New Strings vs. Old ones?

H13

H13

Inspired
Hey all!

When I first got my AFX and was setting up presets, I went string-crazy and was changing them out every week to be in the optimum conditions to getting my patches right.

Well by now I think I've got my patches screaming how I want them to scream, except...on brand new strings they're (naturally) a tad bright and one-dimensional. They're lacking in depth.

That makes perfect sense to me because that's what new strings sound like.

So now I'm curious to what people think. Are new strings ALWAYS going to be better for tone or are 2 week old, well played, kinda manky strings cool?
 
Well, Clapton used to keep his strings on for over a year...

There's a difference between brand new, broken-in and dead strings. I'm one of the lucky people who have relatively dry skin and not so corrosive sweat, so strings take a long time to go from broken-in to dead for me. So, personally, I'd tweak my patches to sound best with broken-in strings.
 
I think for me this depends on pickups. My pickups isolate those frequencies where the brightness is coolest. And the corollary seems to be that when the strings begin to crimp microscopically or whatever they do with wear/build up (at about the two week point) then my pickups present them in their worst possible light.

Possibly with most pickups after two weeks they will be cool, but for me this is when they would be due for the emotional string retirement ceremony (meanwhile digging into the wallet for more string money). The D'Addario NY last a little longer for me.

Very few people probably like pickups in the first 3 or 4 hours the best, the way I do, for certain lead sounds (Van Halen, and Satriani among others). I do think this is because of my pickups, because it is at this point that those highest harmonics cooperate their best. (I've also been told my hearing is over-sensitive, and I am more particular about the higher bands when putting together a track).

I think the "average" is that people prefer them to be a little broken in and not "too bright", say after about 3-5 hours. Probably building presets based on the string at this level of wear and somewhat less bright sounding condition is a good idea for most players. Several I have asked have told me this. For them, a brand new set of strings is just a little too bright to tame. But I can look at it this way too, depending on what I'm playing at the time.

This brings up another question, that has none of the thoughtful political correctness that proper string sustainability conjures. Do you like a girl in her first night out in stilettos, or 20 or 40 years in?

All of them above.
 
Last edited:
I recall some amp being more revealing of dead strings than others. Specifically, the Emery Sound amps. With newer strings? Awesome. Dead strings were very difficult to liven up with that amp.

I don't notice it as much with the Axe FX, outside of new strings sounding too bright, as H13 said.

And, I also don't corrode strings quickly, thankfully.
 
H13 said:
Hey all!

When I first got my AFX and was setting up presets, I went string-crazy and was changing them out every week to be in the optimum conditions to getting my patches right.

Well by now I think I've got my patches screaming how I want them to scream, except...on brand new strings they're (naturally) a tad bright and one-dimensional. They're lacking in depth.

That makes perfect sense to me because that's what new strings sound like.

So now I'm curious to what people think. Are new strings ALWAYS going to be better for tone or are 2 week old, well played, kinda manky strings cool?
Click to expand...



Well I’m always glad when the new string phase is over and the broke in phase starts.

In my experience the strings sound and harmonize better when there broke in, not to mention tuning stability.

I never do any setup work like intonation or setting of string-action with (brand)new strings because the string-properties will change to an extent until the strings are broken in, same reason for not setting up presets with (brand)new strings.

Strings get changed when they start to not sound good anymore or create tuning issues, not when they’re X old.
 
I personally don't like the sound of new strings and equally don't like changing them on guitar or bass.

After I change strings, I play on them for at least 4 hours to break them in before I tweak any presets or make any adjustments to the neck, string height, pickup height, trem spring balance or intonation. I always adjust intonation last.

For guitar, I use regular round wound strings. For 5 string bass, I use a regular round wound for the low B but for the other 4 strings I use flat wounds because I personally think they sound more stable tone and volume wise especially when I switch from finger picking, slapping and using a pick. I use a regular round wound on the low B to give it extra punch and tone because the pitch is so low that it needs extra harmonics to be heard.

I'm lucky because strings stay OK sounding for many months. I know some people's string turn black and get nasty within a week.

I use Dunlop Ultraglide 65 String Conditioner to to keep my strings clean and to minimize string noise and the high pitch squeak on the high strings. It's a must for bass strings because they're so much more expensive than guitar strings.

http://www.jimdunlop.com/product/ultraglide-65-string-conditioner
 
Hmm, i use elixirs so they kind of already sound broken in. I use to do every gig, but thats way to much money going out, so I get about 3 gigs on a set now, after that I begin to question popping a string, but that hardly ever happens so it's mostly in my mind.
 
I use d'addario 9's and usually get 6-12 months before I start to notice a negative change in tone (3-6 months is probably best imo). I do wipe them down occasionally with wd40 and dry them back off with a paper towel. ymmv :)

Eddie VanHalen said he used to boil his strings to make them go dead as he preferred the tonal qualities of dead strings!?
 
there are two things that necessitate a string change for me. The high strings getting fried by the oils and acids of my hands. Or the lows becoming crimped from the frets. Generally the highs get fried before the lows get crimped from the frets. But it depends.

If both are going on, then I really really need to change them. Crimped strings are bad, Cause you start to get partial cancelation of frequencies. So less sustain and deader in the harmonics department.

These days its rare for me to break a string, or have my strings reach a point they wont stay in tune before i need to change them. I average about a month out of them.
 
H13 said:
...I think I've got my patches screaming how I want them to scream, except...on brand new strings they're (naturally) a tad bright and one-dimensional. They're lacking in depth.
Click to expand...
New strings are brighter than old strings. I don't get "one-dimensional" or "lacking in depth."

If the difference between new, mid-life and old strings bothers you, copy your presets and make different versions for each stage of string life.


H13 said:
Are new strings ALWAYS going to be better for tone...
Click to expand...
They're always going to be brighter. Whether that makes them better...that's a subjective thing. It depends on your preferences, and how you've dialed in your sound.


H13 said:
...or are 2 week old, well played, kinda manky strings cool?
Click to expand...
Yes. So are new strings.
 
Mr.nobody said:
WD40 jammed into fingertips over time may cause un-reversible tendonitis/arthritis like symptoms.
Click to expand...
Some people say WD40 causes arthritis. At least ten times as many people say it cures arthritis. The manufacturer says that these are myths.
 
I change em when they get dirty from playing, or when I need to wipe my fretboard down (I sweat a lot from the fingers when I play :( ). Tonally I like new strings the best but it's not that big a deal to me unless they're completely dead
 
Mr.nobody said:
http://www.ra-infection-connection.com/free_articles/wd40.htm
"WD-40 for Arthritis?

© 2005 Katherine Poehlmann, Ph.D."


A popular myth has grown around the use of WD-40 as a joint lubricant and pain reliever for arthritis. The liquid is sprayed on the painful joint much as one would fix a squeaky mechanical hinge. To be used by the body, the substance must be absorbed through the skin. The thinner the skin, the more is absorbed.

To date, no credible scientific studies have shown any benefit from the use of WD-40 for arthritis. In fact, there may be cumulative harmful effects. The manufacturer's warning indicates that contact with skin and vapors should be avoided. WD-40 contains petroleum distillates, as do gasoline and oil. Problems ranging from mild skin rash to severe allergic reactions have been reported. Prolonged exposure can cause cancer and other serious health problems.

WD-40 has a documented dangerous synergism with insecticides, notably pyrethrin, the active ingredient in head lice medication and some dandruff shampoos. Pyrethrin is made from dried, concentrated powder of flowers from the chrysanthemum family. Both the natural pyrethrin and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides mimic the hormone estrogen, which causes cell proliferation. Misuse of these insecticides can result in proliferation of breast cancer cells as well as endocrine disruption, kidney problems, and nerve damage.

Proponents of WD-40 may be experiencing a placebo effect or may realize some benefit from increased blood circulation in the affected area as the substance is massaged into the skin. Breathing the vapor may have a temporary pain-killing effect, but delicate linings in the nose, throat, mouth, and lungs may be damaged."
Click to expand...
Interesting information. It's good that she's debunking the arthritis myth, but I'm not so sure about the rest of it. The author's line of work seems to be shock-value medical reporting of the "everything you know is wrong" variety, and the promotion of her books. WD-40's "documented dangerous synergism with insecticides" appears to only be documented by people using the phrase "dangerous synergism" and providing no other information (for what it's worth, I don't recommend insecticide for guitar strings :) ), and she seems to be associated with people who dispense medical advice, have "Ph. D." after their names, but lack medical degrees.

@Brownmatthall: Thanks for bringing us back on topic.
 
Personally, I love fresh strings.

I change my strings when they start to sound "off". I'm not sure exactly what causes it, but the notes start to sound out of tune with each other even though they're spot-on according to the tuner. I assume it must be something that the tuner doesn't measure - perhaps the upper partials behaving differently w.r.t. the fundamental.

One thing I've noticed is that the "off" strings all have divots in the windings at the points of fret contact. I think this may be partly exacebated by hex-core strings. For me, all brands of uncoated hex-core strings last about 20 to 30 hours of playing. DR Tites, which have round cores according to the manufacturer, last noticeably longer.
 
Mr.nobody said:
All I can say is WTF at this^^. If you put that wd40 crap on guitar fret boards at Rusan Guitarworks, I wont be sending mine over.
I think it is irresponsible to advocate the use of a carcinogen.
Click to expand...
I think we're both in WTF-land. I don't know why you think I use or advocate the use of WD-40 on guitar fretboards.


Mr.nobody said:
Now lets get back on topic....
Click to expand...
Gladly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom