Strings through body vs top-loaded

[kgbeast]

Recently I got a Peavey Grind NTB 2010 thereabouts. In pretty good shape with hi-mass strings through body bridge. However in changing strings I found that one of the saddles fell off as one of the threaded slats crumbled off (bridge is made out of pot metal it seems). I found exact replacement on AliExpress for $20. However, I did not like the several sharp bends that the string takes before it goes over the saddle. Seems like it was taking long time for new strings to settle while they confirm to all these bends. Always hear that through body strings are improving tone and sustain, but I figured is Stigrays can cope without it, this one should too.
I got Hipshot KickAss... Yeah.. if anything, it might actually improved the tone. Sustain did not get affected. But I got a wider range of intonation adjustment as well as a lot more range in the action height (stock bridge bottomed out was still too hi, which is pretty common I think on grinds like this).
So my take on this that through body stringing is not about tone or whatever but more to do with aesthetics. As for four holes... Some 38 cal pistol brass adds a nice touch. As an added benefit of top,-loaded bridge, it is a lot easier to move aside to try different pickups.
Yes, I did mod my grind with Peavey VFL pickups like in Cirrus, but a different preamp. On the picture it is shown with EMG style neck pickup which sucks and I will be putting the VFL back. That said this bass sounds killer with just the VFL bridge.

So for those who wants to look into some other bridge options for your strings through body bass, do not afraid to look into top loaders...

 

[joel the bass player]

I can't say I noticed much of a difference, other than running into strings that weren't long enough back in my early days. I have 3 basses (MIA P, Lakland 55-02s) that offer either and I haven't strung anything through the body in ages. My P actually came with a through body only bridge that I swapped for the deluxe bridge that offered top loading.

 

[MYLOWFREQ]

Always hear that through body strings are improving tone and sustain, but I figured is Stigrays can cope without it, this one should too.

Some say string-through body bridges improve sustain, some say, it's the other way around, top-load high-mass bridges improve sustain because they transmit less of the string energy to the body which means more sustain.

I prefer string-through body bridges because of astethics and because I've seen a few basses (most likely with softer woods) that had the bridge screws stripped off from the body because of string pull. That would never happen on a string-through design. I think all basses should come with bridges that have the string-through body option as well as top-load.

 

[rojo412]

Over many years, I've dealt with all types of bridges and find that string thru body is very much an over complication for little to no reward.
I've had many a top mount bridge where the sustain was incredibly good. They have been high mass, basic bent plate, 2-piece, etc. As long as they aren't pure garbage to begin with, they work fine.

Doing string through on basses where it was available really only seemed to shorten the string a bit (silk started either on or too close the nut) in some cases, but always made string changing more of a chore AND mangled the base of the string more than it needed to be.
I never noticed any increase in sustain or tonal shift.

I'm sure plenty of others will chime in, but having owned and played hundreds of basses over the years with all types, I can tell you from my experience, it doesn't do much and can be bested with top-mount bridges very easily.

 

[Steve Slate]

I mostly top load but I do run my B string through body for fitment reasons. The B lines up better at the tuning post. The only 5 I have is the one in my profile, its a Fender JB mia. the bridge only allowed through body until I drilled the back plate out. I was having problems with a chorusy E string until I top loaded....problem solved! So guess it depends on personal preference and string length.

 

[Turnaround]

It's my contention that through-body stringing is a marketing ploy. It's easy to suggest that it makes a difference and that's just enough to give a marketing edge over your competition if you're a builder. And of course if you're a builder whose business has been reduced by your competition's marketing hype about it, you'll likely offer it too so as to retain market share. I am not convinced that there's anything real about the claims made.

And normally I would say it doesn't matter - no harm done. But I do think that the extreme bends of the string at the saddles can introduce problems with the registration point of the string on the saddle and that can affect intonation, especially on E and B strings that don't have tapered windings. It's really hard to seat a thru-body B string with full windings at the saddle.

 

[2saddleslab]

Been happy going thru for over 3 decades. YMMV. Do what works best for you.

 

[Killing Floor]

Leo always said “string through keeps the ferrules from faking out”.

 

[micguy]

Top loading means a much more gentle bend at the bridge - less likely to have stress or tuning issues than through the body, especially on the bigger strings.

 

[claudel]

I like string thru on my 32"s.

Opens up a wider choice of available strings.

Can't say it makes much difference in sound, though.

 

[GIBrat51]

Well...
Out of the 26 basses I've owned - and the 22 that I still own - there's only one that I can string through the body if I want to. It's an '06 Carvin LB-20 with a Hipshot A bridge. And, purely in the spirit of scientific inquiry, I did once string it through the body. The result? Other than being pretty much a PITA, there was no discernable difference between that - and simply top-loading the bridge. So, I removed that set of round wounds, and put the set of flats on it, that I wanted to use in the first place. And which the manufacturer warned against stringing them through the body... I've never repeated that experiment, and the LB-20 has worn flats ever since - like all but 2 of my basses do... If I was ever unfortunate enough to buy a bass that gave me no top-loading option? It's bridge would be replaced with one that did allow me to top-load it, tout de suite...

 

[fig]

A couple of folk mentioned that through-body stringing might mess up setting intonation, especially with fatter strings. I've only owned 2 through-body basses. Both times I had to change the B and E strings to the top-load position to correctly intonate those two strings.

The recent 2nd occurrence was on a 34 in. scale bass with .130 B and .100 E. With through-body, both strings played sharp at the octave (B was very sharp) with the saddles maxed aft.

Restrung the B and E as top-loads which shifted the intonation range to an adjustable area. I kept the other 3 strings as through-body, 'cause they intonated fine.

I'm not impressed with the through-body concept. Just my opinion, of course. If there are any audible differences between through-body and top-loaders, I couldn't notice 'em. And that's in a quiet living room. Any subtle differences are gonna disappear at a live gig when the drums and guitars kick in LOL.