String through body vs through bridge.

[Bobby King]

I'm sure there have been a lot of discussions about this, but I'll chime in

I recently bought a 2003 Fender USA Precision that has the option of stringing through the body or bridge. I tried it both ways and here are my observations:

Through body: more bottom, longer sustain and slower, mellower attack
Though bridge: brighter, quicker decay and a faster, snappier attack

The differences aren't huge, but noticeable. Either way has advantages, but I play a lot of R&B and Soul and I prefer the attack when you string through the bridge.

What should I do with the empty ferrules, plant flowers in them or something?

 

[Nohrellas]

Through body means that the strings have a greater break angle on the saddles, especially when you almost need to bottom out the saddles for a low action. It prevents annoying rattling noises or the strings moving in the groove of the saddle. That's the only difference I've found so far. Oh and you sometimes need longer strings.

You can also get these benefits with a countersunk (I hope that's the right term) bridge like on the Billy Sheehan signature bass, while still maintaining the easier access to the strings, especially when you can slot in the strings from above without needing to string them through the bridge. That'd be the ideal setup for me.

 

[Warpeg]

I've had many USA Fenders with that style of bridge. No matter which way I installed the strings, there was zero difference in tone.

 

[JTE]

Do REAL test. String the E and D through the body and the A and G top-load. Then reverse it when you restring. Try that a few times before you claim it makes a material difference.

Without doing that you're comparing different string sets, conditions, acoustics, etc at different times instead of comparing the same set at the exact same time.

 

[2saddleslab]

Some hate string thru, some don't care, some prefer it (like me). Ultimately ya' gotta do what's best for you.