Turnaround
Commercial User
Market pressure. Others started doing it and Fender was afraid of losing market share from folks who bought the hype.
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.
String through body or bridge?
- Thread starter adivin
- Start date
What brand added the string thru body option that would have enough industry clout to force Fender to make such a move for fear of losing market share? Doesn't make sense. Customers requesting the option & willing to pay more for it seems much more likely.
Last edited:
...for the same reason Warmoth started offering carbon fiber reinforcing rods in their necks; customer demand. Both options have nothing to do with performance. Warmoth even recommends NOT paying extra for the carbon fiber; but if that's what you want...
Last edited:
Turnaround
Commercial User
It's not one maker that influenced Fender, it was a whole bunch of them providing string-thru when Fender didn't. Join the club or be left behind. Remember, Fender is run by bean-counters, not luthiers.
Strictly a marketing decision.
When CBS owned Fender it was indeed run by the bean counters from corporate headquarters. This is always a bad idea. In the game of business accountants are scorekeepers, not coaches.
FMIC is run mostly by managers and marketing personnel. If you know the history of the company, that was a return to their roots.
When CBS owned Fender it was indeed run by the bean counters from corporate headquarters. This is always a bad idea. In the game of business accountants are scorekeepers, not coaches.
FMIC is run mostly by managers and marketing personnel. If you know the history of the company, that was a return to their roots.
Something tells me that running through bridge causes less vibrations and less undesired harmonics from other strings, as you're having less contact with the body as a whole.
And in any case, the differences should be negligible.
And in any case, the differences should be negligible.
Most of what Fender does these days leaves me scratching my head. Putting string through options on the Precision and Jazz was a bizarre decision.
Bridges are all about anchoring the strings as firmly as possible. With string through body, you probably have less rigidity than string thru bridge, because you have about 1.5" of wood between the ball ends and the bridge. Think about it. The softer the wood, the worse it is. Brass, aluminum or steel is much less compliant / much stiffer than wood. String through a massive metal bridge anchors the ball ends more firmly than string ferrules in wood.
I am not claiming there is a noticeable difference, but it is probably safe to say that string thru body is not superior to string thru bridge.
I am not claiming there is a noticeable difference, but it is probably safe to say that string thru body is not superior to string thru bridge.
Turnaround
Commercial User
I have tried to compare stb and tl a few times and here is what I concluded. On a heavy walnut (maybe muhagon) and perhaps any other high density wood bass, it makes no difference. Not in tone, not in sustain, absolutely nothing. I have posted a strong posts about how it is no difference in the past, however checking that on a softer wood like basswood, I think it either increases the sustain or at least positively changes how it decays. Like it makes that secondary swell when the sound dies out gradually, then kind of grows back a bit before dying out. Definitely something audible on the single-string fingers type bridge. Less obvious on a heavy, single body bridge like bad-ass etc. that difference though is noticeable only in headphones and timer, for all practical reasons it is irrelevant... And definitely is entirely lost in any mix even if it is just a click track.
The one more observable difference is that if you use strings with long silk wrap, the silk might get on the saddle in some setups. With string through it is not likely to happen.
On the flip side, I think that to get tuning to stabilize, it takes a lot more fiddling with stb that with a top-loader. Probably because string breaks 3 times as opposed to once before it leaves the saddle.
The one more observable difference is that if you use strings with long silk wrap, the silk might get on the saddle in some setups. With string through it is not likely to happen.
On the flip side, I think that to get tuning to stabilize, it takes a lot more fiddling with stb that with a top-loader. Probably because string breaks 3 times as opposed to once before it leaves the saddle.
Last edited:
This tallies well with my own observations. In general, high-mass bridges do very little in terms of sustain, however, I have been able to mitigate or remove dead spots by adding a high-mass bridge, both on basses with basswood and alder bodies.
I used to do rounds through body and flats top loaded because I thought flats couldn't handle the sharp break angle. Well after numerous TBers said they did through body with flats just fine I started doing that too.
If a bass has both options I always pick through body, though I can't really say why I prefer it over top loaded. There is something I find more pleasant about the restringing experience I suppose, but my preference has nothing to do with tone. It's probably a matter of well since it's there, may as well use it sort of thing.
If a bass has both options I always pick through body, though I can't really say why I prefer it over top loaded. There is something I find more pleasant about the restringing experience I suppose, but my preference has nothing to do with tone. It's probably a matter of well since it's there, may as well use it sort of thing.
About 3 months ago, I bought a 32" scale, '93 Fury Anthem lined fretless bass. My first medium scale bass; my first fretless bass; and my first string-thru-body only bass. It's also my only bass with a D-tuner (which is non-removable), but... that's neither here nor there. It had some truly gnarly tape wounds on it. And, I mean literally gnarly; roughest strings I ever tried to play...View attachment 3680641 I'd have to agree with JimmyM. That would be my only reason to string a bass thru-body. This '96 Carvin LB-20 is the only bass I have where that's an option. It's nothing deliberate; it just worked out that way. In the spirit of scientific inquiry, when I re-strung it after I got it, I strung it thru-body - once. The results?
1. I heard no difference whatsoever, compared to top loading the bridge. But, everyone's ears are different; if you say you can, I'll certainly believe you...
2. It was a labor intensive (trying to keep the strings from twisting), royal PITA.
Since I heard nothing to recommend my stringing the bass that way in the future, or make me want to go thru all that nonsense again? I top loaded it, and it's been top loaded ever since...
I had more trouble trying to put new strings on that bass than I've ever had, in 50+ years of playing bass. And, being a thru-body bass did not help one iota. One set, the G string didn't even reach the tuner post. One set, the E string was at least 6" too long. One set, the tuner end silks went 3" down below the nut. And, the one set that did actually fit (TIJF 324 Jazz Flats)? They made sounds that I NEVER want to hear again - in this, or any other lifetime. Turns out, the bass was custom made to wear tape wounds - and to sound as much like an upright as an electric bass guitar can. When the medium scale Roto 88 Tapes that I ordered, arrived? The bass was evidently made with those things in mind. They went on; tuned up; and intonated with no problem whatsoever. The silks are also perfectly aligned, too. Does it sound anything like an upright bass? Well, not exactly like an upright (that's never gonna happen, I know), but... really, truly, scary close... I'm not sure how much of the struggle was caused by it being a thru-body bass; being a medium scale bass; or by having a headstock about the size and shape of a Tyrannosaur's "canine" tooth. I do know that I never want to go through that ordeal again. If there was a way to convert it to a top loading bridge without destroying it, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But, there just... isn't...
It's alive!
But seriously. A couple of advantages to string thru. 1. Keeping the ball end silk of a dirty big B that wants to go way back, off the saddle. 2. At the other end, keeping non tapered section of a dirty fat B string from wrapping around the post. Of course you could use a bit of tubing or something to do it at the ball end , but stringing thru looks better imho.
But seriously. A couple of advantages to string thru. 1. Keeping the ball end silk of a dirty big B that wants to go way back, off the saddle. 2. At the other end, keeping non tapered section of a dirty fat B string from wrapping around the post. Of course you could use a bit of tubing or something to do it at the ball end , but stringing thru looks better imho.
