IMO, another BS feature on some basses...

[Turnaround]

Do you recall what the change in compliance was?

At the very best, with a string that was perfectly free to move along it's entire length from tuner to ball end, the change in compliance would be about 3 to 4 percent. Strings are not free to move like this however. There is friction to overcome before the afterlength can take part in the overall stretching of the string when it is deflected. There is also the additional resistance of the string to flowing over a break point, especially at the bridge plate hole when strung through body. The bend radius is very small there compared to the bend radius over a barrel type saddle. Also, there is a total of 90 degrees of bend when strung through body, compared to top stringing, which can be as small as 10 degrees.

So I would guess that an increase in compliance might be on the order of about 1 or 2 percent?

More importantly, could such a difference be noticed?

On an upright bass, the afterlength has more freedom to stretch. The bridge can be seen to move noticably when a string is depressed to the board, stretching the afterlength along with it. Unlike an electric bass saddle, the upright bridge top has some freedom of movement. This, plus a relatively long afterlength, can make a noticable difference.

One thing that I would like to measure, is the effect of an unset witness point on compliance. Also the effect of curls or kinks in the string. If someone were to move a string from top strung to thru body, there would be new opportunities for bends and curls within the active length of the string. There would be a new one at the saddle if witness point was not set, and curls from the tuning post wrap that moved into the afterlength at the nut. If not ironed out, these might account for an increase of compliance after restringing.

I suspect that it is mainly all these collateral changes that account for much of what might be noticed when making a setup change.

-

Good questions. The change in compliance was very small. The point was that the string was more compliant and had the same tension. Some folks say they can feel the increase in tension with thru-body or other forms of string extension beyond the witness points. In actual fact the tension is the same, and the string is more complaint with the extra length. And it makes sense - there is more overall string length to stretch. However, the difference as noted was very small.

Witness points are another matter. Some advocate "stretching" strings when you install them. Stretching doesn't actually "stretch" the string at all. The increased tension you induce by stretching actually sets the witness points, taking any humps and "curls" out of the string. There are better ways to accomplish the setting of the witness points.

 

[DigitalMan]

You can make thousands of small changes to any bass that are undectable to double blind tests. You can either conclude that all basses have thousands of small differences or that all basses are the same.

My view is that the double blind test is more often than not just an idea thrown out on TB to nullify the possibility that a small difference makes any difference.

 

[ajkula66]

Flat wounds aren't meant to go through the body.

Well...the original Leo Fender design would imply the exact opposite...there were no round wound bass strings back in 1951, and the original P-Bass gets strung through the body.

 

[Turnaround]

Well...the original Leo Fender design would imply the exact opposite...there were no round wound bass strings back in 1951, and the original P-Bass gets strung through the body.

LaBella have sets of flat wounds specifically designed for through-body stringing. But others recommend against using their strings through the body - Lakland, Sadowsky and others. Best to check with the manufacturer before stringing flats through the body.

 

[Turnaround]

Well...the original Leo Fender design would imply the exact opposite...there were no round wound bass strings back in 1951, and the original P-Bass gets strung through the body.

And when Leo discovered the problems associated with stringing flats through the body, he developed a bridge that would avoid the problem.

 

[ajkula66]

And when Leo discovered the problems associated with stringing flats through the body, he developed a bridge that would avoid the problem.

Fair enough.

My point was that painting any particular set of circumstances with a wide brush ends up being a one-sided position.

FTR, I'm not keen on flatwounds although I understand what other people like about them, and am more in favour of strings-over than strings-through design. Having said that, I'd never dismiss an instrument based solely on how the strings are being fed.

 

[megafiddle]

You can make thousands of small changes to any bass that are undectable to double blind tests. You can either conclude that all basses have thousands of small differences or that all basses are the same.

No, what you can conclude in that case is that they are undetectable. Basses have a large number of differences, both big and small. All of the differences can be measured if you look closely enough. Only some can be perceived in the bass's sound.

Some of these difference are pretty obvious to virtually everyone. No testing necessary. Likewise, some are so small that no one is going to seriously consider them.

In between those extremes lie the controversial effects, the ones with only anectodal evidence. And these controversies will go on forever until a proper test is performed.

The placebo effect is real, i.e., it actually occurs. When differences are so small that some perceive them and some don't, the placobo effect has to be factored in. The question here is not whether someone perceives a difference, but whether the difference has an objective reality.

And I do understand that what is believed to be perceived may be all that is important; but that's not really the question or topic here.

My view is that the double blind test is more often than not just an idea thrown out on TB to nullify the possibility that a small difference makes any difference.

The double blind test is an accepted method of separating bias, chance, and placebo effect from actual effect. Since all three of those factors are present in controversies like this one, it is quite reasonable to suggest a blind test.

-

 

[DigitalMan]

No, what you can conclude in that case is that they are undetectable. Basses have a large number of differences, both big and small. All of the differences can be measured if you look closely enough. Only some can be perceived in the bass's sound.

Some of these difference are pretty obvious to virtually everyone. No testing necessary. Likewise, some are so small that no one is going to seriously consider them.

In between those extremes lie the controversial effects, the ones with only anectodal evidence. And these controversies will go on forever until a proper test is performed.

The placebo effect is real, i.e., it actually occurs. When differences are so small that some perceive them and some don't, the placobo effect has to be factored in. The question here is not whether someone perceives a difference, but whether the difference has an objective reality.

And I do understand that what is believed to be perceived may be all that is important; but that's not really the question or topic here.





The double blind test is an accepted method of separating bias, chance, and placebo effect from actual effect. Since all three of those factors are present in controversies like this one, it is quite reasonable to suggest a blind test.

-

If measuring minute differences then something more sensitive than the human ear needs to be the instrument of measure.

If comparing two sources of light, say televisions, you can place them side by side and detect differences fairly easily. There is not an equivilent way to compare two similar but slightly different sounds as easily.

 

[megafiddle]

If measuring minute differences then something more sensitive than the human ear needs to be the instrument of measure.

We have such instruments. I can place a sticker on the body of my bass, and tell you with a fair degree of accuracy that the mass has increased by 0.003 percent, and that the resonant frequency has changed by a factor related to the square root of that amount.

But I can also tell you with a fair degree of confidance that you will never hear a difference.

If comparing two sources of light, say televisions, you can place them side by side and detect differences fairly easily. There is not an equivilent way to compare two similar but slightly different sounds as easily.

That's true. Sounds are not so easily compared. It is possible that small differences might be perceptible if they could be compared simultaneously, but such a thing is only possible for something like pitch, for example, where the actual difference can be heard in form of a beat frequency.

If someone claims that they can hear some difference, then they ought to be able to demonstrate that consistantly, or at least greater than chance would allow.

If there is a perceptible difference, and someone can indeed perceive it, then a double blind test will reveal that.

-

 

[DigitalMan]

We have such instruments. I can place a sticker on the body of my bass, and tell you with a fair degree of accuracy that the mass has increased by 0.003 percent, and that the resonant frequency has changed by a factor related to the square root of that amount.

But I can also tell you with a fair degree of confidance that you will never hear a difference.



That's true. Sounds are not so easily compared. It is possible that small differences might be perceptible if they could be compared simultaneously, but such a thing is only possible for something like pitch, for example, where the actual difference can be heard in form of a beat frequency.

If someone claims that they can hear some difference, then they ought to be able to demonstrate that consistantly, or at least greater than chance would allow.

If there is a perceptible difference, and someone can indeed perceive it, then a double blind test will reveal that.

-

That's a myopic way of looking at a complex system with thousands of small things influencing the output.

People appreciate a lot of different sonic qualities across the broad spectrum of bass guitars, and have very little evidence to substantiate their correlations between input and output or cause and effect. And yet people still form their preferences, including builders as well as players.

I would rather have thousands of sample waveforms compared by an algorithm and treat the problem as a data issue than a perception issue. To me that would be a more reliable measurement.

But in either case, my point is that no one is actually running scientific tests in accordance with parameters acceptable in the scientific community, and therefore all this talk about "you couldn't tell the difference in a double-blind test" is just bloviating.

 

[BPhillips]

I love this level of theory and analysis. I hate that there is a 16-year old kid in my neighborhood who knows none of this and can play a $200 bass with its original strings better than I will probably ever be able to play. Still, I bought new strings anyway and will string them through the bridge. LOL.

For the record I have never damaged the outer windings on any roundwounds going through body. The Dunlop flatwounds definitely couldn't handle the sharp angle. Luckily, I have the option. And, back to my original post - It definitely had an effect on intonation (i.e. saddle placement). That is my big take away here. I have read about others running out of room on the bridge to intonate the low B on this particular model bass. Now we know that strung through the bridge may make a difference with regard to intonation in some cases. I will the leave the theory as to why to you guys.

 

[alack]

I've wondered about this myself. I'd have no way to be sure either way. Both my Fenders are older so through body stringing isn't an option. My Hamer J style Cruise has a 2TEK bridge. Not true through body stringing but close. I recently wondered why the Hamer was clearer and more even sounding than the Fenders. It occurred to me the Hamer's bridge could be the key factor. If I could, would stringing the fenders through the body have a similar effect? I don't know. But since offering the option probably doesn't increase the cost of the instrument that much, I applaud manufacturers that do it. Give the player the option. Everybody's own ears and hands will decide what works best for them.

 

[packhowitzer]

I'll betcha a cup of coffee he doesn't ever use his brushes, and another that he says "This snare head is too smooth for brushes"

never uses his brushes - and always has a millions excuses as to why he has to play as hard as he does. lol

 

[beaglesandbass]

I definitely feel the note resonating through the wood a bit more when it's strung through the body instead of the bridge.

 

[Sufenta]

Let's take it a bit further.

I'd like to see a sound test where someone has to identify the bass being played behind a wall.
How well it "sits in the mix"
So that they cannot judge the bass by it's appearance.
Or the name on the headstock.

This! A friend recorded an entire album on a $100, no name, pawn shop Beatle Bass copy. Could't believe it when he told me. His tone throughout the album is incredible and it sits in the mix perfectly. Also helps, of course, that his ideas and chops are A++.

 

[wcriley]

Some folks say they can feel the increase in tension with thru-body or other forms of string extension beyond the witness points. In actual fact the tension is the same, and the string is more complaint with the extra length.

^^^Truth^^^Fact^^^Science^^^

 

[Iridescentone]

And when Leo discovered the problems associated with stringing flats through the body, he developed a bridge that would avoid the problem.

$0.02

I have to wonder if the reason for the bridge design change in '57 was due to Leo "discovering" problems with flat wound strings going through-body. I'm not entirely sure this has ever been an issue at all, despite whatever dubious info may floating around on the interwebs. If it was an issue, that would imply that it took Fender seven years to "discover" it. That's a bit hard to believe.

The obvious answer is that the bridge change was to improve intonation capability (4 saddles instead of only two), and to reduce production costs (eliminating a production step and the grommets themselves). And moreover, eliminating a feature that yielded no sonic improvement, nor was it structurally necessary. Bassists were still using flats exclusively throughout the late 50's and early 60's. Had anything desirable been "lost" by eliminating the string through body feature, it would have been noticed immediately and spurned. Instead, players embraced the new bridge design.

 

[Turnaround]

$0.02

I have to wonder if the reason for the bridge design change in '57 was due to Leo "discovering" problems with flat wound strings going through-body. I'm not entirely sure this has ever been an issue at all, despite whatever dubious info may floating around on the interwebs.

It's not really so "dubious" given the number of string makers that recommend against stringing their flats through the body. The mechanics of it is that the more extreme bend of the string over the saddles tends to separate the outer windings more than rounds and this puts additional stress on the core leading to premature breakage. If there weren't a problem the string makers would not recommend against it - after all they don't want to lose sales.

But to be fair, I don't know for a fact that Fender changed their string mounting because of any particular issues. Just speculation on my part.

 

[nostatic]

The double blind test is an accepted method of separating bias, chance, and placebo effect from actual effect. Since all three of those factors are present in controversies like this one, it is quite reasonable to suggest a blind test.

-

Under a certain set of circumstances and for certain phenomenon and parameters, double blind is a gold standard. It isn't appropriate for everything though, and when a human is a critical part of the loop, it becomes more problematic depending on what you're trying to examine.

 

[DigitalMan]

Under a certain set of circumstances and for certain phenomenon and parameters, double blind is a gold standard. It isn't appropriate for everything though, and when a human is a critical part of the loop, it becomes more problematic depending on what you're trying to examine.

Double-blind also needs to be conducted with appropriate controls and without self-selecting participants. At TB double-blind tests are unicorns that people throw into conversations to add weight to their opinions and postulates.