• 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.

Stringing thru body or not

Would you string thru body if basses allow??

  • string-thru-body

    Votes: 74 72.5%

  • conventional thru bridge

    Votes: 28 27.5%
  • Total voters
    102
  • Poll closed .
#23
Originally posted by Mike N
Given the choice, I'll string thru every time.
Theres something about all that tension pulling on four or five chintzy bridge screws that bothers me....
Click to expand...

Well, then this should disturb you - when you string through the body, you still have "all that tension" pulling on those chintzy bridge screws, in the same direction (towards the nut). The difference is that there's (the same) tension pulling down as well (and up on the other side of the body). This sounds a bit strange but it's the way strings under tension works.
 
#24
There are many good and insightful comments in this thread. I agree with most of them, based on my experience.

I've tried to analyze this issue myself. I used to own a 55-94 Deluxe, and I recently bought a Skyline JO 5. I'm not a studio/bassplayer/audiophile or anything so I can't tell you exactly why, but it seems to me that both of my Laklands sounded better strung through the body, rather than through the bridge. The improvement was more apparent in the B string. It seemed a little more firm in tension, and the tone seemed to be more resonant, articulate, and punchy. just my 2 cents
 
#25
Originally posted by pilotjones
Changing the string termination should have had no effect on the high of your action, seeing as the height of your bridge saddles did not change. I am thinking that one of two things happened: either your action changed do to some other factor (such as humidity changing the neck bow), or your playing approach changed, so you required a different action, as Rickbass has suggested. Again, not disputing that you needed to change the action, just suggesting other causes, since the saddle height should not have changed.
Click to expand...

I have 2 basses that string thru body and 2 that do not. On my Jackson 5 (no pun intended) the action sits lower if I string it thru bridge than thru body (or at least looks and feels that way). I think it has something to do with the angle of the string as it passes over the saddle. However my 55-02 seems to be the complete opposite (probably due to the better quality bridge) don’t know just seems that way to me. Having the strings strung through body does make for a better overall sound. But for me personally I really don't want tons of sustain when I’m slapping. Of course all this is a mute point because either way you slice it, my 55-02 is DA-BOMB!:D
 
#26
Originally posted by DougD


I have 2 basses that string thru body and 2 that do not. On my Jackson 5 (no pun intended) the action sits lower if I string it thru bridge than thru body (or at least looks and feels that way). I think it has something to do with the angle of the string as it passes over the saddle. However my 55-02 seems to be the complete opposite (probably due to the better quality bridge) don’t know just seems that way to me. Having the strings strung through body does make for a better overall sound. But for me personally I really don't want tons of sustain when I’m slapping. Of course all this is a mute point because either way you slice it, my 55-02 is DA-BOMB!:D
Click to expand...

I think this thread got resurrected because somebody voted. Don't yell at me for bringing up old news.

Though I trust Peter far more than I trust myself, here's what I think may be happening:

I'm assuming you use taperwound strings, at least the B. The core should normally rest on the saddle, when stringing through the bridge. But, when stringing through the body, the winding will be pulled back, and will now be resting on the saddle. The thickness of a B string is enough to make it be noticably higher than the other strings, in this case. This may be why you had to lower the action when stringing through the body. Just a thought.

Also: moot point. :D
 
#27
I tried stringing through the body on my RB5 once, and though I did notice more sustain, I wound up preferring the sound of stringing through the bridge. Maybe it's just me, but sound of the string through bridge (and its less sustain) sounds more 'vintage' to me. Besides that, it's easier for me to find strings that will fit - when I strung through the body, I used long scale strings and the B string was still too short.
 
#28
Originally posted by conical johnson
...
I'm assuming you use taperwound strings, at least the B. The core should normally rest on the saddle, when stringing through the bridge. But, when stringing through the body, the winding will be pulled back, and will now be resting on the saddle. The thickness of a B string is enough to make it be noticably higher than the other strings, in this case. This may be why you had to lower the action when stringing through the body. Just a thought.
...
Click to expand...
Good point, and one I hadn't thought about. Stringing through the body does mean that with some strings, a thicker part of the string will now be sitting on the saddle, so the action will be higher.

Something else concerning use of taperwounds in this situation: some people have pointed out that they don't like taperwounds because the harmonics don't sound right to them, or that they have intonation problems, especially high on the the neck. This problem is I believe caused by the two sections of string (full thickness and reduced thickness) having different properties. But- with the right string/bridge cimbination- stringing through the body will bring the full thickness section closer to the saddle, and reduce the length of the "core only" section in the speaking part of the string. This could potentially result in better tone. Another way to acheive the same result would be to have a thru-bridge setup that had some kind of adjustable string-end catch (similar to a headless bass setup), so that this geometry could be optimised.
 
#29
I've got the same bass and I love it. When I switched from my SR5 it kinda felt like going from a 24" bike to a 26". Now that I've gotten use to the 35" scale a 34" feels funny. One thing I did notice is restringing it with DiAdario(sp) super long scale's really brightened it up and seemed to add more sustain. I always string through the body because I just like the idea. I don't think it makes any difference in the way it feels or sounds.
 
#34
Thru-body construction is when the strings anchor in ferrules that are sunk into the back of the body. This is similar to a Strat in that the strings don't anchor in the bridge, but most people's basses don't have vibratos, so the strings don't anchor in the vibrato block. I'm not sure about a Tele', as I've never had one, but I think you've got it right.
 
#39
I have to belive the difference is highly unique to individual instruments. Somewhere there's a thread on brass nut vs. bone affecting tone and sustain and one of the posts read like "that's a non-issue since as soon as a string is fretted the reamaining lenght is out of the equation." wouldn't that hold true for the string-thru issue? I mean, once a string is stopped on a saddle, wouldn't the remaining length be out of the tone equation? So it wouldn't matter if the ball end is against the butt of the bridge or in a ferrule in the body...would it?


Just my 2
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back