Acoustic Archtop Guitar Strings

**Old Feller** · 08-17-2010, 05:19 PM

Recently, I purchased my first acoustic archtop (Eastman AR805), and I’d like the forum’s collective wisdom on string choices for the instrument.

The strings currently on it (D'Addario acoustic lights), are a bit too bright for my taste. The string squeak is also more prominent than I’d like.

I don’t want to go with flatwounds, but I am looking to take a little of the edge off while possibly getting more low end from on the basses.

If you own an acoustic archtops, I’m bracing for you to drop some knowledge on me.

**bkdavidson** · 08-17-2010, 06:38 PM

I like the D'Addario Flat-tops. They're groundwound acoustic strings.

**mr. beaumont** · 08-17-2010, 06:56 PM

For the most part--I use flatwounds on an instrument that will be used primarily as an electric guitar.

Roundwounds on acoustic instruments. Yes, they're bright, that's how they sound...Archtops got some "CUT" to 'em.

Bryan's reccomendation might be worth looking into if you don't like the sound now.

**cosmic gumbo** · 08-17-2010, 07:17 PM

Heavier strings will improve things somewhat.

**riovine** · 08-17-2010, 07:17 PM

I always recommend Elixirs for someone who is wanting to take some of the squeak out of roundwounds but don't want to go the flatwound route.

**tonedeaf** · 08-17-2010, 10:45 PM

I own an Eastman 805 and it is a "bright" sounding guitar anyway to slice it. I am using TI medium flats -- it helps. I have also tried a bunch of picks and find the Dunlop 206 helps a lot to mellow out the tone.

**82Benedetto** · 08-17-2010, 11:39 PM

I really like heavy acoustic strings on archtops. Those, or flatwounds. I typically don't like rounds.

**Old Feller** · 08-18-2010, 11:16 AM

Great suggestions from all. Thanks. I am going to buy each; D'Addario Flat-tops, Elixirs and TI's.

I'd try some heavier strings but, I'm confident enough in my manliness to admit this, my hands don't do well them.

Now, I'm off to play with my Easy-Bake oven.

**SamBooka** · 08-18-2010, 11:44 AM

I noticed lots of high end archtops at the montreal guitar show use pure nickle roundwounds.
I use Newtone strings on my Epi EmpReg. They are quite bright and stay that way for months. 2 months later they are starting to break in.
Newtone are too bright for my ES165. I use TI roundwounds (14s).

A little FingerEase helps.

**Wes'MusicBox** · 08-18-2010, 12:17 PM

I would say Thomastik Infeld "bebop" series are the best round wound string for archtop guitars I would try getting like 13 gauge. They have a very full body with enough bright tone to cut through a band. They also really bring out a lot of the acoustic tone in the guitar.

**kamlapati** · 08-19-2010, 04:09 PM

I use GHS medium acoustic strings on my L-5's and Grimes Montreux. I really need the large mass (.013 - .056 if I recall) to move the wood and get the volume and tone I like.

I use two different versions. The Vintage Bronze are an 85/15 alloy and are a little warmer and sound great on my brighter guitars (L-5). The Bright Bronze are 80/20 and sound great on my warmer Grimes. BTW, they both sound really good through the floating PU as well.

I had the recent experience of running out of my favorite strings, so I tried some D'Addario Phosphor Bronze Mediums. They were definitely unpleasantly jangly, but worst of all, they sounded absolutely terrible through the pickup. I use D'Addario on some of my other guitars and I think the quality is good, so this is just a problem of the strings not working for the sound I have in my head. I have many guitars, and I use many different kinds of strings. You've really got to shop around and try different styles, sizes, alloys, etc. It really makes a difference.

**BigDaddyLoveHandles** · 08-19-2010, 04:34 PM

Agreed, archtops played acoustically need to have their tops driven to sound their best. But what does this: the heavier gauge or the greater string tension? I'm asking this because T-I sets are known for having less tension in their bass strings, sort of a heavy-top, light-bottom arrangement.

**kamlapati** · 08-20-2010, 03:20 PM

It's definitely the size of the string, not the tension, that moves the wood.

The tension effects the fundamental note of course, but the volume is simply a conservation of momentum problem, mv = mv, the momentum of the moving string is transferred to the top. Tension is not in the equation.

Just in case you don't trust theory, the idea has been verified by many guitarists: the big strings are just louder acoustically. It's easy to hear. It's not one of those things that you're not sure about.

**cosmic gumbo** · 08-20-2010, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

Agreed, archtops played acoustically need to have their tops driven to sound their best. But what does this: the heavier gauge or the greater string tension? I'm asking this because T-I sets are known for having less tension in their bass strings, sort of a heavy-top, light-bottom arrangement.

I guess if tension related to volume, tuning up or down a step would make the volume louder or softer.

**SamBooka** · 08-20-2010, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by kamlapati

It's definitely the size of the string, not the tension, that moves the wood.

More accurately the mass of the string.
One thing people dont bring up (or is it just me) heavier strings like heavier picks.

**ES125er** · 08-21-2010, 08:16 AM

So the low E string is the loudest string, while the high E is the quietest?

**SamBooka** · 08-21-2010, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by ES125er

So the low E string is the loudest string, while the high E is the quietest?

Not even close ..

**ES125er** · 08-21-2010, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by SamBooka

Not even close ..

Isn't the high E the lightest string, though? I don't get how mass could be the main control on volume, and yet there wouldn't be a volume imbalance between the low and high strings.

What am I overlooking/misunderstanding?

**gianluca** · 10-20-2010, 06:43 AM

Can you help me to choose some acoustic guitar string?

I own an L-5 copy acoustic guitar (the loar LH600) and I'm going to try different kind of acoustic string to fit my personal tone.

On the market I found these strings type:

bronze 80/20
bronze 85/15
phosphore/bronze
phosphore/bronze flat top
steel acoustic
nickel wound
silk and steel
electric flat (chromes)

I'm after the traditional jazz tone for solo guitar or for voice comping with medium/heavy gauge strings but not too hard to play.

about the gauge, I tried some .012-054 but they looked too thin for that kind of guitar.
the .013-056 I have on now, look more suitable to make the top (and the back) vibrating, and giving a nice tone, but are a little too heavy for me: i.e. I can't play a F-7 in first position (1-3-1-1-4-1), even with a not too bad action.

thanks for any suggestion.

[for strings purchase I'd like to suggest schneidermusik.de: very wide stock of strings (acoustic and electric) very cheap and very fast delivery (at least in europe)]

**oldane** · 10-20-2010, 08:15 AM

I suggest phosphor bronze or "flattop" phosphor bronze 13-56 (depending on whether the scraping sound of ordinary round wounds gets at your nerves) as a starting point as they have both a majestic depth and brightness. Ordinary bronze is brighter, if you want that. Nickel wound is often duller. Flatwounds (either nickel or stainless steel wound) are the dullest (some like that, and they are much used for electric jazz playing). Silk and steel will likely not drive the top of an archtop enough and are usually used for finger picking on more delicate "parlor" guitars. But in the end it depends on what you like yourself when trying out various options.

As for problems with fingering, the easy answer is that it's largely a question of pratice to build up finger strength and callouses.

However, you may also feel a benefit from slimming down your chords. The F chord you describe sounds like you use a full barré. You don't have to do that. While they may work in heavy metal rock, full barré chords often sound too massive and muddy in jazz. Smaller chords with 2, 3 or 4 notes will often sound better and cleaner and can be fingered with one finger for each string so barré's can be avoided. That works even with high string action, which will help the sound and dynamic range.

The fewer notes there is in each chord, the easier it is to get a good voice leading - both in chord solos and comping - which IMHO is more important than cramming in all kinds of exotic chord extensions.

You should go for chords that are as easy as possible to finger, because that will help you play more smoothly. When askes about which fingerings he used, Joe Pass replied: "Easy fingerings only!".

The only indispensable notes in a chord - the notes that identify them as major, minor or dominant - are the 3rd and the 7th. But then, if other band members are plying those notes, you can get away with even "one note chords", where only the voice leading counts. Freddie Green did that a lot. The root can often be omitted too, because it is either played by other band members or is easily implied by the listener. The extensions (like say b5, +9, 11, 13 etc.) is only icing on the cake and should be used with caution. It will clash if you play say a natural 5th and the soloist plays a flat 5th. It's better to omit that 5th altogether. The side benefit of those small chords is that they are also easier to finger.

If you are into rhythm comping, you may want to take a look at this book which has helped me a lot:

Amazon.com: Swing and Big Band Guitar: Four-To-The Bar Comping in the Style of Freddie Green (0073999951479): JOHNSON: Books: Reviews, Prices & more

It has 3 and 4 note chords which are easy to finger and works well for 4-to-the-bar comping. Many of them can be thinned down to 2 note chords and still work fine.

**BigDaddyLoveHandles** · 10-20-2010, 12:14 PM

I find bronze strings too "jangly" -- maybe for that folkie flattop sound. I'm a flatwound junkie; some people like them, some don't. I think your first step is to decide if they work for you and your dog house, then narrow it down from there.

**kamlapati** · 10-20-2010, 12:36 PM

I'm going to try different kind of acoustic string to fit my personal tone.

You said it, there's no substitute for trying various string types and seeing what you like best.

On my big L-5's I am a fan of .013 -.056 GHS Vintage Bronze (85/15). Phosphor bronze doesn't work for me, for my style, for the sound I want, on those guitars. However, on other acoustic archtops I like 80/20s, or even .012 phosphor-bronze. It totally depends on the guitar and what you're doing with it.

OTOH, you're never going to get a great acoustic sound if you're not using real acoustic strings. Now maybe that's what you want, maybe that's the sound you hear in your head and you will love it and stick with it, and that's OK, but I'm just sayin' ...

**goshawk** · 10-20-2010, 02:04 PM

On my 17" archtop, I find flatwounds too dull, whether I was playing acoustically or electrically, and traditional acoustic strings didn't deliver the electric sound I wanted.

I had much better luck with the Newtone Archtop strings (double wound nickel on a round core) and also with the D'Addario half-rounds.

**gianluca** · 10-22-2010, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by oldane

"Easy fingerings only!".

thank you oldane for the dramaticaly true suggestions about to slim chord fingerings: sometimes I use some of the chords I learned as "beach" guitarist.
and about the strings.

and many thanks to others: you are right, there is no way, I have to try.
.013 ph/br, flats, ghs vintage and newtone. these are my next purchases.

**brad4d8** · 10-22-2010, 09:24 AM

I'm still trying different strings on my two acoustic archtops, but generally have found that Phosphor Bronze are at the least close enough to my "ideal sound" that they are never more than a change away.
I haven't tried the Newtone Archtops yet, so I'll have to give them a chance, at least on the Artist Award.
Brad