# Providing feedback to D'addario about their 8-string sets



## edkaye (Dec 31, 2011)

Hey guys! A while ago I received a batch of really corroded D'addario strings, and tweeted my displeasure. I was instantly contacted by a D'addario rep, who replaced the string free of charge. While we were chatting, I mentioned that I played an 8-string, as had seen they did some sets, but wasn't really keen on the gauges they were using. The guy said he'd send me a set, and asked me to provide some feedback.

The set I received was EXL140-8 Nickel Wound, 8-String, Light Top/Heavy Bottom, 10-74 - so 10 - 13 - 17 - 30- 42 -54 -64 - 74.

My guitar has a 26.5" scale, and I've been playing with them for about a week now, and I'm finding that there is way too much tension in the D, A, and E, which then drops off significantly for the B, then even more for the F#.

Here is the tension profile:

E .010" PL == 17.51#
B, .013" PL == 16.61#
G, .017" PB == 15.24#
D, .030" PB == 29.27#
A,, .042" PB == 32.33#
E,, .054" PB == 29.22#
B,,, .064" PB == 22.7#
F,,,# .074" PB == 16.26#

As you can see, not great.

I think part of the problem is that there are so many different scales being used for 8-strings. You have Baritones from 28-30", then shorter scales at 27", 26.5", and now even 25.5" 

I am going to suggest an alternate tension profile to them, using 26.5" as a middle ground for shorter scales, as it's between 25.5 and 27. Here's what I am going to suggest:

E .010" PL == 17.51#
B, .013" PL == 16.61#
G, .017" PB == 15.24#
D, .026" PB == 21.4#
A,, .036" PB == 23.62#
E,, .046" PB == 21.5#
B,,, .062" PB == 21.44#
F,,,# .080" PB == 18.37#

So basically, a regular six inch set, with a 62 for the B and an 80 for the F#. Ideally, I would like to have a 90 for the F#, as that would put the tension at 21.89. Sadly, D'addario don't do a 90. Ernie Ball does though, has anyone tried the 90 for their F#?

I might also suggest they do a baritone set. 28.625" seems like a pretty common scale, and good place to set the standard, so I was thinking

E .009" PL == 16.55#
B, .012" PL == 16.52#
G, .017" PB == 17.78#
D, .022" PB == 18.08#
A,, .030" PB == 19.17#
E,, .040" PB == 19.02#
B,,, .054 PB == 19.13#
F,,,# .072 PB == 18.15#
total == 144.39#


Thoughts?

Obviously I don't play a Bari, so feedback would be good.


----------



## fusion1 (Dec 31, 2011)

I'd like to understand how the tension works for strings. The D A E do seem so much higher at 29#/32#. Is the tension a static # that is determined by how it is manufactured? For example the 32# .042 A string, if that .042 is used as the E string that is basically a smaller gauge than most E string I ever use on a 6 string set, so wouldn't that lower the tension because of the distance of the tuner or is that not even part of the equation? I tried to get those tension calculators to work but I had no luck getting them to work. Does a thinner gauge string as a rule of thumb always mean higher or lower tension than a thicker gauge string or does this not apply at all?


----------



## edkaye (Dec 31, 2011)

fusion1 said:


> I'd like to understand how the tension works for strings. The D A E do seem so much higher at 29#/32#. Is the tension a static # that is determined by how it is manufactured? For example the 32# .042 A string, if that .042 is used as the E string that is basically a smaller gauge than most E string I ever use on a 6 string set, so wouldn't that lower the tension because of the distance of the tuner or is that not even part of the equation? I tried to get those tension calculators to work but I had no luck getting them to work. Does a thinner gauge string as a rule of thumb always mean higher or lower tension than a thicker gauge string or does this not apply at all?



On my recommended string profile, the E is actually 46, and the A is 42. This comes from a D'addario regular light gauge 10-46 pack, or an Ernie Ball Regular Slinky 10-46 pack.

10-46 is considered Normal for E standard tuning on a 6-string guitar. Typically, the thicker the string, the higher the tension, which is why you need to use thicker gauge strings to go for lower tuning, while maintaining normal tension. For example, I use a set of 12s for D standard, and 13s for C standard.

The reason the strings on the recommended baritone profile are so light is because the scale is so much longer, and the longer the scale, the higher the tension, which means you need to go for a slightly lower gauge to maintain normal tension.

Of course, this is all up to the user's preference, and I know some people who use a set of 13s for E standard, which gives you a very torte set of strings. There are also people who go down to 8, which enables some super bends, but also means the high E snaps very easily.


----------



## Danukenator (Jan 1, 2012)

Or if you use fanned frets you're just screwed! The issue with a standard tension is that it is so so subjective.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 1, 2012)

If D'Addario asked me for feedback, I'd suggest they read the string tension topics which come up here. All of them seem to get back to the notion that not following progressive tensioning leads to crappy sounding and feeling low strings. 

There is now a huge user base which uses 8-strings, and a lot of those people talk about string issues here. It's a market LaBella has courted, in the same way LaBella also helped developed the excellent JazzMando string set. LaBella's MTech is paying attention... but D'Addario, which I assume has at least the budget of LaBella, doesn't seem too interested. 

I'd be excited if D'Addario gave me a 8-string set at the same $8 price I can find for using my "default" Ernie Ball set (I have to add two plain strings to their six-string bass set), which *does* have a guitar-ball-end .090 in it.


----------



## fusion1 (Jan 1, 2012)

That really doesn't answer my question though. What determines the string tension? If the .042 is 32# used as the A string. What happens if you use that .042 string as the 6th E string? I would assume the tension would drop to mid 20#s. I am basing this on any 6 string pack I have where the E string is usually .050 or higher and I'm assuming most of the sets are balanced. 



edkaye said:


> On my recommended string profile, the E is actually 46, and the A is 42. This comes from a D'addario regular light gauge 10-46 pack, or an Ernie Ball Regular Slinky 10-46 pack.
> 
> 10-46 is considered Normal for E standard tuning on a 6-string guitar. Typically, the thicker the string, the higher the tension, which is why you need to use thicker gauge strings to go for lower tuning, while maintaining normal tension. For example, I use a set of 12s for D standard, and 13s for C standard.
> 
> ...


----------



## Winspear (Jan 1, 2012)

^ Yes you are right, string tension is determined by
Gauge - thicker = tighter
Pitch - higher = tighter
Scale Length - longer = tighter


----------



## vansinn (Jan 1, 2012)

edkaye said:


> I am going to suggest an alternate tension profile to them, using 26.5" as a middle ground for shorter scales, as it's between 25.5 and 27. Here's what I am going to suggest:
> 
> E .010" PL == 17.51#
> B, .013" PL == 16.61#
> ...



This will not not work too well for a standard F1#...E3 eight tuning.
This will balance better:

len 26.5"
E3 .010" P
B3 .013" P
G3 .017" P
D3 .024" N
A2 .034" N
E2 .044" N
B1 .060" N
F1# .080" N

I do feel a 010 set results in fairly high tensions even at a mere 26.5" scale (which I'm using myself). It is of course very subjective to each player..



edkaye said:


> I might also suggest they do a baritone set. 28.625" seems like a pretty common scale, and good place to set the standard, so I was thinking
> 
> len 27" (or longer)
> E3 .009" P
> ...



This will work fairly well for those who likes bending strings in standard tuning.
Maybe the B1 should be a 052; the F1# should be a least 074.

BTW, in your examples, you used the (tension calculator ) default PB which is Phosphor Bronce, i.e. strings for acustics 
I corrected those to N - Nickel wrap, plus corrected the G3 from a wound string to plain.
I didn't do the calculations, as the java applet f*cks up my browser and I'm working on things now. Should be fairly accurate, though..


----------



## edkaye (Jan 1, 2012)

vansinn said:


> BTW, in your examples, you used the (tension calculator ) default PB which is Phosphor Bronce, i.e. strings for acustics
> I corrected those to N - Nickel wrap, plus corrected the G3 from a wound string to plain.
> I didn't do the calculations, as the java applet f*cks up my browser and I'm working on things now. Should be fairly accurate, though..



Oh shit!

OK, I'll redo them in he morning, when I'm less drunk. Happy New Year!


----------



## Asrial (Jan 1, 2012)

You might want to give some response in which you send him two sets of data: One which contains measurements for 27" (baritone), and one which contains measurements for 25,5", since ESP is going all in on normal-scaled 8-strings.


----------



## edkaye (Jan 1, 2012)

Screw it, I fought through the drink and re-did them.

What they have now:

len 26.5"

E .010" PL == 17.51#
B, .013" PL == 16.61#
G, .017" PL == 17.89#
D, .030" NW == 27.04#
A,, .042" NW == 28.42#
E,, .054" NW == 26.12#
B,,, .064 NW == 20.79#
F,,,# .074 NW == 15.39#
total == 169.77#

What I was thinking of suggesting:

len 26.5"

E .010" PL == 17.51#
B, .013" PL == 16.61#
G, .017" PL == 17.89#
D, .026" NW == 19.88#
A,, .036" NW == 21.1#
E,, .046" NW == 18.88#
B,,, .062 NW == 19.61#
F,,,# .080 NW == 17.9#
total == 149.38#

What you suggested:

len 26.5"

E .010" PL == 17.51#
B, .013" PL == 16.61#
G, .017" PL == 17.89#
D, .024" NW == 17.03#
A,, .034" NW == 19.01#
E,, .044" NW == 17.38#
B,,, .060 NW == 18.45#
F,,,# .080 NW == 17.9#
total == 141.8#

I do like that tension profile, but I think the problem is that they don't actually make any six string sets that match that profile. That was the reason I was thinking of suggesting the regular 10-46 set with two extra strings. They'll probably be more open to that, as they already have a 7-string set that is basically a 10-46 set with an extra string thrown in.

About 10s for that scale. It's a tricky one, because if you drop down to 9s you loose a lot of tension, and end up with less tension than a set of 10s on a 25.5" scale. also, as you say, it's all a matter of preference.

Also, with NW factored in, I can now see that using a .090 would be way too much, and would result in a tension of 21.65 lb - holy cow!

To the guy who told them to read the multiple threads here - I think the guy I'm talking with has read some of the threads, but as you can see, there are a lot of different ones, and a few contradictory ones. I think a large factor in their confusion is the fact that we ERG players use so many different scales.

For the bariton scale, I made a huge fuck up by having that G set as a wound string. I have now done them with the right settings, using what Agile ships a 28.625" with as standard.

len 28.625"

E .009" PL == 16.55#
B, .012" PL == 16.52#
G, .015" PL == 16.25#
D, .022" NW == 16.81#
A,, .030" NW == 17.71#
E,, .040" NW == 16.94#
B,,, .052 NW == 15.57#
F,,,# .072 NW == 17.09#
total == 133.43#

That makes for a much more even profile.


----------



## edkaye (Jan 1, 2012)

fusion1 said:


> That really doesn't answer my question though. What determines the string tension? If the .042 is 32# used as the A string. What happens if you use that .042 string as the 6th E string? I would assume the tension would drop to mid 20#s. I am basing this on any 6 string pack I have where the E string is usually .050 or higher and I'm assuming most of the sets are balanced.



It sounds like you are using a .012 - .052 pack: D'Addario Strings : XL Nickel Round Wound : EJ21 Nickel Wound, Jazz Light, 12-52

Tuned to E this typically produces more tension that the average guitarist likes, but as mentioned, a lot of this is up to personal preference.

If you tuned a .042 as an E on a 25.5 inch scale, it would result in a tension of 14.77, instead of the usual tension of 18.88, which is normal for a .052 tuned to E. So, it would feel really slack.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 1, 2012)

i hate the d'addario one's because I'm colorblind lol!


----------



## fusion1 (Jan 1, 2012)

I never tune to standard E on 6 string. I'm at the least 1/2 step flat or a full step flat. I do use that 12-52 set as well as others in that ballpark. Teach me how to use that tension calculator as I seem to make it crash in any browser I try and it doesn't yield results, or doesn't yield results I can understand.



edkaye said:


> It sounds like you are using a .012 - .052 pack: D'Addario Strings : XL Nickel Round Wound : EJ21 Nickel Wound, Jazz Light, 12-52
> 
> Tuned to E this typically produces more tension that the average guitarist likes, but as mentioned, a lot of this is up to personal preference.
> 
> If you tuned a .042 as an E on a 25.5 inch scale, it would result in a tension of 14.77, instead of the usual tension of 18.88, which is normal for a .052 tuned to E. So, it would feel really slack.


----------



## leandroab (Jan 1, 2012)

The thing with tension here is not about scale, but equal tension throughout the strings. doesn't matter which scale you have, as long as the tension is relatively the same with all strings, let it be 15lb, 18lb, 30lb... That amount of tension should be determined by the set... So if you have a 28" scale you'd get a light set... If you have a 25.5" scale you'd get a heavy set...

What we have nowadays is a completely unbalanced scheme of string sets which puts the lower strings looser and the higher strings tighter, which doesn't make any sense....


----------



## Pooluke41 (Jan 1, 2012)

leandroab said:


> The thing with tension here is not about scale, but equal tension throughout the strings. doesn't matter which scale you have, as long as the tension is relatively the same with all strings, let it be 15lb, 18lb, 30lb... That amount of tension should be determined by the set... So if you have a 28" scale you'd get a light set... If you have a 25.5" scale you'd get a heavy set...
> 
> What we have nowadays is a completely unbalanced scheme of string sets which puts the lower strings looser and the higher strings tighter, which doesn't make any sense....



That's why Daddario need to bump the 59 in their 10-59 set to a 66.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Jan 1, 2012)

i would make it .42-.09 with a low .52/.54 and a low .74, as that balances just perfectly as far as feel goes.


----------



## Andrenighthound (Jan 1, 2012)

9,12,15,22,32,46,68,90 with a 28.65 scale. Not sure of the balance but it feels pretty even to me. I tune the low string to F# I wish I could find a guitar string larger than .090 so I can drop down to low E. I play mostly clean with the low string and like a lot of tension to elliminate buzz. I kind of got a hard attach on the strings but I'm trying to play a little softer on the low strings.


----------



## fusion1 (Jan 1, 2012)

So someone come up with a balanced set of strings starting with an .011 or .012 with a 26.5" scale and that I normally will tune down a half or whole step. 

Detail how this would be input into a tenson calculator and how to read the results. Thanks.


----------



## MTech (Jan 1, 2012)

Explorer said:


> There is now a huge user base which uses 8-strings, and a lot of those people talk about string issues here. It's a market LaBella has courted, in the same way LaBella also helped developed the excellent JazzMando string set. LaBella's MTech is paying attention... but D'Addario, which I assume has at least the budget of LaBella, doesn't seem too interested.



I wish they had the budget of Daddario, those guys have the most expensive and impressive machine made string factory there is and it's supposed to be really incredible to see. If they had that kinda money like the BIG name guys then they'd be in all the stores everywhere plus maybe I'd get a sweet job. I just help them out cause they're great people and I like most didn't know about them because they don't have the hundreds of thousands of millions to advertise like crazy. They put their money into the product. I got hooked on the HRS because they have clarity/articulation beyond anything else I've found out there and prior to them I used DR Hi-Beam but they didn't make them big. I approached them stating that everything that's a perk about that line is everything all the drop tune guys want..but they didn't make anything larger than 10-48... now they have tons of pre-packaged sets and you can get custom sets ordered direct easily now in any gauges you want because they're custom handwound and not machine made. Honestly this never would have happened if it wasn't for my love of a lot of heavier bands and me reading all of what you guys constantly say on here and standing up to actually do something about it.


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 1, 2012)

Looks like Circle K Strings may have progressive and equal tension 7-10 string sets in the works ..
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/standard-guitars/182377-circle-k-strings-new-guitar-sets-increment-balanced-tension-bottom-heavy.html#post2804181
Circle K Strings - 6 String Guitar Sets


----------



## edkaye (Jan 2, 2012)

fusion1 said:


> So someone come up with a balanced set of strings starting with an .011 or .012 with a 26.5" scale and that I normally will tune down a half or whole step.
> 
> Detail how this would be input into a tenson calculator and how to read the results. Thanks.



Not sure why the applet is giving you problems. It might be to do with the Java plugin. You might want to use a different browser. I'm using Chrome, which seems to work well.

Here's an 0.011 set using EXL115 Nickel Wound, Medium/Blues-Jazz Rock, 11-49 as the basis for the primary 6 strings.

Half step down

Eb .011" PL == 18.88#
B,b .014" PL == 17.16#
G,b .018" PL == 17.87#
D,b .028" NW == 20.5#
A,,b .038" NW == 20.76#
E,,b .049" NW == 18.94#
A,,,b .070 NW == 17.51#
F,,, .080 NW == 15.95#
total == 147.57#

One step down:

D .011" PL == 16.82#
A, .014" PL == 15.29#
F, .018" PL == 15.92#
C, .028" NW == 18.26#
G,, .038" NW == 18.5#
D,, .049" NW == 16.87#
G,,, .070 NW == 15.6#
E,,, .080 NW == 14.21#
total == 131.47#

And a 12 set, using EJ21 Nickel Wound, Jazz Light, 12-52 as the basis:

Half a step down

Eb .012" PL == 22.47#
B,b .016" PL == 22.42#
G,b .024" PL == 31.77#
D,b .032" NW == 27.04#
A,,b .042" NW == 25.32#
E,,b .052" NW == 21.18#
B,,,b .070 NW == 22.06#
F,,, .080 NW == 15.95#
total == 188.21#

One step down:

D .012" PL == 20.02#
A, .016" PL == 19.97#
F, .024" PL == 28.31#
C, .032" NW == 24.09#
G,, .042" NW == 22.56#
D,, .052" NW == 18.87#
G,,, *.074* NW == 17.27#
F,,, *.090* NW == 19.57#
total == 170.65#

Looks to me like the 11 set would be best for going half a step down, and the 12 for a full step down. Going a full step down on the 11s will result in a lack of tension over all the strings.

Using a 12 set, when you tune down to G and E on the thickest strings, you lose some serious tension, so you'll need to use a .074 for the G and a .090 for the F. D'addario don't make one, but Ernie ball do.


----------



## fusion1 (Jan 2, 2012)

thanks edkaye! Are there any balanced 11 sets that come from the factory right now from D'addario or Erne Ball? I saw the Circle K balanced sets but they are an untried brand, so... Seems like the G and D strings have too much tension in the 11 set and the G,D and A strings in the 12 string set as is on paper, although in actual use I never seem to notice this as a problem with either set on my 6 string guitars.


----------



## NixerX (Jan 2, 2012)

Im going with standard 6 string d'addario 10's with a .70 and .80 in the bass. Dropped A and E on the low end.


----------



## ddawson2012 (Jan 2, 2012)

I'll share the info you posted. We have some plans in the mix for single string sets but more on that in the near future. Thanks for the feedback and please keep it coming. This IS how new products get created. 

Happy new year all!

Don Dawson
Marketing Specialist
D'Addario / Planet Waves


----------



## fusion1 (Jan 2, 2012)

Thanks for checking in Mr. Dawson! Great to see some companies actually care what the customers want. Good job!


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 2, 2012)

edkaye said:


> What you suggested:
> len 26.5"
> E .010" PL == 17.51#
> B, .013" PL == 16.61#
> ...


They do an equal tension set EXL111 .010 .0135 .017 .024 .034 .046, so i suggest using that and add a .062 B equal in tension to the .046 E. For F# i suggest a big but flexible new D'Addario string equal in tension to the .62 B. There are now so many people using F# and lower they really should make some bigger guitar strings.

Seems intuitive that as the mass of a string increases, the more tension is needed to keep that mass under control and in tight vibration (which is why a .010 top E is fine but a .074 F# is floppy at similar tension) so at the very least the tension should remain the same and certainly not fall.

In physics tension is determined by 'unit weight' of a string U (weight per one inch length), scale length L, frequency F:
T = U x (2 x L x F)squared / 386.4
Re-arranging equation:
U = T x 386.4 / (2 x L x F)squared
With tension and scale length constant:
U is proportional to 1 / Fsquared
Going down a fourth, F is multiplied by 1 / (2 ^ (5/12) )
So U is multiplied by ( 2 ^ (5/12) )squared = 1.7818

Accurate rule for equal tension: Down a fourth -> multiply unit weight by 1.7818
Accurate rule for equal tension: Down a major third -> multiply unit weight by 1.5874

So multiplying U of .062 by 1.7818

0.00070697 x 1.7818 = .00125968
Their bass nickel .085 has unit weight 0.00133702 so i'm guessing a new guitar .084 would be ideal.

.010 .0135 .017 .024 .034 .046 .062 .084
(note the gauge x 4/3 rough rule for equal tension is working here: 46 x 4/3 = 61.33, 62 x 4/3 = 82.67)


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 2, 2012)

Of course equalising the tensions does not necessarily create an even feel or playability across a set. During the last 7 years of experimentation i personally found the optimum to be tension falling slightly and steadily from low to high, this creates an even pitch response to bending and an even response to tapping, amongst many other advantages.

The low B and F# of guitars seem to be treated in a similar way to the low B of a bass, in that the tension is much lower than the higher strings. My best guess as to why is to 'balance the sound' ... gauge increases exponentially, so across the lowest strings the tonal jump (due to increase in gauge) from string to string becomes more noticeable. Perhaps a middle-heavy / light bottom set redistributes some tonal change to the higher strings for even and minimised string to string tonal jumps.

If i'm correct with the above guess my answer is to get used to tonal jumps and accept them, playability is more important.

So here's an 8 string F#BEADGBE set chosen via unit weight from the D'Addario tension chart http://www.daddario.com/upload/tension_chart_13934.pdf with tension falling steadily from low to high (except top B and E which are at same tension).

scale 25.5"
.009 13.1 pounds tension
.012 13.1
.016p 14.7
.024w 15.8
.034 17.6
.048 18.9
.066 20.5
.090 21.6 (XLB bass string)


----------



## edkaye (Jan 3, 2012)

ixlramp said:


> Of course equalising the tensions does not necessarily create an even feel or playability across a set. During the last 7 years of experimentation i personally found the optimum to be tension falling slightly and steadily from low to high, this creates an even pitch response to bending and an even response to tapping, amongst many other advantages.
> 
> The low B and F# of guitars seem to be treated in a similar way to the low B of a bass, in that the tension is much lower than the higher strings. My best guess as to why is to 'balance the sound' ... gauge increases exponentially, so across the lowest strings the tonal jump (due to increase in gauge) from string to string becomes more noticeable. Perhaps a middle-heavy / light bottom set redistributes some tonal change to the higher strings for even and minimised string to string tonal jumps.
> 
> ...



You just broke my brain!

I was under the impression that bass strings don't vibrate the same as a thick guitar string, as so shouldn't be used on an 8-string.



> thanks edkaye! Are there any balanced 11 sets that come from the factory right now from D'addario or Erne Ball? I saw the Circle K balanced sets but they are an untried brand, so... Seems like the G and D strings have too much tension in the 11 set and the G,D and A strings in the 12 string set as is on paper, although in actual use I never seem to notice this as a problem with either set on my 6 string guitars.



As ixlramp said, EXL111 is a balance 10-46 set. However, I've been playing EXL110 for years, and it feels really natural to me, so it seems that having them fully balanced may not be completely necessary, and a lot of it is to do with preference.


----------



## edkaye (Jan 3, 2012)

fusion1 said:


> thanks edkaye! Are there any balanced 11 sets that come from the factory right now from D'addario or Erne Ball? I saw the Circle K balanced sets but they are an untried brand, so... Seems like the G and D strings have too much tension in the 11 set and the G,D and A strings in the 12 string set as is on paper, although in actual use I never seem to notice this as a problem with either set on my 6 string guitars.



Oh wait, you asked about balanced sets of 11 and 12s. Looking at their site it doesn't look like it. But I've played their standard 11s 12s and 13s before for D standard and C standard, and the slight peak in tension you get on the A, D and G strings feels pretty normal to me as I've been playing with that tension profile for decades.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 3, 2012)

Sorry if I am hijacking the thread, but I tried these on my new rg2228 I got and the tension got super tight compared to where it was, you recommend going down to .09's? (it felt like that was what came stock) Or you know any secrets to setting it up? I'm like a soup sandwich when it comes to setting up guitars with different gauges but as much as I'm sure it's easy to order strings separately I was kinda hoping these would be an easy solution due to my laziness.


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 3, 2012)

ixlramp said:


> .009 13.1 pounds tension
> .012 13.1
> .016p 14.7
> .024w 15.8
> ...





edkaye said:


> I was under the impression that bass strings don't vibrate the same as a thick guitar string, as so shouldn't be used on an 8-string.


Yeah exactly, bass strings are designed different, thicker core etc., i forgot to mention i was just using the unit weight of an XLB090 to choose the gauge of a new D'Addario guitar string.
Then again, i heard from knuckle_head that CIrcle K Strings bass strings are made with a close to guitar formula: thinner core and more flexibility, so their bass strings may work well as guitar strings.


----------



## edkaye (Jan 10, 2012)

Dunno if anyone is still reading this thread, but I'm resurrecting it, like a putrid zombie playing guitar.

So I tried ordering strings through the two big guitar stores in our area. One laughed when I asked to order an .080 and flat out refused, the other quoted me $8.99 PER STRING. I told them to bugger off and am now putting an order together with juststrings.com

As they have a wide range of gauges I'm going to order a few to try out. I'm reluctant to go up to .090 for the F# so and going for an .080. I was also going to order a .062 for the B, but then thought why not try a .059, which is what D'addario use in their seven string sets. This would give:

E,, .046" NW == 18.88#
B,,, .059" NW == 17.8#
F,,,# .080" NW == 17.9#

Rather than 

E .046" NW == 18.88 lbs
B .062 NW == 19.61 lbs
F# .080 NW == 17.9 lbs

So while there would be a tension drop between the E and B, the tension of the F# would match that of the B. This would mean that while the B would feel a bit slacker than the E the F# will feel nice relative to the B.

Anyone else tried this?


----------



## edkaye (Jan 13, 2012)

Alright. I've finally done my order of strings for my Schecter. Decided to go try one of the new sexy balanced 6-string packs (EX111), then throw on a .060 and a .080. It should look like this:

26.5" scale

E .010" PL == 17.51lb
B .0135" PL == 17.91lb
G .017" PL == 17.89lb
D .024" NW == 17.03lb
A .034" NW == 19.01lb
E .046" NW == 18.88lb
B .060 NW == 18.45lb
F,,, 0.080 NW == 17.9lb
total == 144.59lb (my current is 165 or something)

As you can see, it starts at 17.5, gradually rises and peaks at 19, then falls of slightly to 17.9. Hells yes!

As you see, slight fall off to the B, then a little more to the F#, but overall pretty balanced. Decided not to go with a .062, because the drop to the F# would be too much. I'll let you know how it feels.


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 13, 2012)

Good choice, makes a lot of sense within the limit of a gauge .080,


----------



## trickae (Jan 14, 2012)

they could introduce a baritone scale set - since most people don't own guitars beyond a 25.5"


----------



## vansinn (Jan 14, 2012)

edkaye said:


> Alright. I've finally done my order of strings for my Schecter. Decided to go try one of the new sexy balanced 6-string packs (EX111), then throw on a .060 and a .080. It should look like this:
> 
> 26.5" scale
> 
> ...



I agree this looks nicely balanced. Owning a 26.5" Riot 8, the .080 would concern me, even at F#1. At 26.5", I would need at a .085 for this, or at least a .082.
I see you've specified your lowermost as F1, not the tuning-wise matching F#1; is this on purpose? If so, I seriously fail to understand a .080..

If D'Addario were to release balanced 8-string sets - which I really hope they will, I would suggest *the above set - with a 082* - for one set of scales and playing styles, *and another ligher set* with approximately the same string-to-string balance for those preferring either a more slinky feel or playing longer scales.
Such two sets would likely fill the bill for a reasonable range of 8-string players using the most common 26.5" - 27.5" scales.

It will be interesting to see how D'Addario will make the low string, and how well it'll perform. With this comment I'm referring to my own experiments using a D'Addario 085 bass string at 26.5", which did not at all sound good above 7-8th fret.
The problem with finding a string sounding good at least up till about 12-14th fret finally drove me to retune to A1...G3.


Unrelated to this specific set, I agree with jxlramp that even though a calculated set looks perfect, a few gauge offsets is often needed for fully matching overall tonal balance, output levels and personal feel, the latter especially if being a bending shredder 

I would be absolutely happy if I could buy one of such two standard sets, and only initially have to experiment with swapping one wound and one plain, a Bit of testing later ending up with "nah, all the wound ones are virtually fine, I only need to swap the high E or B with one half a step more or less" - which is often my case anyways 

Which reminds me to order and try out the new LaBella balanced set. C'mon D'Addario, we need more readily available ERG sets, and competition is always the driving force for all!


----------



## Meximelt (Jan 18, 2012)

I was planning on talking to them about ordering a custom set. I use the 9-54 7 string set with a 80 tuned to drop E. Was going to see if i could swap out the 54 for a 56 and add the 84 from the Jerry Jones set. Tension would even out a lot better on the low end.

Thought I'd add the tension in here. Just approximate tension on the Agile Intrepid's 28.625 inch scale.

E- .009=17lbs
B- .011=14lbs
G- .016=18.75lbs
D-.024=21.5lbs
A- .032=21.5lbs
E- .042=21lbs
B- .056=20.75lbs
E- .084=20.75lbs

The only problem i can find is that the Jerry Jones .084 is the only string with a guitar ball end that you can't order singles of. If they will allow it tension feels perfect.


----------



## ixlramp (Jan 19, 2012)

D'Addario just launched a lighter 8 string set:







.065?


----------



## vansinn (Jan 19, 2012)

Dear oh dear, and just as I though some light might be visible at the end of the tunnel - it's just got even longer.

@D'Addario: You should use an online tension calculator.. 

Some comments, and yes, I do realize this is intended as a light set, but:
009, 011, 016 : Maybe the 016 will do, but the 011 will be way too slinky, and should've been a 0115. A 012 would likely not fit too well with a 016.

Intended as a light set, I question the 024. It's possible it'll work, but I would've chosen a 022.
The 054 wil likely fare ok for B1.

But how on earth can anyone come up with a 065, even for a light set?
Everyone in here knows that the often fairly standard factory fitted 074 only occationally gets an ok comments.

I would call something like: 009, 0115, 016, 024, 034, 044, 056, 074 a light set - for 27" scales, and would call it outright slinky on 26.5" scale.

For the two lower-most strings, I use Ernie Ball Power Slinky 070 and 050 bass strings on my 26.5" Riot 8, tuned A1, D2 (A1...G4 tuning), and those only just feels tensioned enough.


I guess the reason why string manufacureres don't hire people from ss.org is that it could result in employees loosing jobs..
Mmnn.. maybe I'm too much of an open mouth at times. Spank me..


----------



## Meximelt (Jan 19, 2012)

The .011 for a b3 isn't bad on my intrepid.


----------



## potatohead (Jan 19, 2012)

This is a bit off topic but if the D'addario guy is still reading this thread, I want to mention something.

Why in the world are 9 - 42 or 9 - 46 sets using an .011 instead of a .012? It makes absolutely no sense other than that's what everybody else is doing. A .011 has 11 lbs of tension at b . I hate buying single 12's with my 9 - 46's. 

Also, please make a 10-13-17-28-38-48/49 set... Like yesterday. This will sell. 

Thanks.


----------



## djinn314 (Jan 22, 2012)

if there's an EXL-120-8 why not make an EXL-130? I'm not a fan of the 140-8's (two brand new sets, strings were...not like normal guitar strings, maybe a fluke but it sucked going through two sets back to back). I'll probably end up with Kurt Menigan or whatever his name is.


----------



## DoomJazz (Feb 8, 2012)

EDIT: Made new thread


----------



## vansinn (Feb 8, 2012)

@DoomJazz: I might suggest a separate EAEA thread for this, as several of your wound gauges are non-standard, which is sorta useless (even with D'Addario, who carry the largest half-gauge plain selection).


----------



## edkaye (Feb 21, 2012)

ixlramp said:


> D'Addario just launched a lighter 8 string set:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh my, that would be great for... Oh wait, nope that sucks for pretty much any scale!


----------



## edkaye (Feb 21, 2012)

vansinn said:


> I agree this looks nicely balanced. Owning a 26.5" Riot 8, the .080 would concern me, even at F#1. At 26.5", I would need at a .085 for this, or at least a .082.
> I see you've specified your lowermost as F1, not the tuning-wise matching F#1; is this on purpose? If so, I seriously fail to understand a .080..
> 
> If D'Addario were to release balanced 8-string sets - which I really hope they will, I would suggest *the above set - with a 082* - for one set of scales and playing styles, *and another ligher set* with approximately the same string-to-string balance for those preferring either a more slinky feel or playing longer scales.
> ...



No, that's a typo, it should be F#. Something like an .082 would be great, but it's unlikely they are going to produce a whole new gauge of string just for us 8-stringers. They already have an .080 in production though.


----------



## Rook (Feb 22, 2012)

On my 2228 I had 11-54, 66, 80 and it felt perfect, if anything the 80 should have been a little tighter.

I love really heavy string, particularly on the bottom 2 or 3, manufacturers really struggle with these kits I feel.

In drop D (on a 6) having the low D as a 60 feels great but the 12-60 sets are just little too tight, the top 3 of a set of 11's would be better but I can't be doing with splitting up sets :-S

Even tension across all strings doesn't feel best for me, I play the lowest four strings very differently to the top 3 or 4...


----------



## ixlramp (Mar 10, 2012)

Hall of shame (tensions for 25.5" scale) ...


----------



## rekab (Mar 10, 2012)

On the upside:
This light set might work great for the tuning I use 
(low to high) GDGCFBbDG On my C8 (26.5")


----------



## Guitarwiz2k (Mar 11, 2012)

ixlramp said:


> D'Addario just launched a lighter 8 string set:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I got a set, and that 65 is pretty bad... and it seems this set even came on my new RGA8-QM. The very next day I got the guitar, I ordered a 68... Now I know many seem to enjoy the 72's and 74's, but after playing them for a month on my RGA8-BK, I did a comparison, and the 8-string set, with the modified 68 feels completely natural from low to high, either shreading, chord voicings, quick rhythms or tapping. 

I found the 74 a bit too thick to pass at the same rate of speed naturally as the "B" right next to it, but the 65 feels like a toy when playing quick rhythms, and is way too slinky. 

Just my  ... but, just that one minor change would transition a lot better from string to string, in my humble opinion.


----------



## mustache79 (Mar 14, 2012)

So, I have just bought an Agile 828. I want this thing to be a djent machine tuned for standard or perhapse a half step down. I'm thinking a 9-42 set +60 gauge +80

any suggestions?


----------



## AliceLG (Mar 14, 2012)

My feedback to D'Addario: I find the EXL140-8 set is perfect for my 7-string guitar tuned a whole step down, I just take out the 7th string from the set (That one I use on my 6 string in dropped C). The top strings are very light and comfortable to bend, and the bottom strings are just amazingly tight.


----------



## vansinn (Mar 14, 2012)

Guitarwiz2k said:


> ..new RGA8-QM. The very next day I got the guitar, I ordered a 68... Now I know many seem to enjoy the 72's and 74's, but after playing them for a month on my RGA8-BK, I did a comparison, and the 8-string set, with the modified 68 feels completely natural from low to high, either shreading, chord voicings, quick rhythms or tapping.
> 
> I found the 74 a bit too thick to pass at the same rate of speed naturally as the "B" right next to it...



While some natural progression in string thicknesses, and as such the feeling under the fingertips, is always preferred, still, it really doesn't take that long getting used to a more severe gauge jump on the lowermost string.

On 26.5" scale, my two low A1 and D2 tuned strings are 075 and 050, which initially makes the 075 feel like an abrupt step-up in size.
070+050 did feel like a more natural progression, but the 070 just didn't have the tension.
The step from 050 to 075 took maybe a couple hours getting used to, that's all 

Tuning to F1# on a 27" scale, I wouldn't be able to use a 068 at all, and I'm not even a heavy handed rythm/djent player, more a mix of open picking chords and shredding, both high and low, and playing with a pointy stone pick which require precision picking.


----------



## stuglue (Mar 14, 2012)

I asked daddario if they had any strings that could accommodate a high A tuning. They said they didn't have any and the steel wouldn't be adequate to tune that high


----------



## DoomJazz (Mar 14, 2012)

I ended up getting a balanced string set using an online calculator and ordering from LaBella. Tension was ~14lbs for the plain wound strings and ~15lbs for the rest of them. I felt funky at first and I tried to like it, but I really think just ordering a set of D'addarios would be best for me in the end. Oh well, Strokes and Folks.


----------



## ixlramp (Mar 14, 2012)

mustache79 said:


> So, I have just bought an Agile 828. I want this thing to be a djent machine tuned for standard or perhapse a half step down. I'm thinking a 9-42 set +60 gauge +80
> 
> any suggestions?



As a starting point use the tension charts here: http://www.daddario.com/upload/tension_chart_13934.pdf to match the tensions of the F# and B to the .042 E. Result is a .056 B and a .074 F#. The rule is this: for an equal tension string a fourth lower, multiply the unit weight by 1.782. After trying this as a starting point i recommend you perfect your set by feel and experimentation.

EDIT: Or for a slight and smoother increase in tension from E to F# go .042 .058 .080.



AliceLG said:


> My feedback to D'Addario: I find the EXL140-8 set is perfect for my 7-string guitar tuned a whole step down, I just take out the 7th string from the set



 well that shows how bad that set is, the fact that .054 to .074, and skipping the .064, is a good progression for a fourths interval  you reading this D'Addario?



DoomJazz said:


> I ended up getting a balanced string set using an online calculator and ordering from LaBella. Tension was ~14lbs for the plain wound strings and ~15lbs for the rest of them. I felt funky at first and I tried to like it, but I really think just ordering a set of D'addarios would be best for me in the end.



I doubt it seeing the evidence in this thread, a D'Addario set would be worse. You just haven't found your optimum gauges yet, keep experimenting!  An equal tension set is not necessarily optimum for everyone, you might prefer a slight and progressive fall in tension from low to high.


----------



## Guitarwiz2k (Mar 15, 2012)

I guess for me, because I switch guitars on a gig so much; It's not so much a getting used to anymore, but just the transitions between strings, and even between my 6 or seven string. With the 6 and 7 I don't feel that discomfort of a change in gauge, but with one particular 8 string I feel it when I play that one. So I've gone ahead and replaced my 8 strings with a 68 on the low F#, then to a 54 for the B, and so on down....


vansinn said:


> While some natural progression in string thicknesses, and as such the feeling under the fingertips, is always preferred, still, it really doesn't take that long getting used to a more severe gauge jump on the lowermost string.
> 
> On 26.5" scale, my two low A1 and D2 tuned strings are 075 and 050, which initially makes the 075 feel like an abrupt step-up in size.
> 070+050 did feel like a more natural progression, but the 070 just didn't have the tension.
> ...


----------



## Winspear (Mar 15, 2012)

stuglue said:


> I asked daddario if they had any strings that could accommodate a high A tuning. They said they didn't have any and the steel wouldn't be adequate to tune that high



http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/extended-range-guitars/162586-a4-beyond-thread.html

I have a thread linked in there in which I tested D'addarios strings. I've done some more since with pretty similar results. 
So I did ge tthe 007 by D'addario playable at A for short periods of time, but yeah I'd draw the line at G#.


----------



## ixlramp (Mar 17, 2012)

An 8 string set using D'Addario's currently available singles, and based on a 9-42 set 'smoothed' and improved by using a .012 B and a .044 E ...


----------



## vansinn (Mar 18, 2012)

^ that's a very slinky set on 25.5". Would work much better on 26.5" and 27".
As only very ew would buy a 25.5" 8-stringer these days, I suggest doing these visualizations on the more common longer scales.

I don't understand the 059.. to my knowledge, no manufactureres carry 059's.
For 26.5", use a 060 instead; for 27", a 058".
Also, the 032 may look tension balanced, but will feel too slinky; a 034 will be better.


----------



## ixlramp (Mar 19, 2012)

Yep D'Addario do .059 and .060  Tensionwise it fits perfectly between 44 and 80.


vansinn said:


> Also, the 032 may look tension balanced, but will feel too slinky; a 034 will be better.


  personally i also prefer a rise in tension from D to A. This suggestion is simply an extrapolation from 9-42 into 8 strings.


----------



## ziggystarpuff (Mar 21, 2012)

Curt Mangan Strings offers an 8 string set 9-thru-84, its a hybrid 9-46 set with a 64 for b and a 84 for f#/E, I would check these out!


----------

