PDA

View Full Version : Worth strings....clear vs. brown



mailman
09-03-2009, 02:59 PM
I'm not sure who the real authority would be, but maybe someone can shed some light here.

I've read in these forums that the only difference between Worth clears and Worth browns is....pigmentation. Same strings, same characteristics, same dimensions, same everything except color.

There are folks who post here who obviously think that there are other differences, as well. Some insist that Worth clears sound better to them than Worth browns, for example (or vice versa). Several posts that I have read claim that the strings differ in tonality, somehow.

I know, too, that Worth offers different string tensions. Although this is another issue altogether, what are the most commonly used? How many varieties are there?

So what's the real answer? Are they really the same strings with some dying agents added to one? Or are there more differences than meet the eye? :anyone:

Kanaka916
09-03-2009, 03:33 PM
Here's a list of Worth strings (http://www.worthc.to/W-Strings-e.html) available. The most commonly used are Clears and Browns. The members who use Worth say the Clears are louder and the Browns are a little mellower. I think you'll have to judge for yourself.

Kmetzger
09-03-2009, 04:15 PM
According to Elderly, a big online retailer of Worth, the browns are "... a softer, more mellow sound compared to the Worth clear strings".

experimentjon
09-03-2009, 06:10 PM
Hmm, I think the browns are skinnier. But that's just from memory, since I don't have my ukes here with me now. But I have a tenor set of browns and a tenor set of clears. I'm not sure on specifics like hardness, but I'm almost 90% sure the the browns are thinner.

Kmetzger
09-03-2009, 06:20 PM
Hmm, I think the browns are skinnier. But that's just from memory, since I don't have my ukes here with me now. But I have a tenor set of browns and a tenor set of clears. I'm not sure on specifics like hardness, but I'm almost 90% sure the the browns are thinner.

Though Worth has sets with different gauges (regular, strong, heavy, etc.), they have the same guages for both brown and clear in most of these. For example, the regular tenor set for *both* brown and clear is .0224"(.57mm), .0260"(.66mm), .0291"(.74m m) .0244"(.62mm).

mailman
09-03-2009, 06:21 PM
Hmm, I think the browns are skinnier. But that's just from memory, since I don't have my ukes here with me now. But I have a tenor set of browns and a tenor set of clears. I'm not sure on specifics like hardness, but I'm almost 90% sure the the browns are thinner.

I checked the stats online, at the link Kanaka916 provided above, and the dimensions are identical between clear and brown.

ukeskywalker79
09-03-2009, 08:19 PM
There was a thread regarding this a while back. It was originally thought that they were both identical, just different coloring. Although they are the same thickness a Worth Representative confirmed that they are indeed different in sound/tone. Best thing do do is try them both and see which one your uke as well as your ears like better.

Ken Middleton
09-03-2009, 09:04 PM
I have recently been doing some tests using Worth strings on different Ohana instruments. I have spoken several times with the owner of Worth about these issues. This is what I have concluded.

1. There is a subtle, but discernible, difference in tone between the brown and clear strings.

2. Brown strings have a slightly more mellow tone than the brighter clear strings.

3. Like for like, the clear and brown strings have exactly the same thickness e.g. CT and BT have the same dimensions.

4. All their strings take a few days to settle and then become very stable.

5. Once they have stabilised, the tone produced by all the normal thickness strings is very pure and clean.

6. A good reason for choosing clear over brown, or brown over clear, is the way they look on the instrument. The cosmetic issue is important to Worth.

Hope this helps

KEN

yookyoolayleeh
09-03-2009, 09:50 PM
That's great stuff Ken - thanks for sharing.

Do you have any similar insights into the characteristics of the different thinknesses and tensions that Worth offer?

Using CM or BM (clear medium, brown medium) as a baseline, how would the experience differ when using the lighter strings, the extra tension ones, or even stringing a soprano with tenor strings, as I understand some people do (apparently a set of Worth tenor strings provides enough for three sopranos).

I'm expecting some BMs in the post today - woooh!

Ken Middleton
09-03-2009, 10:12 PM
That's great stuff Ken - thanks for sharing.

Do you have any similar insights into the characteristics of the different thinknesses and tensions that Worth offer?

Using CM or BM (clear medium, brown medium) as a baseline, how would the experience differ when using the lighter strings, the extra tension ones, or even stringing a soprano with tenor strings, as I understand some people do (apparently a set of Worth tenor strings provides enough for three sopranos).

I'm expecting some BMs in the post today - woooh!

Just about to go to work.

Check their website and you will see that the different "gauges" of strings are not that different. I don't like the fat strings. I don't have any reason to just change the 4th. So I stick to BM, CM, BT and CT.

Richie23
12-27-2010, 11:39 AM
Has anyone used the Worth BB (for DGBE baritones). I just ordered some, as I am having to replace other baritone (just the wound strings) constantly, as they don't last long, and I noticed that the Worths are all Fluorocarbon - yippeee.. at long last a full set of baritone strings in DGBE tuning with no flimsy wound strings...

I would love to hear other baritone players opinions on the Worth Brown Baritone set, or the clears if you use them.

southcoastukes
12-27-2010, 12:25 PM
What most folks haven't heard is that "Flourocarbon" is not a material with absolute characteristics, but varies from one formulation to the next.

One important variation is in density. This is why so many run into trouble trying to predict tone or pitch from diameter alone.

An Aquila string, for example is much thicker than any flourocarbon you would use for the same purpose. This is because flourocarbon is much denser - therefore can be thinner. Density, however, and therefore thickness varies among floroucarbon formulations as well.

The differences are not so pronounced as they are between a flourocarbon and a nylgut string, but are significant enough to effect diameter and tone.

In our sets, we actually mix materials to get better balance with both tone and tension. The last time I looked at Worth, they used at least two different formulations in their clears, and the browns are different from either of these. All their sets, however, are made from one material only (in other words - no mixed material sets).