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

[Vinny_G]

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..

Most of the discussions on TalkBass can testify to this.

 

[Cave Puppy]

One theory (mine) as to why string through was conceived - Bear in mind the Telecaster was (I think) the first type of guitar/stringed production instrument to have this option. The reason why, I think, was probably to keep the bridge in place as Leo's first bridge designs were simple affairs, meant only to raise the strings high enough over the pickups and neck for proper playing action. His very first guitar design - The Log - in the late 1940's, didn't even have a bridge so the strings had to come through the body. String through for the Tele was probably a nod to The Log design and carried over into the Tele. This rings true for the first Precision bass designs that are also string through, which definitely held the bridge in place. It seems to me the bridge on the first P bass design was an afterthought - a very small, light bridge held in by only a few screws to keep it from moving around. He was tweaking bass bridge design and would obviously keep tweaking it until the "new" P bass came out. If top loaded the string tension would've pulled that bridge right out. I've had top loading bridges pop out of cheap basses before. My personal preference is if I have a bass with a string through option, I'm using it, because, why not?

 

[2saddleslab]

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

Then what the hell am I lecturing you for??

 

[quickfix]

Just removed the EB Cobalt Flats from the BB about a half hour ago. New set of D'ad ECB81-5 Chromes installed through the body with no problems.
It was a close thing though. Half inch beyond the nut is where the silk starts on all strings, except the "G" at 3/4".

 

[2saddleslab]

Just removed the EB Cobalt Flats from the BB about a half hour ago. New set of D'ad ECB81-5 Chromes installed through the body with no problems.
It was a close thing though. Half inch beyond the nut is where the silk starts on all strings, except the "G" at 3/4".

No need to shout, I'm listening now. If you just would have started w/ the secret handshake I would have known you were a string thru-er all along.

In all seriousness [if that's possible], I'm a big believer in each doing what's best for themselves, critics be damned. What a boring world if we all played and did the same thing.

 

[ixlramp]

Answer is no. It is only done for marketing reasons due to the lingering myth, or to be 'period-authentic'.
There are several disadvantages too as mentioned above.

 

[SgtHulka]

Answer is no. It is only done for marketing reasons due to the lingering myth, or to be 'period-authentic'.
There are several disadvantages too as mentioned above.

The disadvantages I saw mentioned have only to do with the implementation of the concept, not the idea itself.

 

[Auspuff]

The disadvantages I saw mentioned have only to do with the implementation of the concept, not the idea itself.

So, in a sense, you're telling everyone to:

 

[SgtHulka]

So, in a sense, you're telling everyone to:

Well I rarely wear underwear, and when I do it's usually something low rise, mesh...

 

[Novarocker]

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?

I do find one major benefit for me. I have a medium scale bass with string through or topload. String through allows me to use long scale strings, which is great because there aren't a ton of short or medium scale options. Besides that, meh I think it's just preference.

 

[Iristone]

The four holes through the body make the bass lighter.

Neck dive anyone?

 

[ugly_bassplayer]

I can't hear any difference between the 2. And I can't feel any difference when playing either.

Tension is the same, you can't argue with science and simple physics.

You can tie one end of the string to the Eiffel tower and the other to the statue of liberty and the tension of the string on 34" scale with always be the same ( if using same gauge and material component of said string.) when tuned to the same note ...for example.....an open A in standard tuning.

Look up the wiki of the equation to calculate all this...I'm too lazy to find the link this morning.

Edit.... here's the link with all the math for all the naysers.
If you want to argue, don't poke me. Go poke all the genius people who made all those SCIENCE not belief equations.

String vibration - Wikipedia

 

[vindibona1]

OK... So the consensus seems to be little if any sonic benefits. I have to wonder what the thinking is behind the string-thru. I'm trying to think of which basses I've seen with that besides Fender and I can't recall any. Who else does a string-thru besides Fender MIA's?

 

[michael_t]

Who else does a string-thru besides Fender MIA's?

Musicman Stingrays.

Yamaha BB series basses, although Yamaha's thru-body system is different from the tradition Fender-style system in the sense it only creates ONE 45-degree break at the saddle with the rest of the string behind the saddle pulled straight thru the body toward the back-bottom of the bass, vs. the traditional TWO 45-degree break angles.

 

[JTE]

Laklands have a dual string option for either top-load or string-through. Original Music Man StingRay and Sabre did, went away with Ernie Ball until the Classic series. Original Precision did, went away with the 1957 redesign. The Mustang had it (Leo designed it for CBS), and the Tele bass did.

My conjecture is that Leo wasn't sure that wood screws would hold the bridge in place with the string tension on the Telecaster guitar so he went with string-through. That carried over to the bass. By '57 he figured it wasn't an issue so he went with the much less expensive top load.

But then again he went back to string-through on the Mustang and the StingRay, and the early G&L advertising touted the bridge having that boss on its base that was supposed to do some purported transmission of vibration to the end grain of the wood...

 

[Auspuff]

I'm curious what real Luthiers think?

 

[jnewmark]

One theory (mine) as to why string through was conceived - Bear in mind the Telecaster was (I think) the first type of guitar/stringed production instrument to have this option. The reason why, I think, was probably to keep the bridge in place as Leo's first bridge designs were simple affairs, meant only to raise the strings high enough over the pickups and neck for proper playing action. His very first guitar design - The Log - in the late 1940's, didn't even have a bridge so the strings had to come through the body. String through for the Tele was probably a nod to The Log design and carried over into the Tele. This rings true for the first Precision bass designs that are also string through, which definitely held the bridge in place. It seems to me the bridge on the first P bass design was an afterthought - a very small, light bridge held in by only a few screws to keep it from moving around. He was tweaking bass bridge design and would obviously keep tweaking it until the "new" P bass came out. If top loaded the string tension would've pulled that bridge right out. I've had top loading bridges pop out of cheap basses before. My personal preference is if I have a bass with a string through option, I'm using it, because, why not?

You might be right, although I thought " The Log " was a design created by Les Paul for an electric guitar? Even in his book, " How The Fender Bass Changed The World ", Jim Roberts makes no mention of the string through design, although spending time on other aspects of the original P bass, even showing the original, March 24, 1953 design patent, which clearly shows the string through design. He mentions the original bridge had " two saddles made of pressed fiber ", but not how it was attached or why the string through design, nor does he even mention when the top loading bridge arrived. He states that Leo was more concerned with the scale, eventually arriving at 34" after trying 30" , 32" and 36 ". Fascinating book.

 

[ixlramp]

I should improve on my earlier reply.

There are some luthiers who believe there is an advantage, but i suspect that when larger companies advertise the benefit of string-through (which they often do), they are essentially lying for marketing purposes, in order to make the bass seem more attractive because it has this 'feature'. This marketing then has the effect of perpetuating the myth.
If there was any significant advantage, top-loading-only basses would not exist.

Some of the disadvantages of string-through are not due to poor implementation.

 

[Vinny_G]

I'm curious what real Luthiers think?

Me too.

 

[SgtHulka]

I should improve on my earlier reply.

There are some luthiers who believe there is an advantage, but i suspect that when larger companies advertise the benefit of string-through (which they often do), they are essentially lying for marketing purposes, in order to make the bass seem more attractive because it has this 'feature'. This marketing then has the effect of perpetuating the myth.
If there was any significant advantage, top-loading-only basses would not exist.

Some of the disadvantages of string-through are not due to poor implementation.

I don't think it's about lying.

If the original bent bridge was sufficient why did so many new bridges come out after? Why do people want multi laminate necks so much instead of one piece? Why do people want a brass nut?

The more the entire instrument resonates as one piece the more likely it is to be a better instrument. I don't think that's marketing hoo ha, I think it makes a lot of sense and a lot of consumers believe it as I do, as I also believe that wood matters as well.