There's some things about strings which may be counter-intuitive.

Handshock. An elastic string promotes vibration after the shot, because the string stores energy (like a rubber band) that has to go somewhere once the arrow has left the bow. Back to those flight shooter boys, the math indicates string mass is important, for maximizing cast, but also elasticity. When elasticity is set to zero (for modeling purposes), arrow goes faster. If the arrow goes faster, less energy is left in the bow, less handshock.

Low strand count strings. They have MORE elasticity, but less mass. If you don't offset the less mass by adding arrow mass, it's in effect the same as using (too) light arrows from the bow's pov. Also, when a strands breaking strenght is 150#, compared to inside of 50# for Dacron for example, you can, obviously, use 1/3rd less strands and still have the SAME breaking strenght. Elasticity is directly related to breaking strenght, one goes up so does the other. You do have to be careful about diameter, around the string loops, as a tiny string will obviously focus the strain on a smaller area. But if a 12 strand Dacron (600#) is "enough" string, so is 4 strands of 450+, for example.

The Walk the Talk boys found the more efficient (as differentiated from simply "faster") bows also had in common the least handshock, the least noise. Kinda counter intuitive, until you think about it. Energy leaving the bow by way of the arrow beats energy being absorded by the bow, for longevity, performance, quietness, everything. A bow can be faster because it stores more energy (a recurve), or because it delivers more of it's stored energy (an optimized r/d longbow). Of the two, the recurve is frequently the louder... because while it stores more energy and even though it puts more energy into the arrow it also wastes more energy slinging around that extra limb mass, which has to be consumed by way of noise and handshock. That recurves typically have such massive risers, in comparison to the more efficient r/d longbow shape, the handshock difference is frequently masked, not always obvious in the comparison.