String through instead of top loading -- Thoughts?

[Mark Wybierala]

Has anyone given any real thought to the tonal benefits of the typical Fender style string-through vs top loaded bridges? ...In a theory sort of way and what if anything is happening to the tone and why? I got nothin' but I have seen tonal differences happen for wierd reasons. For example, a Les Paul that really bloomed tonally by replacing the modern tail piece with an aluminum feather weight. The Fender crowd snub top loaders but that may or may be simply a unreasonable bias because top loaders are imported and the first indication that the guitar was made overseas.

Does anyone have any imaginary scientific WAGs?

[Dave Locher]

How's this for an unscientific perspective: I can see how it might possibly influence tone and/or feel in some small way, but I would guess that the effect would vary depending on the wood and the exact specs of the bridge so no blanket prediction could be made. Didn't someone on the "old" version of the MIMF try stringing the same guitar both ways are report no tonal difference?
The main advantage I can see to stringing through the body is that it would put a lot less stress on the bridge screws because the strings would pull mainly down on the bridge, rather than trying to pry it off the face of the guitar.
They don't seem to be flying off on a regular basis, though, but with a soft wood body I can see it being a potential problem.

[Matt Madden]

I recently noticed that Creston custom guitars advocates for top loaders on its tele style guitars. I believe he claims better feel because of less break angle. My one guitar uses a toploader, but that was more for convenience than anything else.

[Mark Swanson]

I know I am opening a can of worms here, but this comes up every once in a while. We have had numerous discussions here about break angle behind the bridge, and the general thought is that it does not have an effect one way or the other. In my opinion we have proven that, but "proof" requires a little more hard evidence but we have proven it well enough for me.

[Nick Middleton]

To me it feels like the strings are prying the saddles up from the bridge-plate, makeing the saddles feel loosey-goosey. I don't like them at all will only use one if I'm required to by a customer (and can't talk them out of it).

[Dave Locher]

That would depend on the saddle height and the design of the bridge, Nick.
I own one cheapo tele-style guitar with a toploader bridge and it felt that way when I bought it. I shimmed the neck up for more bridge height and it solved the problem but I forgot that until you mentioned it. But your point is a good one: if someone wants a low neck angle and string height then a toploader bridge could be a potential problem. Mine was so bad that a couple saddles would actually buzz and rattle.

[Mark Wybierala]

I think break angle is only a tonal issue over something like a tunematic saddle where there is an actual break in the angle. On a traditional tele with the 1/4" cylindrical saddles. the strings are in a continuous contact with the saddle for quite a measureable distance so there is very little if any of a break via a pointy topped saddle. I also prefer to minimize break angle over both the nut and saddles if I can to improve the string flow back and forth during string bends and promote tuning stability. The length of the string that is able to vibrate behind the saddle is about the same for both top load and string through although there is a second addition free length going through the body. I suppose its a question of energy transfering to this length of string on the other side of the saddle, if it exists, and what happens to it. The same thing would apply to the distance of string behind a tunematic bridge. Is there an energy transfer and if so what does it do? My belief is that the longer this length of string is, the further someone would need to bend a string to achieve a single step increase in pitch yet is may make the guitar feel looser dispite needing to push a string a greater distance across the fret -- thinking about this a bit... A longer string length behind the saddle would also slightly reduce the tendency for a string to go sharp from excessively pushing down a string between tall frets - yes? A short distance via a top loader would be more supceptable to going sharp due to a neck choker - yes?

[Greg Robinson]

I don't like top-loaders myself. Not because of any difference in tone, perceived or otherwise, but because I've had top-loaders where the strings jump out of, or jump around on the saddles, due to insufficient break-angle. I play pretty hard, so ymmv.

[Henrique Schneiter]

Mark wrote:

"My belief is that the longer this length of string is, the further someone would need to bend a string to achieve a single step increase in pitch yet is may make the guitar feel looser dispite needing to push a string a greater distance across the fret"...

"A longer string length behind the saddle would also slightly reduce the tendency for a string to go sharp from excessively pushing down a string between tall frets - yes?"

A short distance via a top loader would be more supceptable to going sharp due to a neck choker - yes?

As long as the strings could slide on the saddle top, the answer is yes. On a through-body string mount the angle of the string over the saddle may not allow that. It depends on other factors as string gauge, wounded or plain, roundwound or flatwound, saddle material, lubrication, distance of the saddle to the string hole, and so on. That theory applies likewise to the distance of tuners to nut.

[Louie Atienza]

Well, one could postulate that a through-body could potentially have more string contact with the saddle, and that or any number of variables could potentially affect tone. One could also argur that the torquing effect of the top-loader could also influence tone. Whether it is significant enough to be meaningful is another story. Just maybe, a rear-loader or through body might have more sustain, due to the increased saddle contact.

[John Kingma]

One of my friends strings his Tele up like this... the 3 low strings thru the body and the 3 high strings just thru the bridge. He claims he gets better sustain on his low strings and more twang on his high strings and this suits his style of playing.

Personally, I can't tell any difference... but with the ringing in my ears I don't hear very well anyway.

[Celeste Hall]

I prefer string through for a couple of reasons. One being that my sense of engineering aesthetics is not pleased by a string mounting that distorts the bridge and tries to rip it off the body ( I know guitars are not race cars, but I get kind of obsessive with stress management)
Another being that the whole string ferrule things gives you so much room to be creative.

[Andy Barth]

Why not try the guitar with both bridges? Try the string through first for a month, then mount the top loader and give it a go. Then you'll know for sure. I'm sure they'll both sound good, but you'll likely prefer one over the other, depending on how you want the guitar to eventualy sound.

[Louie Atienza]

Speaking of engineering:

A mathematician, scientist, and engineer are each given a red rubber ball, and asked to figure out it's volume.

The mathematician says, "It's simple. I'll just measure the diameter, divide that by 2 to get the radius, and plug that number into my formula (I believe is 4/3 (pi)r^3)"

The scientist scoffed and said, "It's even easier. I'll fill a beaker with a measured amount of alcohol, place the rubber ball in, and measure the displacement."

The engineer laughed at both and said, " While you do that, I'll just look it up in my catalog of red rubber balls..."