Nickel Rockers (Rollerwound) - Great Strings

[ptchristopher3]

I have never noticed these, but tried them today:

Nickel Rockers (Rollerwound)

Do not let the name fool you. The wound G sets are remarkable. A semi-flat string made by compressing the pure nickel windings.

I wish they had the Thomasik balanced tension setup (so a heavier high E and B for a given set), but for 1/4 the price of T-I these sets sort of split the difference between Swings and Bebops. Similar to the erstwhile Sadowsky Bruno strings but slightly closer to flats.

Great stuff and cheap for how good they are.

Cheap enough to add plain steel high E and B strings to these sets to balance the tension the way T-I does.

[citizenk74]

I've never experienced a problem with GHS strings. Their "Brite Flats" are also amazing.

[Peter C]

I found their 13-56 "true medium" set to be well-balanced, wisely including a .024 third in lieu of a .026, which really does my middle finger in after a while. In the next gauge down, agreed, some degree of beefing up of the plains would be expedient.

[skiboyny]

Good sounding strings. I used them for a while. Too much tension for me though.

[Hammertone]

Chris:
I discovered these a few years back, and agree - they're pretty &^%$# cool, and way cheap.

FWIW, LaBella has a similar product (nickel wrap, rollerwound, hex core), but only makes a couple of sets:
.011 | .014 | .018 | .028w | .038 | .052 |
.012 | .016 | .024w | .032 | .042 | .052 |

GHS offers a bunch of Rollerwound pure nickel-wrap strings in all sorts of combinations:
.009 | .011 | .016 | .024w | .032w | .042w |
.009 | .011 | .016 | .026w | .036w | .046w |
.010 | .013 | .017 | .026w | .036w | .046w |
.010 | .013 | .018 | .026w | .038w | .050w |
.011 | .015 | .018 | .026w | .036w | .050w |
.011 | .014 | .019 | .028w | .040w | .052w |
.011 | .015 | .019 | .028w | .038w | .058w | - ("Low-tuned" set)
.011 | .013 | .018w | .026w | .038w | .050w |
.012 | .015 | .022w | .028w | .042w | .054w |
.013 | .017 | .024w | .032w | .042w | .056w |
.016 | .018 | .028w | .036w | .046w | .056w | - ("Resonator" set)

These are different from their Burnished (polished) roundwound pure nickel-wrap strings or their Brite-Flat groundwound Alloy 52 (50.50% nickel-iron alloy) strings.

[Gitpicker]

I was introduced to these strings some months back from maestro John Pisano. He uses the roller-wound 13s on his own guitars BUT he gets swaps out the heavy .056 sixth string with a .054. Great combination!

As a side note my old guitar teacher back in the day Warren Nunes (RIP) used to use the GHS bright flats on his axe (a 57 L5CES) and so I used to use them too and they are also great strings. Warren LOVED the heavier bass.

[entresz]

These sound interesting.

I use TI Jazz Swings - most roundwound sets are far too squeaky for me (it's like nails on a chalkboard to me).
Are these GHS rollerwound rockers noticeable smoother than typical roundwounds?

[ptchristopher3]

These sound interesting.

Are these GHS rollerwound rockers noticeable smoother than typical roundwounds?

Yes, far smoother.

It is not that ground-wound, or other slightly ground or compressed strings were unknown to me.

It is that these particular strings really seem to nail the concept perfectly.

They are flatter than the erstwhile Sadowsky Bruno strings, or the old Fender 150 strings as I remember them from 40 years ago.

They are not plunky like D’A Half-rounds.

They are pure nickel.

Anyway...

Much smoother than rounds.

Far less finger squeak than rounds.

No tendency to get a little shrill or grinding sound when my poor right hand technique digs in too much.

And a sound right between the (fairly smooth) TI Bebop rounds and the TI Swing flats.

And if you do not like the gauge mix, remember these are ~ 1/4 the cost of TI, so get whatever single strings you need, and you are still in good shape for total quatloos spent.

Again, it is not that ground or roller-wound strings are news. It is that in my opinion (and 40+ years and thousands and thousands of string changes) this particular string really nails it.

And at a very reasonable cost.

Go figure.

Not trying to sell anything - just surprised that these strings are new to me, and really just the ticket for several guitars here. As in, “If you could use only one type of string...”

[entresz]

I'll have to give these a try!

I love the TIs but they just keep going up in price, would be good to find an alternative.

[ptchristopher3]

I'll have to give these a try!

I love the TIs but they just keep going up in price, would be good to find an alternative.

Likewise love the TI Swings, and considering how long they last, the absolute (vs. relative) cost is not a big deal.

So I am not trying to crap on the TI Swings. But I have now tried the GHS nickel rockers on a second guitar, and love the sound. A softer fatter pick gets me to flats, and a thinner harder pick gets me to rounds.

No idea how long they last, but at the moderate cost, this may not matter much.

Fun to find new stuff.

Thanks for the overall summary chart Hammer.

[John A.]

Yes, far smoother.

It is not that ground-wound, or other slightly ground or compressed strings were unknown to me.

It is that these particular strings really seem to nail the concept perfectly.

They are flatter than the erstwhile Sadowsky Bruno strings, or the old Fender 150 strings as I remember them from 40 years ago.

They are not plunky like D’A Half-rounds.

They are pure nickel.

Anyway...

Much smoother than rounds.

Far less finger squeak than rounds.

No tendency to get a little shrill or grinding sound when my poor right hand technique digs in too much.

And a sound right between the (fairly smooth) TI Bebop rounds and the TI Swing flats.

And if you do not like the gauge mix, remember these are ~ 1/4 the cost of TI, so get whatever single strings you need, and you are still in good shape for total quatloos spent.

Again, it is not that ground or roller-wound strings are news. It is that in my opinion (and 40+ years and thousands and thousands of string changes) this particular string really nails it.

And at a very reasonable cost.

Go figure.

Not trying to sell anything - just surprised that these strings are new to me, and really just the ticket for several guitars here. As in, “If you could use only one type of string...”

So this thread prompted me to pick up a set of both GHS and LaBella rollerwounds, and a set D'A Chromes (haven't used those in a long time), and will be comparing all to the Martin models I've been using for a while, as well as to the TI Bebop swings and D'Addario XL nickel-plated round wounds, also tried. The Martins had been the winner up to this point, but so far I think I prefer the GHS. They actually do squeak less than the Martins (the TI's did not), sound really good plugged in, and have a slightly lower-tension feel, even (paradoxically to me) on the plain strings. The Martins sound are a little louder unplugged (which does somewhat matter to me since I play unplugged a lot), but not enough to outweigh the improvement in feel. Let's see how long the GHS's last. Thanks for the tip.

John

[entresz]

I have just fitted a set of .12 gauge GHS Nickel Rockers Rollerwound strings to my Gretsch G-400 Synchromatic

So far, so good!

I like the smoother feel. Nowhere near as squeaky as regular round-wounds are. Compared to the 12-50 TI flats set, these have a fair bit more heft in the lower strings, they're heavier gauged as is generally the case. I also like that they give the guitar more acoustic volume. This guitar is mainly used for a 30's/40's electric sound, or sometimes I will mic it for Freddie Green style comping. The flats rule out the Freddie Green sound, these rollerwound strings offer benefits of both flatwounds and roundwounds.

The test will be how they go at a gig, will bring that guitar along for the next one and see how they go.

[Ol' Fret]

GHS: A high quality core wire is wrapped with a round, pure nickel cover that is slightly flattened by computer controlled precision rollers in the winding process.


One problem is inherent to all these conventionally produced 'rollerwound' cover wires.
You could see it under magnification: the wire surface touched by high-pressure rollers gets compressed with the consequence that the transition areas between the rolled and the untouched cover get mismatched, with rough and edgy bulges (see red circles in the cross-section diagram).



That can hardly be beneficial in terms of the multidimensionally already 'inharmonous' enough string vibration, and it is questionable if that 'slightly flattened' cover surface can be wound precisely and constantly enough around the core wire over the entire string length to prevent possible disadvantages of those mentioned critical transition areas.
A reduced life span of such strings must be expected.

Violin players are trained to use the fingers as effortless as possible, that is, for example, to keep the fingers on the strings whenever possible, also during position changes. So, mainly flatwounds for me ...
While some guitarists preferring roundwound strings are widely able to avoid annoying finger noises (probably using a different technique from the beginning), some others may play as well or better, but can sound distracting, at least in less noisy music.

[ptchristopher3]

Hi ol’Fret,

I only have a 25X magnifier but can see the artifact you mention on the wound strings.

It is extremely small. It is visible only because it exceeds [my visiual impression of] the standard deviation on the rest of the rolled surface by some miniscule amount.

I can feel and hear absolutely no effect from this whatsoever when playing.

So I definitely understand what you mention, and under 25X magnification I can see it as a VERY small artifact on the surface - with no discernible effect at all.

I am about 6 weeks into my first set of these, and they sound unchanged from the way they sounded after the first couple of hours of playing (during which I find brand new strings to calm down a little.)

[John A.]

GHS: A high quality core wire is wrapped with a round, pure nickel cover that is slightly flattened by computer controlled precision rollers in the winding process.


One problem is inherent to all these conventionally produced 'rollerwound' cover wires.
You could see it under magnification: the wire surface touched by high-pressure rollers gets compressed with the consequence that the transition areas between the rolled and the untouched cover get mismatched, with rough and edgy bulges (see red circles in the cross-section diagram).



That can hardly be beneficial in terms of the multidimensionally already 'inharmonous' enough string vibration, and it is questionable if that 'slightly flattened' cover surface can be wound precisely and constantly enough around the core wire over the entire string length to prevent possible disadvantages of those mentioned critical transition areas.
A reduced life span of such strings must be expected.

Violin players are trained to use the fingers as effortless as possible, that is, for example, to keep the fingers on the strings whenever possible, also during position changes. So, mainly flatwounds for me ...
While some guitarists preferring roundwound strings are widely able to avoid annoying finger noises (probably using a different technique from the beginning), some others may play as well or better, but can sound distracting, at least in less noisy music.

I have been experimenting with different roundwound strings over the past ~year with different winding sizes and shapes (including these flattened ones), and winding materials (nickel plated vs solid nickel alloy). So far as I can tell, they all sound the same plugged in, except for different degrees of finger squeak, so I don't think the "inharmonious" effect you're noting actually occurs with real guitars and amps (at least not with mine). I've had the GHS's on for five weeks, and have been playing a ton (a couple of gigs, multiple jams, and a lot of practicing), including under conditions that tend to beat up strings (outdoors; hot/muggy rooms) . They're holding up fine. They do squeak, but somewhat less than the others I've tried.

John

[ptchristopher3]

Hi John,

Inharmonicity happens with all strings. The less flexible the string, the greater the inharmonicity. Note how plinky and weird an .020 plain G can sound way up the FB compared to a wound G - there is the inharmonicity at work. The plain G is less flexible.

****************

Inharmonicity is the reason pianos are “stretch-tuned”. The harmonics are sharp vs. the fundamantal note on ALL strings. So if an A note on a piano is tuned to 440, the A note one octave up will sound (slightly) flat if tuned to 880 and played along with the A-440 note.

With the huge frequency range of a piano, this becomes a very big issue over several octaves.

Higher order harmonics (vs. a simple octave) are generally subject to even greater inharmonicity (sharpness vs. the expected frequency.)

On a guitar, Inharmonicity is far less of an issue, but does very much come into play in the odd sound of harmonic continent as the string length gets shorter playing up the FB.

It is also why some prefer the sound of a longer scale length.

The imperfect (or un-total) flexibility of a given string is more or less fixed regardless of the total vibrating length. So a shorter vibrating length of a given string will suffer greater inharmonicity.

blah,blah,blah

[ptchristopher3]

I think Ol’ Fret was actually referring to a generally “inharmonious” - maybe meaning simply “inconsistent” string performance due to inconsistent mass along the string length.

This may happen in principle when you do anything at all as an added process the the string. I have noticed absolutely no problems in this, or any other, regard with the GHS strings in question.

[John A.]

Hi John,

Inharmonicity happens with all strings. The less flexible the string, the greater the inharmonicity. Note how plinky and weird an .020 plain G can sound way up the FB compared to a wound G - there is the inharmonicity at work. The plain G is less flexible.

****************

Inharmonicity is the reason pianos are “stretch-tuned”. The harmonics are sharp vs. the fundamantal note on ALL strings. So if an A note on a piano is tuned to 440, the A note one octave up will sound (slightly) flat if tuned to 880 and played along with the A-440 note.

With the huge frequency range of a piano, this becomes a very big issue over several octaves.

Higher order harmonics (vs. a simple octave) are generally subject to even greater inharmonicity (sharpness vs. the expected frequency.)

On a guitar, Inharmonicity is far less of an issue, but does very much come into play in the odd sound of harmonic continent as the string length gets shorter playing up the FB.

It is also why some prefer the sound of a longer scale length.

The imperfect (or un-total) flexibility of a given string is more or less fixed regardless of the total vibrating length. So a shorter vibrating length of a given string will suffer greater inharmonicity.

blah,blah,blah

It wasn't clear to me in context whether he meant inharmonious in the technical sense, or just "crappy sounding." Regardless, he seems to be suggesting that this form of string sounds worse and is less durable than unmolested roundwounds. Not my experience thus far. If I'm misinterpreting anything, apologies to all and sundry.

John

[Hammertone]

So long as these strings don't precipitate any incontinence, it's all good.

[John A.]

So long as these strings don't precipitate any incontinence, it's all good.

No promises.

John

[ptchristopher3]

Just in case, I will sit in the IKEA chair when playing these strings until my confidence is restored.

‘Precipitate’, I get it.

[ptchristopher3]

John,

I think Ol’Fret really did mean generalised crap-o-sity rather than technical inharmonicity.

In principle, I understand the point.

[Ol' Fret]

Thanks for all comments, guys, it's always welcome if light is shed from several sides!
Maybe GHS has superior control of the rollerwound process, and we should seriously give them a try!

Being basically a flat guy … I guess I'll have to stay flat. Somehow, IMO, 'inharmonious' is related to 'inferior sounding', but it's not exactly the same. Humans should be used to inharmonious vibrations ... still working on that.
Maybe it's all about the desire for symmetry: a symmetric round core wire plus a symmetric round cover wire - just without the squeaking. A highly burnished (all around) round cover wire, that would it be, though it would definitely make more sense to use the industry crap that we are offered, and have more time for playing and fun!

Incontinence, IMO, is generally less of a problem than cerebral stenosis. We could always play some appropriate songs, like, for example, the title of a Johnny Griffin original reveals:

[Hammertone]

Incontinence, IMO, is generally less of a problem than cerebral stenosis. We could always play some appropriate songs, like, for example, the title of a Johnny Griffin original reveals.

Given this charming thought, perhaps also laying a small tarp under the Ikea chair would be prudent. "Generalised crap-o-sity," indeed.

[fep]

Assuming this post does not get deleted by our odd and silent Vlaamse master[s]....

What is a Vlaamse master? (I tried googling it but only came up with links in German which I don't speak.)