Bronze vs. Nickel, part 2

 

In this blog post, I spoke about the differences between phosphor bronze and nickel winding compounds.   That post was written about eight months ago, and in the interim,  I've continued the research and  experimentation with moving away from phosphor bronze-wound string sets.  

24-string Double Subcontraguitar: left neck with all-nickel set.

Since I was a kid, I've thought that nickel-wound strings were reserved for electric guitars, and that bronze-wound strings were solely intended for acoustic guitars.  Until only a couple of years ago, I still held that mistaken belief, although to a lesser degree.  I slowly added nickel strings to my string sets for the Contraguitars, as they require bass strings on the lower courses, and those are most commonly nickel-wound.  I began to notice that the nickel strings spoke and responded differently than the bronze strings.  Actually hearing the side-by-side differences and feeling the different response on my instruments showed in great relief the contrast in nickel and bronze.  I knew there was a tonal difference, but until very recently I didn't grasp that there is also a palpable difference in response and feel.

After a bit more research, I found that nickel strings have less pounds/pull, or tension, than bronze strings.  I'm not sure if this contributes to the faster response I was hearing and feeling, but it was notable.  Further research showed that of the three winding compounds (nickel, phosphor bronze, and 80/20 bronze), phosphor bronze had the highest pounds/pull.  Less pounds/pull for 80/20, with nickel having the least pounds/pull of the three.  

I've used two-handed tapping techniques for several years, and it's become something on which I rely.  Over the past year or two, I've also begun to incorporate more of a legato technique in the left hand.  Recently, I'm finding that the nickel strings work better for both of these techniques.  For me, anyway.  The articulation is improved.  The response time is quicker than phosphor bronze strings.  Nickel strings seem to be a better fit for my techniques.  The nickel strings brought an all-around improvement in every area except tone.  By that, I mean that I've always liked the darker voice of phosphor bronze.  

 Or do I?

Lately I've been really thinking about that difference.  Just how profound is it?  It was string-changing time for the 24-string Double Subcontraguitar, so this week I decided to try an experiment with it.  For the string set on the right neck, I used an all-nickel set.  For the string set on the left neck, I used my usual phosphor-bronze set.  Both necks are in the register of D subcontra, so it provided an ideal side-by-side laboratory for A/B tonal comparisons.  I think my tonal favorite may still be phosphor bronze, but the differences between the two on this instrument are small.  It's possible that over time, I'll come to tonally prefer nickel, as I already prefer its faster response and improved articulation and clarity.  The bottom end in the bass registers for nickel seems a bit more expansive with improved clarity; while the same registers in phosphor seem perhaps a bit fuller, but almost muddier by comparison with less definition.  

I'm still learning the differences, as I've just started this A/B comparison.  It's quite interesting to me, and no doubt my string sets will become more nickel-heavy going forward.

More to come.

-kk