• 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.

Is there really a benefit with "sting-thru" vs toploading?

vindibona1

vindibona1

Apr 18, 2015
3,136
3,495
65
#1
On another thread there is a discussion regarding Ernie Ball Cobalt Flats and "string-thru" basses. Is there really a benefit for this string-loading method?

I ask this [relative to bass] as I had an experience just a few years ago with a Telecaster. I had purchased a '96 MIM Telecaster toploader and at first contemplated converting it to a string-thru. But as I was cruising the local GC I came across a MIA Tele (string-thru, of course) and actually got a very friendly quote from the store manager. I thought I'd bring my MIM to trade it in and come home with the new MIA Tele. When I played them side by side my MIM was as good or better than the MIA in sound (I suppose you could then call the MIA... KIA :0 happy Halloween). It appears that the string-thru method did little or anything to improve the sound or sustain.

Perhaps I'm missing something as all of my basses are top-loaders so I really don't have any basis of comparison. So again- is there really an actual benefit to string-thru loading?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lowendrachel
#4
vindibona1 said:
On another thread there is a discussion regarding Ernie Ball Cobalt Flats and "string-thru" basses. Is there really a benefit for this string-loading method?
Click to expand...

This is an age-old debate. Expect all kinds of responses from both sides. I'm putting my nickel's worth in now and staying out.

Here's my take on it, having used both top-load and thru-body methods on my Am Std P bass...

No perceivable difference (if any) in terms of either tonal quality or playing feel.

Two practical benefits of thru-body:
  1. It reduces the stress on the little screws holding down the bridge in place by having the body itself support the pulling weight of the strings.
  2. It keeps the ferrules from falling out. I almost lost two of the ferrules on my P bass in the first couple of months of owning it.
Another consideration is how a particular set of strings fit on your bass according to their winding length. Some fit better when top loaded, others fit better when put thru-body.

That's all I have to say about that. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKBassman, Ricky Rioli, Chrisenbacker69 and 35 others
#6
michael_t said:
This is an age-old debate. Expect all kinds of responses from both sides. I'm putting my nickel's worth in now and staying out.

Here's my take on it, having used both top-load and thru-body methods on my Am Std P bass...

No perceivable difference (if any) in terms of either tonal quality or playing feel.

Two practical benefits of thru-body:
  1. It reduces the stress on the little screws holding down the bridge in place by having the body itself support the pulling weight of the strings.
  2. It keeps the ferrules from falling out. I almost lost two of the ferrules on my P bass in the first couple of months of owning it.
Another consideration is how a particular set of strings fit on your bass according to their winding length. Some fit better when top loaded, others fit better when put thru-body.

That's all I have to say about that. ;)
Click to expand...

As for #2, one has to assume that a bass has ferrules. I've never owned a bass or guitar that's had them. As for reducing stress on the "little" screws holding the bridge in place... I just looked at my basses and my TRBX and Fender Jazz5 each have 5 screws holding the bridge in place. The BTB has 10 screws holding 5 mono-rail doo-hickeys in place. One could make a case that the screws provide additional vibrational contact with the body as the strings, bridge and screws essentially meld together as one unit where it connects to the body. But I don't know. I suspect any change in sound or sustain from one to the other would be minimal. But as for the stress issue, perhaps the ferrule system might hold up better over time... But then again my '96 MIM Tele toploader is 24 years old and no issues (in fact it's a great guitar).

Before I started in with my 5ers, I swapped the stock bridge on my Squier VM70's Jazz for a Gotoh heavy bridge. I may have made a *slight* improvement in sustain, but the biggest benefit was cosmetic. And which came first on electric basses, top-loader or string thru? There must have been a perceived difference when selecting one of the other.

As I contemplate this more, it occured to me that most Stratocasters are a variation of string-thru as the strings are threaded thru the trem block which bolts to the system. I recall experimenting with different trem block materials (brass vs alloy, in both light and heavy variations). What I remember is that in ONE of my Strats the brass made a difference in sound an sustain (it was a Squier SE btw) while in my two MIM Strats changing to a brass block made no difference at all.

I dunno... I thought this warranted some sort of discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tindrum and pellomoco14
#7
Only thing I can think of:

All else being equal, a longer total string length will have to have a higher tension to achieve the same pitch as a shorter string length, so it might be a way to use lighter gauge strings for downtuning.

My LTD B-204’s were topload AND string-thru. I experimented with both. Couldn’t discern a tonal difference, and the only practical difference I noted with string-thru was that it made changing strings a longer process. So I always toploaded.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: aarjamson
#10
vindibona1 said:
On another thread there is a discussion regarding Ernie Ball Cobalt Flats and "string-thru" basses. Is there really a benefit for this string-loading method?

I ask this [relative to bass] as I had an experience just a few years ago with a Telecaster. I had purchased a '96 MIM Telecaster toploader and at first contemplated converting it to a string-thru. But as I was cruising the local GC I came across a MIA Tele (string-thru, of course) and actually got a very friendly quote from the store manager. I thought I'd bring my MIM to trade it in and come home with the new MIA Tele. When I played them side by side my MIM was as good or better than the MIA in sound (I suppose you could then call the MIA... KIA :0 happy Halloween). It appears that the string-thru method did little or anything to improve the sound or sustain.

Perhaps I'm missing something as all of my basses are top-loaders so I really don't have any basis of comparison. So again- is there really an actual benefit to string-thru loading?
Click to expand...

The theory is that thru body gives more piano like sustain

another theory is that string thru makes the strings break more often

I have owned close to 100 basses and I have never owned a string thru bass … so I am not a fan of string thru
 
  • Like
Reactions: pellomoco14
#11
Holy Diver said:
Only thing I can think of:

All else being equal, a longer total string length will have to have a higher tension to achieve the same pitch as a shorter string length
Click to expand...

This is incorrect, as the additional length is past the saddle and thus does not increase the "speaking" length of the string, so tension remains the same. Otherwise, the string tension would vary wildly with various headstock designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TomB, isaac42, Joe6Bass and 20 others
#15
Holy Diver said:
All else being equal, a longer total string length will have to have a higher tension to achieve the same pitch as a shorter string length, so it might be a way to use lighter gauge strings for downtuning.
Click to expand...

It doesn't work like that. Only the distance from the nut to the saddle matters for string tension. You could have 3 feet of string past the saddle or 1mm and the tension would be the same. Flexibility would likely be different, but not tension.

OP: There's a difference in feel with a steeper break angle over the saddle. I have a bass that can be strung either way and after trying both, there was no difference in tone that I could hear, but a noticeable difference in feel. I prefered the top load feel on that bass.

On some bridge designs that lack means for locking the saddles in place, preventing them from sliding side to side as you pluck, you can get more sustain and better tuning stability by having a steeper break angle that pulls down on the saddles more.

There are downsides as well. A sharper bend stresses the metal more, and there are fitment issues with some string brands and basses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bassballs27, Bolsyo, Vinny_G and 4 others

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back