Long-term scientific "blind" acoustic string test

[dwasifar]

Set H is now on the instrument.

Measurements and observations:

• Actual gauge measurements: 1st .012, 2nd .016, 3rd .025, 4th .032, 5th .042, 6th .054.
• All strings are close in length, ranging from 41.25" to 41.75". But there is a stupid amount of exposed core wire on the wound strings, so the usable length is quite a bit shorter.
  • 1st: 41.25"
  • 2nd: 41.25"
  • 3rd: 41.25", 5.25" of core exposed, usable length 36"
  • 4th: 41.25", 5.25"" of core, usable length 36"
  • 5th: 41.5", 6" of core, usable length 35.5"
  • 6th: 41.75", 5.25" of core, usable length 36.5"
• Hex core. Normal phosphor bronze color.
• Deflection of the sample 6th string on the testing jig is 53mm.
• Ball ends are plain brass. Ball end windings are tight and even, no gaps. The ball end winding length is relatively short, and the windings do not show above the bridge surface. The plain strings each have tiny spurs at the windings that could spear your thumb when installing if you aren't paying attention.
• Wrapping on the wound strings is perfect.
• Plain strings are mostly perfect. One small draggy area on the 2nd, but minimal and inconsequential.

Tone and playability:
The tone leans warm and low-midrange focused. A bit on the squeaky side. Balance is a little better string-to string than the most recent few sets. A bit of new string jangle on chords, not so noticeable on flatpicking. They sound partly broken-in right out of the package. Playability seems a little stiff, but we'll see how it goes. Volume is about equal to the Magmas.

Initial grades:

• Construction A
• Volume A
• Playability B
• Tone A-

My gut says these are the Darco.

 

[dwasifar]

String Set H follow-up.

Mister Procrastination here should have posted the two-day follow-up a full week ago. I am destroying the integrity of my process. I promise to do better.

Tone and playability:
The tone remains warm and mostly pleasant. I do hear a little bit of occasional stridency from the upper registers but most of the time everything is in balance. Playability has settled in to be average-to-good; bending and fretting are fine. Tuning stability is very good. They do seem to be aging rather quickly, though; they're considerably muted from what they sounded like when I put them on. But it's not a bad sound. The only real issue I have is that it's easy to make them rattle when hitting them hard.

Follow-up grades:

• Construction A
• Volume A-
• Playability A-
• Tone A-

I still think these are probably the Darco.

 

[dwasifar]

String Set H final report.

Tone and playability:
Nothing really new to report. They're generally pretty good. There have been others in the test I liked as well, but these would be a buy again. As I said, though, they do seem to be aging quickly.

Final grades:

• Construction A
• Volume A-
• Playability B+
• Tone A-

I still think these are probably the Darco. Let's go find out.

tick tock tick tock tick tock



If memory serves, Darco was the brand name D'Addario first made guitar strings under, in collaboration with Martin. Now D'Addario uses their own name, and Martin owns the Darco brand.

Many people assume that Martin SP and Darco are the same, but this is not the first time Darco strings have seemed different to me than the equivalent Martin SP set. I don't know whether that means the strings are not the same, or they are the same and the test is too subjective.

 

[dwasifar]

Here is a combined report on Set I, which has been on the instrument for some weeks.

Measurements and observations:

• Actual gauge measurements: 1st .012, 2nd .016, 3rd .025, 4th .032, 5th .045, 6th .055.
• All strings are very close in length, ranging from 39.5" to 40". There is no exposed core wire on any of the wound strings, so I can't determine if they are hex core or round core.
  • 1st: 40"
  • 2nd: 40"
  • 3rd: 39.5"
  • 4th: 39.5"
  • 5th: 39.5"
  • 6th: 40"
• Color is slightly more brassy than typical for phosphor bronze.
• Deflection of the sample 6th string on the testing jig is 57mm.
• Ball ends are plain brass. Ball end windings are tight and even, no gaps. The ball end winding length is of average length, and the windings do not show above the bridge surface.
• Wrapping on the wound strings is perfect.
• Plain strings are smooth and perfect.

Initial tone and playability:
The tone is neutral as new strings go. They sound new, but with no particular peaks in any direction. Playability is a bit stiff but not objectionable. Volume is good, neither very loud nor very soft.

Initial grades:

• Construction A+
• Volume B
• Playability B
• Tone A-

Tone and playability after two weeks:
The tone remains neutral. They are still a tiny bit stiffer than some others but playability is still very good. They sound nice, pleasant, a bit reserved; a fully middle-of-the-road sound. String to string balance is excellent. Tuning stability is slightly below par; I find myself having to tweak them a little more than usual on this instrument.

Final grades:

• Construction A+
• Volume B
• Playability B
• Tone A-

This is a good set with no serious flaws but also no particular highlights. I would buy them again, but probably won't be my first choice.

My guess is that these are the SITs. Let's go find out.

Tickity-tock, tickity-tock...



So I was wrong. I don't recall Ernie Ball ever trimming off the core wire like that, but maybe I'm mixed up.

This test may be suspended for a while as the guitar undergoes some warranty work at Guild.

 

[dwasifar]

I'd like the opinions of everyone who's been following this thread, please.

Some of you may be aware that the D-55 I'm using for this test was built with the wrong bridge; rosewood instead of ebony. The guitar is currently on its way to Guild for some unrelated warranty work. I've decided to have them correct the bridge while they have it. When I receive it back, it will have a new ebony bridge, and new saddle and bridge pins.

I don't know if this invalidates all the string testing so far, or whether there is still value in it. If you're reading, please let me know what you think; should I:

• Continue as if nothing has changed?
• Retest a few previously tested sets to see if I form the same opinions?
• Abandon the test completely?

Awaiting your input. Thanks.

 

[GGJaguar]

I think you'd have to re-test the strings you've done before moving on with new sets to keep the playing field level.

 

[walrus]

I think you'd have to re-test the strings you've done before moving on with new sets to keep the playing field level.

I agree, but hate to ask you to do that! It's your test, it's totally up to you how you proceed!

walrus

 

[kostask]

I don't think that you need to re-test the previously tested strings, nor will there be a significant change in tone between the rosewood bridge and the ebony one. To be honest, no matter how good your ears may be, the tonal change will be insignificant in magnitude. Certainly, the string characteristics will be vastly more significant than the bridge material change. I don't know what work is being done, but if the string action changes, or the saddle changes (height or materials), there will be a tonal difference, and it may be noticeable. If, however, the string height remains the same, and you are using the same saddle (materials and height), then I wouldn't consider it to have invalidated the string tests to date.

The bridge and saddle's purpose is to transfer string energy to the sound board. If the bridge/saddle material (any bridge/saddle material) is sufficiently strong and dense (so that the bridge and saddle assembly as a whole) enough to transfer the string energy to the soundboard without significant losses, then there should be very minimal tonal change from various materials. If the bridge/saddle assembly are transferring the string energy completely, then there are no tonal brownie points for getting something that is even stiffer/denser, and there won't be any tonal change. If anybody wants to make an argument that ebony is far, far superior to rosewood in this application, feel free, but have a good argument because I don't believe it from my own experience. as another data point, please note how many guitars use rosewood bridges, successfully, and some of those are rather expensive guitars, so it isn't a cost cutting measure.

I know there is a tendency on the internet to completely blow the tonal differences way out of proportion (bone bridge pins vs. plastic vs. fossil ivory, fossil ivory vs. bone saddles, etc.) but those changes are extremely minor in most cases (in cases where they are not, it is mostly a fit issue, as in how tight is the saddle in its saddle slot when replacing a plastic/micarta saddle with a bone saddle), not a characteristic of the material itself. On the internet, it is "I just bought a new saddle/set of bridge pins/nut and it transformed my guitar completely". NO IT DIDN"T. If the guitar was properly set up/put together in the first place, at the most, it would have had a very minor change in sound. In the majority of cases, the change is more to do with psychology than reality.

 

[fronobulax]

The blessing and the curse of this exercise is that as long as the measurement is made by a human the repeatability, and hence value in the Scientific Method, is suspect. But since this is being done for fun and out of curiosity it doesn't matter.

There are a lot of people who think the bridge pin material makes a difference. Those folks are also concerned with the saddle and bridge composition. So it might be interesting to have one evaluation of the same strings "before and after". If you can't hear a difference then you can make defensible comparisons and go forward. If you can hear a difference then it could be worthwhile veering and trying to figure out what changed? It could be the bridge material but it could also be that Guild set up your instrument before returning it and that setup is what made the difference.

So I would try another set of some string you tried before to establish whether any of the work done made a sonic difference and decide what to do next after that was done.

 

[davismanLV]

I'm just not sure where all this data and collecting gets you. It's time consuming and very detailed, but I just throw a set on a guitar and play it. Some I like more than others. I've had sets come off WAY sooner than others because I didn't like them, but mostly they live out their lives on the guitar I throw them on. All my guitars need new strings right now. I'm just being super lazy, but I'll get around to it. I'm obviously not your target audience because my eyes start to cross and I find myself thinking of other things. So, suit yourself. Maybe start the whole thing over. It keeps you out of trouble???

 

[kostask]

.....
There are a lot of people who think the bridge pin material makes a difference. Those folks are also concerned with the saddle and bridge composition. So it might be interesting to have one evaluation of the same strings "before and after". If you can't hear a difference then you can make defensible comparisons and go forward. If you can hear a difference then it could be worthwhile veering and trying to figure out what changed? It could be the bridge material but it could also be that Guild set up your instrument before returning it and that setup is what made the difference.

........

I'm not going to argue with them, mostly because arguing with people's beliefs like they are facts is futile, and a waste of time. However, do keep in mind that if a bridge saddle is working properly, there is next to zero string energy getting past the saddle (i.e. the string is being terminated properly) to the bridge pins. If people want to believe that there is a significant tonal change, then they can believe it. If they want to change bridge pins because they like fossil ivory, bone, brass, boxwood, ebony, with/without dots, etc. because they like the appearance, or they want to bring the guitar to full factory original specification, that too is fine. I will say that there are minute weight differences between the various materials, and that may make a very very slight tonal change. Those very minute weight differences will not make a significant tonal change to the extent that say, a change to a different set of strings would, nor (if used) a different guitar pick (heavier/lighter, or different material).

 

[dwasifar]

I haven't updated this thread in a while, because as most of you know, the guitar went back to Guild for warranty service four months ago.

As it turns out, I am not receiving that guitar back. Guild is replacing it with a new D-55, which is in transit to me and arriving today. So it's a different instrument with the correct bridge wood, and with Guild's new nitro lacquer compared to the old one.

I wouldn't go so far as to say this invalidates the test results so far, but it does make it rather pointless to continue trying to do a blind comparison with the string sets that remained to be tested. To make everything equal, I would have to start over, and I've decided not to do that. I will not be continuing the comparison. Instead, I will just use up the remaining untested string sets on the new instrument without trying to do the blind evaluation, and make subjective evaluations for myself, like anyone else who is not an anal-retentive data nerd might do. I might still post what I think of a set, but without the attempt at rigor.

Thanks to everyone who followed the thread. Sorry it didn't come to the complete conclusion I hoped, but the circumstances were beyond my control.

 

[walrus]

No apologies, please, this was an entertaining and informative thread!

And enjoy the new guitar!

walrus

 

[kitniyatran]

Might it be possible to post a summation of the finding thus far? When I click on the link for your spreadsheet in your opening post, it wants me to download Office from Google Play and I don't want to download software to just open one file. But I am curious about the results thus far.

 

[fronobulax]

Might it be possible to post a summation of the finding thus far? When I click on the link for your spreadsheet in your opening post, it wants me to download Office from Google Play and I don't want to download software to just open one file. But I am curious about the results thus far.

That's your problem, or rather a configuration issue with the device you are using.

Try right clicking on the link and do Save As. That should just download the file and not display it.

Your browser thinks you want to view an xlsx file (rather than download it) and doesn't know how to display it. So it wants you to install something to display it.

If the device has a way to display an xlsx file then you should be able to tell your browser to use what is already there. Than involves finding out what tools your browser uses to display media. Tell us the browser and we can help find the setting.

That also raises the question - if you get an xlxs file from any source, can you display it on the device? If not then you can't use the file anyway unless you install something.

 

[dwasifar]

Might it be possible to post a summation of the finding thus far? When I click on the link for your spreadsheet in your opening post, it wants me to download Office from Google Play and I don't want to download software to just open one file. But I am curious about the results thus far.

Actually the spreadsheet had not been updated in a while. Thanks for reminding me, I'll fill it out and let you know when it's ready.