I see a lot of hullabaloo about which stringing method is "better" on a Tele. A lot of people swear that string-through is superior. Other people say it doesn't really make much difference, other than perhaps top-load has a slightly looser feel to the strings.
What are your thoughts?
String though is always better! There can be no discussion😈
Quote from: madbean on December 20, 2014, 04:50:32 PM
String though is always better! There can be no discussion😈
Agreed. If it's not string through, it ain't a tele!
Haha, okay.
But what is the difference, if any, tonally between the "real Tele" option and the "total blasphemy" method? ;D
String thru...IMHO
I have a top loader but I wish it was a string through. Part of it is looks, part of it is the quality of my bridge isn't great. My high E and B don't sustain as well as the other strings. That could be setup though.
String through if you have the choice.
I'm of the opinion string through is the way to go. I have no scientific evidence though. It seems to me that you would get better vibration transfer when the string terminates in the wood of the body rather than on a metal plate that is screwed to the body. And the tension on the saddle is increased due to the right angle the string path takes, I think this imparts more vibration to the body as well. Of course, only my opinion.
I think the big difference is due to the break angle of the string over the saddle. It's a thing we discuss (and endlessly fiddle with) with Jazzmasters, since they are designed with a very shallow break angle over the saddles. In my experience, shallow break angle = less sustain, more "noodly" feel; and more break angle = more sustain, stiffer feel. There's a trade off, but I like the stiffer feel of a string through setup, though one of my teles has a bigsby. The break angle on that one approximates what you'd see on a top-loader, and it seems to correspond exactly with my expectations and other experiences.
String through mostly, but i like to have what would be your E and A low strings, top load, crispier response to the Chuggah Chuggah.
String through is my preference, but a couple of my ASATs are top load. Granted the G&L design is different from most (saddle lock bridge and a routed channel beneath the bridge which interfaces with a steel tongue under the bridge). If you ever want to install a B-bender (like a Hipshot), go top load. Agree with morganp's description of the difference.
Thanks for the input, fellas.
With the Tele that I built, I had my strings through the body. You would think that after the contact with the bridge and nut, the remaining vibrations would be inconsequential, but I feel that the sustain is a little better than top load. Of course, my only comparison is with my other electrics that have Floyd Rose bridges. My Tele has an alder body, and the bridge is one of the heavier Joe Barden ones with compensated brass saddles. Those could have quite an effect as well.
Also, I think it looks cooler.
I keep hearing that it doesn't really make a difference.
I just think string-through looks better and won't mess up the guitar if you actually care about your particular plank of wood. (If ever there was a guitar that was made to be played into a pulp ...) I had a top loaded mexican tele at the same time as two string-throughs, though, and it was MUCH more pluck and did not sustain the same way. I am also pretty sure that the physics of the thing is that there can't possibly be as solid a connection through the bridge hardware and pulling up away from the body as the string pulling against the guitar body and then pulling down on the bridge, so there's very good reason to suspect that top loaded will have less sustain.
But sometimes you WANT less sustain. Some things sound better that way.
Quote from: midwayfair on December 21, 2014, 04:06:13 AM
But sometimes you WANT less sustain. Some things sound better that way.
Yeah, this is a good point. There was a time (or really a few different times) in electric guitar evolution when sustain was assumed to be universally desirable. The head luthier at my work tells the story of a trade show in the late seventies where he saw an all-brass electric guitar. It sustained for days but weighed like 35 pounds or something.
Music where you're playing faster notes, or especially quick arpeggios, it can be advantageous to have a faster decay so it's not as muddy. Think Chet Atkins, surf rock, rockabilly, chicken pickin'. I do feel like a thinner sound can fit into a group context better, since it leaves room in the mix for everything else.
That's another way to look at the difference too: top-loader gives you a thinner sound, vs the thicker sound of the string through.
My guitars would make the purists cry, but the strings still go through...
Quote from: madbean on December 20, 2014, 04:50:32 PM
String though is always better! There can be no discussion😈
Correct.
No worries, the super-cheap Tele I just bought is string-through by default.
I bought the last one of these:
http://www.rondomusic.com/eg491mfbi2ts.html
Should have it on Tuesday. I'll let you guys know what I think of the overall fit/finish. These sorts of guitars are generally hit or miss, so we'll see if I'm lucky this time. ;D
(http://www.rondomusic.net/photos/electric/eg491mfbi2ts4.jpg)
I have a G&L ASAT special. top loader. Gives the strings a slinky feel like a Gibson scale length. Less zing on the high strings than through body. If you have a quality bridge it will be nice. I have a soft touch and it compliments my feel.
Quote from: morganp on December 21, 2014, 08:08:27 AM
I do feel like a thinner sound can fit into a group context better, since it leaves room in the mix for everything else.
I don't want room in the mix for everything else :-)
My s/h tele has the option of either string-through or topload, but I've never tried the topload option.
The cabronita, OTOH... the hardtail strat bridge is string-through only.