I've had guitars that sounded bad with .009's and good with .011's, and vice versa. I personally dislike the "tub-tone" you get from over-fat strings, but some people love it - to each their own. Some people love to get dressed in diapers, tied to the bedposts & spanked - to each their own. Heavier strings have more output, so on an acoustic, with no amplifier and no volume control, they will be louder... Ed Packard has done some of the only research I've heard of actually testing strings, and he did prove that thinner strings sustain longer, and have a higher proportional output in the midrange and treble - (this is the same as "thinner-sounding" to those of you without tone controls on your amp). The
big string = big tone story is largely fueled by the same forces driving the "thin nitro finish" crowd, i.e., a hangover from acoustic guitars.
I personally prefer Santana's tone to SRV, even though Stevie tuned down to Eb the big strings sounded tubby, and he was often forced to double -pick because they just didn't sustain well. I don't hold sustain
alone in as high regard as many, but the factors that make a guitar sustain well also tend to lead to a tone that I prefer. Dick Dale
sounds awful.... would you really want that tone? Also, Santana's tone is designed to mesh with his six-piece band, SRV was trying to fill a lot of frequencies. When anyone can honestly advance the "thin-strings = no-tone" argument in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I have to wonder how much of their discussion comes from personal experience, listening, and research, and how much is borrowed from guitar mag truisms. (Do let us know how the retainers work out.... :toothy12