Please tell me these Fender 9050L Flats get better

[michael_t]

I'm two weeks in to a set of Fender 9050L flats on an AVRI 63 Precision and I'm having second thoughts about them. I love the lower tension and feel of these strings, which I find much easier to play than the LaBellas, but I don't like this midrange honk I can't seem to dial out. It fills up the space that the guitars sit in my band's live mix. I've tried drastically cutting mids with two different preamps but I couldn't get rid of it. I tried these because I wanted a flat that retains the mids and highs a little bit more than the LaBellas but I'm worried these strings may not settle into what I'm hoping for.

Re-reading this post got me thinking...

My 2014 Am Std P wore the La Bella 760FL for the first three months after I got it. While I enjoyed the classic P/flats vibe people always talk about and the silky smooth feel, I eventually decided the thumpy Motown sound wasn't what I needed. So off came the La Bella flats.

Then a little while later, I decided to try the Fender 9050CL flats on it to see how they would do. Sadly they stayed on there only for about a month before I decided to put them on my J bass instead, where they stayed for the next 7 mths. I guess what bothered me about the 9050s when I first put them on the P was they sounded way too bright and "clangy" after having used the La Bellas. But I realize now I probably didn't give them enough time to settle.

The good news is I still have that same set, quietly waiting to be re-activated for the last year. So my plan is to put them back on my P again to give them a second chance when I'm done with the GHS Balanced Nickels that are on it now. We'll see how that goes this time around now that they've been broken in after 8 mths of active duty.

 

[jj4001]

No. All Fender Precisions from 1958 onward (with factory split single coil pups & electronics) have some variation of the signature Precision 'Honk'. It's just one of many things that makes them special.

Ah, gotcha. Appreciate the input.

 

[Linnin]

Ah, gotcha. Appreciate the input.

You're welcome. It's a minor thing, I know, but it does make a difference in perception. With roundwounds you can really tell. The 1951-57 Precisions with the four pole single coil pickup is honkless. Just listen to some Sting recordings with his '54 or '57 Precisions. My Fender 9050M review was written using a custom lefty with the Seymour Duncan four pole single coil quarter pounder. Nary a honk to be heard. It's not the strings, although they do have far more midrange content than LaBellas.

 

[Castrinato]

I am going to be taking some Labellas off my fretless P and trying out Fender flats for the first time. Does anyone have any experience using the 9050’s with a fretless? I have EMG GZR’s currently installed as well and I am concerned it might be too ‘mid heavy’.
Thanks for all you input

 

[iiipopes]

Just to be clear, the La Bella 760FX are not the same as Low Tension Flexible Flats (which I have not tried). The FX is just the lightest gauge of the Deep Talkin' 760 line.
The Fenders are perhaps cousins of Chromes, but to my ear, they have more low mids and overall heft.

This ^ When the then-new Fender flats came out, I consumed much bandwidth debunking the myth that Fender flats were repackaged Chromes. You can read the threads for all the detail differences in alloy and construction. Yes, Fender flats have what some call growl, others call grit, others call presence, and others call honk. I tried them on several basses. On my P-style bass with the traditional recipe, they had great presence, when new a modicum of growl, and all of that mellowed. It took about six months of constant gigging for them to seat in. Since ash has a little bit of mid drop and more pop in the tone, they might work on ash. A maple body didn't bring out all they had to offer, and my gig bass being Asian mahogany compounded the honk and did not go well together at all. But again, oh, are they great on my P-style bass with the traditional recipe: alder body, maple neck, rosewood fret board.

 

[Phaidrus]

This ^ When the then-new Fender flats came out, I consumed much bandwidth debunking the myth that Fender flats were repackaged Chromes. You can read the threads for all the detail differences in alloy and construction. Yes, Fender flats have what some call growl, others call grit, others call presence, and others call honk. I tried them on several basses. On my P-style bass with the traditional recipe, they had great presence, when new a modicum of growl, and all of that mellowed. It took about six months of constant gigging for them to seat in. Since ash has a little bit of mid drop and more pop in the tone, they might work on ash. A maple body didn't bring out all they had to offer, and my gig bass being Asian mahogany compounded the honk and did not go well together at all. But again, oh, are they great on my P-style bass with the traditional recipe: alder body, maple neck, rosewood fret board.

Which sets of the Fender flats have you tried? Any thoughts/experience on possible differences between them?

 

[Phaidrus]

No. All Fender Precisions from 1958 onward (with factory split single coil pups & electronics) have some variation of the signature Precision 'Honk'. It's just one of many things that makes them special.

I'd like to believe that the PV63 pickup has none or very little of that honk for I am about to install a 9050M set on a Pbass with this pup. And I'm not so fond of that honk in this case.

 

[S.F.Sorrow]

Fender flats will mellow out over time but they will still have a certain midrange character that I personally don't think is the best match for the inherently mid focused tone of a split coil P-bass. At least not for MY preferred tone. Personally I like Fender flats better with J-basses (or other less mid-focused basses).

Like others have said, Fender flats, although manufactured by D'Addario, are definitely not the same as D'Addario Chromes. They do share certain characteristics but Fender flats are considerably warmer/fuller sounding and get better with age. D'Addario Chromes sound horrible out of the box and then they just go completely dead in a bad way. I absolutely detest Chromes but I like Fender flats on the right bass.

The PV63 pickup is a very dark sounding P-bass pickup. I never liked it with old school flats like LaBellas. The lows felt bloated and things got muddy when lowering the tone control. Especially with the .100 tone cap in the AV'63. Installing a .047 tone cap helped opening up that pickup a bit when using the tone control but it's still a very dark sounding P-bass pickup. I prefer roundwounds with the PV63. Maybe it works better with Fender flats than the dark/thumpy LaBellas? Maybe it even works better with Fender flats than most P-bass pickups? I've never tested this combination. Please report back if you do.

 

[Phaidrus]

Fender flats will mellow out over time but they will still have a certain midrange character that I personally don't think is the best match for the inherently mid focused tone of a split coil P-bass. At least not for MY preferred tone. Personally I like Fender flats better with J-basses (or other less mid-focused basses).

Like others have said, Fender flats, although manufactured by D'Addario, are definitely not the same as D'Addario Chromes. They do share certain characteristics but Fender flats are considerably warmer/fuller sounding and get better with age. D'Addario Chromes sound horrible out of the box and then they just go completely dead in a bad way. I absolutely detest Chromes but I like Fender flats on the right bass.

The PV63 pickup is a very dark sounding P-bass pickup. I never liked it with old school flats like LaBellas. The lows felt bloated and things got muddy when lowering the tone control. Especially with the .100 tone cap in the AV'63. Installing a .047 tone cap helped opening up that pickup a bit when using the tone control but it's still a very dark sounding P-bass pickup. I prefer roundwounds with the PV63. Maybe it works better with Fender flats than the dark/thumpy LaBellas? Maybe it even works better with Fender flats than most P-bass pickups? I've never tested this combination. Please report back if you do.

These are my thoughts as well.The PV63 is a mellow pickup with no upfront mids (has a sloping EQ profile - Lows:7, Mids:5, Highs:3) so it may be a good match for the Fender flats, depending on what one is looking for, of course. This bass is currently strung with new Pyramid Gold 50-70-85-105 flats and unexpectedly I do like the tone. Thick and focused without getting muddy, very tight and punchy sounding. Also literally very tight as they do feel stiff and unyielding, but that's alright, it's a bass for dub/reggae, not for fusion. I can of course imagine an even better, ideal tone in my head but perhaps I should give the Pyramids some time to develop their character and not swap them as soon as the 9050M arrive. I wonder whether the 9050M have more or less tension than this custom Pyramid Gold set, of which the D and G feel like high tension.

 

[hasbeen]

The "new" Fender flats were designed to have a little more "definition" than old-school flats. In other words, less thumpy and more focused. A lot of work also went into making them nice and flexible so it didn't feel like you were playing cables.

 

[68Goldfish]

I have a set of 9050M's on a 78 Precision. They are about four months old and they have mellowed beautifully. Very full bodied with great definition and punch. This thing does have a Fralin regular wound pickup so that might make a difference.

 

[iiipopes]

Which sets of the Fender flats have you tried? Any thoughts/experience on possible differences between them?

All of them. In my experience, my favorite was the now-discontued 9050CL, with a 105 E string. I have two NOS sets in reserve. For me, the 105 was a better tension and feel match to the rest of the set compared to the current 100 E string for the 9050L. To get a better feel, one technique is to raise the 100 E string saddle and adjust the intonation accordingly so it takes a little more to fret a string, equalizing the feel to the rest of the set, and raise the E string side of the pickup accordingly for even response.

 

[Phaidrus]

The "new" Fender flats were designed to have a little more "definition" than old-school flats. In other words, less thumpy and more focused. A lot of work also went into making them nice and flexible so it didn't feel like you were playing cables.

Being an expert in string design, do you think there is a relation between flexibility and tension to pitch of a string?

 

[hasbeen]

Being an expert in string design, do you think there is a relation between flexibility and tension to pitch of a string?

Thanks for the question. They're all related to a degree. Please understand that pitch is an overriding factor- i.e., with all being equal, the higher the pitch, the more tension and stiffness will be applied to the string. A couple of things though:
* When most people talk about tension, they're really referring to flexibility.
* Tension is an equation made up of string mass, scale length and pitch to which the string is tuned.
* Two strings of the same mass, tuned to the same pitch over the same scale length can have different levels of flexibility. That comes down to string construction.
> Speaking on that third bullet point- Two .45 gauge strings of the same mass, tuned to a G on a 34" scale will have different flex rates if one has a larger diameter core than the other. Just for the sake of simple math- If one string has a core diameter of .20" and the wrap add another .25", that string will be more flexible than another .45 gauge string where the core is .25" and the wrap adds another .20". Not to over simplify, but the all else being equal, the heavier the core, the stiffer the string.

BTW, I don't consider myself an expert. I'm sure there are things at play that an engineer would understand and/or quantify better or differently. One is the shape of the core. I think/feel that a round core has more flex than a hex core. That may be perception.

To extrapolate on this a bit- some bassists (very good and knowledgeable ones I might add) insist that strings going through the back of the body have more tension than if they go through the back of the bridge. Well, based on math, going through the back of the body doesn't matter because as mentioned previously, tension has to do with: scale length, pitch and string mass. Yet, for whatever is going on, they perceive going through the back changes the tension. I won't argue with them as I can't quantify what somebody "feels".

I hope this makes sense.

 

[Phaidrus]

Thanks for the question. They're all related to a degree. Please understand that pitch is an overriding factor- i.e., with all being equal, the higher the pitch, the more tension and stiffness will be applied to the string. A couple of things though:
* When most people talk about tension, they're really referring to flexibility.
* Tension is an equation made up of string mass, scale length and pitch to which the string is tuned.
* Two strings of the same mass, tuned to the same pitch over the same scale length can have different levels of flexibility. That comes down to string construction.
> Speaking on that third bullet point- Two .45 gauge strings of the same mass, tuned to a G on a 34" scale will have different flex rates if one has a larger diameter core than the other. Just for the sake of simple math- If one string has a core diameter of .20" and the wrap add another .25", that string will be more flexible than another .45 gauge string where the core is .25" and the wrap adds another .20". Not to over simplify, but the all else being equal, the heavier the core, the stiffer the string.

BTW, I don't consider myself an expert. I'm sure there are things at play that an engineer would understand and/or quantify better or differently. One is the shape of the core. I think/feel that a round core has more flex than a hex core. That may be perception.

To extrapolate on this a bit- some bassists (very good and knowledgeable ones I might add) insist that strings going through the back of the body have more tension than if they go through the back of the bridge. Well, based on math, going through the back of the body doesn't matter because as mentioned previously, tension has to do with: scale length, pitch and string mass. Yet, for whatever is going on, they perceive going through the back changes the tension. I won't argue with them as I can't quantify what somebody "feels".

I hope this makes sense.

Thanks for taking time to explain string design.

 

[hasbeen]

Thanks for taking time to explain string design.

I'm happy to. I geek out over this stuff.

 

[Phaidrus]

I'm happy to. I geek out over this stuff.

The tone is a lifelong quest and the tone first happens in the strings, how you hit them, what they are.
Looking forward to the 9050M.

 

[GIBrat51]

Certainly... Those Fender 9050L flats get better... Yeah, they're one of those flats that seem to take roughly forever to break in. The ones on my '78 P-Bass certainly seemed to... Nice as they are, though, they'll be coming off soon. My P-Bass has the mute in the bridge cover, and frankly, for what I play with it, the 9050's just aren't "funky" enough to make me happy. I'm hoping they aren't cut too short to work on my Gretsch Broadkaster, 'cause I have a sneaky suspicion they'd be the cat's ass on that old thing. The P-Bass is going to get GHS Precision Flats; hopefully, they'll give me what I'm looking for. After, that is, I go through the whole "break in the new flats" drill - again...

Quoting myself - again...
Those 9050L's didn't quite fit my Gretsch - not all of them, anyway. But, the ones that did fit, convinced me to put them on something else. If fact, it wasn't until a year ago that I finally found a set of strings that didn't sound like ass on that bass - TI Jazz Rounds. But, that's a tale for another time...
Those 9050L's did fit my Eastwood Magnum Bass, though. And, they sounded very good on it, too. So good, in fact, that they're still on it. I also put a set of 9050Ls on the 2nd Danelectro DC59 Pro I bought a couple of years later. That bass doesn't sound much like a Danelectro with the 9050s - but that was the idea. The other DC59 Pro, with 39-96 La Bella 760FXs, does; and, one is enough...
I really do like the tone and feel of the 9050Ls. When I want a bass to sound 'modern" and "middy", the Fenders are my first choice - and I've rarely had to try any other flats. To my ears, on the basses I've put them on? They sound an awful lot like TI Jazz Flats - but with enough stiffness that, like I do with almost all of my 26 basses, I can play them with a pick. Which, if I had to, I could do with the one bass that wears the TIs - but, frankly, their low stiffness makes it kind of a PITA. And the fact that I can buy... 3?... sets of the Fender flats for the price of one set of TIs is a nice bonus, too...
In fact, I like the 9050Ls so much, that last weekend, I replaced the old, salvaged-from-a-project-bass D'Addario Chromes on my '15 G&L Tom Hamilton Sig. ASAT bass with a set of them. The jury's still out (still breaking them in), but so far? As usual, I'm likin' these strings a lot...
Oh, as for the GHS Precision Flats I put on my '78 Precision Bass? For me, those things are the cat's ass...

 

[Phaidrus]

Quoting myself - again...
Those 9050L's didn't quite fit my Gretsch - not all of them, anyway. But, the ones that did fit, convinced me to put them on something else. If fact, it wasn't until a year ago that I finally found a set of strings that didn't sound like ass on that bass - TI Jazz Rounds. But, that's a tale for another time...
Those 9050L's did fit my Eastwood Magnum Bass, though. And, they sounded very good on it, too. So good, in fact, that they're still on it. I also put a set of 9050Ls on the 2nd Danelectro DC59 Pro I bought a couple of years later. That bass doesn't sound much like a Danelectro with the 9050s - but that was the idea. The other DC59 Pro, with 39-96 La Bella 760FXs, does; and, one is enough...
I really do like the tone and feel of the 9050Ls. When I want a bass to sound 'modern" and "middy", the Fenders are my first choice - and I've rarely had to try any other flats. To my ears, on the basses I've put them on? They sound an awful lot like TI Jazz Flats - but with enough stiffness that, like I do with almost all of my 26 basses, I can play them with a pick. Which, if I had to, I could do with the one bass that wears the TIs - but, frankly, their low stiffness makes it kind of a PITA. And the fact that I can buy... 3?... sets of the Fender flats for the price of one set of TIs is a nice bonus, too...
In fact, I like the 9050Ls so much, that last weekend, I replaced the old, salvaged-from-a-project-bass D'Addario Chromes on my '15 G&L Tom Hamilton Sig. ASAT bass with a set of them. The jury's still out (still breaking them in), but so far? As usual, I'm likin' these strings a lot...
Oh, as for the GHS Precision Flats I put on my '78 Precision Bass? For me, those things are the cat's ass...

Interesting. Put a 9050M set (55-70-90-105) on my PV63 Pbass a couple of days ago and to my surprise they are low tension and very flexible. Lower tension than, say, LaBella 760FS or DR Legend and way more flexible. Tone is on the low mids side. I like them so far. They have a "big" tone without being overbearing or boomy.

 

[Phaidrus]

The "new" Fender flats were designed to have a little more "definition" than old-school flats. In other words, less thumpy and more focused. A lot of work also went into making them nice and flexible so it didn't feel like you were playing cables.

As already mentioned in a couple other posts, I installed a 9050M set on a Pbass the other day and have been left wondering how is it possible at all that such heavy set is so flexible and has such low tension. More flexible and less tension than most standard 45-105 flatwound sets. Congratulations on this engineering feat. Although still very fresh, there's no zing. I like their big tone, which as you say is thumpy but focused.