Would you change a Smith?

[Bob Faulkner]

I'm kinda interested in knowing Ken's thoughts on string-thru-body designs and if he has considered it for his basses.

[Tim Bishop]

Originally Posted by Bob Faulkner

I'm kinda interested in knowing Ken's thoughts on string-thru-body designs and if he has considered it for his basses.

Hey Bob, I think Ken is in the middle of a PA Ice Storm today. He's probably thinking about anything but a "string-thru-body" design at this point.

[Ken Smith]

Originally Posted by Bob Faulkner

I'm kinda interested in knowing Ken's thoughts on string-thru-body designs and if he has considered it for his basses.

Why do you ask? Is there an advantage you think? Pros and cons? Theories and proven results?

I am happy with the resonance we get now from our Basses as well as the tone. I don't think an instrument of this level can be improved by drilling more holes in it and bending the String at 90% by the Bridge.

[Tim Bishop]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

Why do you ask? Is there an advantage you think? Pros and cons? Theories and proven results?

I am happy with the resonance we get now from our Basses as well as the tone. I don't think an instrument of this level can be improved by drilling more holes in it and bending the String at 90% by the Bridge.

And there you have it! Keep those question's and ideas comming!

[Bob Faulkner]

Originally Posted by Ken Smith

Why do you ask? Is there an advantage you think? Pros and cons? Theories and proven results?

I am happy with the resonance we get now from our Basses as well as the tone. I don't think an instrument of this level can be improved by drilling more holes in it and bending the String at 90% by the Bridge.

Truthfully, in all my bass playing years, I've never played a string-thru-body bass so I was hoping to get some insight from someone with more knowledge about the good, bad, and ugly sides of it. Some people swear by it. I really have no clue about what effect there is, if any.

[Steve_M]

Originally Posted by Bob Faulkner

Truthfully, in all my bass playing years, I've never played a string-thru-body bass so I was hoping to get some insight from someone with more knowledge about the good, bad, and ugly sides of it. Some people swear by it. I really have no clue about what effect there is, if any.

FWIW, I have two stingrays. One with through body stringing and one without and I'd challenge anyone to tell the difference with all other things being equal.

[Tim Bishop]

Originally Posted by Steve_M

FWIW, I have two stingrays. One with through body stringing and one without and I'd challenge anyone to tell the difference with all other things being equal.

If that is a true statement (i.e. there is no difference), then what purpose would a thru-body serve?

I mean, "yes Mr. Bass Builder, I'd like to order that 5-String and yes, I would prefer to have the extra holes cut into the body because it looks cool and I love bending the strings 90 degrees at the bridge too".

[Ronson Hall]

Originally Posted by Tim Bishop

If that is a true statement (i.e. there is no difference), then what purpose would a thru-body serve?

I mean, "yes Mr. Bass Builder, I'd like to order that 5-String and yes, I would prefer to have the extra holes cut into the body because it looks cool and I love bending the strings 90 degrees at the bridge too".

I think that's what Steve's getting at, Tim. If there's "no difference" sonically that comes from bending the strings 90 degrees at the bridge, then why insist on doing it?

[Steve_M]

I think the theory was that through body stringing was supposed to add sustain to a vibrating string by anchoring it in a heavy mass.

However, because the string doesn't actually vibrate between the break point over the saddle and the anchor, the method of anchoring (so long as its fit for purpose) doesn't have much of a tonal impact.

Its my understanding that how much mass the saddles have and the method by which the saddles are acoustically coupled (ie. in firm contact) with the bridge plate is much more important than anchoring. I guess the idea is to have a rigid structure (ie neck) and rigid, solid anchoring at the break points at either end of a string so that the vibrations of the string are mostly isolated.

Can Ken confirm I'm on the right track?

[Tim Bishop]

Originally Posted by Ronson Hall

I think that's what Steve's getting at, Tim. If there's "no difference" sonically that comes from bending the strings 90 degrees at the bridge, then why insist on doing it?

I suspected that was what Steve was getting at, I just wanted to add my spin and a little more punch, I guess.