RIC's choice of String Gauge
simon.keny...@frco.com
"standard" gauge 5th and 6th strings, i.e .042 rather than the normal .046
with a .010 set?? Is it to 'lean' the overall sound to the jangly strings??
Simon‰
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John Hall
<79u26c$8u2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Out of interest, does anyone know why RIC factory-fit and recommend non-
>"standard" gauge 5th and 6th strings, i.e .042 rather than the normal .046
>with a .010 set?? Is it to 'lean' the overall sound to the jangly
strings??
The string gauges were chosen for even string tension. This is based on work
performed over 20 years ago in our lab, so if there's another "standard", I
wonder who set it and what research they performed in doing so?
Cheers,
John Hall
jr...@erols.com
simon.keny...@frco.com wrote:
> Out of interest, does anyone know why RIC factory-fit and recommend non-
> "standard" gauge 5th and 6th strings, i.e .042 rather than the normal .046
> with a .010 set?? Is it to 'lean' the overall sound to the jangly strings??
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
I, for one, sure like the feel of the .042 E string better than a
"standard" .046. I immediately recognized a lightness and playability
the first time I picked up my new 330 over the Tele that I had before.
Part of "the feel" and ease of playing I think is attributable to the
particular string gauge selections made by RIC. And I liked the Tele
a lot.
Jon
ACSLAMBERT
>>"standard" gauge 5th and 6th strings, i.e .042 rather than the normal .046
>>with a .010 set??
>The string gauges were chosen for even string tension. This is based on work
>performed over 20 years ago in our lab, so if there's another "standard", I
>wonder who set it and what research they performed in doing so?
Now, now--just another good RIC customer asking a perfectly legitimate
question. I interpreted the term "standard" here to mean "typical," which is
how I am sure it was intended. If we did a survey of electric guitar string
sets made by all manufacturers for gauges that begin with .010 we would
probably find that significantly more than 50% of these string sets would have
a low-e string of a gauge stouter than .042 (I imagine; I certainly am not
inclined to conduct the survey). Thus, the RIC string set might be more
accurately termed a-typical.
As far as the response goes, what is meant by even string tension? Does this
mean that all strings, from low-e to high-e, all exert the same pull on the
neck? How would uneven tension effect the guitar? When was the double truss rod
system introduced and is it necessary if the factory recommended strings are
used?
I think this is an important subject as there is much traffic on this NG
relating to the use of Pyramid strings. Even the .010 six-string Pyramid set is
a whole lot stiffer than the standard Rick strings. I find for my own playing
style that the Rick strings are a bit light. Although I don't have the owner's
manual in front of me I seem to remember that the use of strings other than
those that came on the instrument negate the warranty (correct me if I am
wrong). Should we be concerned about the use of Pyramids or other heavier gauge
strings?
Mark L.
Jay Bagwell
"compressed wound" strings to find, i.e., convience. My only beef with this
sytle of string is the toughness of running fingers over the string, vs. a
conventional set which is "slick"
I think the RIC strings are a good value for the money vs. Pyramids
simon.keny...@frco.com wrote:
> Out of interest, does anyone know why RIC factory-fit and recommend non-
> "standard" gauge 5th and 6th strings, i.e .042 rather than the normal .046
Teleologist
acsla...@aol.com says...
> >>Out of interest, does anyone know why RIC factory-fit and recommend non-
> >>"standard" gauge 5th and 6th strings, i.e .042 rather than the normal .046
> >>with a .010 set??
>
> >performed over 20 years ago in our lab, so if there's another "standard", I
> >wonder who set it and what research they performed in doing so?
>
> Now, now--just another good RIC customer asking a perfectly legitimate
> question. I interpreted the term "standard" here to mean "typical," which is
> how I am sure it was intended. If we did a survey of electric guitar string
> sets made by all manufacturers for gauges that begin with .010 we would
> probably find that significantly more than 50% of these string sets would have
> a low-e string of a gauge stouter than .042 (I imagine; I certainly am not
> inclined to conduct the survey). Thus, the RIC string set might be more
> accurately termed a-typical.
>
Actually in the good-ole-days 10-38 was typical for most light gauge
electric strings(Fender Light Gauge Rock & Roll were 10-38s). During the
70s & especially the 80s the trend was to heavier wound strings and now
the 'standard' 10 set is up to 10-46 with some Light/Heavy 10-52s out
there. Since Ric .042s are rollerwound they probably start out as a .044
or something like that. Also the core wire diameter plays a large role
in string tension and stiffness. This can vary from manufacturer to
manufacturer.
simon.keny...@frco.com
jr...@erols.com wrote:
> I, for one, sure like the feel of the .042 E string better than a
> "standard" .046. I immediately recognized a lightness and playability
> the first time I picked up my new 330 over the Tele that I had before.
> Part of "the feel" and ease of playing I think is attributable to the
> particular string gauge selections made by RIC. And I liked the Tele
> a lot.
>
> Jon
>
I agree, Jon. Everything about my (.010-.046 strung) Les Paul seems 'heavy'
since getting my 360/6!!!!! Lol!
simon.keny...@frco.com
> I think this is an important subject
Oh dear.....NOW what have I started!!! You're right, though, it WAS just an
innocent enquiry and I WAS referring to your 'average' commercially available
string set (see my post to John Hall).
Rgds
simon.keny...@frco.com
> The string gauges were chosen for even string tension. This is based on work
> performed over 20 years ago in our lab, so if there's another "standard", I
> wonder who set it and what research they performed in doing so?
>
>
> John Hall
>
>
Thanks, John. By "standard" I was referring to most commercially available
.010 string sets, which, as you know, tend to come with .010-.046 string
gauges.
John Hall
ACSLAMBERT wrote in message
<19990211183716...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
>Now, now--just another good RIC customer asking a perfectly legitimate
>question. I interpreted the term "standard" here to mean "typical," which
is
>how I am sure it was intended.
Either my answer wasn't crafted well or you managed to infer something I
didn't intend. Anyway, all I was trying to say is "What is standard?" If
it's what the straight percentage of people use, then maybe this is true. If
it's not what the overwhelming majority of people use, then it's not
"standard". Finally, we get to my definition, which is "measured against
some scientific principle which should result in a desired effect".
But strings are definitely a matter for personal choice and hopefully most
people can develop what feels an sounds best for themselves.
Cheers,
John Hall
John Hall
>I use Factory Ricenbacker .10's on my 330..Mainly because they are the
easiest
>"compressed wound" strings to find, i.e., convience. My only beef with
this
>sytle of string is the toughness of running fingers over the string, vs. a
>conventional set which is "slick"
>I think the RIC strings are a good value for the money vs. Pyramids
The compressed wound strings should feel slicker to you than a straight
round wound string, as they start off as a round wound and are flattened
with a roller to a smaller gauge. Wonder what type of string you're
comparing it to . . .
Has anyone tried the new Elixir strings from Gore-Tex? These should be the
slickest strings around, but I wonder how the coating might affect the
sound.
Cheers,
John Hall
LUTHIER43
I've tried them on my acoustics...gotta say that I was really thrilled
with them. They did cut down on the finger-crud, but I prefer the Martin SP's.
I guess if you go a long time between changing strings, they could be
considered, but personally, I can't justify the cost difference. Nothing sound
better than fresh strings on an acoustic. And yes there is avery slight
difference in tone...a little less bright than phosphor bronze. Regards,
Bruce
Ted A. Breaux
I don't see how any comparison can even be drawn. Apples and oranges. The
Pyramids sound better, and are the only strings which intonate correctly on
my 360/12 V64. The original Ric strings were nickel flatwounds (I have a
friend with several original sets).
Ted B.