Please tell me these Fender 9050L Flats get better

[hasbeen]

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.

Thank you. I appreciate your kindness and I find it very fulfilling that these strings speak to some players.

The flexibility comes down to experimenting with the core diameters.

 

[Ricky Rioli]

By chance, I read these latest posts here at the same time as coming across a demo of a Jazz strung with a set of 9050M, which was very nice.

And which left me wanting to hear them with a pair of Big Splits or Big Singles.

 

[Phaidrus]

By chance, I read these latest posts here at the same time as coming across a demo of a Jazz strung with a set of 9050M, which was very nice.

And which left me wanting to hear them with a pair of Big Splits or Big Singles.

They are interesting, even unique, strings, especially in the 9050M configuration. Worth a try. For a long time I was hesitant as I was intimidated by their nominal heavy gauge but they are in fact light tension and very flexible.

 

[68Goldfish]

They are interesting, even unique, strings, especially in the 9050M configuration. Worth a try. For a long time I was hesitant as I was intimidated by their nominal heavy gauge but they are in fact light tension and very flexible.

Definitely not my experience. I’ve got a set of M’s on a precision and they are definitely stiff. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind and even like it but I wouldn’t call them flexible. I’m planning on lowering my action just a fraction tonight because they are so stiff that I think I can get away with it. They do sound fantastic tho.

 

[Phaidrus]

Definitely not my experience. I’ve got a set of M’s on a precision and they are definitely stiff. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind and even like it but I wouldn’t call them flexible. I’m planning on lowering my action just a fraction tonight because they are so stiff that I think I can get away with it. They do sound fantastic tho.

Well, I was quite surprised myself that they are that flexible and low tension. On this Pbass I've had DR Legend, Dunlop flats (45-65-85-105 and 50-70-85-105), Pyramid Gold (45-65-85-105 and 50-70-85-105), LaBella 760FS, Galli Jazz Flats and perhaps some more of which I don't remember, all with the same truss rod and saddle height setup and never hat fret buzz. I do now with the 9050M, so I have to play much lighter as I want to avoid raising the action. They're still very fresh and already sound good.

For reference, I find the LaBella 760FS normal/standard flexible for flats.

 

[Ricky Rioli]

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.

In terms of actual tension on the neck, where would the 55-70-90-105 9050M fit in on this scale?

10.
9. Chromes 50-105 (224 lbs)
8.
7. Chromes 45-105 (196 lbs) / LaBella 49‐109
6.
5. Chromes 45-60-80-105 (184 lbs)
4.
3. Chromes 40-100 (172 lbs)
2.
1. Chromes 40-95 (163 lbs)
0.

I love the sound of the 9050M and want to try them, but the truss rod on my SB-1 is maxed out at level 7 Would I have to settle for the 9050ML 50-65-85-100 ?

 

[Phaidrus]

In terms of actual tension on the neck, where would the 55-70-90-105 9050M fit in on this scale?

10.
9. Chromes 50-105 (224 lbs)
8.
7. Chromes 45-105 (196 lbs) / LaBella 49‐109
6.
5. Chromes 45-60-80-105 (184 lbs)
4.
3. Chromes 40-100 (172 lbs)
2.
1. Chromes 40-95 (163 lbs)
0.

I love the sound of the 9050M and want to try them, but the truss rod on my SB-1 is maxed out at level 7 Would I have to settle for the 9050ML 50-65-85-100 ?

Before installing the 9050M on my 2008 AmStd Pbass it had a LaBella 960FS set (45-105) and my impression is that the 9050M have possibly less tension. Didn't have to adjust the truss rod and in fact I do get some fret buzz if I get carried away, which I never had with the LaBella. So less tension, I suppose. Also, they are certainly more flexible.

I think that the .105 E and .90 A have less tension than the typical .105 E and .85 A flats while the .70 D and .55 G have about the same tension, or perhaps slightly more than the typical .65 D and .45 G flats. If I had to guess, I'd say less than 200lbs total tension for the set. They are easy to play, no resemblance at all to infamous bridge cables sets.

 

[J-Mags]

I have a set of 9050 MLs that's about a year old. They settle down slowly, but really get a nice, buttery sound over time. They were bright for at least six months, which I liked because I was playing rock on them, but I think you'll really like the way they sound in a few months.

 

[4StringDave]

My 9050Ls have now been on my jazz bass about 3 years. They're fully broken in, although I liked the sound from the beginning coming from rounds, super smooth, and sound great.

 

[hasbeen]

In terms of actual tension on the neck, where would the 55-70-90-105 9050M fit in on this scale?

10.
9. Chromes 50-105 (224 lbs)
8.
7. Chromes 45-105 (196 lbs) / LaBella 49‐109
6.
5. Chromes 45-60-80-105 (184 lbs)
4.
3. Chromes 40-100 (172 lbs)
2.
1. Chromes 40-95 (163 lbs)
0.

I love the sound of the 9050M and want to try them, but the truss rod on my SB-1 is maxed out at level 7 Would I have to settle for the 9050ML 50-65-85-100 ?

I'm sorry but I think I mentioned (can't remember) earlier in this thread, that I didn't look at string tension at all when "spec'ing" out these strings. I DID however, focus a lot on flex/excursion.

 

[Jackfunk1964]

The last time I used Fender flats was in the 90s and the strings were from the 70s,found unopened in the attic of a music store my buddy worked at.If I remember correctly,the E was an unusual gauge,maybe I'm wrong it's been awhile.Anyway,I loved them.Are there any similarities between those and the 9050s? Anyone?

 

[SharpCat]

The last time I used Fender flats was in the 90s and the strings were from the 70s,found unopened in the attic of a music store my buddy worked at.If I remember correctly,the E was an unusual gauge,maybe I'm wrong it's been awhile.Anyway,I loved them.Are there any similarities between those and the 9050s? Anyone?

No. New design. The designer at Fender has posted here words to that effect. Wish I could find that post again…

 

[HaphAsSard]

The last time I used Fender flats was in the 90s and the strings were from the 70s,found unopened in the attic of a music store my buddy worked at.If I remember correctly,the E was an unusual gauge,maybe I'm wrong it's been awhile.Anyway,I loved them.Are there any similarities between those and the 9050s? Anyone?

I've no experience with vintage Fender flats but the 2010- ones are completely different by all accounts (more modern-sounding - see below). A vocal percentage in the subforum swear on present-day GHS Precision Flats being the closest to the original Fenders; they are stainless on a hexagonal core, which probably gets them closer specifically to the Seventies sets (an era when hex cores became the standard). DR Legend flats, which are stainless and round-core, may - or may not - be a smidgen closer to the Fender Mastersound flats from the Fifties and Sixties.*

No. New design. The designer at Fender has posted here words to that effect. Wish I could find that post again…

These are @hasbeen's comments on the current Fender flats he specced toward the end of the Aughts:
Search Results for Query: flats | TalkBass.com
The first TB thread to discuss them was this one, I believe:
Fender Flats Have Changed


* EDIT -
then again, speaking of Mr. Been, one of his comments seems to indicate pre-2010 Fender flatwounds were actually round-core:
Why do you use Fender strings?
which makes me wonder if there ever was a hex-core phase at all (historically, that is: the current version is hex-cored all-right).

 

[hasbeen]

I've no experience with vintage Fender flats but the 2010- ones are completely different by all accounts (more modern-sounding - see below). A vocal percentage in the subforum swear on present-day GHS Precision Flats being the closest to the original Fenders; they are stainless on a hexagonal core, which probably gets them closer specifically to the Seventies sets (an era when hex cores became the standard). DR Legend flats, which are stainless and round-core, may - or may not - be a smidgen closer to the Fender Mastersound flats from the Fifties and Sixties.*

These are @hasbeen's comments on the current Fender flats he specced toward the end of the Aughts:
Search Results for Query: flats | TalkBass.com
The first TB thread to discuss them was this one, I believe:
Fender Flats Have Changed


* EDIT -
then again, speaking of Mr. Been, one of his comments seems to indicate pre-2010 Fender flatwounds were actually round-core:
Why do you use Fender strings?
which makes me wonder if there ever was a hex-core phase at all (historically, that is: the current version is hex-cored all-right).

You are correct. They used to be round core. By the time I came along to Fender, they had mostly been discontinued and/or in very poor supply. At the same time, they was an increased uptick in demand for flats so I set out to redesign them on a hex core. Hex cores are more efficient and "exact" for winding strings. The hex core, plus other design elements, lead to a string that lasted longer, had more flex, intonated better, and had a bit more tonal definition.

 

[SharpCat]

You are correct. They used to be round core. By the time I came along to Fender, they had mostly been discontinued and/or in very poor supply. At the same time, they was an increased uptick in demand for flats so I set out to redesign them on a hex core. Hex cores are more efficient and "exact" for winding strings. The hex core, plus other design elements, lead to a string that lasted longer, had more flex, intonated better, and had a bit more tonal definition.

I love them. My sincere thanks!

 

[Jackfunk1964]

You are correct. They used to be round core. By the time I came along to Fender, they had mostly been discontinued and/or in very poor supply. At the same time, they was an increased uptick in demand for flats so I set out to redesign them on a hex core. Hex cores are more efficient and "exact" for winding strings. The hex core, plus other design elements, lead to a string that lasted longer, had more flex, intonated better, and had a bit more tonal definition.

 

[Jackfunk1964]

I only remember how much I enjoyed those strings.He found four packs in 89,he said they were early 70s.Those were the strings I used on a 53 p a 65 p and a late eighties r.i.58 until the 53 was lost to a house fire,I sold the R.I.and eventually changed strings on the 65.Cant for the life of me remember what became of the fourth set,or the set I took off.Belive me, sometimes I still look for them,lol.Ive tried so many it's crazy and nothing has even came close.It blows my mind that they were round core,my memory tells me they didn't feel it, I'm not a big round core fan.Trying Dunlop 105-45 next,I hope that set has enough tension.

 

[Grinderman]

What's the question again?

Oh yeah, I have Fender 9050M flats on my Jazz bass. I tried them on a P bass briefly but I think, or IMO, they're better on Jazz basses.

 

[Jackfunk1964]

What's the question again?

#5@

 

[Jackfunk1964]

Sorry,#51