String Thru vs. Top Loading?

[Allan]

Good stuff Georg. Just let me add that, if the top positioned screws are applied properly, and if there are enough of them, then top fixing is fine. I say this with the observation that the screws are loaded, largely, in shear, not axially. My point being that, if the screws are applied properly after correct pre-drilling, a top fixed string retainer is fine.
What ever technique is used, at any stage and point of a build, it must be correctly applied or any of these observations goes right out of the window.

Regards Allan.....

[Starsailor]

A few more thoughts ... some tested (way back in time), and some not:

I'm not bothered about vibrations - harmonics or anything of that nature - in the short piece of string past the bridge in itself, but how string vibrations are taken up by the hook-up piece on top. If that hook-up piece can vibrate - even the slightest - it will, and the chance of that vibration favoring sustain is minimal.

The bridge doesn't only have to resist, and transfer, vibration vertically. The strings don't slide back and forth over the bridge as tension varies because of vibration - tone, they (try to) make the bridge vibrate horizontally.
- As long as there's only a short piece of string that take up tension on the hook-up side of the bridge, the horizontal vibration will be minimal and uniform and pull the strings back to normal (silent) tension in sync with vibration - which favors sustain.
- However, if the hook-up plate also vibrates - however little, the horizontal vibration will be greater an less uniform and tend to be out of sync with string vibration. The resulting uneven pull will dampen string vibrations more quickly = less sustain.


So, if the top-side hook-up piece is solid enough, and is bolted well enough to the body not to vibrate relative to it, then top-side hook-up should be as good as through-body hook-up. None of the top-side hook-ups pictured in this thread looks all that solid to me, and they all seem to pull on wood-screws put in from the top-side. So for that reason I think they'll impact sustain negatively, compared with through-body hook-ups that put all string tension on the body's underside.

If those top-side hook-ups were really solid/rigid, and were bolted through so they put all string tension (via well-tightened machine-bolts) onto the body's underside so no "wild" vibration could occur, then only the string tension on/over the bridge would matter and I wouldn't hesitate to use top-side hook-ups.

Your turn...

Interesting thoughts.
Do you have any ideas of bridges with top-side hook-ups that might work well?

[Allan]

Do you have any ideas of bridges with top-side hook-ups that might work well?

An idea that many use for just that concept is a telecaster bridge with the individual saddles replaced with a single brass bar going straight across all of the strings. The consensus seems to be that that bridge/tailpiece works because of the fairly large area of metal in contact with the body of the instrument. I am not sure about that but it is a method that has been used many times so I guess that there is something to be said for it.

Allan.....

[c. winn]

I'm getting quite a bit to think about here, and I'm enjoying every minute of it! Thanks to everyone for responding, and let's keep up the discussion - I still haven't decided which style to go with....

[c. winn]

...until tonight, when I got ahold of a drill-press style apparatus.

I've now drilled my body for string-thru design.......wish me luck!

[Georg]

Good luck!!!

[c. winn]

Good luck!!!

Thanks!

I was able to drill the holes reasonably in line, and the break angle is great.

I'm still tempted to make a top-loading bridge while I'm at it, just to swap them out & know definitively (for this guitar) which is better.

Really won't answer anything in the long run....why be satisfied with any one guitar when there are so many others out there?

[jsnhull]

Every part of an instrument interacts with every other part, and so every part affects sustain, tone, etc. Various materials and construction techniques affect sustain and tone. The difficulty in comparing string-through to top-loading is not that the effects are subjective (for anything can be measured); the difficulty is in the lack of scientific method and a control. You would need instruments that were identical in every other way, except for the string attachment method. The reason that tone seems subjective is that we are comparing apples and oranges, or Fenders and Gibsons.

Also, sometimes truth seems counter-intuitive. There was a study published recently, by the Guild of American Luthiers, that concluded that bolt-on necks actually have more sustain than glued-on necks. Whatever it is that we hear, when we hear the difference between a bolt-neck guitar and a glued-neck guitar, fools us into thinking that a glued-neck has more sustain. Again, it's the apples and oranges problem. There are too many construction differences between the two types of instruments to isolate the neck-attachment method as the source of a particular aspect of tone.

As to the question of string-through versus top-loading, I know from experience that string-through means "better" tone. I have converted a number of instruments to string-through, and it has always resulted in "better" tone. What makes good tone? Now that is subjective!

[JW Adams]

something to think about on string thru, some of the Telecaster builders are using the (Taipantone brass string ferral bar) claim a lot more sustain