Slinky Cobalt through-body - sensible or not?

[smoke]

Bought new set of strings few weeks back, EB Slinky Cobalt and swapped them for the same gauge Slinkies I had on the bass ... Fender Jazz Standard. Run them through-body just like the old ones. Used them once or twice in a rehearsal, playing jazzy stuff ... next time I opened the case, the B string had a nice little stretch right where it bends over the bridge. Needless to say it was gone ...
... my old set lasted me 2 years without any issues. Am I doing something wrong? Should I just run them the normal way and forget about the through body business?? Is a bit weird as all the strings I ever had on that bass went through-body ... and I had the bass for 5-6 years now.

Any advice is welcome!

[MiltyG565]

It's maybe just a dud string. Does your bridge had round saddles, or ones that have a bit of a point?

[smoke]

They are a bit pointy, each saddle has 2-3 grooves. Got the new string from the supplier, but am a bit scared to bust it again ... they are not cheap and I doubt they'll send me another one if this was goes.

[molan]

I've tried through body and bridge stringing and I genuinely can't hear any difference whatsoever in tone or the, somewhat mythical, added sustain that through body is supposed to bring.

I had a long chat with a top man from La Bella recently and he said there was no discernible advantage to through body stringing and that he didn't like what it did to the break angle of a string over the bridge.

This is particularly true for most quality flat wounds apparently. He told me it caused all sorts of string issues and regularly lead to certain strings sounding dead.

He has over 30 years of string manufacture and sales behind him so I'm happy to believe him

[smoke]

Mmmm I read a lot on the sticky post here on the forum about people's impression of different stringing ... I never tried running it bridge only on my bass cos it always worked well through body. And the EB cobalt strings are by far the best strings I had on my Fender, so don't think it's making them sound dull ... just possibly kinking them too much!

[iiipopes]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1368524420' post='2077916']This is particularly true for most quality flat wounds apparently. He told me it caused all sorts of string issues and regularly lead to certain strings sounding dead. He has over 30 years of string manufacture and sales behind him so I'm happy to believe him
[/quote]The LaBella rep has a definite point when it comes to the larger strings, like the E and A. On the other hand, I have 37 years experience playing bass, and I prefer the string-through, not necessarily for the supposed increase in sustain, but because if the G string ferrule is repositioned so that the string comes straight down over the back of the saddle, like a guitar string of the same gauge, and on my bass, it takes most of the twang or whang out of the G string without having to readjust the saddle, put a piece of paper in the slot, etc. That said, and like the LaBella rep said, on my low E string, even though it is through body, I have the ferrule repositioned so that the string through is much farther back than on a stock instrument, so there really isn't any more break over the saddle than with a conventional top load. This preserves overtones and causes less stress on the string core. The problem with string through on most conventional basses, especially with flats, is that the bridge works backwards to what it should: the G string saddle has to be farther toward the neck for intonation, so the break angle from the ferrule over the bridge is insufficient to seat the string properly, and the E string saddle has to be so far back to intonate properly there is insufficient room and too much break angle for the string to seat and speak properly, and the strain breaks the core. The string through ferrules have to be repositioned in an increasing arc behind the saddles to account for the intonation compensations and the core diameters, instead of just being in a straight line near the back of the bridge plate.

Edited May 20, 2013 by iiipopes

[mrcrow]

through body was introduced to offset the inconsistencies of the leo's bent plate low cost production bridge
nowadays with bridges like the badass with high mass and good anchorage etc
through body is just a nod to the past and wont really make life easy for us

the best bridge is a high mass drop in even if in two parts...which is better...you then have an anchorage for the ball end in a high mass component and a separate set up part for action and setting intonation..

the high mass drop in anchorage can be of a suitable material to give sustain and longevity and the set up part is doesnt need to be so exotic...bent plate in fact a la leo's mass production model

saddles are better round grooved and giving a gentle curve to the break angle..like wise a zero fret will also do this instead of a sharp edged nut

cheers
geof Edited May 21, 2013 by mrcrow

[iiipopes]

The above bass is interesting, and strung exactly backwards. I would take the G & D through the body and have the A and E strings through the tail, for the reasons in my above post. And Leo's bridge is not the only reason. I like the compression through the body rather than the shear, or what engineers call "moment of inertia" induced in a top load bridge.