into the string to begin with to get it moving. And once you do, they can store more energy compared to thinner ones. This is not to say a 1/2" A string would do the same. I think there are diminishing returns. It's only up to a certain point.
Click to expand...
It's a complicated analysis. It would seem you can impart more energy into the thicker strings because they vibrate with smaller amplitude for the same energy. Since the frets get in the way, there is a maximum displacement for a given string height from the fretboard, and thus thicker strings can store more energy for the same amplitude.

It also seems most of the energy imparted in thicker strings - as compared to thinner - takes the form of the fundamental and low-order harmonics. That is to say, they have comparatively more bass content. Perhaps this is also due to the issue of string displacement. If a thin string isn't able to travel far enough to accurately represent the lower frequencies, you'll notice more mid and high frequencies (and I do). Of course, a spectrum analysis would be able to determine the validity of this notion in a fraction of a second, but IMO there's more to "thick" guitar tone than a simple graph.

Take a guitar track with a "thick" tone. Add a high pass filter at ~100Hz. Does it sound thinner? Well, it might, but I'd consider that cleaning up the muddiness rather than thinning the tone. Same principle with guitar strings. If you're adding a bunch of distortion on top of your guitar's signal, it hardly matters how loud the signal is to start with. And what I've found that is cutting out ultra low frequencies seemingly gives me more mids, and thus, "thicker" tone.

Of course, there's still the issue of thick strings sounding every bit as "big" through the neck pickup as thin strings. Personally, I'd answer this by saying the thick strings have a sharper attack, because you're more than likely hitting them harder. Listening to the sustain, I find thicker strings - with distortion - slightly muddier.

Then there's the issue of overarching tone. Do thicker strings illicit more "tone" out of the guitar by vibrating it more? I'm not touching that one for now, but it certainly is another variable for the tonal quest.

Sorry for the wall!
 
TheMagicEight":2fodzbu5 said:
FourT6and2":2fodzbu5 said:
I think it's actually the opposite. I'm almost certain the science would suggest that thicker strings, which require more tension to tune to the same pitch, would vibrate longer than thinner ones. Because you have to impart more energy into the string to begin with to get it moving. And once you do, they can store more energy compared to thinner ones. This is not to say a 1/2" A string would do the same. I think there are diminishing returns. It's only up to a certain point.
Click to expand...
It's a complicated analysis. It would seem you can impart more energy into the thicker strings because they vibrate with smaller amplitude for the same energy. Since the frets get in the way, there is a maximum displacement for a given string height from the fretboard, and thus thicker strings can store more energy for the same amplitude.

It also seems most of the energy imparted in thicker strings - as compared to thinner - takes the form of the fundamental and low-order harmonics. That is to say, they have comparatively more bass content. Perhaps this is also due to the issue of string displacement. If a thin string isn't able to travel far enough to accurately represent the lower frequencies, you'll notice more mid and high frequencies (and I do). Of course, a spectrum analysis would be able to determine the validity of this notion in a fraction of a second, but IMO there's more to "thick" guitar tone than a simple graph.

Take a guitar track with a "thick" tone. Add a high pass filter at ~100Hz. Does it sound thinner? Well, it might, but I'd consider that cleaning up the muddiness rather than thinning the tone. Same principle with guitar strings. If you're adding a bunch of distortion on top of your guitar's signal, it hardly matters how loud the signal is to start with. And what I've found that is cutting out ultra low frequencies seemingly gives me more mids, and thus, "thicker" tone.

Of course, there's still the issue of thick strings sounding every bit as "big" through the neck pickup as thin strings. Personally, I'd answer this by saying the thick strings have a sharper attack, because you're more than likely hitting them harder. Listening to the sustain, I find thicker strings - with distortion - slightly muddier.

Then there's the issue of overarching tone. Do thicker strings illicit more "tone" out of the guitar by vibrating it more? I'm not touching that one for now, but it certainly is another variable for the tonal quest.

Sorry for the wall!
Click to expand...

It certainly is a complicated topic. In college, I actually did some (basic) FFT tests with various string gauges for a project. I don't really remember the results, though. But yeah, I do believe the fundamental is emphasized more with thicker gauges. Some would say "piano-like."
 
I think that most agree that strings are not a huge factor in tone, more of a personal 'feel' preference. It's hard to get wide vibrato with heavy strings and light gauge will flub out if you drop C tune etc. Neck scale and feel of any given guitar and a bunch of other variables also come into play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top