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

[skycruiser]

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

This applies for perfectly rigid anchor points. At rest you can set the tension with a wide range of end point rigidity. As the string vibrates, the anchor points will also vibrate and remove energy from the vibrating strings depending on how rigid they are. Is it possible that the differences in rigidity and the natural vibrational modes and frequencies of the different type of anchors affect the tone and sustain? I think that's what we're debating here. Since the "direction" of tension is perpendicular to the vibration direction, my guess is that ability of the anchor points to color the tone is fairly minimal. But if you put a spectrum analyzer on it I'm sure there will be some differences.

Early pianos had wood frames holding the strings under tension. By the time of Beethoven steel string instruments were being made with significant improvements in tone and sustain. I think the claim is that top load vs. thru-body is a similar type of improvement. Someone could easily test the sustain question if they had a way to evenly pluck strings, maybe with a spring loaded arm with a pick attached. Maybe I'll add that to my to-do list. My bass can be strung both ways.

 

[lattekid22]

I’ve done tests...outside of all the super technical talk, the only difference I’ve noticed is in the action. IME stringing thru the body has produced a way lower action where I’d need to get a setup (on a couple of my basses). Went back to top loading, and everything was fine. ‍ No change in tone.

 

[Randy S]

Beyond the bridge attachment and string ferrules being lost, there is, a believe a place for neck thru stringing.
That would be on a bass with neck-thru construction. It does add to the resonance. Neck thru basses are more live and hi fi feeling to me. And my bolt on basses are more a traditional sound. I took my G&L L-2500 and converted it to top load, with screws through the old string thru holes for a more secure bridge attachment, and I believe it sounds better. I may do the same thing with a Lakland Skyline Joe Osborn 5. So, top load for bolt ons, and thru body for neck thru.

 

[LowMax]

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?

The rule of thumb I use is that if it's indiscernible to the human ear then it's not a benefit and needless. It's sort of like using certain batteries or different cables, the human ear is really not going to be able to decipher a difference. Think about this: the greatest tones and Basses that all of us are chasing were done way long ago when these supposed advancements didn't even exist.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Per physics, zero change in string tension. That's not up for debate.

There could be advantages or disadvantages due to break angle over the saddle. I'm skeptical that there's any difference except perhaps in extreme examples (angle is way too sharp or way too shallow).

I will always prefer top-load because string-thru is a PITA and I've found zero benefit to it. To expand: in all the decades I've been playing -- over which I've owned both varieties -- I've never noticed any advantage to string-thru. So, I will avoid string-thru when possible.

 

[eigentone]

I had a modern Jazz that had a bridge which supported both. I tried it both ways and I preferred the bass top-loaded.

 

[Jimmy Pringle]

With lower tension strings, the extra down force on the saddle prevents rattling.

Also if it is a string thru bass, it holds the ferrules in place so they dont fall out.

Some will says adds sustain, if it did we would be talking a minimal amount. Minimal....

I am a recent new owner of a 5 string. The first 4 are top loading and the B is thru the body. I went to put new strings on it and realized, the hard way, the standard B string was too short, so I top loaded it as well. It sucked! I bought a extra long B and ran it thru the body and problem solved.

 

[Crazy John]

On my top loaders I occasionally loosen the strings to tighten the bridge screws. On the through body basses I don't worry about the screw tightening. On my CIJ Geddy Lee I was losing sustain and tone and eventually found the neck screws and bridge screws loose, so now I check that several times a year.
Note. The climate I live in can change from 5 degrees to 50 degrees over a couple of days, and the relative humidity from 20% to 80% very quickly. Wood flexes a lot, screws loosen, legs fall off wooden chairs etc, so my OCD with screw tightness wouldn't exist in more moderate climates.

 

[jnewmark]

The rule of thumb I use is that if it's indiscernible to the human ear then it's not a benefit and needless. It's sort of like using certain batteries or different cables, the human ear is really not going to be able to decipher a difference. Think about this: the greatest tones and Basses that all of us are chasing were done way long ago when these supposed advancements didn't even exist.

But, these tones that you speak of, how do you know if it was done with a top loaded, or string through ? The very first Fender Precision was a string through; a few years later a top loaded. After that, it was hit and miss, both styles were made. I'm assuming both styles were used in studios.

 

[Brewsbrother]

Can't say as I've noticed a difference, whether with basses or guitars, and I've built a few. However, when I built my first bass, I built it with string-through ferrules and a high mass bridge, a belt-and-suspenders approach to the question. I also built it as a PJ bass, since I couldn't decide which I preferred. Upshot is that I like the equally balanced combination of the 2, with the TBX control at neutral.

 

[togril]

minimal amount. Minimal....

Isn’t that the point though? An instrument is the some of its parts, a collection of minimal effects creating a whole larger effect? At least building instruments, (especially by hand) is all about this overview.

 

[rzero]

I have a theory that with vintage bridges, string-thru will provide more sustain, and with high-mass bridges, top-load will provide more sustain. High sustain is about what configuration will permit the LEAST amount of energy to move from the string to other parts of the instrument. Whether this is desirable or not is up to the player.

 

[Tim Schnautz]

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?

Honestly I cant see any difference. But then again, you have to use the same two models with one top load and another string through to make a worthy comparison.

 

[JimmyM]

Honestly I cant see any difference. But then again, you have to use the same two models with one top load and another string through to make a worthy comparison.

Or you could take the words of so many people who have already done these comparisons and not sweat it

 

[LowMax]

But, these tones that you speak of, how do you know if it was done with a top loaded, or string through ? The very first Fender Precision was a string through; a few years later a top loaded. After that, it was hit and miss, both styles were made. I'm assuming both styles were used in studios.

Yes I mean, who's to know what was played on what? That's my point! In most cases you couldn't tell the difference between various basses on various recordings. Fender, Alembic, Zon, Fodera, 4 strings, 5 strings, passive, etc...etc...So many variables! Most of us gravitate to tones that mimick the tones our heroes carved out. Too much is made out of it. IMHO.

 

[ixlramp]

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

That assumes that string through body makes the instrument resonate more as one piece, i cannot see how, that seems very dubious.

Think about this: the greatest tones and Basses that all of us are chasing were done way long ago when these supposed advancements didn't even exist.

Not all of us, no.

I am a recent new owner of a 5 string. The first 4 are top loading and the B is thru the body

That is the opposite of how it should be, the B is the string you least want through the body, due to its stiffness and how far back the saddle has to go to intonate it.

 

[joebar]

I’m convinced that thru stringing the larger strings can kill them and make them dull more often than not. I too load because a straight pull makes sense in more ways than one.
I use a tapered B because there’s not enough room to bend behind the saddle. I mix and match

 

[bass_case]

The little gunports on the back of my 69 Tele bass look cool. So string through is clearly better.

 

[maturanesa]

Probably the only benefit is not making preassure forwards at the back of the bridge forwards and eventually make it lift

 

[SgtHulka]

That assumes that string through body makes the instrument resonate more as one piece, i cannot see how, that seems very dubious.
.

The string is the source of the vibration and the more consecutive solid contacts the bass has further out into the the instrument, the more likely that resonance is to carry.

It's the reason why we have 6 bolt neck joints when 4 is sufficient.
It is why we have multi laminate necks.
It's part of the theory of what single cuts are based on.

And there are probably many more than that.

Also, I believe that two-piece Bridges like Warwick's sound better then single Bridges. There's an additional Anchor Point. With string through a two-piece Warwick bridge style bass would give you three points of contact, offering far better resonance. YMVV IMO ETC....