I've been using Silk and Steel Strings lately, and I wanted
to ask the group about your experience with these as compared
with Phospher bronze. I've found that the SNS strings tend
to "deaden" quicker than bronze ones. I like the softer feel of
them, but I'm not sure I can give up the longevity and volume
of phospher bronze. Thanks.
Jason
>Hello!
>Jason
Jason,
I assume you are playing a steel-string acoustic guitar.
I would only use Silk and Steel strings if I needed to for one or more
of the following reasons: the guitar is too fragile to use anything
else (e.g. a very old guitar), my fingertips are too fragile to use
anything else and I don't like the sound of nylon, the setup of the
guitar is too bad to use anything else (some combination of the
previous two?).
I think they don't sound very good even when new, and in general, they
certainly do not last as long. If you want something softer, you
might try extra lights. They are another compromise, but they don't
travel quite as far down that road as the Silk and Steels. Also,
different brands and compositions of strings feel different. Phosphor
bronze feel a little tighter to me. You might try regular bronze.
GHS Bright Bronze and D'Addario 80/20 are good starting points, and
they are made in light and extra light gauges (among many other gauge
choices).
Actually, I enjoy trying new strings, but I have also been known to
take them back off in the same day!
Al
: I've been using Silk and Steel Strings lately
: I like the softer feel of
: them
If by this you mean that they hurt your fingertips less, then
one of two things probably applies. First, you're still devoloping your
callouses (although it seems unlikey due to your use of the word "lately").
Second, your guitar could use a setup ($20-$50 depending on shop and amount
of work required). There's really no reason that you shouldn't feel
comfortable playing a set of lights or extra-lights if the instrument
is set up properly. Have it checked out.
> I assume you are playing a steel-string acoustic guitar.
>
> I would only use Silk and Steel strings if I needed to for one or more
> of the following reasons: the guitar is too fragile to use anything
> else (e.g. a very old guitar), my fingertips are too fragile to use
> anything else and I don't like the sound of nylon, the setup of the
> guitar is too bad to use anything else (some combination of the
> previous two?).
>
> I think they don't sound very good even when new, and in general, they
> certainly do not last as long. If you want something softer, you
> might try extra lights. They are another compromise, but they don't
> travel quite as far down that road as the Silk and Steels. Also,
> different brands and compositions of strings feel different. Phosphor
> bronze feel a little tighter to me. You might try regular bronze.
> GHS Bright Bronze and D'Addario 80/20 are good starting points, and
> they are made in light and extra light gauges (among many other gauge
> choices).
>
> Actually, I enjoy trying new strings, but I have also been known to
> take them back off in the same day!
>
> Al
I have to agree. I tried silk & steel on my light 1922 Martin 00-18 but
was not too impressed. I will go back to very light bronze strings.
--
Felix Wiedler, Winterthur, Switzerland
http://www.pctip.ch/pctip.felix.html
>Al Sato wrote:
>> I assume you are playing a steel-string acoustic guitar.
>>
>> I would only use Silk and Steel strings if I needed to for one or more
>> of the following reasons: the guitar is too fragile to use anything
>> else (e.g. a very old guitar), my fingertips are too fragile to use
>> anything else and I don't like the sound of nylon, the setup of the
>> guitar is too bad to use anything else (some combination of the
>> previous two?).
>>
>I have to agree. I tried silk & steel on my light 1922 Martin 00-18 but
>was not too impressed. I will go back to very light bronze strings.
oooh, nice guitar. I wonder if it falls in the first category I
listed. My understanding is that some, but not all, 1922 00-18's were
braced for steel strings. I wouldn't want to go heavier than
extra-lights, but I wouldn't think that heavier strings would be
necessary to get sound out of that beauty.
Al
> oooh, nice guitar. I wonder if it falls in the first category I
> listed. My understanding is that some, but not all, 1922 00-18's were
> braced for steel strings. I wouldn't want to go heavier than
> extra-lights, but I wouldn't think that heavier strings would be
> necessary to get sound out of that beauty.
>
> Al
Right. Mike Longworth's Martin book says that styles 17 and 18 were the
first Martins which were braced for light steel as a standard feature -
a change which occurred during 1922. The 1923 catalogue notes this
change. Other Martin styles followed later in the 20's.
I actually don't know what Martin exactly changed when they announced
that a guitar was braced for steel instead of the traditional gut
strings. If anybody does, I would like to know (I asked this question
before in this newsgroup, and I didn't get an answer).
As you suggest I wouldn't put anything heavier than extra-lights on this
particular 00-18 of mine: this 12-fretter anyway sounds wonderful and
surprisingly loud with this gauge strings. The neck, though not
particularly sturdily reinforced, and the top seems to cope with
extra-lights.
Felix
John.
Hum, Sing, Scat, Talk, Rap, Croon. AES Best in Show. EM's
Editors Choice. Keyboard "MidiVox Roars."