Advantage of string-through?

Raccio14 · #1 10-02-2010, 11:44 AM

What's the advantage/disadvantage of having your bass strung body-through?

I've been wondering because my bridge (stock Ibanez) supports the through-body stringing, but the holes for doing so have not been drilled through the wood on my bass. So if there was a significant reason for doing so, I was thinking about drilling and putting in the string ferrules (right term?) myself to enable through-body stringing. Obviously I don't want to go through the trouble if its not worth it though.

brendanbassist · #2 10-02-2010, 11:46 AM

Definitely not worth it. Some may argue that there are SLIGHT benefits, but I'd say most TB'ers agree that it won't make a difference tonally. Stringing through the body may make you slightly more prone to breaking strings.

JLS · #3 10-02-2010, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raccio14

What's the advantage/disadvantage of having your bass strung body-through?

I've been wondering because my bridge (stock Ibanez) supports the through-body stringing, but the holes for doing so have not been drilled through the wood on my bass. So if there was a significant reason for doing so, I was thinking about drilling and putting in the string ferrules (right term?) myself to enable through-body stringing. Obviously I don't want to go through the trouble if its not worth it though.

Does make it somewhat harder to restring, and much harder, if not impossible, to "audition", string sets. I milled slots into the Schaller bridge on my main bass, so I can, try out strings, or go back to another set.

Raccio14 · #4 10-02-2010, 04:56 PM

Alright, that's to be expected. It's the same if you have a bridge without a quick-release, so that makes no difference in my mind.

I just want to know what are the advantages to having it string through? better sustain? better tone? I really have no idea what it might do, so I'm asking you guys, as I'm sure you're all far more experienced than me.

C.Linton · #5 10-02-2010, 05:30 PM

The consensus is, as far as I am aware, Is that string thru offers no noticeable difference in tone or sustain. I wouldn't bother drilling any holes in your bass, more trouble than it's worth.

Raccio14 · #6 10-02-2010, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.Linton

The consensus is, as far as I am aware, Is that string thru offers no noticeable difference in tone or sustain. I wouldn't bother drilling any holes in your bass, more trouble than it's worth.

If it doesn't do ANYTHING, than why is it even around? There must be a reason for it if some people prefer it....

Chasarms · #7 10-02-2010, 05:40 PM

It can make a difference depending on the bridge and other factors. If the bridge is stiff, well-coupled to the body and designed so that you get a clean break angle over the saddle, you are not likely to hear any difference.

But, if that is not the case, stringing through body can make up for some other problems in those areas. A couple of examples where it has helped me is with wrapped B strings that don't want to witness cleanly on the saddle, or the old floating G saddle that you sometimes get with a bass that has a thicker shim in the neck pocket.

T-Bird · #8 10-02-2010, 11:03 PM

Hi.

One thing that wasn't mentioned is to possibly running out of string at the nut. As most of the strings are (obviously) tapered at the tuner end, and some tuners are pretty close to the nut, there may be problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raccio14

If it doesn't do ANYTHING, than why is it even around? There must be a reason for it if some people prefer it....

Clever marketing?

Placebo effect?

Then there's also the possibility that someone hears the difference while the other folks don't. Our ears and brains are not alike.

Regards
Sam

darkstorm · #9 10-03-2010, 07:47 AM

If its a high mass bridge the only diff of string thru is a slightly higher perceived tension for the strings. They feel slightly tighter. If its a low mass bridge, the string thru might slightly improve the sound. Observation based on trying bridge both ways when theyve had that option.

JTE · #10 10-04-2010, 09:15 AM

There is no advantage. I strung my two Lakland 4-94 with alternating strings (one had the E and D through-body, the D and G top-load, the other way 'round on the other bass). I played them like that for a long time, and when I restrung, I reversed the order. Before this real side-by-side test I was one of those who thought, indeed was convinced, that through-body gave more sustain, a better tone, and generally was the only way to go. The real world test and real facts told me it ain't so.

Now, as to why it's out there at all? Because musicians are flakes. Some folks believe no matter what that different things DO make a real difference (or don't make a difference). They'll play two different basses and because one has a string-through bridge and they like that bass better, they'll lay the entire improvement to the string attachment- discounting that even if the two basses are the same model, they're different chunks of wood, different aged strings, etc.

Also, companies make it available because bass players think it's important. I read once that Pino Pallidino didn't endorse Ernie Ball Music Man because they wouldn't offer the string-through (Pino's famous fretless StingRay is a pre-Ernie Ball, so it has a string-through bridge). Dan Lakin heard that and decided that even though he didn't think it makes a difference, he'd always have the option for his customers.

John

Raccio14 · #11 10-04-2010, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTE

There is no advantage. I strung my two Lakland 4-94 with alternating strings (one had the E and D through-body, the D and G top-load, the other way 'round on the other bass). I played them like that for a long time, and when I restrung, I reversed the order. Before this real side-by-side test I was one of those who thought, indeed was convinced, that through-body gave more sustain, a better tone, and generally was the only way to go. The real world test and real facts told me it ain't so.

Now, as to why it's out there at all? Because musicians are flakes. Some folks believe no matter what that different things DO make a real difference (or don't make a difference). They'll play two different basses and because one has a string-through bridge and they like that bass better, they'll lay the entire improvement to the string attachment- discounting that even if the two basses are the same model, they're different chunks of wood, different aged strings, etc.

Also, companies make it available because bass players think it's important. I read once that Pino Pallidino didn't endorse Ernie Ball Music Man because they wouldn't offer the string-through (Pino's famous fretless StingRay is a pre-Ernie Ball, so it has a string-through bridge). Dan Lakin heard that and decided that even though he didn't think it makes a difference, he'd always have the option for his customers.

John

Thanks for such a comprehensive and awesome answer! Case closed; there's no reason for me to go installing the string-through holes.

**Marcus Willett** · #12 10-04-2010, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTE

There is no advantage.

Not quite true. There are some instances where it makes a quantifiable difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chasarms

where it has helped me is with wrapped B strings that don't want to witness cleanly on the saddle

Exactly. Most B strings, when you top-load, the witness point is near the end of the string where the winding is thicker. (non-tapered strings)

Remember the Gary Willis "trick" of adding a spacer to the B string before the saddle to "add tension"? He swore it works and it does, just not by adding tension (that's impossible).

It moves the witness point further away from the ball end, where the string is thinner (because the windings are not all doubled-up like they are at the end) and after having tried both ways, it does make a difference.

Strings-though does the same thing as the "spacer".

mpdd · #13 10-04-2010, 10:19 AM

now that i think about it, i did break strings pretty frequently on my old string through grabber

Chrisk-K · #14 10-04-2010, 10:21 PM

Quote:

If it doesn't do ANYTHING, than why is it even around? There must be a reason for it if some people prefer it...

Some people use string-through because they don't want to lose ferrules. That's the only reason why I use string through.

saustindavis · #15 03-05-2011, 04:22 PM

It looks cool?

bassteban · #16 03-05-2011, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpdd

now that i think about it, i did break strings pretty frequently on my old string through grabber

I'd guess there was something else going on there- an unseen burr or sharp edge that wore the string prematurely. Again- guessing.

Diogenes · #17 03-07-2011, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chasarms

It can make a difference depending on the bridge and other factors. If the bridge is stiff, well-coupled to the body and designed so that you get a clean break angle over the saddle, you are not likely to hear any difference.

But, if that is not the case, stringing through body can make up for some other problems in those areas. ...

+1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus Willett

... Remember the Gary Willis "trick" of adding a spacer to the B string before the saddle to "add tension"? He swore it works and it does, just not by adding tension (that's impossible)...

ZING!