Overview

Dataset statistics

Number of variables9
Number of observations10261
Missing cells27
Missing cells (%)< 0.1%
Duplicate rows0
Duplicate rows (%)0.0%
Total size in memory9.7 MiB
Average record size in memory995.7 B

Variable types

CAT6
NUM2
UNSUPPORTED1

Reproduction

Analysis started2020-02-13 23:58:56.080603
Analysis finished2020-02-13 23:58:59.468548
Versionpandas-profiling v2.5.0
Command linepandas_profiling --config_file config.yaml [YOUR_FILE.csv]
Download configurationconfig.yaml
reviewerID has a high cardinality: 1429 distinct values High cardinality
asin has a high cardinality: 900 distinct values High cardinality
reviewerName has a high cardinality: 1397 distinct values High cardinality
reviewText has a high cardinality: 10255 distinct values High cardinality
summary has a high cardinality: 8852 distinct values High cardinality
reviewTime has a high cardinality: 1570 distinct values High cardinality
helpful is an unsupported type, check if it needs cleaning or further analysis Rejected

Variables

reviewerID
Categorical

HIGH CARDINALITY
Distinct count1429
Unique (%)13.9%
Missing0
Missing (%)0.0%
Memory size80.3 KiB
ADH0O8UVJOT10
 
42
A15TYOEWBQYF0X
 
38
A1L7M2JXN4EZCR
 
38
A2EZWZ8MBEDOLN
 
36
A2NYK9KWFMJV4Y
 
34
Other values (1424)
10073
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
ADH0O8UVJOT10 42 0.4%
 
A15TYOEWBQYF0X 38 0.4%
 
A1L7M2JXN4EZCR 38 0.4%
 
A2EZWZ8MBEDOLN 36 0.4%
 
A2NYK9KWFMJV4Y 34 0.3%
 
A1MVH1WLYDHZ49 32 0.3%
 
A1SD1C8XK3Z3V1 32 0.3%
 
A1GMWTGXW682GB 29 0.3%
 
A34O0KQV4QXWNQ 28 0.3%
 
A1LQC225SE8UNI 27 0.3%
 
Other values (1419) 9925 96.7%
 

Length

Max length21
Mean length13.73774486
Min length12
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Uppercase_Letter 26 72.2%
 
Decimal_Number 10 27.8%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Latin 26 72.2%
 
Common 10 27.8%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
ASCII 36 100.0%
 

asin
Categorical

HIGH CARDINALITY
Distinct count900
Unique (%)8.8%
Missing0
Missing (%)0.0%
Memory size80.3 KiB
B003VWJ2K8
 
163
B0002E1G5C
 
143
B0002F7K7Y
 
116
B003VWKPHC
 
114
B0002H0A3S
 
93
Other values (895)
9632
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
B003VWJ2K8 163 1.6%
 
B0002E1G5C 143 1.4%
 
B0002F7K7Y 116 1.1%
 
B003VWKPHC 114 1.1%
 
B0002H0A3S 93 0.9%
 
B0002CZVXM 74 0.7%
 
B0006NDF8A 71 0.7%
 
B0009G1E0K 69 0.7%
 
B0002E2KPC 68 0.7%
 
B0002GLDQM 67 0.7%
 
Other values (890) 9283 90.5%
 

Length

Max length10
Mean length10
Min length10
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Uppercase_Letter 26 72.2%
 
Decimal_Number 10 27.8%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Latin 26 72.2%
 
Common 10 27.8%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
ASCII 36 100.0%
 

reviewerName
Categorical

HIGH CARDINALITY
Distinct count1397
Unique (%)13.7%
Missing27
Missing (%)0.3%
Memory size80.3 KiB
Amazon Customer
 
66
StormJH1
 
42
David W "Dave"
 
38
David G
 
38
John
 
37
Other values (1392)
10013
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Amazon Customer 66 0.6%
 
StormJH1 42 0.4%
 
David W "Dave" 38 0.4%
 
David G 38 0.4%
 
John 37 0.4%
 
Charlo 36 0.4%
 
Mike Tarrani "Jazz Drummer" 34 0.3%
 
Captn' Bob 32 0.3%
 
guitfiddleblue "guitfiddleblue" 32 0.3%
 
Lee 30 0.3%
 
Other values (1387) 9849 96.0%
 

Length

Max length48
Mean length13.00233895
Min length1
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Uppercase_Letter 26 31.3%
 
Lowercase_Letter 26 31.3%
 
Other_Punctuation 11 13.3%
 
Decimal_Number 10 12.0%
 
Math_Symbol 3 3.6%
 
Close_Punctuation 1 1.2%
 
Open_Punctuation 1 1.2%
 
Modifier_Symbol 1 1.2%
 
Connector_Punctuation 1 1.2%
 
Space_Separator 1 1.2%
 
Other values (2) 2 2.4%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Latin 52 62.7%
 
Common 31 37.3%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
ASCII 83 100.0%
 

helpful
Unsupported

REJECTED
UNSUPPORTED
Missing0
Missing (%)0.0%
Memory size80.3 KiB

reviewText
Categorical

HIGH CARDINALITY
UNIFORM
Distinct count10255
Unique (%)99.9%
Missing0
Missing (%)0.0%
Memory size80.3 KiB
 
7
These tuners (including the red version) are the best. I have many tuners, from expensive Peterson and Boss, Korg, Seiko, Quiktune, and many other brands, from standard tuners to a few different brands of clip ons. The Snark is the easiest and most stable to use. Even my young guitar students, who have had trouble learning to tune using other tuners that I love, have no problem tuning with this tuner.
 
1
First off, most audio racks have that annoying &#34;slide these little metal pieces over the rails and put your screws into them&#34; instead of properly sized holes. Not this one. Not only do the holes get made proper size with threads in them, but it even includes 48 screws so you don't have to try to figure out which of the 3 sizes you've collected over the years is going to fit.I loaded it up with equipment and haven't had a worry about it since. Solid construction and the mounting just works. This one is done right.
 
1
It's comfortable. It's adjustable. The color was a good match for the guitar. Unless you regularly gig for hours at a time, why spend 50+ smackers on a strap when this one does just fine? Put the dough into the guitar, not the strap. By several colors for whatever look you are going for at the time.
 
1
This product has a mono-microphone input and a stereo headphone output. It is meant for connecting a headset to a USB port. Since the headset has a mono-microphone, this adapter works great. The drivers automatically install on microsoft operating systems. This product is great for using a soft-phone or other communications program. The windows systems remembers volume settings each time it is connected. I imagine that you could use something other than a headset with this, but it was mainly built for a headset. Works seemless and great with a headset.
 
1
Other values (10250)
10250
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
7 0.1%
 
These tuners (including the red version) are the best. I have many tuners, from expensive Peterson and Boss, Korg, Seiko, Quiktune, and many other brands, from standard tuners to a few different brands of clip ons. The Snark is the easiest and most stable to use. Even my young guitar students, who have had trouble learning to tune using other tuners that I love, have no problem tuning with this tuner. 1 < 0.1%
 
First off, most audio racks have that annoying &#34;slide these little metal pieces over the rails and put your screws into them&#34; instead of properly sized holes. Not this one. Not only do the holes get made proper size with threads in them, but it even includes 48 screws so you don't have to try to figure out which of the 3 sizes you've collected over the years is going to fit.I loaded it up with equipment and haven't had a worry about it since. Solid construction and the mounting just works. This one is done right. 1 < 0.1%
 
It's comfortable. It's adjustable. The color was a good match for the guitar. Unless you regularly gig for hours at a time, why spend 50+ smackers on a strap when this one does just fine? Put the dough into the guitar, not the strap. By several colors for whatever look you are going for at the time. 1 < 0.1%
 
This product has a mono-microphone input and a stereo headphone output. It is meant for connecting a headset to a USB port. Since the headset has a mono-microphone, this adapter works great. The drivers automatically install on microsoft operating systems. This product is great for using a soft-phone or other communications program. The windows systems remembers volume settings each time it is connected. I imagine that you could use something other than a headset with this, but it was mainly built for a headset. Works seemless and great with a headset. 1 < 0.1%
 
Personally, I love the nanoweb strings. I have 4 guitars, and they each get played once every couple weeks. As I'm no pro, I don't want to put strings on them that I'm going to have to change every time, just to mess around at my apt.I don't mind that they are extra slippery, or that they sound a tad bit "different" than other strings. They're exactly what I want - A string that makes my guitar sound good for 4 months without changing strings. 1 < 0.1%
 
I am a novice musician so perhaps my lack of experience in these items. Once you figure out how it goes together it is an excellent product. It holds your guitar up. 1 < 0.1%
 
I bought this EQ pedal to use with a 70's amp project. I replaced the speaker and needed some mids so I bought this pedal to use for a clean channel. The EQ and boost works great for being a plastic box. I have seen the F&C; be called 'pure gold in a plastic box' on a Telecaster forum and read reviews all over the net saying the same thing.The EQ works wonders for tone and is priced less than it's MXR and Boss counterparts. I am not going to rehash all the other reviews, but I use it with a bass/guitar amp and it works surprisingly well with the old amp and a passive bass. The boost combined with the 2 low bass EQ's works wonders for low end.I use a Boss GE-7 EQ pedal with a different amp, and the F&C; works as well as the Boss as long as you don't mind the cheap construction from Danelectro. I do not gig with the pedal so the plastic doesn't matter to me. I am wondering how long the switch will last though, but at this price, who can be critical.Some Danelectro pedals can be sorted into the novelty realm, but this one is actually very functional and can open up all new sounds. I also tried the EQ with a Telecaster and the pedal gave me alot more bass and low end. I hope this lasts as long as my old all plastic FAB distortion that I bought used for $5. 1 < 0.1%
 
This tiny little amp is great for practicing outside or in a canoe or while hang gliding. But it is not very good at parties. it cannot compete with the noise level that 20 people in conversation can make. It is cheap, so you should just get one. I am having great fun experimenting around with different settings, instruments, and power feed voltage levels. (see the danelectro power supply for this thing, really cool!) 1 < 0.1%
 
This strap is perfect! It locks on your pins, no worry about sudden disconnects and is comfortable (it's not padded). Highly recommend! 1 < 0.1%
 
Other values (10245) 10245 99.8%
 

Length

Max length11310
Mean length485.9290517
Min length0
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Uppercase_Letter 26 27.7%
 
Lowercase_Letter 26 27.7%
 
Other_Punctuation 15 16.0%
 
Decimal_Number 10 10.6%
 
Math_Symbol 5 5.3%
 
Close_Punctuation 3 3.2%
 
Open_Punctuation 3 3.2%
 
Modifier_Symbol 2 2.1%
 
Space_Separator 1 1.1%
 
Connector_Punctuation 1 1.1%
 
Other values (2) 2 2.1%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Latin 52 55.3%
 
Common 42 44.7%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
ASCII 94 100.0%
 

overall
Real number (ℝ≥0)

Distinct count5
Unique (%)< 0.1%
Missing0
Missing (%)0.0%
Infinite0
Infinite (%)0.0%
Mean4.488743787155248
Minimum1
Maximum5
Zeros0
Zeros (%)0.0%
Memory size80.3 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum1
5-th percentile3
Q14
median5
Q35
95-th percentile5
Maximum5
Range4
Interquartile range (IQR)1

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation0.8946423762
Coefficient of variation (CV)0.199307962
Kurtosis4.02053066
Mean4.488743787
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)0.6913742529
Skewness-2.032796527
Sum46059
Variance0.8003849812
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=10)
Histogram with variable size bins (bins=[1. 2.5 3.5 4.5 5. ], "bayesian blocks" binning strategy used)
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
5 6938 67.6%
 
4 2084 20.3%
 
3 772 7.5%
 
2 250 2.4%
 
1 217 2.1%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
1 217 2.1%
 
2 250 2.4%
 
3 772 7.5%
 
4 2084 20.3%
 
5 6938 67.6%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
5 6938 67.6%
 
4 2084 20.3%
 
3 772 7.5%
 
2 250 2.4%
 
1 217 2.1%
 

summary
Categorical

HIGH CARDINALITY
Distinct count8852
Unique (%)86.3%
Missing0
Missing (%)0.0%
Memory size80.3 KiB
Great
 
42
Five Stars
 
32
Great!
 
30
Perfect
 
27
Good
 
25
Other values (8847)
10105
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Great 42 0.4%
 
Five Stars 32 0.3%
 
Great! 30 0.3%
 
Perfect 27 0.3%
 
Good 25 0.2%
 
Nice 24 0.2%
 
Does the job 24 0.2%
 
Great Product 20 0.2%
 
Works great 20 0.2%
 
Works well 18 0.2%
 
Other values (8842) 9999 97.4%
 

Length

Max length128
Mean length24.34840659
Min length1
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Uppercase_Letter 26 29.5%
 
Lowercase_Letter 26 29.5%
 
Other_Punctuation 14 15.9%
 
Decimal_Number 10 11.4%
 
Math_Symbol 4 4.5%
 
Close_Punctuation 2 2.3%
 
Open_Punctuation 2 2.3%
 
Modifier_Symbol 1 1.1%
 
Space_Separator 1 1.1%
 
Dash_Punctuation 1 1.1%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Latin 52 59.1%
 
Common 36 40.9%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
ASCII 88 100.0%
 

unixReviewTime
Real number (ℝ≥0)

Distinct count1570
Unique (%)15.3%
Missing0
Missing (%)0.0%
Infinite0
Infinite (%)0.0%
Mean1360605955.7547998
Minimum1095465600
Maximum1405987200
Zeros0
Zeros (%)0.0%
Memory size80.3 KiB

Quantile statistics

Minimum1095465600
5-th percentile1290297600
Q11343433600
median1368489600
Q31388966400
95-th percentile1401753600
Maximum1405987200
Range310521600
Interquartile range (IQR)45532800

Descriptive statistics

Standard deviation37797350.75
Coefficient of variation (CV)0.02777979222
Kurtosis4.725369103
Mean1360605956
Median Absolute Deviation (MAD)28164469.64
Skewness-1.701317396
Sum1.396117771e+13
Variance1.428639723e+15
Histogram with fixed size bins (bins=10)
Histogram with variable size bins (bins=[1.0954656e+09 1.1908080e+09 1.2258432e+09 1.2529728e+09 1.2816144e+09 ... 1.4011920e+09 1.4012784e+09 1.4041296e+09 1.4052528e+09 1.4059872e+09], "bayesian blocks" binning strategy used)
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
1358812800 40 0.4%
 
1356652800 36 0.4%
 
1396828800 35 0.3%
 
1397088000 34 0.3%
 
1394496000 32 0.3%
 
1401235200 32 0.3%
 
1356048000 31 0.3%
 
1392940800 30 0.3%
 
1392854400 30 0.3%
 
1383436800 29 0.3%
 
Other values (1560) 9932 96.8%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
1095465600 1 < 0.1%
 
1096416000 2 < 0.1%
 
1101686400 3 < 0.1%
 
1101859200 1 < 0.1%
 
1106870400 1 < 0.1%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
1405987200 1 < 0.1%
 
1405900800 3 < 0.1%
 
1405814400 9 0.1%
 
1405728000 2 < 0.1%
 
1405468800 2 < 0.1%
 

reviewTime
Categorical

HIGH CARDINALITY
Distinct count1570
Unique (%)15.3%
Missing0
Missing (%)0.0%
Memory size80.3 KiB
01 22, 2013
 
40
12 28, 2012
 
36
04 7, 2014
 
35
04 10, 2014
 
34
03 11, 2014
 
32
Other values (1565)
10084
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
01 22, 2013 40 0.4%
 
12 28, 2012 36 0.4%
 
04 7, 2014 35 0.3%
 
04 10, 2014 34 0.3%
 
03 11, 2014 32 0.3%
 
05 28, 2014 32 0.3%
 
12 21, 2012 31 0.3%
 
02 20, 2014 30 0.3%
 
02 21, 2014 30 0.3%
 
01 6, 2014 29 0.3%
 
Other values (1560) 9932 96.8%
 

Length

Max length11
Mean length10.69554624
Min length10
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Decimal_Number 10 83.3%
 
Space_Separator 1 8.3%
 
Other_Punctuation 1 8.3%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
Common 12 100.0%
 
ValueCountFrequency (%) 
ASCII 12 100.0%
 

Interactions

Correlations

Pearson's r

The Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) is a measure of linear correlation between two variables. It's value lies between -1 and +1, -1 indicating total negative linear correlation, 0 indicating no linear correlation and 1 indicating total positive linear correlation. Furthermore, r is invariant under separate changes in location and scale of the two variables, implying that for a linear function the angle to the x-axis does not affect r.

To calculate r for two variables X and Y, one divides the covariance of X and Y by the product of their standard deviations.

Spearman's ρ

The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (ρ) is a measure of monotonic correlation between two variables, and is therefore better in catching nonlinear monotonic correlations than Pearson's r. It's value lies between -1 and +1, -1 indicating total negative monotonic correlation, 0 indicating no monotonic correlation and 1 indicating total positive monotonic correlation.

To calculate ρ for two variables X and Y, one divides the covariance of the rank variables of X and Y by the product of their standard deviations.

Kendall's τ

Similarly to Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, the Kendall rank correlation coefficient (τ) measures ordinal association between two variables. It's value lies between -1 and +1, -1 indicating total negative correlation, 0 indicating no correlation and 1 indicating total positive correlation.

To calculate τ for two variables X and Y, one determines the number of concordant and discordant pairs of observations. τ is given by the number of concordant pairs minus the discordant pairs divided by the total number of pairs.

Missing values

Sample

First rows

reviewerIDasinreviewerNamehelpfulreviewTextoverallsummaryunixReviewTimereviewTime
0A2IBPI20UZIR0U1384719342cassandra tu "Yeah, well, that's just like, u...[0, 0]Not much to write about here, but it does exactly what it's supposed to. filters out the pop sounds. now my recordings are much more crisp. it is one of the lowest prices pop filters on amazon so might as well buy it, they honestly work the same despite their pricing,5good139354560002 28, 2014
1A14VAT5EAX3D9S1384719342Jake[13, 14]The product does exactly as it should and is quite affordable.I did not realized it was double screened until it arrived, so it was even better than I had expected.As an added bonus, one of the screens carries a small hint of the smell of an old grape candy I used to buy, so for reminiscent's sake, I cannot stop putting the pop filter next to my nose and smelling it after recording. :DIf you needed a pop filter, this will work just as well as the expensive ones, and it may even come with a pleasing aroma like mine did!Buy this product! :]5Jake136339200003 16, 2013
2A195EZSQDW3E211384719342Rick Bennette "Rick Bennette"[1, 1]The primary job of this device is to block the breath that would otherwise produce a popping sound, while allowing your voice to pass through with no noticeable reduction of volume or high frequencies. The double cloth filter blocks the pops and lets the voice through with no coloration. The metal clamp mount attaches to the mike stand secure enough to keep it attached. The goose neck needs a little coaxing to stay where you put it.5It Does The Job Well137764800008 28, 2013
3A2C00NNG1ZQQG21384719342RustyBill "Sunday Rocker"[0, 0]Nice windscreen protects my MXL mic and prevents pops. Only thing is that the gooseneck is only marginally able to hold the screen in position and requires careful positioning of the clamp to avoid sagging.5GOOD WINDSCREEN FOR THE MONEY139233600002 14, 2014
4A94QU4C90B1AX1384719342SEAN MASLANKA[0, 0]This pop filter is great. It looks and performs like a studio filter. If you're recording vocals this will eliminate the pops that gets recorded when you sing.5No more pops when I record my vocals.139294080002 21, 2014
5A2A039TZMZHH9YB00004Y2UTBill Lewey "blewey"[0, 0]So good that I bought another one. Love the heavy cord and gold connectors. Bass sounds great. I just learned last night how to coil them up. I guess I should read instructions more carefully. But no harm done, still works great!5The Best Cable135604800012 21, 2012
6A1UPZM995ZAH90B00004Y2UTBrian[0, 0]I have used monster cables for years, and with good reason. The lifetime warranty is worth the price alone. Simple fact: cables break, but getting to replace them at no cost is where it's at.5Monster Standard 100 - 21' Instrument Cable139008960001 19, 2014
7AJNFQI3YR6XJ5B00004Y2UTFender Guy "Rick"[0, 0]I now use this cable to run from the output of my pedal chain to the input of my Fender Amp. After I bought Monster Cable to hook up my pedal board I thought I would try another one and update my guitar. I had been using a high end Planet Waves cable that I bought in the 1980's... Once I found out the input jacks on the new Monster cable didn't fit into the Fender Strat jack I was a little disappointed... I didn't return it and as stated I use it for the output on the pedal board. Save your money... I went back to my Planet Waves Cable...I payed $30.00 back in the eighties for the Planet Waves which now comes in at around $50.00. What I'm getting at is you get what you pay for. I thought Waves was a lot of money back in the day...but I haven't bought a guitar cable since this one...20 plus years and still working...Planet Waves wins.3Didn't fit my 1996 Fender Strat...135302400011 16, 2012
8A3M1PLEYNDEYO8B00004Y2UTG. Thomas "Tom"[0, 0]Perfect for my Epiphone Sheraton II. Monster cables are well constructed. I have several and never had any problems with any of them over the years. Got this one because I wanted the 90 degree plug.5Great cable121530240007 6, 2008
9AMNTZU1YQN1THB00004Y2UTKurt Robair[0, 0]Monster makes the best cables and a lifetime warranty doesnt hurt either. This isnt their top of the line series but it works great with my bass guitar rig and has for some time. You cant go wrong with Monster Cables.5Best Instrument Cables On The Market138913920001 8, 2014

Last rows

reviewerIDasinreviewerNamehelpfulreviewTextoverallsummaryunixReviewTimereviewTime
10251A3M1PLEYNDEYO8B00JBIVXGCG. Thomas "Tom"[0, 0]True to phosphor bronze these strings have a mellow and full sound. You still get finger noise as you slide your fingers when setting up for the next chord, but the noise is somewhat less. I have used other Elixir nonweb coated strings and these strings are in par with them. I can't speak to the string life. The boast of these strings is that will last 3 to 5 times longer, and if that is the case, I will run out of time to submit my feedback. So far now, they sound great, feel great...and if they don't last as long as the other Elixirs, you'll still come out ahead since they shouldn't cost any more.5they sound great, feel great140417280007 1, 2014
10252A1SD1C8XK3Z3V1B00JBIVXGCguitfiddleblue "guitfiddleblue"[0, 0]I've used Elixirs for about five years now. This set offers the same great sound for my acoustic as their electric strings provide for my electric. Some people don't like the polymer (nanoweb) that coats the string, but I find that it cuts back on string noise. Sliding your fingers around doesn't cause too much noise, and with acoustic strings I find that very important, especially if you're using a piezo pickup in your instrument. Phosphor Bronze has always been a great alloy for acoustic guitars IMHO. These are great strings, worth the money, and sound great. They also last 3 times longer than regular, non-coated strings in my experience (been playing for 24yrs). Great product.5Elixirs just sound good140408640006 30, 2014
10253A2VRAT69JDAD3WB00JBIVXGCJason Whitt "Whittmeister"[0, 0]I'm a D'Addario man myself, but hey free is free. So I jumped at a chance to try these strings out. Thus far they have proven durable both in terms of playability and longevity of tone. So many other variables to consider when rating strings such as the guitar they go on, the gauge of string being used, the playing style and climate of the end user, etc. These are a solid performing string set, though I am unlikely to switch allegiances from D'Addario any time soon. Still there is no reason to fear trying these Elixir's out.4I'm a D'Addario man myself, but hey free is ...140590080007 21, 2014
10254A306NASGVUDFKFB00JBIVXGCJeffrey E "jeffinaustintx"[0, 0]I really like these strings. While they are not quite as bright sounding as uncoated strings, they still sound better than many other strings, AND they last so much longer. They will easily out last a set of uncoated strings by at least 2x... probably closer to 3x. Nice tactile feel on the right hand with reduced squeak as you move up & down the neck.Bottom line is Elixir's sound great, play well and least a really long time.5I really like these strings140443200007 4, 2014
10255A1TSKKBNV38E8YB00JBIVXGCK. Harriger "K.R. Harriger"[0, 0]I have lots of friends who play these strings. Some love them more than any other string, and some are like me. They're clearly good strings, and I love the way they play and feel on my fingertips, but I can't get past the sound. It could just be about how the strings sound on my particular guitars, but in any case, I'm not happy with the sound and that's why I have a hard time giving them a solid five-star rating.I tried these on two separate guitars I play regularly, and wasn't terribly impressed with the sound on either. One is a vintage dreadnought mahogany guitar that normally has excellent tone, and is crisp, clear and fairly loud. These strings softened the tone, which I wasn't looking to do. They sound okay, but nowhere near as good as the Martin SPs I use to really bring out the best in that guitar.I also have a cutaway electric/acoustic I use to sing with because it's fairly quiet, and the softer tones don't drown out my voice. These strings made the guitar even more quiet, and there was a considerable drop-off in tone quality as well. They might have been cheap, old strings, because I couldn't tell that there was anything special about them. This particular guitar didn't have spectacular sound to begin with, and these strings did nothing to improve it. I like strings to either sound as good as other strings, or improve the tone and pull more from the guitar. These strings did neither for me. However, they sound just great when the instrument was plugged through an amp.Based upon my experimentation, I would guess that if you have a great sounding guitar and you're not a fanatic about slight drops in tonal quality, you'll love the way these strings feel and play. I rate them excellent in that category. But for me, tone is 80% of the equation. I'd play wire-wrapped rope if it sounded better than regular strings. In the tonal category, these strings fell short. On a guitar with excellent tone, I noticed a distinct drop in tone quality, and on another softer, more muted guitar, tone quality vanished.In the final analysis, if you're a picker and your guitar can be plugged in, you'll love these strings. If you're really into great acoustic tone and your guitar doesn't have stellar tone to begin with, you might gain some 'playability,' but you will most likely experience a slight drop in tonal quality.3Hmmm.... I like them, but with a lot of reservations.140365440006 25, 2014
10256A14B2YH83ZXMPPB00JBIVXGCLonnie M. Adams[0, 0]Great, just as expected. Thank to all.5Five Stars140581440007 20, 2014
10257A1RPTVW5VEOSIB00JBIVXGCMichael J. Edelman[0, 0]I've been thinking about trying the Nanoweb strings for a while, but I was a bit put off by the high price (they cost about twice as much as the uncharted strings I've been buying) and the comments of some reviewers that the tone of coated strings is noticeably duller. I was intrigued by the promise of long life, though; I have a Taylor Big Baby that I bought used, and which came with a set of Nanowebs that had probably been on it for a year- and they didn't sound at all like old strings. This review set gave me a chance to finally see for myself how they sound when new.I'd just changed the strings on my 1970s Gibson Gospel a week ago, so I decided that would be my reference. The Nanowebs went on my 1970s Guild D-35. Both are well broken in, solid spruce top guitars. The Gospel is a bit brighter sounding, but I'm pretty familiar with the sound of both guitars. If they D-35 sounded dull, I'd notice.As I was unwrapping the Nanowebs I noticed that while they were labeled "Light" gauge, they had a 0.013" E string- something you'd be more likely to find on a set of medium gauge strings. The B was a .017, compared to the .016 of the D'Addarios I usually play. The rest of the strings were there usual light gauges. Turns out that these are "HD Light" gauge, designed to have a slightly more tension and better articulation at the high end. The difference shouldn't be enough to require any truss rod adjustment so I went ahead and installed them on the D-35.So how do they sound? The unwound E and B don't sound different from any other plain steel string, of course. The E does feel a tiny bit stiffer, when I switch between the D-35 and the Gospel. Sound-wise, I'd say they sound like a good set that have been on a guitar for a day. I wouldn't call them dull by any stretch of the imagination. If I didn't know that they were coated strings I certainly wouldn't be able to tell from playing them. So they're good sounding strings, and they last a long time. That leaves the question of cost- are they worth twice the price of uncoated strings?Here's the way I see it: If you're a heavy strummer, or playing gigs every night, maybe not. You're probably breaking strings or losing them to metal fatigue long before they'd go dull from corrosion or contamination. But if you're a finger picker, or a light strummer, a coated string will probably save you a lot of money in the long run. And if you're a hobby player who keeps a guitar around the house, and picks it up once in a while to entertain friends or family, coated strings are probably an excellent choice. For myself, I'm going to leave these on the D-35 for as long as they still sound good. I'll update this review when I find out just how long they do last.Follow up: After playing these for a few days, I actually went out and bought a set in the same gauge for my Loar LH-350, an arch top guitar with a carved top that gets played more than any of my other guitars. They sound great on the Loar, and now I have two guitars to do a long term test on.5Long life, and for some players, a good economic choice, too140425920007 2, 2014
10258AWCJ12KBO5VIIB00JBIVXGCMichael L. Knapp[0, 0]I have tried coated strings in the past ( including Elixirs) and have never been very fond of them. Whenever I tried them I felt a certain disconnect from my guitar. Somewhat reminiscent of wearing condom. Not that I hated them, just didn't really love them. These are the best ones I've tried so far. I still don't like them as much as regular strings but because of the type of gigs I mostly do these seem to be a reasonable trade off. If you need a longer lasting string for whatever the reason these are really the best out there. After a dozen or so gigs with them, they still sound the same as when I put them on.4Good for coated.140598720007 22, 2014
10259A2Z7S8B5U4PAKJB00JBIVXGCRick Langdon "Scriptor"[0, 0]Well, MADE by Elixir and DEVELOPED with Taylor Guitars ... these strings were designed for the new 800 (Rosewood) series guitars that came out this year (2014) ... the promise is a &#34;bolder high end, fuller low end&#34; ... I am a long-time Taylor owner and favor their 800 series (Rosewood/Spruce is my favorite combo in tone woods) ... I have almost always used Elixir Nanoweb Phosphor Bronze lights on my guitars ... I like not only the tone but the feel and longevity of these strings ... I have never had any issues with Elixir Nanowebs ... I recently picked up an 812ce First Edition 12-Fret ... such a fine instrument and it came with the Elixir HD's ... took some getting used to as far as feel (due to the slightly higher gauges of the treble strings - E, B & G) ... but as far as sound, they are great ... the D, A & low E strings are no different from the regular Elixir PB Lights so I am not sure about the claim of &#34;fuller low end&#34; ... compared to what? Unless the extra string tension of the treble strings also contributes to a little more bass response ... I am not sure how these strings will perform on guitars other than Taylor's but what anyone should notice is more volume and clarity from the treble strings ... that is what I notice most from the HD's compared to the regular ... I still find no fault with the regular Elixir Nanaweb PB's but will most likely continue to run the HD's on my 12-fret ... I may also try them on my older 814ce just to see if there is any difference/improvement ... so far I find the set well balanced with good clarity and sustain ... try them out and make your own decision ...4Taylor Made140417280007 1, 2014
10260A2WA8TDCTGUADIB00JBIVXGCTheTerrorBeyond[0, 0]These strings are really quite good, but I wouldn't call them perfect. The unwound strings are not quite as bright as I am accustomed to, but they still ring nicely. This is the only complaint I have about these strings. If the unwound strings were a tiny bit brighter, these would be 5-star strings. As it stands, I give them 4.5 stars... not a big knock, actually.The low-end on the wound strings is very nice and quite warm. I put these on a jumbo and it definitely accentuates the &#34;jumbo&#34; aspect of my acoustic. The sound is very big, full, and nice.Definitely a recommended product!4.5/5 stars4These strings are really quite good, but I wouldn't call them perfect140546880007 16, 2014