Stringing Through The Body v Stringing Through The Bridge

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='bassman7755' timestamp='1369054001' post='2084275']
Given a fixed string mass and a fixed vibrating length you will always need the same tension to get the same note, so no it cannot have any effect.
[/quote]

Wrong reasoning. Tension isn't static when you are playing a bass, it changes due to the fact your fingers are touching strings, how it changes is called compliance, and that is effected by the anchor points of the string, which can be independent of the points determining the vibrating length. Actually, there are several vibrating lengths, since tensile vibrations are not arrested at the witness points where lateral ones are, so there is a tone effect too.

[Telebass]

^^^
Makes sense. The only realistic difference between the two methods is that one clamps the bridge down, while the other tries to tear it off. The oddball in that scenario is a two piece bridge, where both clamping and tearing are part of the mix...

[EMG456]

Another interesting thread to me.

I recently acquired a fender Jazz Bass 24, which is the first bass I've had almost forever which can use through-body stringing.
so I thought "I'll try this!"

Using my normal gauge string set (.040 - .100), the bass definitely feels "tighter" than I would have expected. On my normal scheme of re-stringing, it'll be probably several years before that one needs done again but I will be interested to see what the difference is on the same instrument.

As has been mentioned, it's the same tension for either method but what changes is the rate at which that tension increases as the string is pulled away from its resting position - ie a straight line from saddle to nut. The tension increases as you pull the string to pluck it, as you fret a note and as you bend a note. As has already been mentioned, a vibrating string is already stretched more than the resting string which is why if you really ( I mean *really*) dig in for a note you can go so far that the start of the note is actually sharpened till the excess string vibration damps down again.

I have searched the web for a scientific explanation for this apparent effect to no real avail so if you don't mind indulging me, I will attempt one!

If we have a string in tune at a set tension, say the A string and we want to fret it at the 5th (D) and bend the note one tone up to the E, that will require a set effort. What we are doing is stretching the string and that stretch is spread over the entire tensioned length of the string - from ball end to tuner post. And possibly even a bit round the tuner windings as well!

If we increase the length of the string by stringing through the body, to bend the note up our tone again we need to increase the tension by the same amount as the first time but this time we have to increase it for a longer length of string. Each little bit of string has to be stretched but this time there's more of it and so the effort required is that much more for the same effect.

I'm guessing that the actual change will likely be in the range of about no more than 5% but in the finely balanced requirements of a guitar or bass setup, these tiny differences sometimes seem to have a disproportionate effect on the end result.

By my theory, the most compliant setup you could have would of course be headless with double ball strings. All my headless basses do feel very "compliant"! And also, there will be a difference in compliance as you move up the strings on a four or five in line headstock - probably as much between strings as the difference between through-body or on- bridge stringing.

Any scientists or engineers on here please chip in.

Cheers

Ed

[neepheid]

I once modded a Squier Bronco for through body stringing, thinking it would make the short scale a bit less flappy. It made little or no difference to the feel of the strings as far as I was concerned and although it was a cool mod, it ended up being basically cosmetic.

Speaking from a Gibson-centric point of view - stringing through the body exerts some downward pressure on the entire bridge, which should prevent the ghastly three point bridge from lifting the threaded inserts out of the body under lateral string tension. If the holes through the body are not obscured by the bridge (like RDs and Rippers) then they look pretty stupid and redundant if you don't fire the string through the holes.

There's something reassuring about stringing through the body from a structural point of view, a stronger anchor than simply your bridge screws versus string tension.

Sometimes despite appearances stringing through the body is mandatory - for example, a 5 string G&L MUST be strung through the body because if you don't, the bridge is only held on with two screws. Don't fancy that much. They can be modded for top loading with machine screws and threaded inserts in the string anchors though.

I think that's all my thoughts on the subject. Other than that I don't really care. If the facility is there, I'll use it.

[gary mac]

I've tried both ways on my P Deluxe. Could not hear or feel any difference at all.

For those who claim to be able to hear a difference, I bet it's not in a band situation.