advantage of through-body strings

[paul torch]

I wonder if anyone can give some advice or at least confirm or deny what I have heard.

I've read somewhere that using a through body type of bridge adds extra tension and thus extra sustain. Is this really true as the strings are still effectively the same length as using a regular bridge?

[Machines]

I've had a mixture of both types and have never been able to notice any difference.

[BigRedX]

The change is tension myth is down to people misunderstanding what "tension" actually means. Through body stringing may change the "compliance" (how the string feels) but for the same string unit mass and tuning it won't have any effect on the tension.

[bremen]

I don't see how it can - the vibrating part of the
string is still the same mass and length so for the tension to be different the pitch would have to be different.

then again, I've often been told the laws of physics don't apply to music, so ymmv, wtf etc ;-)

[rogerstodge]

I have 2 p basses, one with string thru body and i can't tell the difference either.

[paul torch]

Thanks guys. That is what I suspected.

Just wanted to check before I took a Black & Decker to my bass.

[Mr. Foxen]

Since strings can slide over the witness point at the bridge, free string length before the fixed anchor does affect compliance, and a length of string is another resonant thing, so there is effects from it being there, tension stays the same but compliance is the thing you actually feel. Plus it effectively makes a high mass bridge from the whole body, as opposed to something like a BBOT where the saddles can move side to side slightly. So the difference between through string and a flimsy bridge might be noticeable, but likely in the same was as a chunky bridge and a flimsy one. Pulling strings through various holes can damage them a bit so isn't ideal.

[chrismuzz]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1347793600' post='1804947']
Through body stringing may change the "compliance" (how the string feels) but for the same string unit mass and tuning it won't have any effect on the tension.
[/quote]

+100000

I prefer through body because the string FEELS less floppy. If your right hand technique is heavy you'll notice a difference more, most players won't.

[Blademan_98]

Consensus seems to be no difference.

I have both and would have to agree.

so it's just a marketing ploy lol

[Lozz196]

I always thought it added something, until I got my 70s Precision which doesn`t have it, and realised I couldn`t tell the difference. I think it was because previously the Precisions I had that didn`t have it weren`t such good quality woods. Now, even if a bass has the option, I don`t use it. Easier to re-string at gigs too through the bridge, in case of string breakage.

[flyfisher]

I've no experience of through-body strings, but I would have been surprised if it made any difference to the sound.

But I've often wondered about the physical impact on such thick and wound strings of tightening them around a 90-degree bend. Again, I'd be surprised if it made any audible difference, but does it make the strings more liable to break, for example?

[BigRedX]

Anything between the witness points (nut or zero fret and bridge saddle) and where the string is ultimately anchored will have an effect on the compliance and feel. The only way to find out if the changes are significant enough to be important to you is to try them.

[Pinball]

I think it makes more of a difference on lead guitars. I love my through body Schecters as the strings sing for ever (sustain). Set neck/thru body stinging and materials all make a small difference that adds up.

I can't tell any difference with bass. Why would I want ot sustain for ever in any case?

[paul torch]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1347796209' post='1805011']
Anything between the witness points (nut or zero fret and bridge saddle) and where the string is ultimately anchored will have an effect on the compliance and feel. The only way to find out if the changes are significant enough to be important to you is to try them.
[/quote]

I guess for me it would be less about compliance and more about tension. A couple of years ago I switched to short-scale as my hands were starting to feel the ravages of time. It works really well for one of my bands but the other band has always tuned down a semi-tone which makes the E string feel and sound like a flaccid elastic band. I thought that the string-through method may have offered a solution but it seems I may have to come up with something else.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='Pinball' timestamp='1347796478' post='1805015']
Why would I want ot sustain for ever in any case?
[/quote]

Once you get a note sounding good enough, you don't feel the need to change to a new one so often.

[JTUK]

Marginal if that, IMO.

Same with Neck-thru and bolt-on... if you can hear a difference then it is more likely due to a whole host of other parameters before you can point at
thru the body etc etc

[chrismuzz]

All of my basses have the option of doing it both ways so I can confirm it does make a difference to the feel of the strings. I can't remember if there's a difference in tone or sustain. The fact that I don't remember suggests that there isn't much if at all

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='paul torch' timestamp='1347796548' post='1805016']
I guess for me it would be less about compliance and more about tension. A couple of years ago I switched to short-scale as my hands were starting to feel the ravages of time. It works really well for one of my bands but the other band has always tuned down a semi-tone which makes the E string feel and sound like a flaccid elastic band. I thought that the string-through method may have offered a solution but it seems I may have to come up with something else.
[/quote]

You don't feel tension, you feel compliance, so for a given tension altering the compliance will affect how the string seems to play.

[paul torch]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1347796685' post='1805021']
You don't feel tension, you feel compliance, so for a given tension altering the compliance will affect how the string seems to play.
[/quote]

so it may be the solution after-all?

[KingBollock]

I think my assumption has been that the extra downward force on the bridge would create a better connection to the body of the Bass, allowing for better sustain by helping eliminate errant vibrations which would dampen sustain.
I would worry about the break angle though, I think having the strings run from the end of the Bass, instead of from the back, would be better.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='KingBollock' timestamp='1347796902' post='1805024']
I think my assumption has been that the extra downward force on the bridge would create a better connection to the body of the Bass, allowing for better sustain by helping eliminate errant vibrations which would dampen sustain.
I would worry about the break angle though, I think having the strings run from the end of the Bass, instead of from the back, would be better.
[/quote]

The degree of better depends how bad it was previously though, its hard to get through strung wrong though. Break angle depends how far the through part is from the saddles, I like the through body then over a tune-o-matic style.

[paul torch]

[quote name='KingBollock' timestamp='1347796902' post='1805024']
I think my assumption has been that the extra downward force on the bridge would create a better connection to the body of the Bass, allowing for better sustain by helping eliminate errant vibrations which would dampen sustain.
I would worry about the break angle though, I think having the strings run from the end of the Bass, instead of from the back, would be better.
[/quote] that was my next thought. A trapeze style bridge?

[lojo]

I would expect it to make a difference due to the string vibrations being more transferable into the body than when strung on a metal bridge, but Ive had both and it's not noticeable

There are a lot if other more important factors ahead of this if you make a list

[mart]

There is a sticky thread on this, albeit in a slightly odd location:
http://basschat.co.uk/topic/21840-thru-body-stringing-vs-bridge-only/
You will, of course, find that I gave the definitive answer on that thread.

[4 Strings]

The string-through design is a better engineering solution as it prevents sheer action on the bridge. It puts the bridge in simple compression vertically through the saddles and adjusting screws. A top loading bridge will be required to do this plus withstand the sheer force of the string tension through the fixing screws trying to pull the bridge off. For me this is a good enough reason to prefer string through.

However, the lack of bridges flying off bodies means the practical advantage is marginal to nil and so, imo, not the reason to choose one bass over another. It might be one of a collection of good engineering solutions on the bass (you won't see cheap basses with string-through bridges) resulting in a good quality bass. There is also a neatness to the way it looks and ease of threading the string through.

An argument against it may be a sharper angle over the saddle implying more regular string breakage. This is not in my experience though.

It renders any benefits of a 'high mass' bridge as null as the mass is now, as pointed out by someone earlier, the body.