Bridges - does string through matter?

[Moos3h]

I'm mid way through a Harley Benton PB-50 project and now deciding what to do re the bridge. The current one is a generic (and unremarkable) mid-way between high mass and BBOT so that's going in the bin, but it's larger than your normal BBOT. I am thinking of going for something beefy to replace it so that I don't have an ugly mess where the old one was.

So, all things being equal - does string through body really impact the sound? Most high mass bridges I'm looking at seem to top load. Does it make a difference?

Cheers,

James 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Moos3h
Grammar, dear boy

[hooky_lowdown]

You want to put a high mass bridge or string through which gives more sustain, on a bass which pickup is well known for its fast attack and decay?

[El Capo]

Oops, incorrect post!

Edited August 5, 2020 by El Capo
Weird

[Baloney Balderdash]

Some say it makes a huge difference, some say it makes absolutely no difference, both opinions sometimes seen from people having actual experience with doing that kind of mod to their bass.

Personally I got no experience with it, but I am kind on leaning towards the opinion that the difference will properly be fairly minimal.

Beside, how long do you really need your notes to sustain? 

I mean when I strike a note on my bass, which is equipped with a relatively standard mass bridge, and with the strings not going through the body, it will sustain for much much longer than I will ever need it to do, unless I deliberately mute it (just listen to for how long that overtone I strike at the end of the track linked to in my signature sustains (just took time, spot on whole 17 seconds before it has completely died out, and that with a relatively soft pick attack, also actually I think I even faded it out slowly in that mix, so it actually likely sustained for even longer).

No harm in trying it out I guess, beside possibly being a waste of your money, but I wouldn't expect too much of a noticeable change if I were you.

Edited August 5, 2020 by Baloney Balderdash

[Geek99]

Pass the popcorn 🍿 

this one hasn’t come up in a while ... pretty much zero is my view 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Geek99

[CameronJ]

The only practical benefit I can see for stringing through the body is for a bass like certain Rickenbackers with a crap bridge which wants to lift at the back. String through the body = problem solved! Other than that, it doesn’t change the speaking length of the string so I can’t see it benefitting me. And I’ve owned basses with through-body stringing. 

[Geek99]

Well, @Moos3h a 50s pbass would have been string thru, so as “an ‘omage” to the original, maybe do it this time. Just don’t expect fireworks or notes that are still ringing out next year 

[itu]

Then the impractical issue is that the string length is very long. You lose quite some of the string to the bridge end. On a longer scale (+34") or with the shorter strings the silk may reach the half-position. Not good.

Soundwise it is up to you. If you believe it makes some difference, what am I to say. Many musicians (as well as marketing departments) tend to tell about incredible and magical enhancements made by changing some simple (but so magical) part to another.

If something is superior, everybody will use it. You can start with words like: bolt-on/neckthrough, bridge, nut, passive/active, maple/rosewood, stainless/nickel, RW/flat... We are waiting for your findings for the ultimate instrument.

[el borracho]

25 minutes ago, CameronJ said:

The only practical benefit I can see for stringing through the body is for a bass like certain Rickenbackers with a crap bridge which wants to lift at the back. String through the body = problem solved! Other than that, it doesn’t change the speaking length of the string so I can’t see it benefitting me. And I’ve owned basses with through-body stringing. 

I had this with my G&L M2500. It had always had strings through body but when I put some from the bridge it lifted enough to slide a plec under the back. Straight back to through body!

[bnt]

It was a feature I looked for and got when I bought the Harley Benton Enhanced MP-4 a few months ago. This was not from any expectation that it would make a major difference to the sound, but simply because I have seen bridges pulled up or bent because of how the forces are applied. With string-through-body, the forces push the bridge down, rather than pull it up at the back. 

Edited August 5, 2020 by bnt

[adamg67]

My main bass has top loading lightweight monorail bridges. With TI flatwounds and a medium string height so that there is zero buzz it will sustain longer than I ever need it to. I have it for a nice clean sound and it sounds great with just passive DI and nothing else, no compression, and the notes just sing out.

Mind you, it does have an ebony fingerboard, which I believe makes a big difference

To quote the mighty Tap:

Quote

"The sustain, listen to it"
"I don't hear anything"
"Well you would though, if it were playing"

 

[drTStingray]

My take on this, and based only on Musicman Stingrays (so relatively high end bolt on production basses):-

1) Not essential - they have great sustain without.

2) with stings through there is more sustain - can be useful if you're playing say a ballad with longer note lengths.

3) possibly improves slap tone etc

4) If you plan to use flat wound strings and a foam mute probably won't make much difference (then again if you really want to go full 60s throw back (non Jamerson) an Epiphone Rivoli or Hofner may be a better bet anyway). 

I have TI flats on my Stingray Classic (strings through) currently!!! 

I find there is little or no practical difference fitting the strings. As a bass player who started in the mid 70s (and learnt on a bass with tape wounds) no one I knew would be seen dead with flat wound strings until the 60s throw back era started more recently - that said I have them on two basses which is fun, but am thankful for rounds to get back to reality (the late 70s/80s/90s sound) which I prefer. I can mute the strings to create flat wound thump anyway - I always thought that was part of bass guitar technique anyway 👍

So in summary, a non essential advantage (and present on original Precisions, Stingrays and more recent versions of some models of those basses (usually higher end ones) and Fender Jazz. So probably a bit up market in more recent years. 

[Lozz196]

When I’ve done string-thru on my basses I’ve thought that the tone was less twangy.

[durhamboy]

Through the late 70's and the 80's I made mainly six string electric guitars, for a while they were all thru neck, brass bridges and nuts and string thru the body designs. (As was the fashion at that time...)

I always wondered about the sustain question and started comparing different build methods. What I finally decided is that there are so many variables that impact on and work together, to determine tone, sustain and all the other properties which we feel, see and hear as desirable in an instrument and that thinking just one thing will give us a particular result is a bit simplistic.

By the way, the longest sustain I measured comparing guitars I built and others I worked on, including Gibsons, Fenders, Guilds, etcetera, belonged to a Korean Squier with an one piece Maple neck, tremolo bridge with a cheap pot metal block and a plywood body. It also sounded pretty damn good too. 

Likewise with basses I've built thru, bolt and set necks, from all sorts of woods and with various types of bridges. All options will have some impact on the instruments sound and characteristics, hopefully delivering results that are successful.