• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

converting my top load bass to a string thru

#21
Some people do believe there is a difference. And there are some advantages.

I had a Musicmaster short scale that was thru-body. By using thru-body I could get away with long-scale strings without much hassle of cutting a lot of the silk. Much more selection in long scale then short.

With cheap basses or poorly attached bridges *coughG&L Tributecough* stringing through the body takes the stress off the bridge attachments.

But string thru does put more stress on the strings since you have a larger break angle.
 
#22
Of course a luthier must eat and should charge enough that they stay a going business concern - I have absolutely no problem with that. I and anyone else with a computer and credit card can buy string ferrules for $2 ea by the way, and I think charging the entire cost of consumables and capital equipment like bits and drill presses to a repair customer is not standard practice in most service industries.

In any case, as Naimishbridge has pointed out, this type of modification is well within the skills and tools of an average handy fellow in a home woodworking shop. Might well skip the beer until after doing the layout and drilling though. A drill press would be handy but is not essential for this - well aligned holes can be easily located and drilled using guideblocks.

By tipping it heavy I was referring to downing his idea out of hand without communicating your reasoning - he is asking for advice about this modification. In the posts since you have done that which is good.
 
#23
pjwalsh said:
I think charging the entire cost of consumables and capital equipment like bits and drill presses to a repair customer is not standard practice in most service industries.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider directly charging the previously noted tooling expense to a single customer, but it does need to be considered in the larger consideration when figuring an estimate cost base. the example was to point out that there is a significantly larger investment than just $10 in parts, and that a do-it-yourselfer needs to take this into consideration before balking at what may appear to be a quote that is significantly higher than what they'd spend on just the parts.

if I was purchasing a special tool that would only ever be used for a single customer's custom job, I can guarantee you that it would be built into the cost estimate in some way or another - to do otherwise would be reckless with my business capital. outside of specialized tooling the most common way tooling overhead is seen by a customer is in the quoted hourly shop rate - all the overhead incidentals are summed up into this rate. as an example, Mike Lull has a $70/hour basic shop rate that covers work that does not have a specific task fee (i.e. $400 for a bolt-on neck re-fret and set-up)

By tipping it heavy I was referring to downing his idea out of hand without communicating your reasoning - he is asking for advice about this modification. In the posts since you have done that which is good.
Click to expand...

cool beans

all the best,

R
 
#24
i think saying that string-thru has no benefit is a bit ignorant.
anything that changes the way a string vibrates is gonna have an impact on tone!
changing the angle at which the string pass over the bridge changes the amount of pressure on the bridge itself.
the way the bridge is coupled to the body has a huge impact on tone (im sure no one can argue with that)
in saying that, all my basses are top loaders!
 
#25
It does make a difference: There is more sustain and the bass becomes more vibrant, more alive, there are more harmonics, the flageolets are louder but it's a hell of a job to mute the strings. This bass has become so bloody alive that it almost plays itself!

Why don't you do the string-through job yourself? It's quite fun. And as mentioned above: Not too difficult if you have some experience with tools. This is what I did two months ago (sorry, I'm too lazy to translate it at the moment, but the pictures speak for themselves):

http://www.basgitaarforum.nl/viewtopic.php?t=12945

This is how it was before the operation:
Link Removed

And here the make-over begins:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
 
#27
Yes, I'm raising this thread from the dead...

The reason I came across this thread is because I've run into the problem of damaging strings (Rotosound 77's) on a P-Bass with top loading bridge. When I installed the strings, the silk wrapped portion (non "tone portion") of the string at the ball end was resting on, and a little bit in front (neck side) of the saddle. Meaning that a portion of the wrapped silk was part of the vibrating mass of string. Not ideal for tone, and not to mention it broke the metal wrapping around the core. I could have adjusted the saddle, so that the silk portion was behind the saddle, but then the intonation would have been off. I put a different brand of strings on and I could tell that depending on where the saddle was for correct intonation, I would have run into the same problem.

Basically the silk-wrapped portion of the strings were too long and they extended beyond the saddle, causing problems. If I had a string through bridge, I wouldn't run into this issue and only the tone portion of the string would be making contact at the saddle. This is why I would convert my bass to string through...
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanikDarko
#28
just my two cents, I have a warlock, kinda beat up, paid twenty bucks for it so I don't really care if I screw it up, but the wraparound bridge can be a danger.
I say CAN BE, not is.
a few stories of the bridge pin coming lose and almost taking a head off.
I drilled a V shape pattern for string through, ferrules for a couple bucks, and replaced the bridge with a tune o matic. couple extra holes and a little work, doesn't sound much different than my other warlock, but it looks Kool and I get complements and offers a lot.
I think it's personal taste, and probably wouldn't do it to an expensive guitar...
however, it's a great learning experience.
why discourage others from experimenting?
isn't that how Luthier's are made?
 
#30
When I build a bass (or guitar, for that matter) from scratch, I will usually opt for string through design.

5due7r.jpg


I've thought of converting my Precision (MIM) to string through, but it is some work, so I never even started it. I don't know that there's a difference in sound or sustain, but somehow I prefer it.
 
#35
I like the look of it, but use top load on my personal builds because string through limits my string choices. I use very thick flats - LaBella 1954 and others of the same gauge so it's not a practical option. You can special order a string through version of the Jamerson flats, but it takes 2-3 months to get them.
 
#36
Rôckhewer said:
A question, if I may,
How many of you who say it does NOTHING have actually converted a top loader to string through (or vise-versa) and played it extensively before and after....(more than just a couple riffs)...and THAT is what you are basing your OPINION on.
Honestly....?
Click to expand...

You don't have to go that far. I have had two basses that where both string through and top loading. So I was able to compare the same strings on the same bass in both configurations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonH
#38
seanm said:
Some people do believe there is a difference. And there are some advantages.

I had a Musicmaster short scale that was thru-body. By using thru-body I could get away with long-scale strings without much hassle of cutting a lot of the silk. Much more selection in long scale then short.

With cheap basses or poorly attached bridges *coughG&L Tributecough* stringing through the body takes the stress off the bridge attachments.

But string thru does put more stress on the strings since you have a larger break angle.
Click to expand...

This is the one reason I do string through. wen doing shorter scale basses it helps the customer choose from normal sets
 
  • Like
Reactions: TonH
#40
insomniac2295 said:
hey guys, i have a washburn bantam 6 string that i want to convert from a top load bridge to a string thru. i can see on the bridge under where the strings pass over, just before the saddles that there are some holes that look like they were meant to be used for a string thru bridge. how much would it cost to have it converted? and where should i take it to get this done?
Click to expand...

As the [unashamed!] owner of a sterling sub5, I'm interested. Here's why.

Due to a bunch of .45cal lead poisoning, it's difficult to mute the bottom end with my right hand/resting f'tips whilst playing.

Even using only a wee bit of EQ boost, the open 4th and 5th strings (E & B) resonate enough to start feeding back unless damped, SO, I thought "how about I scrounge a Musicman-style 5 string string-through-body bridgeplate, and mod it to install string mutes *just for 4th & 5th* strings?"

Ernie Ball sells mute kits but they likely won't sell me an entire reissued classic 5 string bridge (though they certainly make them).

** re string tension. That's determined by two factors only: scale length from top nut to bridge saddle/s, and string guage. String-through-body has no bearing on overall string tension. It might add a few pounds of pressure to the saddles, that's all.

Rohan, Philadelphia
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back