Difference between string-through and bridge stringing?

[Naetharu]

Hi folks,

I've come across a few basses that have the option of both stringing through the body or via the bridge (top-loading?) and I'm curious as to why this is and what difference it makes. I've had a bit of a Google but I cannot find anything that clearly explains the idea here. Could anyone enlighten me as to the reasons for these two different options on some basses and the pros/cons of each?

Best wishes

James

[Grangur]

I read an article about this in Bass Gear magazine. They put this question to about luthiers who build top end basses. These guys included those at Fedora and Sadowsky etc. Their answer was it makes no difference. What matters is the break angle and its position. What happens outside those 2 points makes no real difference at all.

Players often like it as a style and se will convince themselves of a difference but these top luthiers couldn't find a benefit.

[HowieBass]

One thing to be aware of is you could well have problems stringing flatwounds through the body because of the break angle, in which case go for top-loading with those. Bear in mind also that stringing through needs a little more string length, so depending on what strings you're using and the scale length you might find the silks coming close to the nut.

[chrismuzz]

[quote name='Grangur' timestamp='1434345458' post='2798720']
Their answer was it makes no difference. What matters is the break angle and its position.
[/quote]

That's very contradictory! Stringing through the body dramatically increases the break angle. This in some cases can make the string feel tighter and improve tuning stability.

[ikay]

Here's an interesting side-by-side test to demonstrate the difference (subtle to say the least) - [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ph88gjyD-A"]https://www.youtube....h?v=6ph88gjyD-A[/url]

Edited June 15, 2015 by ikay

[Machines]

My Lakland bridge allows for either, and I generally don't bother with string through as it means I need extra long scale strings.

[chris_b]

Leo Fender must have thought it made a difference, as even after it had been removed on Fender basses, through body stringing was included in the final design of MusicMan basses. I think he left it out on G&L though.

I can string through the body on all my basses and I've tried on 2 of them. I didn't notice much difference in sound or feel, but then my senses aren't that finely tuned. There are no down sides to through body stringing and only you can decide if you discover any benefits.

[Grangur]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1434359098' post='2798806']
Leo Fender must have thought it made a difference, as even after it had been removed on Fender basses, through body stringing was included in the final design of MusicMan basses. I think he left it out on G&L though.

I can string through the body on all my basses and I've tried on 2 of them. I didn't notice much difference in sound or feel, but then my senses aren't that finely tuned. There are no down sides to through body stringing and only you can decide if you discover any benefits.
[/quote]

Maybe the reason for taking it to MM is that it sells instruments.

[neepheid]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1434359098' post='2798806']
Leo Fender must have thought it made a difference, as even after it had been removed on Fender basses, through body stringing was included in the final design of MusicMan basses. I think he left it out on G&L though.

I can string through the body on all my basses and I've tried on 2 of them. I didn't notice much difference in sound or feel, but then my senses aren't that finely tuned. There are no down sides to through body stringing and only you can decide if you discover any benefits.
[/quote]

G&L 5 string basses are through body strung and they really ought to be strung that way as if you top load a G&L 5 stringer then your bridge is held down only with the two screws at the side. Through body stringing is part of the structural integrity of the deal.

From my Gibsonny point of view, through body stringing means the three point bridge has no hope of pulling the inserts out of the body so it's a win for me. Also through body strung Gibsons tended to have the strings going through the body behind the bridge instead of underneath it so if you don't do it then you've got some redundant (and painfully obvious) holes in your bass for no reason. Fine if you're a bit steampunk I suppose

[PlungerModerno]

[quote name='HowieBass' timestamp='1434345793' post='2798723']
One thing to be aware of is you could well have problems stringing flatwounds through the body because of the break angle, in which case go for top-loading with those. Bear in mind also that stringing through needs a little more string length, so depending on what strings you're using and the scale length you might find the silks coming close to the nut.
[/quote]

+1 Some strings will, some strings won't. Remember - if the bridge is in the right place (the saddles can be adjusted to intonate almost any string at pitch) and the ferrules / through body holes are in appropriate locations - it should work perfectly for most strings.
If however (like an L2500 tribute G&L I had) the through body holes are in a straight line it makes stringing thicker strings through a bit of a pain - as the E & B saddles needed to be fairly far back to intonate correctly, the string had one hell of a bend to go over the saddle (almost straight up & over, unlike the A, D, & G strings which had more sensible transition from vertical to horizontal).

Stringing through the bridge has the advantage of intonation adjustments not significantly altering the break angle (on some designs, like the G&L one mentioned) - as well as allowing some quick change features if that's something you care about.

On an unusual note - there are some designs that are both through the bridge and the body - sort of:

[lojo]

I think we need to commission a Lozz test

[JTUK]

You need to try it and see which suits you.
I'd say there is no real reason why one would be better than the other...
I'd also say the same about 34" V 35", neck thru and bolt on....
You'll get excellent results with both and you'll get less than average results with both as well.

I would say that quality of construction trumps method of construction and makes the real difference, IMO

[Happy Jack]

This came up during the presentation from D'Addario at the Herts Bass Bash yesterday.

The rep (Andrew) made most of the points covered in the dozen posts above, but mentioned IIRC that D'Addario believe that through-body stringing makes broken strings more likely.

It links back to the break angle, of course.

[Norris]

Maybe it's to avoid any chance of the bridge lifting. The through stringing would have the effect of clamping the bridge to the bass - although that's usually the job of the screws

[CamdenRob]

I had a fender jazz and had to string it through the body or the ferrules(?) fell out the back of the bass without the ball end of the string to hold them in....

Also, as mentioned not a great idea to go through body with flats.

[Skybone]

There is the school of thought that through body stringing helps with the transfer of vibration into the body and thus helping sustain and "tone". There is another school of thought that think that school of thought is wrong.

There is also a school of thought that think through body stringing will increase the string tension, especially for lower tunings than E standard, and therefore aid play-ability, help sustain and "tone". There are also numerous schools of thought that think that this school of thought is wrong as well.

Discuss:

[gary mac]

I don't see how break angle can alter the tension.

I tend to consider it as just a different option. I've tried both options on my P Deluxe and could not hear or feel any difference.

[Happy Jack]

Perhaps your school needs more thought?

[Skybone]

It's similar to stringing a Gibson style stop bar guitar either the "standard" way (through the stop bar), or "over" the stop bar. The increase in break angle would seem to lower the actual string tension along the fretboard, where stringing over the bar, reducing the break angle, reduces the string tension. The reduction in string tension allows bigger bends. I don't know what the string tension figures are, but you can feel a difference while playing.

But hey, that's only what I've experienced in trying the different methods out on stop tail guitars. My actual preference is to use standard stringing through the stop bar & tune to D.

[Skybone]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1434458444' post='2799757']
Perhaps your school needs more thought?


[/quote]

There is a school of thought that would agree with you, though there'll be another school of thought along soon that will think we're all thinking wrongly.

I think.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Skybone

[such]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1434393419' post='2799196']
This came up during the presentation from D'Addario at the Herts Bass Bash yesterday.

The rep (Andrew) made most of the points covered in the dozen posts above, but mentioned IIRC that D'Addario believe that through-body stringing makes broken strings more likely.

It links back to the break angle, of course.
[/quote]

I brought up my observation that stringing through the body kills the strings quicker. My frame of reference in not very wide, as it was only two basses (early 2000s MIA Jazz and a Polish handmade no-name J5), but I tend to use the same strings most of the time and my body chemistry as well as my playing technique are rather gentle and over the years I noticed a VERY consistent pattern of my strings' life span and their different stages of aging. It takes me about two weeks to get some zing out of the ProSteels, then about two months of nice warm, growly, balanced, well defined tone. Then it starts to deaden up, and after a wash I get another month of the same. While strung through the body, both the initial zingy period and the growly period would be shorter almost by half. Then the wash wouldn't help much. Don't know the science behind it, but we all know that if you bend a metal thing and then straighten it back, it won't be as strong at that point anymore.

Just my little insight that's worth as much as it costs.

Edited June 16, 2015 by such

[Sammers]

[quote name='such' timestamp='1434459533' post='2799772']
I brought up my observation that stringing through the body kills the strings quicker.
[/quote]

Hmm......interesting! I picked up a used Mike Lull back in March/April time and noticed that the B string (which is through body) lost it's liveliness a lot quicker than the other strings with a fresh set of DR Nickels LRs.

Although the B string doesn't sit on the nut properly as the taper is about 5mm too short on DR's for 35" scale & through body.

I put it down to the nut situation and inexperience with a 5th string (as the Lull is my first), which neither probably help if i'm honest.

[el borracho]

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1434360390' post='2798824']
G&L 5 string basses are through body strung and they really ought to be strung that way as if you top load a G&L 5 stringer then your bridge is held down only with the two screws at the side. Through body stringing is part of the structural integrity of the deal.


[/quote]

The only time I tried my M2500 with standard length strings through the bridge there was a visible lifting of the bridge. Very slight but enough for me to replace the strings and go straight back to through body.

[lojo]

A string through body puts the gain back in that gets sucked into a maple neck.

[Cosmo Valdemar]

[quote name='chrismuzz' timestamp='1434352457' post='2798755']
That's very contradictory! Stringing through the body dramatically increases the break angle. This in some cases can make the string feel tighter and improve tuning stability.
[/quote]

It's still the break angle that causes the difference, not the fact that the strings are going through the body.