String through body

[lz4005]

Witness point is important for top loading also. It's not unique to through body stringing. Having to bend thicker strings to extreme angle does not give you better intonation. In fact, many people complain about that bend. Speaking length is between the nut and the saddles.
Through body stringing will not prevent the saddles from walking. No intonation benefit there.

A good witness point is important for all bass designs. Bending thicker strings to extreme angles can make it more difficult to achieve a good witness point, which has a negative impact on intonation.
The increased break angle of string through can hold saddles in place better. Particularly on ungrooved vintage-style bridges.

 

[Fuzzbass]

I've owned a few basses with a string-through option. Never noticed any difference, one way or the other.

Same here.

 

[elBandito]

Do you realize you're actually arguing against the claim the poster made, saying through body enables better intonation? I think you're caught up on trying to disagree with what I'm saying, more than what's actually being said. Ok, you win. Do you feel better now?

A good witness point is important for all bass designs. Bending thicker strings to extreme angles can make it more difficult to achieve a good witness point, which has a negative impact on intonation.
The increased break angle of string through can hold saddles in place better. Particularly on ungrooved vintage-style bridges.

 

[rtslinger]

I had read that the reason to do this string through the body was to bring forth the timbre of the instrument also known as tone color or tone quality from psychoacoustics or voice if you would like of the wood. I'm not saying that is what it does or I could tell myself one way or the other. It is just what I read so don't shoot the messenger. I would be interested in reading the original patent of this idea that would have to explain in great detail the theory and the conceptual reason behind this methodology. in other words tell me why and prove it.

 

[mmbongo]

I think string through is a big advantage on some basses...like my Laklands. Going through the bridge did not give enough downforce on the saddles and the strings would pop out. Stringing through body puts the force down into the saddle instead of sideways towards the nut. Think of string through bridge as the string trying to pull the bridge up, and think of through body stringing as the string clamping the bridge down to the body.

That being said, my Spectors, Warwick, and Roscoe do not have the option to go through body but they all have quick load bridges, and they don't need to be strung through body. Heck my Warwick and Spectors have the bridge countersunk into the body. So the answer is..it depends on the bass!

 

[cnltb]

Never been able to do a perfect side by side comparison between top and thru body. However, many years ago I would bring a 58 P bass, 69 Jazz, and 68 Tele bass to gigs and always found the Tele delivered more solid lows and an overall fuller tone. Was it the bridge, the pickup, the wood, all of the above? Who knows, but I've gravitated to string thru ever since.

Not to hijack this at all, but...what precise bridge is this?
I was looking for something like it and unable to turn one up.

I string through the body-all strings. One of my basses has a bridge that doesn't allow for top loading.
On my 4 string I SEEM to notice a bit more body to the tone when strung through. Can't be 100% sure if it's actually true or just my imagination.
I like the feel anyways. Have done it exclusively for 10 years or so.

 

[David Jayne]

It's easy to test if you want - run half the strings through body and the other half through bridge.

 

[2saddleslab]

Not to hijack this at all, but...what precise bridge is this?
I was looking for something like it and unable to turn one up.

I string through the body-all strings. One of my basses has a bridge that doesn't allow for top loading.
On my 4 string I SEEM to notice a bit more body to the tone when strung through. Can't be 100% sure if it's actually true or just my imagination.
I like the feel anyways. Have done it exclusively for 10 years or so.

Those bridges (except the original Fender bridge plate on the blonde) were made by my dad almost 30 years ago. They're solid brass, chrome plated. The saddles are similar in size to the original Bakelite saddles rather than the stainless steel rods seen a couple years later.
You can find 2 saddle bridges easy enough but mine one offs that work great and proud to have them.

 

[Baird6869]

No tonal preference whatsoever for me and no no real noticeable feel/tension difference.

I have owned dozens of both and my 2 main gigging basses are a string thru and a bridge/top mount.

 

[madjazzbass]

I was expecting half the posts to say that there is a huge difference in the sound and the other half to say that there is no difference. The consensus is that there is no difference in the sound so I’m wondering why some manufacturers offer the string through body option. Do they claim that it does affect the sound?

I always thought stringing through the body was supposed to give better sustain...? I'm sure I read that somewhere YEARS ago.

 

[Phalex]

My basses that allow string through are exclusively string through. I don't notice any difference other than where the silk at the tuner end winds up.

 

[BroDew]

Sustain is why I do it.

By the way Asatman... that white bass is to die for, straight up gorgeous. If you ever sell it, just ping me!

 

[bucephylus]

Yes I currently have and have had basses with this feature. Current bass is a Fender Jazz Deluxe. No, I do not use the strings through the body. Here is why.

On several previous basses, there was no effect whatsoever on sustain, tone, body resonance or anything related to sound. Also, string life is substantially shorter.

This last point got me to thinking about the effect of break angle on string life. I played an early Alembic Series I long scale for many years as my only bass. Round wound strings lasted forever on that bass. In their variation of construction methods, Alembic had set the tail piece about three inches away form the bridge. This made the break angle on the bridge very low. Yet that bass had excellent sustain, probably somewhat due to the mass of the bridge. Later on. I was playing an SR5 with the string through ferrules and messed with various set ups with that bass. Stringing through always led to shorter string life, no effect on sound.

My theory, FWIW is that the extreme break angle actually damages the core of the string because of the plastic deformation. This causes the microstructure of the steel to become more absorbing of vibrations in the acoustic frequency range at the witness point on the saddle. An optimal bridge design would achieve perfect clamping with zero break angle. Don't ask how that kind of bridge design would be reduced to practice; I haven't figured that out yet.

Meanwhile I never string through the body for the above reasons.

 

[mongo2]

An optimal bridge design would achieve perfect clamping with zero break angle. Don't ask how that kind of bridge design would be reduced to practice; I haven't figured that out yet.

I once saw a reference to a bridge that used a collet instead of a traditional saddle. Never saw anything more about it.

 

[2saddleslab]

Yes I currently have and have had basses with this feature. Current bass is a Fender Jazz Deluxe. No, I do not use the strings through the body. Here is why.

On several previous basses, there was no effect whatsoever on sustain, tone, body resonance or anything related to sound. Also, string life is substantially shorter.

This last point got me to thinking about the effect of break angle on string life. I played an early Alembic Series I long scale for many years as my only bass. Round wound strings lasted forever on that bass. In their variation of construction methods, Alembic had set the tail piece about three inches away form the bridge. This made the break angle on the bridge very low. Yet that bass had excellent sustain, probably somewhat due to the mass of the bridge. Later on. I was playing an SR5 with the string through ferrules and messed with various set ups with that bass. Stringing through always led to shorter string life, no effect on sound.

My theory, FWIW is that the extreme break angle actually damages the core of the string because of the plastic deformation. This causes the microstructure of the steel to become more absorbing of vibrations in the acoustic frequency range at the witness point on the saddle. An optimal bridge design would achieve perfect clamping with zero break angle. Don't ask how that kind of bridge design would be reduced to practice; I haven't figured that out yet.

Meanwhile I never string through the body for the above reasons.

I'm sure your method and reasoning work best for you. But I've had TI flats on my 51/55 P bass over 8 years and they are still going strong. If that ain't long life not sure what is.

 

[bucephylus]

I once saw a reference to a bridge that used a collet instead of a traditional saddle. Never saw anything more about it.

Exactly, that's the way it would have to be done. The issue is making it practical, which is probably why you never heard any more about the design you mentioned (guessing).

 

[bucephylus]

I'm sure your method and reasoning work best for you. But I've had TI flats on my 51/55 P bass over 8 years and they are still going strong. If that ain't long life not sure what is.

Sure, flats wouldn't have the same concern. I have NOT formed any opinion on flats regarding through body or not.

 

[Vinny_G]

For those that have a bass with a string through body option, do you put all your strings through the body or just the lower ones?

Hello. I put all. Because this is made for.

Have any of you noticed a different feel or tone when doing the higher strings through the body?

No, in my case I've not noticed a significant change in tone with the higher strings, but I've noticed a little change in FEEL with all the strings, which may make a difference. A little bit stiffer, which I like, maybe because I play with a pick. I don't know, my experience is that it differs from a bass to another one, perhaps because of wood quality, construction quality, bridge angle (see Yamaha with their 45 angle, I don't know if it makes a difference). Sorry for this uninformative response

 

[JimmyM]

My 09 AmStd Precision allows both. I've been going thru-body since I got it last year because I get a rattle on the E string with thru-bridge that I don't get with top loading, and I've always been too lazy to figure out why and just went with it. Tonally, I don't hear a lick of difference, other than that rattle. But now that he mentions it...

Also, string life is substantially shorter.

It does seem that way to me. Could be hallucinating, but it does seem like I get more life out of a new set of strings in my other basses than I get from my 09, and when I give them the alcohol soak, those strings don't come back as well as others without the two bends. So maybe I will try to diagnose that rattle after all.

 

[drTSTingray]

My Classic Stingray has strings through (as per a pre 1980 pre Ernie Ball Stingray). Appears to give slightly more sustain than my other Stingrays. No other difference, positive or negative.