Dead strings affect bright guitars more (?)

[sirwhale]

So, I've been thinking, and would like to hear some other people's views / knowledge on this.

I have found some strings to "go dead" quickly on some guitars, specifically, I would like to define "going dead" as a pronounced lack of projection compared to the new set of strings.

So, my understanding says that the "dead string" is producing fewer overtones and so the perceived loudness of the string decreases. The string begins to fall back on the main harmonics and the fundamental.

But if the guitar is not so good at producing the fundamental of the bass strings, it would mean the perceived loudness of those strings, on that guitar would be more pronounced, than say a guitar with a very good bass response and less reliance on the overtones.

Therefore, guitars with a high natural resonance, or guitars described as "bright" (probably due to a richness in overtones), will have a more pronounced reduction in loudness of strings as they spend more time on a guitar.

As flat wound strings have reduced overtone production and a more focused fundamental, then these strings would sound "less dead" and "more dead" depending on the guitars ability to produce lower frequencies fully.

What does the community think / know about this?

[Wade Hampton]

I don't know if it's guitars with a more prominent treble response (which is usually what people mean when they refer to a guitar as "bright,") where the strings going dead are more obvious early on. I mean, obviously, that enhanced treble response is something that diminishes as the strings age.

But the common denominator I've found over the years is that the more sensitive the guitar, the faster you notice the strings going dead. It's because you hear just more of EVERYTHING that the decline in quality of the strings becomes more obvious.

So I've found that characteristic on good quality guitars, basically, whether they're more skewed towards the treble response or not. The more responsive and "alive" a guitar is, the more noticeable the condition of the strings tends to be.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

[Russ C]

From my experience I get more perceived life out of a string on a bright guitar BUT as they do go dead the bright guitar has less to offer than its bassier cousin.

Maybe someone who thrives on a bright guitar might not find any advantage in that.

[zmf]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

The more responsive and "alive" a guitar is, the more noticeable the condition of the strings tends to be.

Makes sense, Wade. But I wonder if the opposite might also be true. The less responsive and alive, the more a guitar needs the help of new strings.

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by zmf

Makes sense, Wade. But I wonder if the opposite might also be true. The less responsive and alive, the more a guitar needs the help of new strings.

I don't know about that. When I was in college I had a buddy who was a country blues fingerpicker. He had a truly crappy all-laminate Epiphone dreadnought, and he NEVER changed the strings on it.

After pestering him for months to put some fresh strings on it, to no result, I finally bought a set of strings and restrung his guitar for him, with the first fresh set of strings that it had had on it for at least a year. Then I stretched in and tuned the strings and it sounded.......

Exactly the SAME as it had. Zero improvement, zero change.

So, no, there isn't always improvement with fresh strings.


whm

[Von Beerhofen]

I can't really find a correllation in why some guitars actually sound deader sooner then others but it seems to me that underbuild guitars loose their brightness much sooner. The heavier builds seem to retain sustain and brightness much longer and perhaps neck thickness has an influence too.
Maybe it's just like that on my guitars which are all different in size and build anyway.

Not all guitars need that clean brightness and sustain though, I mean for Jazz I prefer that slightly deader sound and dead strings aren't immediately obvious on those. Guitars that have just a short thuddy sound on the low E in the 12th position always seem to loose their tonal quality fast, if at all you can call that tonal quality. Not really disturbing on Jazz guitars but definately not something I'd want from a Lowden or Avalon.

Sometimes a guitar sounds dead to me after it's been in it's case for a few days but a few hours later it just seems to sparkle more. I just haven't been able to link that phenomenum to weather changes as I constantly forget to check Rh prior to playing it, and doing it afterwards doesn't teach me anything without such a reading. Some say it's all between the ears.

Ludwig

[SantaCruzOMGuy]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

I don't know if it's guitars with a more prominent treble response (which is usually what people mean when they refer to a guitar as "bright,") where the strings going dead are more obvious early on. I mean, obviously, that enhanced treble response is something that diminishes as the strings age.



But the common denominator I've found over the years is that the more sensitive the guitar, the faster you notice the strings going dead. It's because you hear just more of EVERYTHING that the decline in quality of the strings becomes more obvious.



So I've found that characteristic on good quality guitars, basically, whether they're more skewed towards the treble response or not. The more responsive and "alive" a guitar is, the more noticeable the condition of the strings tends to be.



Hope that makes sense.





Wade Hampton Miller

Absolutely this. My greenfield needs new strings every 3 weeks to stay fully alive. I have 4 other guitars that can go several months. The greenfield isn't a super overtones guitar, actually rather fundamental, but the treble is so fat it plays high register melody like a nylon. New strings allow the complexity to come through.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk