Oh no, another string thread.............................

[Aussie Mark]

We know you're not a fan of flats, Dave.  The reason flats "last" so long is that they sound pretty much the same as they did when they new, for a long time.  And yes, that's because they have less dynamic range etc than rounds.  Every bass player I know in real life who uses rounds is replacing their strings every 1-6 months, and every bass player I know in real life who uses flats is replacing their strings every few years, so economically, flats are actually less expensive.  I've got a set of 11 year old TI Flats on a P bass that, admittedly doesn't get played every day, and they still sound great to my ears.

[drbassman]

My strings last 10 years or more cuz I don't play them enough!!!!

[Pilgrim]

I think Dave's right.  I like the sound of dead rounds just as much as I do dead flats.

Now THERE's a band name for Bill...  "The Dead Flats".

Or, if the band members are experiencing a slight midline spread... "The Dead Rounds".

[Dave W]

We know you're not a fan of flats, Dave.  The reason flats "last" so long is that they sound pretty much the same as they did when they new, for a long time.  And yes, that's because they have less dynamic range etc than rounds.  Every bass player I know in real life who uses rounds is replacing their strings every 1-6 months, and every bass player I know in real life who uses flats is replacing their strings every few years, so economically, flats are actually less expensive.  I've got a set of 11 year old TI Flats on a P bass that, admittedly doesn't get played every day, and they still sound great to my ears.

It's not about what I like or don't like (BTW, my SUB Sterling is strung with LaBella flats). Compare flats you have played regularly for a long time to a brand new set, and you will find that they don't sound pretty much the same. No way around it. If you play 'em, they will deteriorate.

If your 11 year old TI flats sound great to you, that's fine, but it's because you like that tone, not because the strings lasted.

[Denis]

As explained to me by various bass players I've spoken to, flats last longer on average because they are less prone to collecting dirt, sweat, and the associated detritus on the inside. Over time this stuff deteriorates the string.

Personally, I love the sound of flats and have LaBellas on one BaCH NR, my P bass and my G&L.

I was going to put a set on my JJ but some bastard prevented me from doing so...

[drbassman]

I think you're right.  I like the sound of dead rounds just as much as I do dead flats.

Now THERE's a band name for Bill...  "The Dead Flats".

Or, if the band members are experiencing a slight midline spread... "The Dead Rounds".

Oh yeah, Al.  "Dead Flats" would work.  We might get confused with Rascal Flats though!

[Dave W]

As explained to me by various bass players I've spoken to, flats last longer on average because they are less prone to collecting dirt, sweat, and the associated detritus on the inside. Over time this stuff deteriorates the string.

Personally, I love the sound of flats and have LaBellas on one BaCH NR, my P bass and my G&L.

I was going to put a set on my JJ but some bastard prevented me from doing so...

Funny. When Bass Player put out their first big strings issue about 1995, some string manufacturer claimed that their roundcore strings lasted longer than the more popular hexcore strings because the air gap between the hex core and the outer wraps collected dirt, sweat etc. Naturally he had no evidence that dirt and sweat ever got to the inner core or that roundcores actually do last longer. And if you cut open an old string, you'll see that there's no visible gap anyway.

About a year later I started hearing the same theory applied to flatwounds vs. roundwounds. Again, no evidence that dirt and sweat do get inside.

Bottom line, I've seen plenty of evidence that flatwound players keep their strings on much longer. Again, no surprise, since they like the sound. But that doesn't mean that the strings actually do last longer.

Everyone should play the strings they like for tonal reasons. The economic argument makes no sense to me.

[dadagoboi]

How long various strings 'last' could be quantified using a machine that plucks a string at a given pressure and test equipment that measures degradation of tonal response vs. the number of plucks.  The sweat and dirt factors and other variables could be simulated. 

Just because you can't see an 'air gap' unaided by a microscope doesn't mean it isn't there and doesn't  have an effect on sound which might change as it gets crudded up.  Nanotech deals with that kind of thing.

[Pilgrim]

Bottom line, I've seen plenty of evidence that flatwound players keep their strings on much longer. Again, no surprise, since they like the sound. But that doesn't mean that the strings actually do last longer.

Everyone should play the strings they like for tonal reasons. The economic argument makes no sense to me.

Again, I tend to agree. I think the sweat/dirt/whatever argument is just rationalization with no basis.  Every player's body chemistry is different, not to mention their eating habits and environment, so every player exposes his/her strings to different combinations of humidity, dirt, sweat, BBQ sauce, you name it.  I don't think there's any way to quantify differences, nor do I think that time and effort in such an endeavor would be justified.

if you LIKE the sound, play the strings.  You don't need to justify it to anyone.  To me, strings "last' until they break.  Up to that point, they're just strings doing their job.  If you like the sound, play them.  if not, change them.

And I'll leave those old flats (installed in 1972) in my '63 P just as long as I continue to like them - or until one breaks.

The original factory rounds on my 2000 MIM Jazz are also doing just fine, as are the flats I installed on my Univox hollowbody about 6 years ago, etc., etc.

[dadagoboi]

John Entwistle had his strings changed for every gig, many guys with a string deal do the same.  I certainly would depending on the music I was playing.  I'd want to eliminate any variable that would affect my tone.  That means using strings of a certain age, either new or dead.

If you like dead strings, they all pretty much sound the same after a month or so.  I've got a 20 year old set of Labellas on one fretless and there's no need to change a string unless it breaks, it's a good sound for some things.

If you like the sound of fresh strings, there's nothing like a set just after they've adjusted to being tensioned.  I put new strings on something an average of once a week.  There are differences between brands and the sound changes on a set noticeably week to week for about a month.

Yeah, we're all different but our body chemistries have a lot in common.  Various strings CAN be quantified for tonal qualities and decay over time one against another.  Your mileage may vary.

[patman]

if I had a string deal or was real wealthy and famous, there would be a new set of Fender rounds on every night...except the electric upright, which has Fender flats, and they just get better with age.

[drbassman]

All of my strings are old because I don't play any one bas enough to wear them out or grime them up.  Once I start playing more and using a couple basses routinely, I suppose I'll change the strings more often.  It really is a matter of taste!

[Pilgrim]

Dick Dale requires his bass player to change strings daily - Dean Markley Blue Steels.  He likes "bright".

[TBird1958]

 No secret that I like rounds and a bright somewhat clanky pick tone, depending on the bass I use either DR stainless or Ken Smith Rockmasters. I don't know what makes them different but it's significant - what sounds good on one doesn't on the other, typically they'll last about 2-3 months. I play hard and sweat profusely, so when they're dead and get an uncerimonious dumping.     

[drbassman]

Don't know I'm lucky or not, but my hands don't sweat at all and my bass necks are pretty ckean and squeaky.