Hex/Round Core Strings & Relationship to Tension/Stiffness

[David Schwab]

I put flats into two categories, the traditional type, and the newer brighter type. For the traditional tone, I used to use either Fender or LaBella strings.

For the brighter type I used to love the LaBella Deep Talkin' Bass stainless steel 760FL set. They almost sound like round wounds without the ringing top end, and stay sounding that way. I had a set on one bass for about 4 years, and then broke a string. I find the Thomastiks are more in the brighter category. They aren't overly bright, but they aren't thumpy either. More like upright strings.

I like the half-rounds once then break in a bit and get that choked attack on the low strings. D'Addario used to make two kinds, and I preferred the originals. The Half Rounds II were too bright. I guess they think people use flats because they are smooth, but I like them because of that choked attack tone. I don't know how else to describe it, but it's that thump due to the strings not vibrating as well as round wounds.

I like both bright round wounds and thumpy but bright flats, and keep different sets on different basses.

[Bruce Johnson]

You're right, John, I don't think I've ever tried Fender or Pyramid flats. I had an old Hofner here for some repairs a couple of years ago. It had flats on it, which I figured were Rotosounds, but I don't know.

I do have a sweet '76 Rick 4001F fretless in my own collection, which I believe has Rotosounds on it.

My own evaluations of flatwounds have been on original Ampegs and my own Scroll Basses. Both require special Super Duper Extra Long strings (40 1/4" windings; 45" overall), which are longer than anything stocked by anybody. So, I was limited to companies that were willing/able to make up special sets for me.

David, the LaBellas that I'm familiar with are the Deep Talkin' 760FL and 760FM series. I tend to think of them as "traditional" because that's what came on Ampegs from the factory in '66. But, I'm not a Fender guy, so I don't have that baseline to compare to. I think of the LaBellas and D'Addarios as traditional and the Rotosounds and GHS as modern and bright. But, again, that's from my own testing in my application.

Historical note: All Ampegs, fretted and fretless, were shipped with LaBella flatwounds, with LaBella black tapewounds as the only option. Everett Hull, Ampeg's founder/boss hated roundwounds and refused to sell his basses with them. He thought they sounded terrible and were a passing fad. Oops. A major part of why the Ampeg Scroll Basses were a marketplace failure and became a niche market.

I'm surprised that you think of the Thomastiks as bright. That wasn't my experience, at least with the ones they made up for me. They were boomy fundamentals, and weak everywhere else. Cool in some ways, but not right for my basses.

[David Schwab]

I do have a sweet '76 Rick 4001F fretless in my own collection, which I believe has Rotosounds on it.

The original Rick flatwound strings were made by Maxima. I have two '74 Ricks. I liked the stock strings a lot, but I was looking for that prog rock tone, so on went the Roto Swing bass strings (oh the poor frets!)

David, the LaBellas that I'm familiar with are the Deep Talkin' 760FL and 760FM series. I tend to think of them as "traditional" because that's what came on Ampegs from the factory in '66. But, I'm not a Fender guy, so I don't have that baseline to compare to. I think of the LaBellas and D'Addarios as traditional and the Rotosounds and GHS as modern and bright. But, again, that's from my own testing in my application.

When I started playing I used LaBellas, but they were the standard 0760M "Original 1954" (a.k.a. James Jamerson) set. I guess people will have to call them the "lawsuit" set now. ( James Jamerson’s widow sues La Bella Strings ) They are more like the Fender flats, and aren't as bright and don't vibrate as well as the 760FL Deep Talkin' set.

Historical note: All Ampegs, fretted and fretless, were shipped with LaBella flatwounds, with LaBella black tapewounds as the only option. Everett Hull, Ampeg's founder/boss hated roundwounds and refused to sell his basses with them. He thought they sounded terrible and were a passing fad. Oops. A major part of why the Ampeg Scroll Basses were a marketplace failure and became a niche market.

Yeah, he didn't like loud music either, which cracks me up when I see an SVT! I just loathe that damn amp!

I'm surprised that you think of the Thomastiks as bright. That wasn't my experience, at least with the ones they made up for me. They were boomy fundamentals, and weak everywhere else. Cool in some ways, but not right for my basses.

Maybe it's not so much that they are bright, as they aren't thumpy. Listening to this clip, they certainly aren't bright, but because they were low tension they vibrated cleaner than some flats.

This is a sample recording for my pickups I did with with Thomastik flats. They were a used set that someone let me borrow, so they weren't at all new when I recorded this.

neo pickups with flatwounds

Nice strings, but I'd rather use LaBellas or D'Addario Half Rounds. I've tried Chromes a few times, and liked them, except the D string sounds out of place, and is stiffer than the rest. I found that annoying.

[Bruce Johnson]

The folks at LaBella told me that the strings that they originally supplied to Ampeg for the Scroll Basses in '66-'69 were a similar formula to the Deep Talkin' 760FL's currently made. Of course, that was 44 years ago, and there have been refinements over time. I have a couple of NOS LaBella flats still in the original Ampeg packaging in my collection. I've also played several near-mint Ampegs that had the original strings on them. After all those years, they were tarnished, but still playable.

Yeah, the whole SVT thing was a drastic U-turn by the new owners of Ampeg to try and save the company from collapse. It worked, and Ampeg survived.

I've got an SVT-3, which served me well during my days of outdoor gigs with rock bands. I still have it, but I don't think I've powered it up in 5 years. I can't say that I really love it or hate it. I always played it fairly clean, never really pumped the preamp. I've never been a tube crackler. I've always preferred to make the tone at the bass and play through a clean system. These days I almost always play through a solid state amp with a flat EQ. But I hang on to the SVT just because many of my customers have them.

[David Schwab]

After all those years, they were tarnished, but still playable.

The FLs are stainless steel, so they shouldn't tarnish.

Yeah, the whole SVT thing was a drastic U-turn by the new owners of Ampeg to try and save the company from collapse. It worked, and Ampeg survived.

Well they did go out of business. This is a new company using the name.

I've got an SVT-3, which served me well during my days of outdoor gigs with rock bands. I still have it, but I don't think I've powered it up in 5 years. I can't say that I really love it or hate it. I always played it fairly clean, never really pumped the preamp. I've never been a tube crackler. I've always preferred to make the tone at the bass and play through a clean system. These days I almost always play through a solid state amp with a flat EQ. But I hang on to the SVT just because many of my customers have them.

My dislike of the SVT is based on the preamp. You cannot set the amp flat. They have a fixed low end roll off set about 75Hz which was to stop the amp from being boomy in a large arena. Then they have a big hump at 250Hz, which is to make up for the lack of low end. The Ultra Lo switch doesn't boost the lows, but cuts the mids, etc. It's just a very boxy sounding amp IMO. The low end sounds very cluttered.

I used to have a mid 60's B-15N which was a pleasant sounding amp. Not much in the way of lows or highs, but it didn't sound bad.

I prefer solid state, but I like using a clean tube preamp for some warmth. I have an all tube Mesa 400+ which sounds great, but weighs a ton. I can't life that stuff anymore!

I just want my bass to sound like my bass, not the amp.

[Bruce Johnson]

In my experience, stainless-wrapped flatwounds like the 760FL's and Chromes do tarnish over time if they're not played regularly. The good news is that it isn't deep corrosion, and can be cleaned off. I use a pad of the white (non-abrasive) Scotchbrite with a few drops of WD-40 on it. That usually makes them feel smooth and slippery again without hurting the aged tone.

Yeah, Ampeg has been through a string of owners. Most of the folks who worked there in the '60's are dead or in retirement. That was a long time ago. I'm the keeper of the flame for the Scroll Basses. I occasionally get calls from the current Ampeg guys with questions about their own old products.

[jrfrond]

The old guard may be gone (though Jess Oliver and Dennis Kager are still with us), but in their heyday, Ampeg was the sh*t! Not only some of the best guitar and bass amps ever built (in my opinion, of course), but between the Scroll Bass and Dan Armstrong lucite guitars, they had some cool instruments. I'll bet even the Stud guitars would become collector's items nowadays.

I'll take a V-4B (with the 2- 15" V-2 cab) over just about any other 100W tube bass amp out there, and the original SVT, aside from weighing a ton, is a masterpiece of engineering and sound.

[David Schwab]

The old guard may be gone (though Jess Oliver and Dennis Kager are still with us), but in their heyday, Ampeg was the sh*t! Not only some of the best guitar and bass amps ever built (in my opinion, of course), but between the Scroll Bass and Dan Armstrong lucite guitars, they had some cool instruments. I'll bet even the Stud guitars would become collector's items nowadays.

I used to use an Oliver amp. That was a great sounding amp! Not very loud though.

But sorry, Ampeg was never the sh!t. I like to point out that Ampeg went out of business for a reason! Back then the bass amps the big names used were the Acoustic 360 and the Sunn Coliseum. Show me some players that used SVTs back then. They were lucky to have the Stones lose their amps and they gave them a bunch. The only person I can think of is Jack Casady, who even named his band after the amp. And that was the worst tone he ever got. He sounded much better with the Versatone amp he used in Hot Tuna. Carol Kaye used one of those too.

I'll take either of those over an SVT.Talk to my guitar player... he had a V-4 back in the day and thought it was the worst amp ever. I never saw any guitar players who liked Ampegs, except maybe a Gemini II. That was a nice sounding amps. All the people I played with in the 70's had Marshalls, and Hiwatts, and Orange amps, and Fenders. No one wanted Ampeg guitar amps.

I'll take a V-4B (with the 2- 15" V-2 cab) over just about any other 100W tube bass amp out there, and the original SVT, aside from weighing a ton, is a masterpiece of engineering and sound.

What are you going to do with a 100W tube amp? No one is going to hear you! That was the problem with those damn amps. The guitar amps were too clean and the bass amps were underpowered.

I got the Mesa 400+ with 12 6L6 power tubes, it it couldn't keep up with my GK 800 RB. And the Mesa blows the SVT out of the water both in features tone and power.

The current owner of Ampeg is riding on a sea of imaginary hype that never existed. But younger players don't know any better.

[jrfrond]

What are you going to do with a 100W tube amp? No one is going to hear you! That was the problem with those damn amps. The guitar amps were too clean and the bass amps were underpowered.

I got the Mesa 400+ with 12 6L6 power tubes, it it couldn't keep up with my GK 800 RB. And the Mesa blows the SVT out of the water both in features tone and power.

The current owner of Ampeg is riding on a sea of imaginary hype that never existed. But younger players don't know any better.

100W works fine for me. There was a time when that was pretty much the standard wattage for a tube bass amp. If you match it up with an efficient cab, it will carry most gigs. Then again, we DO live in a time where far too many musicians have forgotten all about dynamics.

I would use a Mesa product if you paid me. Besides their poor serviceability, I have a personal issue with the company, who really seems to think their sh*t doesn't stink. Anyway.....

I know ALL about Ampeg and it's heritage from Linden, to Magnavox, MTI and the first Japanese SVT's, as well as the current Crate-called-Ampeg crop. All I have to say is that, after servicing virtually everything on the market in the last 30+ years, I still haven't found anything that sounds as good as an old SVT. And though you can't gig with it, have we forgotten about a little gem called the B15N? We could all count the recordings it was used on until tomorrow morning and still not be done. ThAT says something, to me anyway.

[Bruce Johnson]

Sadly, I have to mostly agree with David. In the early to mid '60's, Ampeg built up a cool vibe with the Baby Bass, small tube amps like the B-15, and then the Scroll Basses. It was an electrified version of the upright bass sound, that deep warm thump. I think they got it better than Fender did. Bassists in jazz combos and old-time bands loved the Ampeg sound. But, that was a small niche market. In the mid '60's, jazz had disappeared into the corners, and the world of rock was exploding with a whole new type of bass sound. After Everett Hull sold the company in '67, Ampeg tried to get into rock music, but they completely missed the boat. A couple of rock artists like George Biondo and Rick Danko made their names with the Ampeg look and sound, but they were oddballs.

Meanwhile, over the next few decades, the Baby Bass became the official sound of Salsa music, and spawned a whole field of electric uprights.

The SVT was a dramatic move, and when it came out, it was an engineering marvel and a milestone in amp design. But everyone else quickly over ran it, and through the '70's it survived through legend more than real technical merits. My mid-90's SVT-3 is a good reliable amp with some nice character, but I wouldn't claim that it's the greatest thing around. Ampeg doesn't build junk, but they've stayed conservative and mostly relied on their legendary name. It'll be interesting to see if the new owners Loud start to take Ampeg in a different direction. I knew most of the guys at St. Louis Music from back in the '90's when we worked together, but I haven't talked to the Loud folks yet.

[jrfrond]

I must be in the minority as an Ampeg bass amp lover. Viva la difference!!!
For me, Ampeg has always had "that" sound that I hear in my head. Then again, the old Bassman 100's did too (the tube versions, not the SS ones that were made a few years back). I always enjoyed Ampeg GUITAR amps as well. In addition to the ubiquitous Reverberocket's and Gemini's, I like the V-4/VT-22 type amps as well. The were PLENTY of SVT users in the 70's, and heck, the last time I saw The Stones, Darryl Jones dumped his normal uber-rig in favor of a pair of SVT's, which actually made a HUGE improvement over his previous sound.

Yes, companies like Acoustic and then G-K eclipsed Ampeg early-on, but I have to believe that sheer weight of Ampeg's 300W amp vs. the Acoustic 370 and the G-K 800RB had a lot to do with it.

[David Schwab]

100W works fine for me. There was a time when that was pretty much the standard wattage for a tube bass amp. If you match it up with an efficient cab, it will carry most gigs. Then again, we DO live in a time where far too many musicians have forgotten all about dynamics.

Dynamics are not possible when your available volume levels are soft and softer. A 100W tube bass amp can't keep up with a solid drummer and a 50W guitar amp. Unless you want a Cream era Jack Bruce tone. I love that tone, but it doesn't work for most music. And now Jack uses a Hartke 7000 head.

The reason why bass amps all went to solid state, and why the Acoustic 360 was one of the big dogs was because it was loud. Bassists got tired of listening to farts instead of a nice clean deep bass tone.

Also the fact that Ampeg made the SVT shows that the amps they were making were not loud enough. The problem with the SVT is the tone. It sounds like crap IMO. Instead of giving you a nice clean warm tube tone, like I get from the Mesa, they engineered in what they think your tone should be, an you can't change it easily.

Even the newer solid state SVTs have that same blurry boxy tone, and they are noisy to boot. I've never heard so much hiss come from a "modern" amp.

In one of the bands I play with the drummer bought an Ampeg BA115HP to keep in his rehearsal space for me to use. It's not a bad sounding amp, once you get past the dumb "style" presets, and as long as you don't try and play at a volume where you can hear it over the drums. Then it clips like crazy. And that's 220 solid state Watts.

My little Trace Elliott 150W combo mops the floor with the BA115HP. It's loud enough for me to keep up with my other band's two guitarists, one using a new Fender Twin, and the other a Mesa Mark Five combo.

I would[n't] use a Mesa product if you paid me. Besides their poor serviceability, I have a personal issue with the company, who really seems to think their sh*t doesn't stink. Anyway.....

Well they are great sounding amps. When I bought mine used, it was sitting next to a '74 SVT. This was at an amp repair shop. I had been thinking about getting a tube amp, so I tried both amps out through the same cab. The Mesa was smooth and deep and warm and punchy, and the SVT had that boxy gritty tone. The Mesa is a much more hi-fi amp. I've been using that one since about '92, and one of the guitarist I play with had a Mesa combo he used 4 nights a week for the past 25 years with no problems. He just gave it to his son and got a new Mark Five. Damn that's a loud little amp.

I know ALL about Ampeg and it's heritage from Linden, to Magnavox, MTI and the first Japanese SVT's, as well as the current Crate-called-Ampeg crop. All I have to say is that, after servicing virtually everything on the market in the last 30+ years, I still haven't found anything that sounds as good as an old SVT. And though you can't gig with it, have we forgotten about a little gem called the B15N? We could all count the recordings it was used on until tomorrow morning and still not be done. ThAT says something, to me anyway.

I used to work in the same industrial park where Ampeg used to be in Linden.

What does servicing an amp have to do with how well it sounds? it doesn't. Regardless to how well they may have been made (they new ones are not so reliable) they were grossly underpowered for rock music, and except for the B-15, sounded like crap.

What sounds so good about an SVT? Unless you just want a thick upper bass tone, you can't do much else with it.

Check out the attached PDF to see how the guy testing the amp could not get a flat response from the tone stack, and the excessive ringing.

And before we get into "all the recordings done" with Ampegs, that's a myth for the most part. Everyone cites Motown, but the bass was always recorded direct. They had a B-12 in the studio as a monitor. Jamerson used a B-15 for live gigs, but then he was an upright player originally.

You can't use a B-15N to play with a live drummer unless you are mic'd! My first good bass amp was a mid 60's B-15N, so I know. It doesn't cut it. I mean, it's what, 25 watts? My computer speakers are more powerful than that! I have never been in a major studio that had me plug into a B-15, or any amp for that matter. DI is the way to go for bass.

They were made for upright players playing jazz.

[David Schwab]

But I have to believe that sheer weight of Ampeg's 300W amp vs. the Acoustic 370 and the G-K 800RB had a lot to do with it.

So the fact that they were louder, cleaner amps couldn't have had anything to do with it, right?

The Acoustic 361 W-bins were HUGE! I always hated the tone of those cabs BTW. I think the Sunns sounded cleaner.

The 361 cab was easily as heavy as an SVT cab... heck all bass cabs were big back then. I had a Peavy "The Bass" with a 2X15, and then there was my old Vox 4X12 from my first big amp (Super Beatle preamp, Acoustic power amp and the 4X12 cab).

In the 80's before I got my 800-RB I used a borrowed Acoustic 150B head with my B-15 cab loaded with a JBL. That was a great sounding combo.

The GK-800RB is in a totally different class. It's a bi-amp rig with 100W to the highs and 300W to the lows. I had a 2X12 and a 1X18 cab. That was a loud sucker. I would play outdoor gigs and you could clearly hear me from about 6 block away. I liked the tone of the Mesa better, but it couldn't keep up with the GK.

Now bass amps are small, light and loud! Wish they were like that 35 years ago!

[jrfrond]

To each his own I guess, Dave. However, you will find that there is a huge legion of SVT fans. I don't find it to be limited in any way. Then again, I prefer a 2 x 15" cabinet, loaded with Peavey BW's. Place an SVT atop THAT, and you will NOT find a lack of lows, I can assure you.

[David Schwab]

To each his own I guess, Dave.

Yep. I have no problem with you liking Ampegs, I was commenting on them being "some of the best amps." I never liked the post '69 amps, and still don't.

However, you will find that there is a huge legion of SVT fans.

Sheep. They are easy to spot through, because they get crappy bass tones. Most of them use Jazz Basses too.

You will also find a legion of players using MarkBass, SWR, Hartke and Mesa. Some of my favorite players too.

I don't find it to be limited in any way. Then again, I prefer a 2 x 15" cabinet, loaded with Peavey BW's. Place an SVT atop THAT, and you will NOT find a lack of lows, I can assure you.

It's the quality of tone that matters, not how much lows there are. I like low end, but there's more to good bass tone than that. SVTs lack high end, and the upper mids are ugly IMO. My Trace Elliott or Mesa will go deeper. You can't get something out of the SVT that isn't there. According to Bill Hughes co-designer of the SVT, in an interview in Bass Gear Mag, the very low end is "an illusion" :

I had previously developed a style of equalization for bass while working as a freelance recording engineer. Cranking up a lot of low end boost was never a good idea when your target is vinyl. Rather, removing the lower odd-order harmonics (as the SVT was set up to do) does way more to give the right illusion. I guess this is why bass amps with graphic EQ have fallen from vogue.

Interestingly I see a lot of bass amps with graphic EQ, including Ampegs. Hughes now works for Fender designing power amp sections for SWR.

You also can't get a faithful reproduction of your bass, which is important to me, but obviously not to everyone.

With a different tone stack it might be a decent amp. But as it stands now, the designers are telling you what your bass is supposed to sound like based on 1969 standards. That's not a tone I would have used back in 1969, and it REALLY ain't a tone I would use 40 years later. Most recordings are done with the bass DI, and that's the tone I expect from my on stage rig.

But to each their own.

(check out the response of the amp with the tone controls set "flat" (12:00), and even when trying to make it flat, it just wont comply)