80/20

[blindboygrunt]

I put some dadarrio 80/20 strings on the guitar a couple of weeks ago just as an experiment. Usually a PB guy , more out of habit . or stick to what you know type of thing.

After reading all three praise for the strings Gibson use were 80/20's I decided to try.

Dedicatedly didn't like them when they were first on. Not sure if I like them now or an used to them

But what I do find is that they waver slightly in pitch . hard to tune . or harder.

Is this normal or are they for very delicate fingers.

 

Think I'm going back to PB's though.

[tpbiii]

After two decades of experimentation, we now use Martin bulk 80/20s on everything. It is an acquired taste I am sure, but I hate PB on mahogany and I can stand if necessary on RW.

 

I personally think that if any of us was forced to use a particular common compound lonh enough, we would bond to it.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

[blindboygrunt]

After two decades of experimentation, we now use Martin bulk 80/20s on everything. It is an acquired taste I am sure, but I hate PB on mahogany and I can stand if necessary on RW.

 

I personally think that if any of us was forced to use a particular common compound lonh enough, we would bond to it.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

 

Haha, well you're way ahead of me on experiment time !

String choice is such a fickle business.

I guess I'll have to try some various brands of 80/20's before I rule them out completely.

 

This time next week they might be the best sounding strings ever. How can anyone ever know that the day after they decided to change that they weren't going to become the best sound they ever had! Or maybe that was the day that we get used to the sound they are making. Impossible task ! :)

[MorrisrownSal]

When I bought the Gibson SJTV, they asked if I wanted new strings. I said sure. They put on Elixir 80/20s. I tried to like them for 5 days, but the tone I fell in love with was gone. I switched back to plain old PBs. I guess some people like iced tea, and others like Gin.

[Motherofpearl]

After two decades of experimentation, we now use Martin bulk 80/20s on everything. It is an acquired taste I am sure, but I hate PB on mahogany and I can stand if necessary on RW.

 

I personally think that if any of us was forced to use a particular common compound lonh enough, we would bond to it.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

 

Hmmm funny Tom I find the opposite love PBS on my hog and 80/20 on the RW. Ah well our ears are all different I guess.

[jedzep]

Try 80/20 Dunlops. They are 'workhorsey' and inexpensive. Maybe they dry up sooner than others, but nice for the money so you can change more often. If I could afford them though, no strings last longer and keep perfect 'broken-in' tone like T-Infelds.

[chasAK]

Tpbiii, why don't you like PBs on hogs? Do they sound too muddy for you? I like the warm tone I get from them. Also, I've been meaning to ask, do you know Lloyd Hazelbaker? And if so is he still around?

 

Charlie

 

 

[Joe M]

Yup, we all hear things differently. I tried a set of D'Addario Flattops on my Hummingbird TV and love the way they sound. Put a set on the new Dove I just got this week and immediately took them off, they were very harsh and brittle sounding, completely different sound than on the HB. On the recommendation of one of the guys at the shop where I bought the Dove, I put a set of Elixir 80/20's on it and they sound fantastic. Different strokes for different folks (and guitars..... )

[EuroAussie]

Hmmm funny Tom I find the opposite love PBS on my hog and 80/20 on the RW. Ah well our ears are all different I guess.

 

This is certainly my preferance. 80/20's on my HB TV take all the nectar and uniqueness out of the guitar.

[tpbiii]

Tpbiii, why don't you like PBs on hogs? Do they sound too muddy for you? I like the warm tone I get from them. Also, I've been meaning to ask, do you know Lloyd Hazelbaker? And if so is he still around?

 

Charlie

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Charlie,

 

I guess the word for PB I would use is slightly fuzzy and sparkly -- I think of the 80/20s as being deeper and clearer. In my experience, which is mostly with acoustic band players, PB are preferred by less experienced players and maybe solo players -- I preferred them when I was young and played folk revival music, mostly in a single guitar context. In the 80s and 90s, when we started doing a lot of bluegrass is when we did all the experimenting that led to the 80/20 decision. That was also when we discovered how incredibly important the sound properties of the guitar are in string bands.

 

I am not saying anyone else should feel this way -- as an acoustic scientist who studied human sound (speech in my case) quality over 40 years I know better than most how much of this is subjective and learned. In short, for sound quality perception, we don't scale -- ie knowing what an individual feels tells us very little about what everybody feels.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

[philfish]

That's it I'm going to put 80/20's on my 45 next string change. I've been using PB's and like the sound, but after this thread I better find out for my self.

Thanks Guys

[blindboygrunt]

That's it I'm going to put 80/20's on my 45 next string change. I've been using PB's and like the sound, but after this thread I better find out for my self.

Thanks Guys

 

You'll regret it !!!

 

:)

[Pepperland]

Hi Charlie,

 

I guess the word for PB I would use is slightly fuzzy and sparkly -- I think of the 80/20s as being deeper and clearer. In my experience, which is mostly with acoustic band players, PB are preferred by less experienced players and maybe solo players -- I preferred them when I was young and played folk revival music, mostly in a single guitar context. In the 80s and 90s, when we started doing a lot of bluegrass is when we did all the experimenting that led to the 80/20 decision. That was also when we discovered how incredibly important the sound properties of the guitar are in string bands.

 

I am not saying anyone else should feel this way -- as an acoustic scientist who studied human sound (speech in my case) quality over 40 years I know better than most how much of this is subjective and learned. In short, for sound quality perception, we don't scale -- ie knowing what an individual feels tells us very little about what everybody feels.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

 

I seriously doubt that there is some sort of scientific study to prove your point but

I get a chuckle when I read such blanket statements, guess I'll switch my PB's

out to fit in with the "more experienced" crowd.

[Gruffchris]

80/20's for RW and PB's for Hog, IMO.

 

PB's on my rosewood guitar just sound wrong.

[blindboygrunt]

I seriously doubt that there is some sort of scientific study to prove your point but

I get a chuckle when I read such blanket statements, guess I'll switch my PB's

out to fit in with the "more experienced" crowd.

Ouch

[tpbiii]

I seriously doubt that there is some sort of scientific study to prove your point but

I get a chuckle when I read such blanket statements, guess I'll switch my PB's

out to fit in with the "more experienced" crowd.

 

Actually I wrote a book on the subject -- called Objective Measures for Speech Quality Measures.

 

It was a research monolog on a studly that involved 4 million individual subjective quality assessments and a lot of statical analyses. It was heavily reviewed and referenced, and it was published by Prentice Hall -- I am pretty sure that was science.

 

The first author was my Ph.D. student at the time -- he now heads up the international MPEG audio committee.

 

 

Best,

 

-Tom

 

Arbutus Distinguished Professor & Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar, Emeritus

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology,

[Pepperland]

Actually I wrote a book on the subject -- called Objective Measures for Speech Quality Measures.

 

It was a research monolog on a studly that involved 4 million individual subjective quality assessments and a lot of statical analyses. It was heavily reviewed and referenced, and it was published by Prentice Hall -- I am pretty sure that was science.

 

The first author was my Ph.D. student at the time -- he now heads up the international MPEG audio committee.

 

 

Best,

 

-Tom

 

Arbutus Distinguished Professor & Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar, Emeritus

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology,

 

I do respect the fact that you wrote a book on "Objective Measures for Speech Quality Measures",

but what does that have to do with choosing guitar strings and implying that "inexperienced

players" use PB strings???

It seems a little pompous to me, unless of course you conducted a scientific study proving your point.

 

I don't get it and I should probably back away from the keyboard before the thread goes off on a

completely different subject.

[tpbiii]

I do respect the fact that you wrote a book on "Objective Measures for Speech Quality Measures",

but what does that have to do with choosing guitar strings and implying that "inexperienced

players" use PB strings???

It seems a little pompous to me, unless of course you conducted a scientific study proving your point.

 

I don't get it and I should probably back away from the keyboard before the thread goes off on a

completely different subject

.

 

Well I don't mind filling in the background for my statement. I don't usually do that unless some asks -- I guess your statements are a form of asking.

 

Let me give you some background to see where I am coming from.

 

First, my wife and I have been doing music together for over 40 years and collecting guitars (and banjos, basses, fiddles, mandolins, etc.) almost as long. At this time, we have over 100 vintage guitars -- 71 of them prewar -- and 200+ instruments altogether (about $1M worth). A primary interest for me as an acoustic researcher has always been sound, but we are very active musicians as well -- particularly after our kids left for college 20+ years ago. We exist in an intense musical community built around traditional music and old guitars. We mostly play bluegrass, but we also are into other acoustic genres -- particularly folk revival and other folk genres. We play gigs, jam, and help novice musicians.

 

As part of these activities, we meet and play with a lot of musicians. We meet a lot of pros, I guess more because they like old guitars than they like us -- but I will take it. We are a bit well known -- in 2006 my wife and I were inducted into the "Hall of Honor" of the Atlanta Country Music Hall of Fame.

 

On the teaching and novice side, I published an article (1997) in Bluegrass Unlimited called "An Introduction to Bluegrass Jamming" -- specifically to help people learn how bluegrass fits together. It has been republished over 400 times (mostly by bluegrass clubs), it is used in several major teaching programs, and it has been translated into 10 different languages. Also as part of the outreach effort, we helped to found the Southeastern Bluegrass Music Association (fourteen chapters in GA, AL, FL, TN, and SC)-- we were given the Founders' Award last year for our activities over the years.

 

The upshot of all this we have decades of experience -- we have crafted our life that way. Strings have been a big part of tht -- from the 1990s when we studied for our own use right up until the present where we regularly play with (and swap guitars with) lots of different musicians -- from novices to professionals. Being a geek, I am always aware if the instruments they are playing and the strings they are using -- at this point I mostly don't have to ask, but I generally do anyway -- trust but verify. I thought I would share our experiences with the original poster.

 

The reason I talked about the science was to explain this statement.

 

I am not saying anyone else should feel this way -- as an acoustic scientist who studied human sound (speech in my case) quality over 40 years I know better than most how much of this is subjective and learned. In short, for sound quality perception, we don't scale -- ie knowing what an individual feels tells us very little about what everybody feels.

 

The reason for all the stuff above is to give context to this statement:

 

PB are preferred by less experienced players and maybe solo players -- I preferred them when I was young and played folk revival music, mostly in a single guitar context. In the 80s and 90s, when we started doing a lot of bluegrass is when we did all the experimenting that led to the 80/20 decision.

 

Personally, I think all the stuff above is the pompous part, but I don't mind explaining if it helps you understand how my experience might fit in.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

[Motherofpearl]

Tom I respect everything your saying and look up to you in a sense. But I cannot agree on this subject. Phosopher bronze strings on rosewood add to the muddiness it doesn't sound great. With mahogany 80/20s are much too bright you lose the warmth tone. This is just from my experience.

[tpbiii]

Tom I respect everything your saying and look up to you in a sense. But I cannot agree on this subject. Phosopher bronze strings on rosewood add to the muddiness it doesn't sound great. With mahogany 80/20s are much too bright you lose the warmth tone. This is just from my experience.

 

I am not trying to say anything different -- I don't want anyone to agree with me. I am just putting out personal data -- as honestly as I can -- just as your feelings are that kind of data for me. Your view is quite common on this and other forums, and that cannot be because I am right and they are wrong. If it works for you, you should certainly enjoy it good health! Whatever adds to the music is right IMO.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

[chasAK]

Ha, I guess I'm looking for the warm fuzzies when I play my j45!! I think genre might have much to do with the choice. I don't play in bands. I play mostly solos for my own pleasure. I'm not sure if it would bring pleasure to anybody else ears! Occasionally I accompany someone playing on a violin, cello, flute, and so on, mostly for special music at church. The last time was with a trombonist. I was lacking in projection and he was a bit in experienced. The piece need more work. Tom thanks for your comments and sharing your experience. Your comment seemed, and still seems, counter intuitive to me. Is it possible to see and measure the different aspects of tone beyond the frequency and height of a wave using a devise such as an oscilloscope, or something like that?

 

Ps. Are waves 3 dimensional?

[tpbiii]

5521

Ha, I guess I'm looking for the warm fuzzies when I play my j45!! I think genre might have much to do with the choice. I don't play in bands. I play mostly solos for my own pleasure. I'm not sure if it would bring pleasure to anybody else ears! Occasionally I accompany someone playing on a violin, cello, flute, and so on, mostly for special music at church. The last time was with a trombonist. I was lacking in projection and he was a bit in experienced. The piece need more work. Tom thanks for your comments and sharing your experience. Your comment seemed, and still seems, counter intuitive to me. Is it possible to see and measure the different aspects of tone beyond the frequency and height of a wave using a devise such as an oscilloscope, or something like that?

 

Ps. Are waves 3 dimensional?

 

There is indeed quite a lot more to it than that -- and a lot of stuff in our daily lives have been improved by the development and application of auditory science over the past 40 years. The most obvious applications that everyone knows are digital speech communications systems (cell phones, HD phones, etc.) and audio coders like MP3 etc. There are a lot more applications in digital audio systems that are less obvious.

 

I have tried to talk about this stuff occasionally on-line -- the most successful was on the AGF. This was odd because that forum moves so fast almost nothing gets discussed in detail.

 

The very short version is before you can understand what we like and why we like it, we must first understand what we can hear. The human ear is a breathtaking amazing spectral analysis device that, in a complex sound field, masks some sounds (makes them inaudible). Mp3s are very distorted, but you can't hear it because the distortion is masked (by design) by the sound field. Instrument sounds are masked too, and therein lies the rub -- and the opportunity.

 

Here are the important links to the old thread. The first two -- mostly the 2nd -- basically tell the story. The rest are just interesting interactions.

 

1

 

2

 

3

 

4

 

5

 

 

 

Yes, sound fields are 3D -- actually technically 4D since time is a dimension.

 

Best,

 

-Tom

[jedzep]

Making perfect sense to me, Tom, as there doesn't NEED to be a science behind sound in order to enjoy and/or use it, (to decide, for instance, which brand of strings one happens to like). The brain takes it all in and processes accordingly. I enjoy reading about your take on this ten billionth discussion of guitar string preferences, and like many here occasionally like to mix it up a little on our instruments to play with different voicings. Mostly, though, we settle in with one string that consistently works for pleasing tone and decent longevity.

 

Also, the pics of your collection are the epitome of guitar porn for me. Thanks for that.

[JAddison]

I put some dadarrio 80/20 strings on the guitar a couple of weeks ago just as an experiment. Usually a PB guy , more out of habit . or stick to what you know type of thing.

After reading all three praise for the strings Gibson use were 80/20's I decided to try.

Dedicatedly didn't like them when they were first on. Not sure if I like them now or an used to them

But what I do find is that they waver slightly in pitch . hard to tune . or harder.

Is this normal or are they for very delicate fingers.

 

Think I'm going back to PB's though.

 

I was the same until I played the strings that came on both my J35 and my LG2 Reissue.

It didn't matter what PB and 80/20 strings I tried, I just couldn't get 'that' tone back. Until now..

http://store.gibson.com/masterbuilt-premium-80-20-brass-acoustic-guitar-strings/

[j45nick]

Actually I wrote a book on the subject -- called Objective Measures for Speech Quality Measures.

 

It was a research monolog on a studly that involved 4 million individual subjective quality assessments and a lot of statical analyses. It was heavily reviewed and referenced, and it was published by Prentice Hall -- I am pretty sure that was science.

 

The first author was my Ph.D. student at the time -- he now heads up the international MPEG audio committee.

 

 

Best,

 

-Tom

 

Arbutus Distinguished Professor & Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar, Emeritus

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Georgia Institute of Technology,

 

 

You wander into Tom Barnwell's particular area of expertise at your peril. Most of us here sit up and take notice when he comments on the science of the perception of sound. At least I sure do.

 

Doesn't hurt that he and his wife also have what is inarguably one of the world's best collections of vintage Gibsons and Martins.