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

[crazyBassClown]

A 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.

In a string through the tension of the strings pulls down on the bridge into the body so may get better contact. Does it make a difference? Not that I've noticed.

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.

Leo Fender had cost of manufacture as a higher priority than almost anything so my guess is the perceived difference was through body was a lot more expensive to make.

 

[Ric5]

LaBella actually warns you NOT to use any of their flatwound strings except for their "760FS-TB Thru-Body" strings on a through-body bridge set-up. They caution you that all their other flatwounds will break if you try to string them on your bass that way. They also say that their "Thru-Body" strings "are not suitable for top-loading bridges". So evidently there's quite a bit of difference in the stress put on the string with the thru-body bridges. I have top-loading bridge on my Jazz and a through-body bridge on my 5-string. My Jazz has tapewound flats on it and my 5-string has roundwounds on it.

Thank you for the information

 

[quickfix]

I don't think there's any difference. Someone before me said that it keeps the ferrules from falling out. That's precisely...and the only reason I string through on my BB.

 

[alexgeddy]

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?

No No advantage.. cept as somebody said to hold the ferrules in

 

[74hc]

I've not noticed a difference. Some strings, it doesn't have extra downforce on the saddle. Quite the opposite as it' trades downforce for side. If you look at a sideview, you'll see a slight arc over the saddle because the string cannot bend sharply that a thru-body needs.

As to why so many luthiers design their thru-body holes perpendicular to the face of the body, rather than at an angle is beyond me.

I didn't string my Cobalts through the body due to the postings about them being easily broken.

 

[Vinny_G]

I've not noticed a difference. Some strings, it doesn't have extra downforce on the saddle. Quite the opposite as it' trades downforce for side. If you look at a sideview, you'll see a slight arc over the saddle because the string cannot bend sharply that a thru-body needs.

As to why so many luthiers design their thru-body holes perpendicular to the face of the body, rather than at an angle is beyond me.

I didn't string my Cobalts through the body due to the postings about them being easily broken.

The new Yamaha BB Series have a 45° angle.

 

[GreyBeard]

I have both and can't tell any difference. If it can be strung through the body then that is how I string it. If not then I don't worry about it.

 

[Cutter8]

I did that too.

Well.. it was actually Gorilla glue, so maybe a bit more permanent.

With Gorilla Glue, I’d consider it completely permanent. You may be able to pull them out, but there’s gonna be some wood coming out with ‘em!

 

[Eidolon0274]

When I owned basses that were thru body I'd do that, otherwise top load.

Check out the amount of ultra high end manufactures that use string through vs top and think about it. If it made a difference alembic, fodera, warwick, Ritter etc would all use one or the other. In this case it's top load in almost every case.

 

[74hc]

The new Yamaha BB Series have a 45° angle.

All thru-bodies should have this. Mine doesn't.

 

[2saddleslab]

String thru makes a big difference to me, cause I don’t have a choice. Been enjoying it that way for over 3 decades.

 

[Vinny_G]

All thru-bodies should have this. Mine doesn't.

I agree, it should be at least something like this. I always thought that a 90° angle was violent for the strings.

 

[MtManiac]

With Gorilla Glue, I’d consider it completely permanent. You may be able to pull them out, but there’s gonna be some wood coming out with ‘em!

Who’d wanna take them out, and for what?

 

[2saddleslab]

I agree, it should be at least something like this. I always thought that a 90° angle was violent for the strings.

They’re made of steel, they can take it.

 

[Vinny_G]

They’re made of steel, they can take it.

Not all of them, if you read this thread from the beginning.

 

[MegaSwing]

From what I can see, in the end it's pretty much a matter of opinion. A practical benefit of through-body is it helps with really long strings. I have some strings that are too long to work with anything but through-body loading.

On a slightly more cerebral plane, I think through-body loading results in a more physically integrated instrument, since the strings are anchored in the body itself and not in a structure attached to the body.

 

[quickfix]

They’re made of steel, they can take it.

It's not "what" they're made of, but "how" they're made.
Some flat wounds (depending upon core thickness, and how tight the outer windings are) aren't able to make the very sharp radius required to get up, around and over the saddle.
That sharp break over the saddle can break a stiff string.

 

[Nephilymbass]

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?

Very little difference either way imo. I normally prefer quick release style bridges myself. Makes string changes easier and allows me to get that twist out of the string which isn’t that big of a deal on a 4 string but is important to a good low B string sound imo. But on some newer “semi acoustic” style basses and guitars they use string through body and much better than dealing with those garbage plastic end pins

 

[Bander]

I've got two teles, one is string-thru, the other is a top loader. Same pickups, etc. The top-loader is brighter in first position, and weaker on the lowest strings first position. They both sound similar up the neck and on the higher strings. That might suggest a trend to look for in other guitars. Different theories by others who've noticed the same trend btw. Some believe its the downforce on the saddles, higher with the string-thru.

 

[Iristone]

I think it's a difference in string loading. I prefer a well-engineered top-loading bridge that doesn't require you to pass the whole string length through it. The stock Gibson bridge is actually pretty good in this aspect.