If you can hear a difference knock yourself out.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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?
- Thread starter vindibona1
- Start date
How many do you have?
Why would the head go through the ceiling? If that were possible then wouldn't jumping at just the right moment save you?
You've caught me theorizing. Labella has the same theory.
I've nothing against string through.
As in my previous posts I've already stated that I string through on my BB...the same set of flat wounds three times with no problem.
EDIT: Cobalt flats and string-through body
Last edited:
Except for certain models of flats the biggest consideration I could think of, as some have mentioned already is that when thru-body the string tension isn't yanking on the screws holding the bridge in place. That being said - top load or string-thru has never really been a consideration for me when buying a bass.. but the bass I own that has holes for string-thru, so far I go through the body. I'd be pretty shocked if my bridge ever came flying off on my top loaded bass guitars.
The four holes through the body make the bass lighter.
Some say top-load heavy-duty bridges sustain more than a string-through, and some disagree.
I like the string-through body bridges because I've seen more than a few basses w/ top-load bridges that have the bridge pulled off the body by the strings. You won't have this problem w/ string-through-body bridges. Some say string-through body bridges don't like flats, but neither do I, so they work for me.
I like the string-through body bridges because I've seen more than a few basses w/ top-load bridges that have the bridge pulled off the body by the strings. You won't have this problem w/ string-through-body bridges. Some say string-through body bridges don't like flats, but neither do I, so they work for me.
I prefer String through body. It is a deciding factor to me if I'm looking at two Identical basses other than that.
Why? I have no freaking idea because like everyone else in this thread I can't hear any difference at all. I can't give
a single reason for my preference, it just is. Really I think that's all it comes down too, preference.
BTW, I love EB Cobalt Flats on my P bass I built and strangely only on that bass. They turned it into a completely different animal. ( You can see and hear it in the newest demo's on the Steve Harris pedal from Tech21. Tim's a friend and I loaned it to him for the demo's ) For what it's worth the bass is not a string thru body either!
Why? I have no freaking idea because like everyone else in this thread I can't hear any difference at all. I can't give
a single reason for my preference, it just is. Really I think that's all it comes down too, preference.
BTW, I love EB Cobalt Flats on my P bass I built and strangely only on that bass. They turned it into a completely different animal. ( You can see and hear it in the newest demo's on the Steve Harris pedal from Tech21. Tim's a friend and I loaned it to him for the demo's ) For what it's worth the bass is not a string thru body either!
D
Yeah, this is why I prefer top loaders. Some of my favourite strings won't work with through body. And it's not just the issue with the silk. The G on some sets may even be too short for Fender style headstocks.
Don't feel like typing the whole thing about my true side-by-side experiment on two Lakland 4-94s, but it's been repeated in the seemingly monthly reappearance of this topic, so you can find it pretty easily.
So if it's meaningless,why do manufacturers offer it and hype it? Because musicians are flakes and we make decisions regardless of facts frequently. Dan Lakin said he had the option on Laklands because he learned that Pino declined to endorse EB/MM because they wouldn't offer string-through..
So if it's meaningless,why do manufacturers offer it and hype it? Because musicians are flakes and we make decisions regardless of facts frequently. Dan Lakin said he had the option on Laklands because he learned that Pino declined to endorse EB/MM because they wouldn't offer string-through..
drumvsbass
Commercial User
- Aug 20, 2011
- 1,981
- 4,323
- Disclosures
- I work for Long and McQuade Musical Instruments Canada in Sales.
Under the most severe and nerdy scrutiny, nope. No difference at all. Two American Standard P's and an afternoon of restringing. I went so far as to string it E-Top, A-Top, D-Body, G-Body, and the reverse to see if it made a difference in the string to string balance in some voodooish way (brighter bottom, darker top). Not to my ear, and not to my hands either, the basses didn't feel any different for the extra inch of string. So I think it's just a traditional holdover.
Not that I have notice ever?
But I would be interested in the reasoning behind creating a bass that had string through compare to others. It had to have some conceptual reasoning behind it. I can't believe that it is just because it was different or looked cool.
Anytime you bring a design to the table you have to reason in the extra cost for having holes drilled and ferrules not to mention the bridge design that allows it would need to be explained and I will assume when they brought in to patent the design.
My 1975 Gibson Ripper has it. It came strung that way and I only strung it without going through the body a handful of times, but again never changed anything so dramatically that I could arrive at that Ah! moment.
I have search through patents in the past, but I hadn't search for this maybe I will waste some time hunting the answer if it exists.
like most I have heard better sustain, more down force bring out the tonal qualities of the wood, string angle for less breakage of the strings the list goes on and on, but it all seems to be conjecture and opinion. I'd be interest as I mention the factual reasoning.
But I would be interested in the reasoning behind creating a bass that had string through compare to others. It had to have some conceptual reasoning behind it. I can't believe that it is just because it was different or looked cool.
Anytime you bring a design to the table you have to reason in the extra cost for having holes drilled and ferrules not to mention the bridge design that allows it would need to be explained and I will assume when they brought in to patent the design.
My 1975 Gibson Ripper has it. It came strung that way and I only strung it without going through the body a handful of times, but again never changed anything so dramatically that I could arrive at that Ah! moment.
I have search through patents in the past, but I hadn't search for this maybe I will waste some time hunting the answer if it exists.
like most I have heard better sustain, more down force bring out the tonal qualities of the wood, string angle for less breakage of the strings the list goes on and on, but it all seems to be conjecture and opinion. I'd be interest as I mention the factual reasoning.
I have a 33" scale 5 string (Bacchus WL533) that was a royal PITA to B strings with it's vintage-style top-load bent-metal bridge. A std long-scale B might or might not break at the tuning post when the full thickness of the string started wrapping around the post, due to the 1" shorter scale. Broke more often than not...
I solved this by installing one ferrule in the body in the B position, and loading the B thru that. The windings now hit the tuning post perfectly.
I have to be a bit more careful to not twist the string when changing strings, but everything else works well.
YMMV...
I solved this by installing one ferrule in the body in the B position, and loading the B thru that. The windings now hit the tuning post perfectly.
I have to be a bit more careful to not twist the string when changing strings, but everything else works well.
YMMV...
I don't think there is any benefit at all. If anything, it can be a disadvantage. Some strings are stated to NOT be used on string through body (Like LaBella flat wounds). So, there are string limitations.
Some B strings (flat wounds) can't make the 90 degree bend.
On 34" scale basses, there can be a problem with some strings. Long scale strings can be a bit short, like for the G string on a 4 in line headstock. Example, I put a set of TI flats on a '55 P Bass string through and the G string didn't have enough wraps and string would slip on the post. But then if we go to an extra long scale set for a 34 scale bass, the strings are too long.
I personally do not like string through body.
As for increased sustain or whatever..............we already read enough comments for this thread to see that there is no difference.
And I disagree, it doesn't look cool. Especially when ferrules fall out and get lost.
Some B strings (flat wounds) can't make the 90 degree bend.
On 34" scale basses, there can be a problem with some strings. Long scale strings can be a bit short, like for the G string on a 4 in line headstock. Example, I put a set of TI flats on a '55 P Bass string through and the G string didn't have enough wraps and string would slip on the post. But then if we go to an extra long scale set for a 34 scale bass, the strings are too long.
I personally do not like string through body.
As for increased sustain or whatever..............we already read enough comments for this thread to see that there is no difference.
And I disagree, it doesn't look cool. Especially when ferrules fall out and get lost.
Now, some people say that it's much better to string through this way as opposed to all the strings or nothing. By stringing just the B through the body it will emphasize its tone individually and give it more needed presence as opposed to the other four strings.
But that's yet a whole nother topic...
Yeah, maybe.
For me it was just pragmatic - a problem to be solved. That being said, my 77 Stingray can only be strung through the body, so I never give that a second thought. That's just the way it is, to quote a reasonably famous song...
For me it was just pragmatic - a problem to be solved. That being said, my 77 Stingray can only be strung through the body, so I never give that a second thought. That's just the way it is, to quote a reasonably famous song...
Well, this is not really concerning the headless community; changing strings on other is a pita either way, except for the open claw bridges. And ime there's no significant difference with this bitta more pressure on the saddles of basses.
This is something that I found that maybe get us closer to the original reason this was the Gibson Grabber "The Fender-like bridge was far simpler than the usual Gibson post-mounted versions the lightweight bridge was not designed as a tailpiece, however, and necessitated extra long scale strings, strung through the guitar's body, entering from the reverse." (Fly Guitar)
So a bridge was thought to be too lightweight to support the tension of the strings and why they needed the body to hold the string tension rather then the bridge. So attempting to bring a bass guitar to market that was at the same price point as Fender caused the corner cutting of a cheaper bridge and the through the body stringing. I am going to accept this as the reason for the design.
So a bridge was thought to be too lightweight to support the tension of the strings and why they needed the body to hold the string tension rather then the bridge. So attempting to bring a bass guitar to market that was at the same price point as Fender caused the corner cutting of a cheaper bridge and the through the body stringing.
I am going to accept this as the reason for the design.
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
