String Thru vs. Top Loading?

[c. winn]

I've been debating for a bit as I approach the final bridge work for my first lap steel build.

All along I've anticipated a string-thru build, while recently I've rethought that idea, without any good reason.

Sure, there was the vintage National steel I checked out with the bent metal bridge:


But also those great looking Dynalap bridges:


But I've always loved Teles, even their top loading bridges:


But I cannot argue with the simplicity of a Rukavina Guitar bridge, as I believe this bridge to be:


And then there are other versions, found randomly online, without a source I can credit:


If anyone knows who built this, I'd be happy to edit the pic.

What do you knowledgeable folks think about string-thru bridge design?

Really, I'd appreciate any kind of back & forth rumination, just discussing ideas. I enjoyed the bridge design thread, but here I'd like to know what people think specifically about the string-thru body element. What affect does this have on tone? Sustain? Any thoughts?

Thanks for your insight -

Chad

[Eldon]

Chad, I've made a couple of laps from 2 inch thick white birch. Both have through the body strings. I exchanged the original bridge to a whammy bar type. You can feel body vibration on both guitars. The second guitar remains through the body and to me it sounds better (richer tone) when played without amplification. Somewhere in my research I read that a through the body has better tone. Unfortunately this is highly subjective I've only played these 2 guitars. There's some very knowledgable people on the forum as well as the SGF I'm also interested in what te guys have to say on the subject.

[jetmacjoe]

Seems to me the more solid string through design would have more sustain.

[Allan]

I told my self to stay out of this one... But no one else listens to me - why should I? So here I go...
Opinion only right now OK! Basically, it makes little or no difference. Can I back up that statement? I can as far as I need to so that I can sleep at night without worrying about it. Most of the time anyhow. Here's how. The length of string behind the bridge is going to be short. Much of it's length is taken up with the twisted end of the string and, in some cases, the winding also. I don't believe that that can pass much vibration to the body of the instrument. The bridge is much more important and influential in the grand scheme of things. I actually did do an experiment on this very subject using a telecaster clone that I had made. The bridge/tail piece was drilled for either way of string mounting. I drilled the body and installed ferrules and then tried both versions. I used two brand new sets of identical strings and honestly couldn't see any difference.
Now, with all of that said, however you anchor the strings, I believe that coupling the bridge to the body is critical. In the case of an acoustic instrument, like a fiddle, string pressure seems to be enough. Is this because of the relatively thin front plate? Dunno! I do believe, however, that with a solid chunk of wood you need to get the vibrations into it in a very positive way. So, screw down the bridge in a good and firm way and don't worry too much about how you anchor the strings. Just be sure they are good and firm! You are trying to get vibrations into a piece of solid wood as opposed to getting them into the mass of air in an acoustically tuned chamber. I think that screwing deeply and positively into the body of the instrument at the bridge is the most important aspect of that side of the build.
A quick case study that I feel backs up what I have said above: One of the most respected lap steel guitars in the National New Yorker. It has the bridge/string retainer all in one and it is just about the most simplistic approach to doing the job that you will see anywhere. The instrument sounds great! Would it sound better if the strings went through the body? Hmmmmmmm...
I believe that this is a very complex subject. It is also a very emotive subject so I don't intend to get into any arguments with anyone over it. My experience, so far, says 'little difference, if any' and the above ramblings are my way of trying to rationalize that finding. So, I would say, do what works for you.

See why I didn't want to get in to this thread?

Regards, Allan.....

p.s. Just a quick add on: The two previous posters have made points regarding the 'firmness' of the string mount. That IS the point in my opinion. How that firmness is achieved doesn't matter.

[Bent]

Seems to me the more solid string through design would have more sustain.

I think that the sustain properties ends at the nut

[Pat Comeau]

Seems to me the more solid string through design would have more sustain.

I think that the sustain properties ends at the nut

bent!...i have 2 fender telecaster one with the string through the body and one with the strings on the bridge and the one with the strings through the body has a better sustain. , it just doesn't compare.

[Georg]

Pat, do those two telecaster constructions put the same amount of downward pressure (from the strings) on the bridge? Are those bridges and their mounting on the body otherwise identical? Are the angle with which the strings go down beyond the bridge the same? Are the length of string beyond the bridge the same?

Personally I don't think it matters whether the strings go through or are hooked up top-side, but tuned-up strings do put the pressure on the bridge in a different way if the bit beyond the bridge is "all string" than if it is "partly string and partly something else". That "something else" can make an enormous difference in distributed tension as a string vibrates on and over the bridge, and so can the actual string-length and downwards angle beyond the bridge.

[Pat Comeau]

Pat, do those two telecaster constructions put the same amount of downward pressure (from the strings) on the bridge? Are those bridges and their mounting on the body otherwise identical? Are the angle with which the strings go down beyond the bridge the same? Are the length of string beyond the bridge the same?

Personally I don't think it matters whether the strings go through or are hooked up top-side, but tuned-up strings do put the pressure on the bridge in a different way if the bit beyond the bridge is "all string" than if it is "partly string and partly something else". That "something else" can make an enormous difference in distributed tension as a string vibrates on and over the bridge, and so can the actual string-length and downwards angle beyond the bridge.

Georg,

you could be right right on some points cause the 2 tele doesn't have the same bridge and the kind of wood body is different on the two, the one with the best tone and sustain has a swamp ash body compared to the other one with a maple body, i've read often on guitar forums that some people says that strings through has better sustain and tone, i can't be sure 100% cause the 2 tele have two much things different from the other like pickups and bridge ect..., it would be nice to have 2 identical guitars except one would have strings through the body to compare them, i think it's the same with pedal steel guitars...everything like kind of wood and hardware, pickups ect... affects the tone and sustain.

[Bent]

I will say to Pat: "I stand corrected" until further discussion is done. In any event, I was to hasty and short in my assessment on this important issue.
Carry on. Interesting stuff. Looks like I have more to learn here

[Georg]

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...