Strings — old versus new and vice versa

[Guth]

I read some posts recently in a few different threads that prompted me to start this new thread...

 

Various people have commented on the tonal impact old strings can have on a guitar. This has been mentioned often when discussing guitar dealers and how numerous instruments are in dire need of string changes. I've also read of certain tonewoods requiring string changes more often than others.

 

Before I continue, I want to make a disclaimer that by "old strings" I am not referring to those which have gotten to the point that they are rusty or so grimy that they are almost unplayable. I'm also talking about regular strings here, not coated examples, which I have tended to avoid. I also understand that some folks' body chemistry results in very dead strings in a very short period of time, and that would probably best be left for a different discussion.

 

I've stated a few times that I actually prefer to first sample a guitar with an older set of strings. The reason for this is that I feel this setup tells me more about the tone of the guitar than simply experiencing it with a new set of strings. In my opinion, a good guitar should still sound good and be full of life with an older set of strings. It seems to me that you are simply hearing more of the guitar and less of the strings after the strings have mellowed or "played in" some. While the strings might loose a bit of their "edge" as they age a bit, notes on each string should still retain a good leading edge, or a strong fundamental if you will (I think of this as being "articulate").

 

I've experienced plenty of guitars (many different brands) that do tend to sound pretty dead right after the strings have lost that initial brightness. On a lot of guitars, the low E string in particular tends to have a hard time maintaining any clarity once the strings have begun to age. It's almost as if the new strings are glossing over the guitar's actual tone. I actually prefer the sound of strings that have been played in just a bit (only takes a day or two in my case) — not only for the sound, but I like the feel of them under my fingers better as well. I don't want to feel like I have to change the strings right after they've lost some of that initial brashness and settled in. As a result, I've found that guitars that still manage to sound good with older strings definitely appeal to me. In my experience, this applies to both mahogany and rosewood guitars (I have yet to own a maple-bodied guitar). Basically I'm not interested in a guitar that is constantly needing string changes in order to sound good to me. After the initial settling in period, I can usually get a month or two out of a set of strings before I notice much more degradation in tone, Even then, I might leave them on for longer before changing them out again.

 

Obviously all of the above is based on my own experiences and in my own opinion, etc.. Your mileage might vary and all that. And I can see where those of you who are performing musicians (I'm a couch player) would need to change strings more often regardless of any of the things I've mentioned above.

 

That said, I'm curious to know what others experiences have been in this context. Anyone else here experience the same? Do others simply crave the sound of new strings? I'm sure that enough variation exists amongst us that a decent discussion might be had on this topic.

 

All the best,

Guth

[zombywoof]

I have that alien spit sweat thing going but I blame it on my guitars which I swear eat strings.

 

With me, I would be more likely to want to hear a guitar that I have had little experience with strung up fresh. With guitars that I am familiar with from playing them for decades, I can pretty much hear what I need to no matter what guage strings are on it or how old the the strings are.

[Buc McMaster]

Oh yeah, I hear dat! I agree, Guth.......broken-in strings do sound nice on a good instrument. Punchier and more fundamental in nature......as you said: It's almost as if the new strings are glossing over the guitar's actual tone. Pretty much sums it up for me. I'm in the middle of a Pearse v. Gibson string shootout. Did the third change yesterday, back to Pearse, and was immediately struck by the brash tone, having replaced a 5 day old set of Gibson. The guitar sounds so much warmer when the strings go "neutral", lose the metallic overtones of new strings. And between these two sets, the Gibsons are closer to neutral when new than the Pearse, much closer......on my guitar at least. Better thump right out of the package.....more broken-in tone.

 

So yes.....I concur. Good thinking.......good post.

[Guth]

With me' date=' I would be more likely to want to hear a guitar that I have had little experience with strung up fresh.

[/quote']

 

This is a good point. If the guitar had older strings on it and you're seriously interested, I don't think any good shop would mind tossing on a new set of strings of your choice. Perhaps the best of both worlds from a trial experience?

 

All the best,

Guth

[Guth]

Buc,

 

I can see how a "string shootout" could be challenging without a common reference point. In other words, it would seem that any new set of strings is going to sound a bit more harsh than the played in set they are replacing. I'm guessing that making a recording of each brand after a few days allowed for break in would provide some decent results for comparison purposes. On the other hand, if you're able to get past that initial shock to the ears that a new set of strings supplies, over time I think we can tell which we generally prefer. At least at more of a subconscious level. Do let us know what you come up with.

 

All the best,

Guth

[albertjohn]

I usually use Martin SP PB 12s. I found a set of Elixirs in my bag the other week and put them on. They are harsh and tinny compared to the Martins but are gradually settling in. I had Robbie tweak the truss rod and slightly raise the nut slot on the g string as there was some buzzing - which I had not noticed (another reason to have someone else play your guitar every now and then.) After 5 mins, all the tone and warmth came back.

 

I don't like the sound of new strings too much. But I'd say it depends how you play. I'm and strummer/picker and very rarely use fingers. When I have finger picked, I'd say you notice the deadening of older strings more than thrashing away with my trusty Fender Medium picks.

 

Will be returning to the Martins soon.

[BigKahune]

Some interesting points you've brought up Guth.

 

I've found as my strings progress along their aging arc, there's a point where I finally realize the low end is gone and it's time for a change. It's always the low end I notice is gone, never the high end. To me it seems the wound strings age faster than the wires.

 

When I put a new strings go on, there's a - wow that sounds so lively and brash - moment. But it's really the low end that's sounding so much better along with the brashness of a new set. Depending how the high end sounds, sometimes I change out just the low E and/or A string/s. Not that I'm specifically looking to cut costs, but for me, the high often still sounds fine when the low is gone, and I'd rather avoid the brashness of a whole new set. So I'm saying I like my strings better a day or two after being changed, when they've calmed down.

[62burst]

Big-

 

Many classical guitar players will often replace only the 3 lower strings on their guitars. But I think much of that has

to do with how long it takes the nylon higher strings to settle down, tuning-wise.

 

I prefer a different string sound (age/manufacturer) on different guitars. On vintage, I think the guy who changed out these strings had it right to begin with:

 

Gibson Trojan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYlvCRz8Jtc

 

a good before/after.

 

When I do a/b shoot outs on guitars for potential purchase, I always try to get them all on the same fresh strings.

[Rambler]

On my hogs, I prefer the strings played in (so brash, new). Usually keep them on an unconscionably long time. On rosewood, one the new edge goods, they start to sound muddy and thuddy, to these years. What about maple?

[Buc McMaster]

I can see how a "string shootout" could be challenging without a common reference point. In other words' date=' it would seem that any new set of strings is going to sound a bit more harsh than the played in set they are replacing.[/quote']

 

My reference point was the tone of the Gibson set when freshly strung: the Gibson's had much less of the metallic ring of the Pearse set, both being new. The settling in process started from a better point with the Gibson set......they have a more fundamental tone right out of the package. After posting last night, I grabbed the 165 with the day old set of Pearse on it and listened carefully. Still a bit metallic in tone; not bad, mind you, just not as neutral as the Gibson's were one day in. Another factor is feel. The Gibson strings have a broken-in feel as well when new, much moreso than the Pearse. I have three more set of Pearse and two more Gibson's and will continue the one-to-the-other experiment, but at this point the Gibson's are ahead in initial feel and tone.

[zombywoof]

So, does anybody else but me like round wound nickel strings?

[Hoss]

Oh Yeah-- I have nickels on my small body maple....they're about a year old now and doing fine. And I tend to leave strings on until they break.

[Jack6849]

Okay Guth,

 

I'm interested in your comments about Gibson strings for acoustic guitar. I have, for years, strung up my acoustics with Martin 80/20 Light Gauge Bronze (Non-phosphor) strings and I love them. With that being my normal preference, which set of Gibson strings do you think I might like? If I can find them, I'll pick up a set to try this weekend, on either an SJ-200 "True Vintage" or a Martin Dreadnought (or maybe even on both....). Any favorite Gibson strings to recommend?

 

Like you, I don't usually go with a coated string. I also usually like the second day of a new string set a lot better than the first day. In fact, for a couple of days after installation, I normally think the Martin 80/20s seem to be improving with time.

 

Thanks,

Jack6849

[anzafrank]

I read some posts recently in a few different threads that prompted me to start this new thread...

 

Various people have commented on the tonal impact old strings can have on a guitar. This has been mentioned often when discussing guitar dealers and how numerous instruments are in dire need of string changes. I've also read of certain tonewoods requiring string changes more often than others.

 

Before I continue' date=' I want to make a disclaimer that by "old strings" I am not referring to those which have gotten to the point that they are rusty or so grimy that they are almost unplayable. I'm also talking about regular strings here, not coated examples, which I have tended to avoid. I also understand that some folks' body chemistry results in very dead strings in a very short period of time, and that would probably best be left for a different discussion.

 

I've stated a few times that I actually prefer to first sample a guitar with an older set of strings. The reason for this is that I feel this setup tells me more about the tone of the guitar than simply experiencing it with a new set of strings. In my opinion, a good guitar should still sound good and be full of life with an older set of strings. It seems to me that you are simply hearing more of the guitar and less of the strings after the strings have mellowed or "played in" some. While the strings might loose a bit of their "edge" as they age a bit, notes on each string should still retain a good leading edge, or a strong fundamental if you will (I think of this as being "articulate").

 

I've experienced plenty of guitars (many different brands) that do tend to sound pretty dead right after the strings have lost that initial brightness. On a lot of guitars, the low E string in particular tends to have a hard time maintaining any clarity once the strings have begun to age. It's almost as if the new strings are glossing over the guitar's actual tone. I actually prefer the sound of strings that have been played in just a bit (only takes a day or two in my case) — not only for the sound, but I like the feel of them under my fingers better as well. I don't want to feel like I have to change the strings right after they've lost some of that initial brashness and settled in. As a result, I've found that guitars that still manage to sound good with older strings definitely appeal to me. In my experience, this applies to both mahogany and rosewood guitars (I have yet to own a maple-bodied guitar). Basically I'm not interested in a guitar that is constantly needing string changes in order to sound good to me. After the initial settling in period, I can usually get a month or two out of a set of strings before I notice much more degradation in tone, Even then, I might leave them on for longer before changing them out again.

 

Obviously all of the above is based on my own experiences and in my own opinion, etc.. Your mileage might vary and all that. And I can see where those of you who are performing musicians (I'm a couch player) would need to change strings more often regardless of any of the things I've mentioned above.

 

That said, I'm curious to know what others experiences have been in this context. Anyone else here experience the same? Do others simply crave the sound of new strings? I'm sure that enough variation exists amongst us that a decent discussion might be had on this topic.

 

All the best,

Guth[/quote']

 

Nice thread, and very interesting in getting other people's thoughts/ideas on something that affects us all, all of the time. I couldn't agree more on playing a new or used guitar with old strings to get a good feel for the tone.

 

When I bought my 86 J-30 used from a private party, the strings were very old, and after playing/checking out the guitar/neck/tone etc., I had the guy flat pick certain chords, and when he hit a hard "A", that Gibson mid range bass punch which I liken to a set of old JBL L 100's, I had my hand in my pocket reaching for a wad of 7 one dollor bills. Old strings will tell you how the box really sounds IMHO.

 

Also I've noticed that alot of bar chording up and down the neck seems to dust the strings faster as you are getting more finger sweat on all the strings, and farther up the neck, not just on the first 3 frets.

 

Frank

[The G]

For what it's worth

I have 3 acoustics.

Martin HD-28

Taylor GA4

Gibson SJ WG

The only guitar that sound good with older strings (IMO) is the Gibson, and my SJ gets played more than the other two.

Don't know why, it's just my opinion.

[LeGreatOne]

Despite the fact that there are a few guitar string producers, compared to the many "Brand Names" of strings, the sound, quality, and playabilty varies quite a bit!

 

I have 7 or eight guitars, no two the same (and I may buy another very soon), so I use a lot of strings. I'm always looking to find the right strings for the particular guitar.

 

String gauge, the metal compound used, additional components such as silk (or its plastic-like substitute), and coating all affect tone and playability.

 

Most new strings may sound a bit "off" or "crashy" at first, but let them sit a few days and they sound considerably better. Personally, I like the brassy-crashiness of light Martin Marquis immediately after stringing; they mellow after a few days into a nice set, but lose that sharp edge.

On the other hand, light gauge Thomastik Infeld strings sound better a few days after stringing. The Thomastiks seem dull at first, but then open up... very peculiar, although humidity may affect the guitar's resonance, and THAT could be the reason for this peculiarity (probably is...). Nonetheless, I've noted this on several acoustics.

Thomastik flatwound jazz strings are somewhat dull (flat winding does that), but the FEEL is superb, and it's great to have silk wrapping over the string ends passing through one's Waverlys or Grovers... less scratching and damage over time.

 

Every set of D'arco or D'addario I've used over the years has sounded somewhat dark and dull; if you want "mystery" or "moodiness" from your acoustic, you may want to try these brands.

 

I've used John Pearse strings in Bronze and nickel and each has its own sound. The nickel varieties in particular have a Piano-like quality. I can ONLY compare these to the Black Diamond nickel strings I used decades ago, but the Pearse strings are a lot smoother and have lower tension. They actually give decent tone to my Guild GAD OM 30R, which has a wonderful neck, but too-thick polyurethane.

I think Elixers make almost every guitar sound Tayloresque, which I really don't like unless the guitar is a 12 string model. Elixers on 12-strings seem to invoke John Denver, and I like that. Elixers on 6 strings seem to sound plasticized, which, of course, they are...

 

THE FEEL of some strings is better than others, as well. For example, Martin's light MSP series have truly wonderful sound, but can feel a little rough at first, less smooth, than the Marquis series, probably due to the clearances in the winding process, or simply (to me) because I like a slightly heavier "light gauge" when using MSP. Every Marquis set I've used has been smooooooooth....

 

I once tried a set of Rotosound that felt like sharp gravel! No smoothness at all... That was the last set of that brand that I tried, so perhaps they've improved over the years, but I haven't been willing to try that brand again...

I like Elixers on my 12-string, but oddly enough, the coating doesn't make the strings feel smooth; rather the Elixers seem always to have a little roughness to them, although it isn't a "sharp" roughness... Elixers on 6 strings feel like plastic belts... I try them every now and then, hoping they'll feel different, but they are consistently unappealing to me.

 

Long ago, on solid bodied electrics I used Gibson Sonomatic flatwound strings, and they were great at that time. More recently, my Gretsch 6120 was strung with Gibson round wound electric guitar strings (when returned to me from the Gibson Restoration and Repair facility in Nashville), and the sound was very good - nice 'n twangy - but the strings were not wound all that tightly - they had a rough feel to them. Again, long ago, Fender had some interesting flat wound jazz strings wrapped in black nylon tape. Without a doubt, they were the most comfortable electric guitar strings I ever used, like soft rubber bands, but they sounded like nylon tape...

 

Martin Silk 'n Steel have a wonderful feel and they are low tension, GREAT for beginning players with soft fingers or blues bends on acoustics, but they are not particularly loud strings.

I've not tried many GHS or Ernie Ball strings sets; only a few, and neither impressed me.

 

Lat year I bought an Epiphone EL-00 to leave at my niece's home so I could play while visiting, and that guitar had some wonderful sounding Gibson strings, and they were smooth, as well. However, the tension was perhaps the highest I've ever felt on a set of strings - too high, so I changed them out to Martin Silk 'n Steel, which felt, haha... Too Soft! I need to find the right tension set for the little EL-00.

 

As to the original posters concern - strings new and old, and which sounds better, well, I've found that strings "past their prime" are just awful. They sound dead, have almost no sustain to them (no ring), and the longer you leave them on, the more likely you're going to break one when tuning. For me, sometimes I play many hours per day, and sometimes only a few minutes, but when the strings seem dead, I change 'em out. Older strings may FEEL more comfortable, but I think that's because we "get used to" them psychologically - sort of like driving a rental car, at first it feels odd, but after a few days it feels more or less "normal".

 

My biggest complaint about Brick 'n Mortar Guitar Stores is that they don't bother to adjust the truss rods to improve action and they don't change strings on their display guitars often enough. For example, if I go into a shop and find that specific guitar I'm interested in trying, and the strings are dead or the action is set "factory" (way high), then the guitar feels terrible and the sound is just as bad... So, I try some others and eventually walk out empty handed.

 

FWIW, I think acoustics that have internal pickups already have too much sound dampening, and when the strings are dead, well... the SOUND is stolen from the guitar and one cannot make an accurate judgement about it.

 

This happens too often, and has really "turned me off" some stores.

Newer strings always improve the quality of sound over old strings, and that has been trued with ecvery guitar I've owned. I've also "crossed boundaries" with strings, using acoustic strings on solid body electrics, and for the most part, the acoustic sound does carry through, but of course, the guitars are not as loud nor play as smoothly (usually)when strung in this manner.

 

The human ear may not be a sensitive as that of dogs, bats, whales, or cats, but it can tell us an amazing amount about a set of guitar strings.

 

Please forgive any typos... Thanx.