all Aquila low G sets wound now?

M

merlin666

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,617
Reaction score
1,943
Location
Canada Prairies, brrr ....
I haven't played the uke for a long time but I had a chance to try a few different string sets and finally found one that really works well for me - the Aquila Super Nylgut with a red low G string (107U). So Strings & Beyond is having an Aquila sale and I am browsing the sets and notice that they have "upgraded" all their low G sets to include a wound G string! So now the only way to get red low G is to buy a regular set and a separate red Log string it seems. I find this annoying as I will not even consider a wound low G, and re-entrant is not really appealing either. Are there any other low G sets that come close to the Super Nylgut - Red combination in terms of playability, balance, volume, and longevity from other string makers?
 
I didn't think I'd like wound strings, but the sound of wound low-G or low-D (baritone) is so tremendously better in my ears than the plain equivalents that get thuddy when you go up the neck. I've come to really love wound strings on the baritone and the tenor. Matter of preference, though, no doubt.

Buying the Red unwound string separately doesn't seem like such a bad approach. Those strings last forever and the singles are very cheap. Personally, I think it really is an upgrade to include wound low strings by default, though ideally both should be included. That'd make everyone happy. I also agree that it's annoying when string makers change the content of sets while keeping the same product numbers. I bumped into that problem with Aquila also.
 
I'd be interested in how the Aquila wound low g compares to the Fremont Squeekless.
 
My main issue with wound string is that it's much thicker and I already had to expand both nut and bridge slots for the red, and secondly wound strings go dull way too fast for my liking where as the red has retained it's initial tone for well over a year now. Of course I keep fingers crossed that the set will last even longer.
 
merlin666 said:
My main issue with wound string is that it's much thicker
Click to expand...

Every wound low-G string I have seen was thinner than the plain low-G strings I have seen. I don't know if that is a rule, though, just my observation. I believe, though, wound strings came into being because unwound ones for the same notes were too thick. Someone please correct me if this is wrong. It's true that they wear out faster. (That makes singles great, though. Only need to buy and replace one string.)

I'd be interested in how the Aquila wound low g compares to the Fremont Squeekless.
Click to expand...

The Aquila ones squeak a little. I have seen three different ones: the Red wound G string (tenor), the silver wound G string (tenor, meant for the dGBE set), and the baritone wound G string. Of those, the red one squeaks minimally only. It's also fairly thin. I haven't tried the Fremont one yet.
 
Last edited:
My experience is completely the opposite to the O/P. My Aquila wound low g is thinner than a (Living Water) fluorocarbon low g.
I really do prefer the crispness of a wound low g. I find a fluorocarbon low g can sound droning and thudding - admittedly I've yet to try a red low g, although I do have one that I recently bought (separately) to try.
 
Last edited:
merlin666 said:
My main issue with wound string is that it's much thicker and I already had to expand both nut and bridge slots for the red, and secondly wound strings go dull way too fast for my liking where as the red has retained it's initial tone for well over a year now. Of course I keep fingers crossed that the set will last even longer.
Click to expand...

I quit using the Aquila Reds because of the breakage problems. I got tired of them snapping. The Reds are definitely fatter than the Aquila wound strings. The nut slot doesn't even have to be widened for them.

Also . . . when one runs his/her finger up the wound one it makes that professional sounding whine--love it! :eek:ld:
 
I recently changed out a set of Reds for a newer set of Red on my cedar/acacia tenor, and they are done settling.

The wound low G is more tonally consistent with the brighter treble strings than the darker, more muffled unwound string was, and it is wound with quite fine wire that minimizes squeaking. The wound string is brighter than the unwound string and remains lively up the fretboard (not that I play that string much up the fretboard).

I have concerns about how long the string will last. If it only lasts a couple weeks, I'll probably return to the unwound low G. If it lasts a month or longer before significant fraying accrues, I'll probably stick with the wound low G.

YMMV.
 
PhilUSAFRet said:
I'd be interested in how the Aquila wound low g compares to the Fremont Squeekless.
Click to expand...

The first experience I had with a wound string was the one that came with a set of Aquilas. I hated it! For a long time I swore off wound strings. I had been reading a lot of praises for the Fremont, so I decided to give one a shot. Completely different!!! Absolutely love it!
 
merlin666 said:
My main issue with wound string is that it's much thicker ...
Click to expand...

Wound low G's should always be thiner that an unwound low G because that are denser. The higher the density the thiner the string can be to produce the same pitch. At least that's how I understand it. And they surely don't have that thumpy sound when you play up the neck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
2 sets Aquila New Nylgut low-G tenor strings
Replies
2
Views
320
deschutestrout
D
Ukedani
Aquila String sets low G concert
Replies
4
Views
612
Ukedani
Ukedani
P
FS: Aquila wound low G Tenor Sets + Mobius Strap
Replies
0
Views
282
peaceweaver3
P
davidrboy
Aquila strings - concert sets and tenor low Gs
Replies
3
Views
587
Macmuse
Macmuse
O
Aquila low G, wound?
Replies
9
Views
401
Osadandalua
O
Top Bottom