56 replies to this topic

[Mr. Foxen]

shauryamanga, on Oct 2 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

Im using a Traben Phoenix 4-string.
im currently using DR strings.
im confused.
can someone please suggest what i should do? through body or through bridge?
(Considering that it has a MONSTER bridge which has a whole lot of bridge-body contact)

Since its established it may or may not be different, try and see which you like. Top two through and bottom two back strung could work. Would make less odds with the chunky bridge I'd guess. Make sure strings are long enough to string through before you kink them.

[Balcro]

molan, on Jun 18 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

Only just noticed that my new Lakland JO 4 has a thru-body stringing option. I've never owned a bass with this before!
I realise there will be some different stresses on strings through the body given various angles etc. and that if I experiment and don't like it then I'm left with a set of strings to throw away.
However, I just wondered if in "real world" sense, there was much difference between the two options?

My apologoes if this is slightly off at a tangent to the original post, but it may be relevant to "Wazz's" & CarazyKiwi's earlier replies.
I've been looking to treat myself to a set of Flats and had narrowed the choice down to La Bella or Webstrings/Detroit Bass. I looked at La Bella's catalogue this evening and they say Deep-Talking flats "are unsuitable for thru-body stringing. They suggest a "flexi-core flatwound" as a suitable alternative, but I can't find any such product in the catalogue. Google came up with just the one reference at La Bella.

As I've got thru-body stringing with brass saddles and no bridge option, I've e-mailed both La Bella & Webstrings for further info as to suitability. Anyone come across this before or have any recommendations.

Thanks folks.

Balcro.

[Linus27]

Crazykiwi, on Jun 25 2008, 05:27 AM, said:

You're breaking bass strings? I can't begin to imagine what your playing style is like. If the bridge is well designed it shouldn't be doing that.

I used to break a lot of bass strings also but that was with a pick only.

[bassbloke]

Mr. Foxen, on Jul 31 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

Our main song is at 45 bpm and a section involves me sustaining a note for 9 beats. Depends on what you play. Its easy to kill sustain, hard to increase it without bass modding.

That's what vibrato is for.

As for breaking strings when strung through body - I've been through body stringing my Fenders every since I bought my first. It adds an extra inch or so to the overall length of the string and seems to increase tension ever so slightly.

I've never really paid it much thought though. There are countless instrumenst out there that are fundamentally better designed that my jazzes and p, but that doesn't mean that sound they produce is neccesarily more pleasing.

Finally, some of the most memorable songs ever were performed on bass guitars with a rudimentary design, with old strings, action that would cause most of the members of thsi forum to faint through very basic amps. Doesn't stop people trying their hardest to emulate those sounds though.

[iamapirate]

-> You're breaking bass strings? I can't begin to imagine what your playing style is like. If the bridge is well designed it shouldn't be doing that. <-

haha, I broke a bottom E the other day. But it was only because it was the string was thru-body and it was thinner at the bridge end than the rest of the string (maybe as an increase for sustain). Either way, it broke playing relatively hard rock (think linkin park kind of stuff, only slightly less) and it just gave way.

(OT story)

In the end I got a string off my other bass that was too short to get strung thru-body so it went through the bridge, then I gave my bass away to someone to borrow for recording (in promise for a new set of strings) and they came back with the top 3 thru-body and the bottom E thru-bridge. teehehee, good to see that he cared for her.

bottom line: Thru-body=breakable....easily

[EBS_freak]

iamapirate, on May 27 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

bottom line: Thru-body=breakable....easily

bottom line: Thru-body=breakable.... maybe on your bass.

[thisnameistaken]

EBS_freak, on May 27 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

bottom line: Thru-body=breakable.... maybe on your bass.

I used to break strings all the time when fingerpicking down by the bridge pup. Probably because I couldn't hear myself properly on stage so I was over-doing it. Haven't broken one in years but it used to be a common problem for me.

It was usually the thicker strings that broke. Not sure whether that's because I was attacking them from a different angle to the treble strings or because they're less flexible or what. Had it happen on a Jazz, a Yamaha BB1100S, a Warwick Corvette 6, er... some other basses, I forget. None of them were strung through the body.

[iamapirate]

yeah I mean, I wasn't actually really going for it, it was just that they had been thinn'd at the bridge so that it could improve sustain i think and cos it was thinner and was thru-body string'd, then thats why it snaped.

[Mr. Foxen]

iamapirate, on Jun 7 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

yeah I mean, I wasn't actually really going for it, it was just that they had been thinn'd at the bridge so that it could improve sustain i think and cos it was thinner and was thru-body string'd, then thats why it snaped.

Strings with the thin part at the bridge are no less string, the core that takes the tension is still the same, the windings take to tension and are just there for weight. I've still never broken a string. It's all about having enough amps that you are loud enough.

[iamapirate]

well, they thin it for some reason, and the thinned string I broke, and I now play even harder on the thickened strings at the end, and they don't snap. Same gauge, but the thinned bit at the bridge made it snap.... i'm sure it did! XD

[sdgrsr400]

FWIW, in the July 2009 BGM on p69, Roger Sadowsky was asked about this issue and he said "I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever".

However, I think I'll string my next set thru-body and see how it works out.

[The Bass Doc]

[quote Roger Sadowsky was asked about this issue and he said "I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever".
[/quote]

My experience also.

[markdavid]

[quote name='The Bass Doc' post='538186' date='Jul 11 2009, 10:34 PM'][quote Roger Sadowsky was asked about this issue and he said "I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever".


My experience also.[/quote]

+1 , no audible benefits not worth the extra aggro unless your bridge is very lightweight in which case it may make a difference

Edited by markdavid, 12 August 2009 - 12:35 PM.

[GreeneKing]

On the subject of some LaBella flats and not using them through body it's because the sharper break angles the string is subject to can cause the outer winding to crimp and the huge leverage produced can break the string.

I'd not bother with thru body stringing personally, having tried it in the past. I no longer have the option on any of mine anyway and don't miss it.

[wazz]

Have broken the E string strung through the body on my Jazz during gigs 2 weeks running now.
Its always the E string that goes too.
Gonna string it through the bridge and see what happens.

I think its the sharp angle as it goes over the saddle that makes it weak. I'm certain its fatigue as I've had one go whilst practising when I was playing finger style very lightly.

[Telebass]

I've not broken a bass string, ever, in 40 years.
(OK, that's the kiss of death for Saturday's gig! )

Stringing? The only difference I can see that it would make, from a physics point of view are these:
1) Very slightly greater tension, as more string is being stretched.
2) No need whatever for a massive bridge of any sort; whatever bridge is there, as long as it is basically rigid, is being clamped to the body by the strings,
as opposed to the strings trying to tear the bridge form the bass.

End result? Apart from that small tension increase, no difference that I've ever noticed.

[EssentialTension]

I've never been able to tell the difference between through-body and through-bridge.

[NickH]

I don't get this whole "through body gives more tension" thing. Urban myth started by someone with poor grasp of physics.

A string could be a mile long, mounted to a bridge anchor one end of the street and a tuner the other end. You make it resonate between two points a given distance apart (fret and bridge saddle), you get the appropriate pitch.
String tension is higher in longer scale basses as the resonating length for a given fret is longer (deeper note) so requires the string to be tighter (higher note) to compensate.
If the length of the string past the nut to the tuner made any difference,we'd all enjoy nice tight crisp notes on shorter scale, easier to play basses by putting a great big long head on it with the tuners right down the far end. Same thing with having a short redundant bit of string extending from bridge saddle to either top-mounted string anchor or a longer bit going through the body. Doesn't affect string tension one bit.

To test this, grab an old Strat guitar and a spare thin E string. Replace the fat (bass) E string with the thin E. Tune the guitar up so that both E strings are at the same pitch.
The treble-side E string now approximates a through-body stringing as the distance from nut to tuner is longer, while the bass-side E represents a non-through-body stringing. If they're at the same pitch, the tension in the strings will be the same assuming you've got the same gague string as the one already on the guitar.

I'm not saying through-body stringing doesn't affect the tone or resonance of an instrument*, it just doesn't affect string tension.

* Albeit in a very minor way that doesn't compensate for a higher break angle at the bridge snapping strings.

[Mr. Foxen]

NickH, on Oct 24 2009, 12:46 AM, said:

I don't get this whole "through body gives more tension" thing. Urban myth started by someone with poor grasp of physics.

A string could be a mile long, mounted to a bridge anchor one end of the street and a tuner the other end. You make it resonate between two points a given distance apart (fret and bridge saddle), you get the appropriate pitch.
String tension is higher in longer scale basses as the resonating length for a given fret is longer (deeper note) so requires the string to be tighter (higher note) to compensate.
If the length of the string past the nut to the tuner made any difference,we'd all enjoy nice tight crisp notes on shorter scale, easier to play basses by putting a great big long head on it with the tuners right down the far end. Same thing with having a short redundant bit of string extending from bridge saddle to either top-mounted string anchor or a longer bit going through the body. Doesn't affect string tension one bit.

To test this, grab an old Strat guitar and a spare thin E string. Replace the fat (bass) E string with the thin E. Tune the guitar up so that both E strings are at the same pitch.
The treble-side E string now approximates a through-body stringing as the distance from nut to tuner is longer, while the bass-side E represents a non-through-body stringing. If they're at the same pitch, the tension in the strings will be the same assuming you've got the same gague string as the one already on the guitar.

I'm not saying through-body stringing doesn't affect the tone or resonance of an instrument*, it just doesn't affect string tension.

* Albeit in a very minor way that doesn't compensate for a higher break angle at the bridge snapping strings.

Think this was already covered earlier in the thread, the affected factor is compliance. What you can feel under your fingers, which is the important bit. The string is not anchored at the the end of its speaking length as you have supposed when you applied physics here, it is free to move over the nut and the saddle, so when you bend it you are stretching the whole length up to its anchor point. Your physics is flaws by oversimplification.