i appreciate the good info and honest review, i am tired of watching reviews that have some guy showing off his guitar skills and saying nothing about the strings them self
I like both of them actually. I think Phosphor Bronze are great for punchy attack such as you might use in hard strumming and digging in. The 80-20's have a high end sweetness that sounds nice to the ears on delicate playing stuff. My Larrivee' L-03 came stock with 12-53 D'Addario EXPs (coated) Phosphor Bronze. Bought a set of the 80-20's I'm going to try out if the others ever wear out. I can only speak for the EXP's and they last a long time.
They both sound pretty similar when they're brand new. The big difference between 80/20 bronze and phosphor bronze is in how they age. 80/20 bronze maintains that brighter new string sound significantly longer than phosphor bronze. Especially if the strings are coated. Phosphor bronze loses it's brightness very quickly, within like a day or two of putting them on for me. Some people like the warmer sound of well broken-in guitar strings, but I personally prefer the 80/20 bronze for the same reason I just mentioned. Phosphor bronze's "warmth", as most would call it, just sounds like dead strings to me. Like they're not quite resonating as they should be. But obviously different people have different musical tastes, so if you like that duller, warmer sound, go with the phosphor bronze.
All my life, I thought it was THE OTHER WAY AROUND. 80/20 starts very bright, much more than PB, but mellow much quicker. That's why Phosphor Bronze were created by D'Addario.
The discussion is about the natural sound of strings but in a studio each sound can easy be altered to your liking by equalizers. Moreover, by the time these sounds reach your ears, they are compressed and altered not only by a microphone but also by your computer sound card, speakers, headphones, earphones, your preference, etc. Decisive is always your personal preference.
Thanks for the comparison, it is not a final answer to what is best for your guitar (and playing) but it's a contribution to getting some information specific to your instruments and play. I am replacing streams of a 1940 0-15 martin which is current at the shop having a headstock repair. I am leaning toward PBs for that guitar, which is used to play a wide variety of sound. i agree 80 20s sound more brittle in general, overtones are very nice.
Brilliant!! Well done comparison. I've come across some of the differences you mentioned here. Sometimes even same kind(92/8 or 80/20) of strings will differ from one manufacturer to the other. Also one(80/20) feels softer and somewhat easier to play while the other(92/8) might be harder, I found.
I would never put light stings on a dreadnought or jumbo. Lights just don’t have enough energy to drive tops that big, esepecially given that large guitars are usually built fairly strong so they can be played hard and loud. 80/20s tend to have less bass and midrange, so when you put 80/20 lights on most big guitars they are going to sound especially thin. I don’t think you can’t make a fair comparison on a big guitar with anything less than mediums. Even then, my feeling is that 80/20s don’t work as well on a big guitar because those guitars are built for bass, and bass in not 80/20s strong suit. I find that 80/20s tend to work best on smaller, more balanced, guitars. I have had particularly good luck putting them on guitars that are already somewhat bright, like a Lowden O25 with a cedar top and rosewood body or a Taylor 614 with a spruce top and maple body. The brightness of 80/20s can give a guitar like that a lovely bell like tone. But generally, my go to string is phosphor bronze. For me, their warmth and balance are easier to live with day in and day out on most guitars. Two final thoughts: I would only put 80/20s on a solid wood guitar. HPL guitars tend to need the warmth of phosphor bronze. 80/20s will also tend to go dead faster, although this is less true if they are coated.
Thanks for the video. I'm gonna try out the 80/20s since my guitar playing is rather light and I plan on recording songs with more picking. But if they don't work out in the recordings, I'll get the phosphors and give them a whirl. I've only played Cleartones once before, but I never found out which ones they were.
You know, Lady Audio, that near the end of the video he says very clearly that the Phosphors are markedly louder for fingerpicking. If you meant that your fingerpicking lacks volume when you wrote that your playing is "rather light" then the 80/20s won't help you as much as the Phosphor. Of course that's if this guy is right. As an aside, have you tried the Martin Flexible Core? Man, can they be bent. It's like you can bend a note up 2 or 3 steps without much effort. I put them on one of my seldom used guitars and found myself using it for the bending fun.
I like the 80/20s but their midrange is lacking... I've tried using 3rd and 4th string phosphor and 5th and 6th 80/20 because of their depth, I may try that again. My guitar is very rich with cocobolo and italian so it benefits
For decades I used phosphor bronze but I've been around and in the late 60's and early 70's I used 80/20, almost always on Martin's I've had. (And wish I had kept) Now I'm back to 80/20 because at this point in the evolution of my taste, the 80/20's seem to give a more 'real' sound, Like I'm really hearing the instrument more then the more complicated harmonic mix you get given the PB composition. The 80/20's have a slightly different tension and feel, and definitely a different sound, somewhat flatter and 'brighter' in that the diminished midrange lets you hear the 2 unwound strings more clearly, as apparently is the case with the lower copper content on the wound strings. Also, they have somewhat less sustain, and their particular quality of tone seems to derive more from what they DON'T have built in. And this lesser complexity sounds better to my ear, at least on the guitars I use them on. This would not be the case on guitars that would benefit by the added harmonics of PB. No simple answer. Both serve a purpose. In general, I'd say strumming a dreadnought is enriched by PB. But more intricate work, finger picking etc, , I think anyway, benefits noticeably with 80/20, as they seem to be a little less forgiving, but equally reward precision with a cleaner sound.
Would it work well in the studio to record a guitar track with each for a song? Like, would the frequencies mesh and get a best-of-both-worlds situation, or would the tones clash a little?
Phosphor bronze had better warm and bass when they new but i found phosphor bronze only last for a month and the sound will get dull especialy on low E string
I recently bought the Phosphor-Bronze light strings for a 12 guitar string. While i was changing it, the G string (the fine one of .009) broke. i have another pack of strings of the same brand but not Phosphor, but 80/20 Bronze. Do you think its a good idea to put one 80/20 string with the other 11 phosphor string? or should i find one phoshor (even if its from other brand)
Also depends on the brand. I have been using phosphorus bronze for years. My dealer was out of them so I am trying the 80/20s of the same brand. So far for my style of playing they're fine and they are coated. Only time will tell. I replaced Martin titanium $40 strings. Expensive experience. Not worth it for me.
i want to know which guitar string type would be better for me....extra light,light,medium..what type of guitar strings "acoustic" do professionals use
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but this is not a fair test for one simple reason. Unless these two Martin's sound IDENTICAL, it's not a fair comparison. I immediately noticed that the Martin with the Bonze strings had a louder and brighter tone than the other Martin and it had nothing to do with the strings. It was all about the wood on that particular guitar.
I got orphee tx640 0.12 phosphor bronze to my fender CD60CE all Mahogany and feel like lifehack , paying 1.22 dollar per set with free shipping , instead of paying more than 5 dolar + shipment to expensive strings
If he were playing with lighter strings, I don’t think the phosphor Bronzes would sound better… Because at 12 gauge, the strings are loud enough that we don’t need the brightness from the 80/20
I'm an 80/20 convert and this guy messes up big time. 80/20 actually has LESS tension (given that the gauges are the same) than the Phosphor Bronze. PB's are more "modern" than the 80/20s, which is the original formula for steel strings. PB sounds "fuller" (in reality, they're not) because they emphasize midrange, while 80/20s are more scooped. Also, the more you use them, PB actually gets brighter or keep changing less than 80/20s.
80/20 sound better but don't last nearly as long as phosphor bronze. 80/20 strings brightness quickly dulls after only a few weeks. While phosphor bronze will stay fresh sounding for months.
●●● Bonne comparaison mais il est sûr de ne pas s'être UN PEU PLANTÉ dans son MONTAGE notre ami "Yaron" et d'avoir INVERSÉ les ENREGISTREMENTS, notamment les 2 premiers car les 80/2O ont un SON de PHOSPORE-BRONZE et INVERSEMENT... (?). ●●●
WRONG. He says, “80/20s have roughly 80% copper, 20% tin.” No. They’re 80% copper, 20% zinc. Which is to say, they’re not bronze at all, they’re brass. Phosphor-bronze strings ARE bronze: they have 92% copper, 7% tin & a bit of phosphorus.
The difference seems more noticeable on the bass strings. You don't need 2 cameras on something like this. You are just increasing your cost without adding to your content.
When will these people learn how to lift off from one chord to another without that painful screeching along the strings. Simple= play chord, lift, move, down and place.
A few points: 1. These are guitars are on the low end of Martin's line. You want to judge the sound of Martin guitars, at least check out a higher end model. 2. Good tone is subjective. 3. Many of the best guitarists in the world use Martin guitars; if you don't like the tone, you might want to check your ears. 4. The sound of acoustic guitars on recordings and videos has everything to do with the way they've been recorded and processed.
Martin has been making guitars longer than most other manufacturers. I am sure they know how to make good guitars but they are priced that way because of legacy and brand name, not simply because they sound better than other guitars. Acoustic guitars are just wooden boxes with metal strings. Not something other people cannot replicate. It is certainly not rocket science. If all your iphones and high tech electronics gadgets can be made very cheaply in China, I would doubt China cannot make a great sounding guitar at a fraction of the price of a Martin. Unless of course you tell me Martin guitars are supernatural and they source their wood from some magical enchanted forest not accessible by other guitar makers.
Hi Parrot. I agree up to a point. High end American guitar manufacturers, like Martin, can charge more becuase of the cachet of American-made, history and legacy. But it's a good thing they can, because they employ highly-skilled American artisans, whose labor costs more than the laborers in Asian guitar factories. They pay more for the best wood. And they give guitars a degree of personal attention that mass-production factories can't. Wood is not as consistent as metal and plastic, so this is important. If they couldn't charge more for the American guitars, they'd go out of business or move their factories to Asia. Of course, Martin also makes lower end guitars, like the ones in this video (I think) in Asia, and, believe me, they sound and feel different.
i agree. You pay for the higher labor cost and attention to detail. Build quality is obviously top notch. Purely acoustically speaking the price does not commensurate with the sound. Because it is still a wooden box. Just like swiss hand made watches. Well made and adorned with jewels and can be made heirlooms. Are they more accurate or more reliable than your Seiko, Casio or Timex? Not really. But they are certainly 10-100x more expensive. Not saying Martin doesnt make great sounding guitars but you know what i mean...
80/20 are in a different league...far more musical and harmonically rich...singing with overtones. P.B. sounds cheap in comparison. With the 80/20, the guitar sounds like a higher quality instrument.
Sorry dudes. Your crappy stings are more expensive than any other brand. My D string broke right on the bridge in 2 weeks. The "treatment" on the strings makes the strings sticky. They dont sound near as good as you claim.
This test is junk - your strings are too light. And because of that you are getting more fret noise and jangle, which is reduced by the phosphor bronze. If you stepped up to medium strings, the phosphor warmth would no longer be helping you, it would sound dull, and the 80/20 would sound more clear and piano like. Testing strings with extra light and light gauges is terrible, especially on a dread.
