Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

lucky wrote:Interesting reading the price of the Rotosounds I bought today were £17.99 aprox $28.71,how much are Roto's in the US.

in the late '70's, i was paying 45.00 canadian for rotos. here in buffalo at the guitar shows currently, about 16.00 usd. ebay has some good deals at times with shipping inc.

I guess the polar opposite paradigm of this thread is the notion fact that Steve Stills apparently dipped his P-Bass strings in barbecue sauce to get that "instantly dead" sound.

Actually, to deaden strings, the best thing would probably be water with some sucrose (1-2%) to nucleate/crystallize in the ridges and folds. Barbecue sauce would be an extraordinarily concentrated version of this...

Stainless steel flats in water for 12 hours really might be a good recipe, add sugar "to taste". To REALLY deaden the strings some NaOH could certainly help. And...hmm... I wonder if NaBH4 might have the opposite effect by reducing the metal oxides...

For years I used to boil my TI Spirocore double bass strings and I will attest that I never saw a single speck of oxidation as a result. I would then wipe them down w/ 91% i-propanol. Back in the early-mid 90s, these cost about $140 per set, which was a fortune to me at the time.

The only degradation that I noticed was that of the color of the silks. After about 3 boils they began to turn to pinkish from red, which was a clear indication that it was time for a new set. Well, either that or it was time to paint fretlines on my upright.

And Gary; thanks for saving me the rant about MeOH vs EtOH.

You likely would not see the oxidation on a macroscopic scale. If you did, that would mean a huge proportion of metal atoms would have formed oxides, which would probably render the string unplayable. But if there is only one oxide per hundred thousand atoms it would be invisible, and I think that's what we're dealing with as far as strings go. I've only ever seen one string that was visibly rusty.

guitfiddle wrote:I guess the polar opposite paradigm of this thread is the notion fact that Steve Stills apparently dipped his P-Bass strings in barbecue sauce to get that "instantly dead" sound.

Hah!

lucky wrote:When I first started playing the thing we poor young musicians would do was boil the strings,did'nt last longer though.

I used to do that, they would sound really good for about 3 minutes and then go deader than ever......

emac.

Further to the "New" string sound, I've just jumped brands again. I used Rotos for years on my Rickenbackers but through this forum decided to give my old RM a bit of respite from the tension of the 45, 65, 80, 105 sets and also thought to be nicer to the frets. I tried a combined Rickenbacker/Daddario set (45, 60, 80, 105) and really hated the sound, they made both of my Rickenbackers sound really uninteresting, They start with too much treble and a lack of high mids and with in a short time disolve into a thumpy blur with no articulation, I would much rather play with some good flats that still have some mids! (don't think that I'm a treble freak, I want just to hear the whole spectrum)

I returned to an import brand that we get in Australia called "Puretone" The strings are made in Korea but the steel is the spec that Daddario used many years ago. ( I used to use Puretone strings on folks basses who did not want to shell out for expensive strings)
They feel a bit like rotos but will in time (a long time) develop flat spots instead of eating the frets. They have a high mid peak that sounds again like rotos but a little deeper. They really last along time and will hold their tone to a point where they start to sound out of tune (probably due to the flat spots messing with the harmonics) They out last Rotos in the tone department.

Here's the curious bit, they are gauged funny.. 45, 60, 80, 100 but it really suits the Rickenbackers and the intonation on the saddles almost becomes a straight line (earlier basses may not have enough travel back) but they give me that Squiresque tone with the knobs up and a middy Macca sound when you roll them back a bit.
You do get the odd duff string, but let Puretone know so they can sort out, they have developed a good service reputation and they want to keep it.

I'm also in discussions with them to get a 12 string bass set made too...

They cost about $50 au posted for three sets so they are fairly good value.. So if you want a Rotoesque sound that is more gentle on necks and frets Puretone is well worth a try...

Rant over....


emac.

I used to boil my Rotos, too. Sure got 'em clean, and they sounded great afterward. But, yeah, probably didn't do much good for their lifespan.

Strange - the predominantly negative results that folks have gotten from boiling the strings. I've always boiled mine to retain that new sound, (which I DO love, the clang and chime they get. Chris Choir is The Man in my Book as well.) Matter of fact, I don't like to play unless my strings sound new. I've never had problems with noticeable rust, (microscopic I can't attest to) or degradation in sound quality. I still prefer this method over using alcohol because I've honestly found the strings to sound newer via boiling. To each his own, obviously, but one point I offer in favor of boiling is that it takes 5 minutes vs 12-24 hours as outlined in that article. After the 5 minute boil, I do make a point of drying each string individually with a clean cotton towel to discourage rust.

Another factor which may come into play here - maybe some brands resist rust better than others, if that sounds feasible. I've always found Rotos to be short lived. Every set I've used sounded great for about three days, then not so hot after that. Boiling would help the sound, but they'd go dead as quick as when they were new. Now I use DR strings, and I swear by them not only for tone, but for longevity. I've got sets on my basses that have been there for SIX YEARS, and they still sound new. They sound great even a little dirty, and always sound like new after boiling.

Also, there's the stainless steel vs nickel wound component. I've had the same luck boiling both, but I wonder if one is more susceptible to rust than the other. I thought the nature of stainless steel was that it was rust resistant, and that's why string companies used it to combat the moisture and salt from player's hands. Not sure about the rust resistant properties of nickel strings, but I use them on more of my basses than steel and I profess equal proficiency of the boiling method on both. The nickels are a little kinder to the frets and still get about 95% of the clang that steels get, to my ear. I'm basing this comparison on the DR's, of course.

My big fat synopsis: The reason I've always believed that boiling works best is that the heat and water remove ALL gunk and impurities from the string - leaving nothing but pure string, in essence, leaving the only factor which could hamper the sound being fretwear. The times that I tried alcohol I felt that the results weren't as optimal, and I assumed that there was still alcohol residue left behind on the string that still hampered the harmonic quality.

walker wrote: Also, there's the stainless steel vs nickel wound component. I've had the same luck boiling both, but I wonder if one is more susceptible to rust than the other. I thought the nature of stainless steel was that it was rust resistant, and that's why string companies used it to combat the moisture and salt from player's hands.

Not to get scientific again, but when a subject I can talk about comes up...rust is, by definition, iron(III)oxide, so nickel doesn't rust. It does, however, corrode, but not rapidly. In any case, I generally use stainless steel strings (stainless is a complete misnomer, by the way; "stainless" steel sure does oxidize over time depending on application) and not nickel. The Tomastik Spirocores I discussed above cleaned up nicely by boiling, and notwithstanding the opinions of those here and in the links provided, I see no problem with it at all; especially when using 91% i-propanol afterwards.

I believe nickel is more susceptible to oxidation than steel (just a hunch); and frankly I'm okay with the term "rust" as generally meaning ANY metal oxide even though John is 100% right, it is actually ferric iron oxide as you would find in the redox cycling of many cellular enzymes. I'm not an inorganic chemist which makes me a lot sloppier when I dabble in this field.

Mark suggested some strings may resist oxidation more than others. I believe this is highly likely to be true. Would be a fun study.

I am actually making some string cleaning tubes with denatured ethanol (okay Gary and John? ), and now I'm wondering about making some more to test NaOH and NaBH4 aqueous solutions to see if I can, respectively, oxidize and reduce or age and "revitalize" strings successfully. Could be a fun little side endeavor.

The interesting thing about metal oxides in strings is that they don't really travel around in a fluid system the way the electrons themselves can, so it's quite different from what I'm used to, dealing with the oxides as a part of enzymes that are used to biotransform toxins (drugs), protoxins (prodrugs), and naturally synthesized hormones. In that case the oxide rarely remains an oxide for very long, a few minutes at best. In a semi-isolated system like a string, I'd imagine it is difficult for an oxide to rearrange itself through any other reaction without being suspended in a solution (sweat or cleaning fluids).

I hope I didn't come across as being critical, because that was not my intent. One of the things I really like about this forum is that it is very often the goal of a discussion to get things right. While I am not a Rick expert, I do have a bit of knowledge and I try to impart it when I can.

When it comes to science; in particular, chemistry, I've got 25 years of practical application, and I know that most of the folks here do not. So, in some ways, I try to explain things so there can be a certain amount of general understanding about something that is most often explained to people by the news media, which is akin to asking your local butcher how to replace an o-ring in the space shuttle.

So, I guess I'm apologizing, but for what, I'm not sure.

As to the penchant for corrosion of nickel vs. steel; when it coms to strings, it is indeed a direct function of the moisture and oils in one's fingers that either induces that effect or not. Moisture content and the amount of dissolved oxygen in that moisture, along with the pH of that moisture, to be more exact. Some people sweat corrosivity, others do not.

But it is not a "suspension;" rather, it is a surface phenomenon, which is a field of chemistry with which I am not terribly familar. So, I'll leave it at that.

No need to apologize John, I was just pointing out that I would call strings "rusty" even if they technically aren't actually rusting. For my purposes it's okay to just call the oxidation rust because I don't know what else to call it, besides oxidation, which is usually too cumbersome.

Surface phenomena in drug exposure usually involve surface area of exposure times dose times exposure time. Unfortunately it's probably impossible to make that sort of thing practical to string oxidation in any truly mathematical way (unless it's what you study). However it is possible to infer common sense things that most of us already realize without any math, like, a sweatier person (higher dose) will oxidize their strings faster, and a set of strings played longer (exposure time) will oxidize more. The bit about area of exposure also has some relevance for those of us who play certain frets more often or favor a certain area with the plucking hand. I have sometimes noticed little black patches in the strings over the first few frets where I tend to play a lot.

Interesting how the PH of someone's hand-sweat could come into play. To try and diminish that factor, I always wash my hands before playing. That's doesn't count for much as I sweat while playing (which I do more in winter months than summer, ironically) but it does assure that I'm not bringing any grease, dirt, or sweaty salty residue to the string when I start playing. The sweat factor comes into play the most on my '64' & '68 basses with the (Nitrous?) finish that rubs off in your hands if they're wet. I find that once I've got that stuff on my fingers and then get it on the strings, that deadens them right quick. The boiling takes care of that, though.

When I'm recording, I usually use my '68, but I do all the writing and rehearsing of the track with my '79 4001SLH (different finish that doesn't rub off on sweaty hands) so I don't risk getting finish all over the '68 strings before I hit the 'record' button. I adopted this habit after a particularly long & difficult song that I recorded with the '68. When I started, the strings were freshly boiled and sounded new. Throughout the session, I had sweated and gotten so much finish on the strings that they sounded dead by day's end.