Low G: Wound or Not?

I'm a big fan of the Worth strings, but I noticed they are the only brand of strings I know that don't uke wound low G strings. Even the baritone set is all fluorocarbon.

I find the the sound of a all-nylon (or fluorocarbon, or nylgut) more pleasant than when you have 2 materials mixed.

There is any disadvantage in using non-wound materials for thicker strings?

Doesn't answer your question but just as an FYI, you can also get a non wound set of low g strings in Fremont Blackline's set.

Southcoast also makes wound and unwound sets.

I put a Fremont low g on my Dolphin with the other three strings being Aquila's, it works fine. BTW, Aquila makes non-wound low g strings to.
Wound strings can't be shortened, that's a disadvantage.

For those who don't like wounds, ya gotta try the Southcoast wound sets. I believe you'll be surprised at the tonal quality and balance minus the squeaks . . . not as noticeable or prevalent as other wound strings.

Not sure about advantages/disadvantages, I think it comes down to preference. I personally am not a big fan of wound strings. When I have played with them before I get a squeak when I move my fingers down/up a wound string. I have also found the wound strings tend to overpower the unwound strings. I haven't tried a wound string in a while so not sure If my feelings are still valid.

All we use are Southcoast Linears. (low g, nonwound)

Fantastic strings...

I have had Aquilas for Soprano,Tenor and Baritone
all in plain nylgut with no wound string included.Which
suits me fine,as I get through wound ones in around
two weeks anyway!

Kanaka916 said:

For those who don't like wounds, ya gotta try the Southcoast wound sets. I believe you'll be surprised at the tonal quality and balance minus the squeaks . . . not as noticeable or prevalent as other wound strings.

Click to expand...

I also went through every non-wound set before I gave in and tried the wound "g" and "c" linear set that Dirk recommended. LOVE them!! Very balanced sound. Loud with a very clear ring to them.

Edit*
On my:
Kamaka - they balanced out the sound by lessening the low end (reduced the "boominess") and also increased the volume (Previously tried: Fremonts, Worths 'clears, browns, 'hard', Aquila wound and unwound low "g")

Kala - brighter and louder than than the Aquila's without being "plinky"

Yoshi-lele - substantially increased the volume and sustain (replaced Aquila's here as well).
-Gary

Thanks for the info on this very useful thread guys!

I teach w/ Low G wounds right now, but will need to replace those Aquilas at the end of the spring semester.

Maiyah888 said:

Thanks for the info on this very useful thread guys!

I teach w/ Low G wounds right now, but will need to replace those Aquilas at the end of the spring semester.

Click to expand...

I found with the Worth CD (non-wound) low G is pretty decent for a non-wound string. It lasts longer than a wound string.

The Worth CM low g string had too low tension and was a bit floppy and not very playable.

Here's another vote you try the Southcoast wound and nonwound combos. I have nonwound linear on a tenor uke and it is remarkable how good the low g can sound. I have also tried the flatwound linear sets Dirk sells and it <almost> made me a convert to wounds, so smooth and quiet. But the nonwound linear set, tuned to D, is excellent and I recommend you try.

I have two tenors with low G. One wound (d'addario) and the other not (worth clear). I do find the wound to be a bit overpowering and more balanced with unwound.

Thanks for the leads. I have tried a number of low G sets, all with a wound G and haven't found any I liked. Just didn't like the tone of the wound G compared to the other plain strings. Will try some of the unwound G sets that were mentioned.

fernandogardinali said:

There is any disadvantage in using non-wound materials for thicker strings?

Click to expand...

Hello again, Fernando. This question of yours goes straight to the crux of the matter. Yes, there is a disadvantage in thick non-wound strings. It is why wound strings were invented centuries ago.

Take any string set you have, and unless it is formulated with some really out of balance tensions, you'll notice the thinner strings are clearer and brighter. The thicker you go, the less clear, less bright, less responsive, the string becomes. Sooner or later, depending on the material, you hit a threshold where it becomes pretty much useless as a musical instrument string.

The threshold on flourocarbon is higher than most, but even there, you hit a ceiling. Notice that the companies who offer these strings all stop at around the same diameter. It's not that flourocarbon isn't made even thicker than that - just that no one would ever consider using it.

That only deals with the issue of sound. The other problem is that the string would have such a great diameter that it would become uncomfortable to play.

By winding metal around a treble material core, strings for lower pitches not only regained their clarity, but also became thinner again. At what point to switch from one to the other is the great debate. I have my preferences, but they depend on the instrument and the tuning.

Good wound strings last almost as long as treble material - the problem is that good wound strings are (much) more expensive than treble material, and many string companies go for the lowest price and forget about quality and durability ("after all these are ukulele players - what do they know?").

If you really want to avoid wound strings, however, the moral of the story is: stay away from instruments or tunings that use notes too low to perform well with non-wound material. This will probably mean low 4th set-ups on the smaller instruments. Even on medium to large sizes, think of moving your tuning up a step if you have an underperforming low a note in your present set-up. Or in other words, don't try to force the square peg into the round hole.

And thanks everyone, for the kind words on our strings!