Restrung Through Body and WOW!

[StyleOverShow]

Had some TI Jazz flats on a 34.5 inch scale Gibson Ripper fretless that the shop had set up from the bridge and not through the body. Intonation was tricky and the string tension wasn't right.

Read a few threads and restrung it Saturday night through the body. Had to cut off about a quarter an inch of silk off each string, and the "A" is dangerously close to slipping but it sounds so much better now.

The string tension is much higher, the pitch more accurate and timbre of the strings, even though they been on four months or more, is much brighter and fuller.

It pays to read and search threads.

[62bass]

Originally Posted by StyleOverShow

Had some TI Jazz flats on a 34.5 inch scale Gibson Ripper fretless that the shop had set up from the bridge and not through the body. Intonation was tricky and the string tension wasn't right.

Read a few threads and restrung it Saturday night through the body. Had to cut off about a quarter an inch of silk off each string, and the "A" is dangerously close to slipping but it sounds so much better now.

The string tension is much higher, the pitch more accurate and timbre of the strings, even though they been on four months or more, is much brighter and fuller.

It pays to read and search threads.

Any sound improvement I've noticed from strings through the body I've attributed to the increased downward angle of the strings at the bridge compared to the same bridge used in top load mode. With top loading basses I use, if the downward angle is steep enough there is no audible difference to me. Sometimes I shim a bolt on neck in order to allow me to raise the saddles for each string, resulting in a steeper angle.

I've never noticed any change in string tension from through body, but it may change it somewhat. Just not noticeable to me.

Having your action set higher than the very low setup most guys go for these days can also change the sound for the better. Of course a lot of guys object because they have to work a bit harder but it was common back in the early days of recording electric bass.

To me a low action which forces you to play lightly results in a wimpy sound. My tastes don't always agree with the majority of players out there. But I've been playing electric bass since 1961 and back then we were lucky to find an amp that was able to stand up to use for bass.

But I'm glad that switching to string through worked so well for you. I use Thomastic JF 344 strings on all my basses also. There's nothing else like them.

Edited to add---I forgot to mention this, but regarding having to trim the silk off some of the strings using string through. Most of the ferrules used for string through, such as on some Fenders, the ball end of the string only sits into the body a short distance thereby decreasing the useable length of sting. However Carvin sell s a string through ferrule which is deeper inside-an inch I think but at least 3/4". You might want to switch to these next string change, say 8 years or so.

[basss]

Stringing through the body does have proven psychoacoustic properties.

[KJung]

Originally Posted by StyleOverShow

Had some TI Jazz flats on a 34.5 inch scale Gibson Ripper fretless that the shop had set up from the bridge and not through the body. Intonation was tricky and the string tension wasn't right.

Read a few threads and restrung it Saturday night through the body. Had to cut off about a quarter an inch of silk off each string, and the "A" is dangerously close to slipping but it sounds so much better now.

The string tension is much higher, the pitch more accurate and timbre of the strings, even though they been on four months or more, is much brighter and fuller.

It pays to read and search threads.

Sorry, whatever you are experiencing has nothing to do with 'through the body'. It surely can't impact tension. I guess if your bridge is designed very poorly so that there wasn't enough downward pressure on the saddles, this would make a difference, but that is unlikely.

I've A/B'd various basses (Lakland, Celinder, MM) that have through the bridge and through the body, and never heard or felt any difference whatsoever.

[JTE]

All those changes could be due to a careful set-up rather than specific effect of the STB. I know from my experience with STB, including four basses which allow both STB and top-load, that there's no difference that I can discerne.

Now, the Gibson bridge is pretty poorly designed, and the STB is probably offering better break-over angle. That could also contribute to the sound, but it's not specifically due to going through the body wood.

jte

[StyleOverShow]

Originally Posted by basss

Stringing through the body does have proven psychoacoustic properties.

Apparently. I restrung the "A" string first and it proved to be the most difficult because of the length. I had anticipated this looking at the number of winds around the tuner posts. When I got it to hold sufficiently, I used a tuner to get it to pitch. The string seemed more taught than the adjacent strings.

Originally Posted by JTE

..Now, the Gibson bridge is pretty poorly designed, and the STB is probably offering better break-over angle. That could also contribute to the sound, but it's not specifically due to going through the body wood.
jte

Agree that it is not the wood faerie contributing to the sound, but the clarity has remarkably improved.

I think it is the break over angle, myself.

Agree that the bridge is old school and I will probably replace it, but the authentic police seem to lurk everywhere and changing a vintage instrument like this has been debated by techs that I asked to do the work! The tuners are functional but not pretty and the bridge, well, it was an idea 31 years ago. Don't know if it was a good idea then.

Thanks all for you comments.

[lemur821]

Originally Posted by StyleOverShow

The string tension is much higher, the pitch more accurate and timbre of the strings, even though they been on four months or more, is much brighter and fuller.

I find that strings often get a little zing back when I tune them back up after slackening them.

[xshawnxearthx]

THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A DIFFERENCE IF THEY GIVE YOU THE OPTION. IF THERE WASN'T, YOU WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO STRING ONE WAY.

[JTE]

No, there doesn't have to be a real difference. The difference only has to exist in marketing and hype for them to give us the option.

jte

[Philbiker]

Originally Posted by basss

Stringing through the body does have proven psychoacoustic properties.

LOL!! So do replacement bridges.

[kraigo]

Originally Posted by Philbiker

LOL!! So do replacement bridges.

I'll concede that it might be psychoacoustic, but I like a moderately heavy bridge. I usually swap out standard Fender style bridges, but I don't go with the heaviest thing I can find either.

The Gotoh 201 is my favorite replacement bridge. It's inexpensive, not too many moving parts, yet adjustable, It seems to be made of good materials and the chroming is usually pretty good.

FWIW, if I hit the open G on my P-Bass (Fender style bridge) moderately hard I'll get a high frequency ring. I'm 90% sure it's coming from the bridge.

KO

[frankie5string]

When I compared body as opposed to top-strung I attributed the difference to the fact that on Fenders, the bridges are relatively low mass, and thin. Hence the body-stringing will impact the transmission of vibration. On other basses, especially Laaklands and Celinders, there's enough mass in the bridge to make body-stringing somewhat redundant and reduce or eliminate the effect...

Wasn't the original purpose of stringing through the body meant to overcome the lack of transmission one gets from those tiny Fender bridges?

[saxofunk]

Originally Posted by xshawnxearthx

THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A DIFFERENCE IF THEY GIVE YOU THE OPTION.

No, it's pretty much an option and that's all.

I went through the trouble of modifying a bass with an aftermarket bridge (Hipshot B) and all the holes and ferrules to string through several years ago. I am in the camp that believes any difference is in your head. When the stock bridge started to bend in the wrong places, I bought this bridge specifically because I bought into the string-through hype, now I feel speed loading is a way cooler feature.

[ravlin]

when laying back on my bed and smoking (ahem*) cigarettes, i definately noticed that my string thru bass resonates through the wood much more than any other bass i have ever played. this is not necessarily objective evidence for string thru legitimacy however since this bass is unique in enough ways that there could be several factors causing this. as for the quick release, i play flats, so having a disincentive to changing them is a good thing.

[Philbiker]

Originally Posted by ravlin

when laying back on my bed and smoking (ahem*) cigarettes, i definately noticed that my string thru bass resonates through the wood much more than any other bass i have ever played. this is not necessarily objective evidence for string thru legitimacy however since this bass is unique in enough ways that there could be several factors causing this. as for the quick release, i play flats, so having a disincentive to changing them is a good thing.

Smoking in bed is a fire hazard.

[JTE]

Originally Posted by frankie5string

Wasn't the original purpose of stringing through the body meant to overcome the lack of transmission one gets from those tiny Fender bridges?

No, not if you consider that the Fender bass had string-through bridges from 1952 (or whenever Leo made the first one) until 1957. And the only Fenders that had STB after 1957 were the Mustang (which Leo designed after selling Fender to CBS- compare the Mustang bridge to the original StingRay bridge) and the Telecaster bass (a reproduction of the original pre-'57 P bass) until the late '80s.

Leo used STB on the StingRay, but abandonded it with the G&L basses. Since then it's been a touted feature, but I really doubt it has any real impact beyond the change in break-over angle.

jte

[lug]

Originally Posted by JTE

No, not if you consider that the Fender bass had string-through bridges from 1952 (or whenever Leo made the first one) until 1957. And the only Fenders that had STB after 1957 were the Mustang (which Leo designed after selling Fender to CBS- compare the Mustang bridge to the original StingRay bridge) and the Telecaster bass (a reproduction of the original pre-'57 P bass) until the late '80s.

Leo used STB on the StingRay, but abandonded it with the G&L basses. Since then it's been a touted feature, but I really doubt it has any real impact beyond the change in break-over angle.

jte

5 string G&Ls have STBs and the 4 string has a metal "heel" on the bottom of the bridge that extends into the body and butts up against the endgrain.

[JTE]

lug-

Thanks for the update. It's been so long since I've seen a new G&L that I had no idea the 5's were STB. The boss at the bottom of the original G&L bridge was one of the advertising features in the first ads. It's hard to tell if that really makes a difference as there's no reasonable way to compare several examples...

The idea of the boss at the bottom of the bridge was to give the transference to the wood, without having the hassle of finding strings long enough easily. But another factor that I think contributes more than either the boss or the STB, is that the saddles lock toghether. I shouldda bought one of the ebony board L-1000s we had as an early G&L dealer.

jte

[One Drop]

BTW, psychoacoustic effects are real; it is a term that describes the way we process auditory stimuli, resulting in experiences that seem to counter measured stimuli but in fact are reproducible and consistent.

I think you may be referring to psychological effects; in other words believing that one hears something, due to expectation, suggestion, etc.

Sorry for being pedantic but it's an important distinction.

[saxofunk]

Originally Posted by One Drop

BTW, psychoacoustic effects are real; it is a term that describes the way we process auditory stimuli, resulting in experiences that seem to counter measured stimuli but in fact are reproducible and consistent.

I think you may be referring to psychological effects; in other words believing that one hears something, due to expectation, suggestion, etc.

Sorry for being pedantic but it's an important distinction.

Good to understand that difference. Thank you.