String through body

[RIFF WRATH]

Will be starting assembly on my tele this weekend. bridge has option of string through body or string through the back of the bridge. any significant difference. I don't want to drill any more holes than necessary.
thanks for imput
RIFF

[fraser]

string through body is generally considered better, more sustain, greater tension on the strings and all.
it is said to be a less resonant or alive guitar if the strings dont go through the body.
i havent done any comparisons, so this is not my opinion, just the generally accepted opinion of the masses.
but watch this- typical tele tone, this is a tele with a top loader bridge-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D9dSuoLW94

a top loader in my opinion will have a looser feel- you may or may not like that

you could go top through for now and try it- later you can add string through, then you have the option of either.

[Milothicus]

string through does not increase tension. it does, however apply more downward pressure on the saddle.

the rest is up for debate....

it may transfer more vibration to the body wood, which may lead to a change in the relative motion between the strings and the pickups making the body wood more of a factor in the sound of the guitar. this has been debated many many times with no resolution that i know of. if you're up to the accurate drilling required, you might as well do it. then you can compare both methods of string attachment...

[SinCron]

Through the body dude. There's a reason that it's done to so many guitars and the alternative is really only done to hollow and semi-hollow bodies.

[suttree]

the highly saught-after fender esquires were top-loaded. i'd drill the holes though, that way you have both options.

[Mooh]

Agreed, both options are best, but I have always preferred strings through the body. I've known guys who strung their Teles with the high strings one way and the low strings the other, though I don't personally see or hear an advantage to that. Both my Teles, Godin LG, and Godin bass, are string through axes.

Peace, Mooh.

[RIFF WRATH]

The bridge I have allows for both but in checking my other tele the string through holes are located differently. I don't want to drill now but down the road I may pick up an old style bridge. And the mounting screw holes are different also.
\thanks for the replies.
cheers
RIFF

[Hamm Guitars]

Strings through gives you better coupling with the strings and the body. String tension can be effected depending on the location and drill angle of the holes

If your bridge supports both methods, drill the holes and put in the ferrels. Then you can decide which you like better.

[Milothicus]

String tension can be effected depending on the location and drill angle of the holes

how is this possible? no matter how much string is behind the saddle, or where it goes, the string still needs the same tension to reach pitch.

[suttree]

how is this possible? no matter how much string is behind the saddle, or where it goes, the string still needs the same tension to reach pitch.

it doesn't actually effect the tension, it changes the perceived tension of the string. as the breaking angle increases (the angle after the nut or the bridge), the string will feel stiffer, because it's harder to move the string over the increased angle.

[mhammer]

There are different kinds of string-thru-body. One kind is certainly the arrangement where the string does a 90-degree turn a the bridge saddle and heads towards the underside/back of the guitar. The net effect of this is to squeeze the bridge towards the body. Depending on the body itself, that might reduce whatever cancellation effects could conceivably occur when the body and bridge are working against each other (a bit like what the Dan Armstrong lucite body is intended to do), OR it might prevent the body from resonating in a desirable manner. It would depend on the properties of the body itself. I might point out that the traditional whammy bar block is essentially a sort of string-through-body arrangement, except that the "body" under the bridge is the tremolo block.

The ferrules don't have to be right below the saddles, though, and we've seen many guitars in recent years use recessed retainer arrangements that seat the string ends below the surface of the instrument, yet not right through the body. I've never played any of them, but it seems to me that they might provide a nice compromise that still allows the body a little more freedom of vibration.

I would imagine the nature of the bridge's coupling to the body would determine the net benefit of string-through-body. For instance, if the adjustable bolts are 1/4" brass and go deep into the body, it is hard to imagine more bridge energy being transferred to the body via back-mounted strings. If anything, under those circumstances, you probably want the body to behave more like a resonating membrane, if you're going to be transferring energy into it that efficiently. In that instance, you may well want to make the angle at which the string sits on the bridge reasonably shallow by having a top-mounted retainer that sits farther back from the bridge to keep that angle shallow.

[Hamm Guitars]

how is this possible? no matter how much string is behind the saddle, or where it goes, the string still needs the same tension to reach pitch.


There was another thread on here somewhere where we had gone into this in more depth but basically, from my own R&D, here is what I have found:

When I refer to 'harp note' - that would be the note that you get on either side of the speaking length of the string. Also when I refer to string tension, I am refering to the amount of effort that it takes to bend a note, not the amount of tension on a string to tune it to pitch.

Basically, if you have an instrument that has stable 'harp notes' (ie if you bend the string in its speaking length, the harp notes do not change) then you have x amount of tension. Bends are short.

If you have an instrument whose harp note or notes (if you have two of them) increase in pitch as you bend in the speaking length of the string, then the speaking length of the string is actually getting longer as you bend it (it is pulling string accross the witness point). This results in longer bends for the same change in pitch, but a 'looser' bending feel.

Locking nuts and sadles don't allow string to move accross the witness points which causes their string bending tension to increase over the same instrument which does not have the locked witness points.

The effect is most pronounced the closer you are bending to the witness point.

The longer the 'harp side' of the string the greater the decrease in bending tension - allthough I did not test anything with a really long 'harp side'.

I spent the better half of a week working on this a while back. The end result is that if you are pulling string accross the witness points you need to have rollers or low friction witness points of the instrument will go out of tune when you bend notes.

[Milothicus]

now that makes sense. in that case speaking length and stretching length are two completely different things.