Adding string through body to a 4+1 L2500

[AlEebee]

What it says really. Is there any reason one could not obtain the bridge unit & ferrules for a 3+2 L2500 and retrofit it to the older 4+1 versions that only string through the bridge but not body?

Would such a change be a direct swap size wise on the bridge - I know I should open my two up and get out a tape measure, but I'm working with only one good hand at the mo & I'm lazy

NB - I have moved this from Tech Tips

[Ken Baker]

What it says really. Is there any reason one could not obtain the bridge unit & ferrules for a 3+2 L2500 and retrofit it to the older 4+1 versions that only string through the bridge but not body?

Read this. You really don't want to make this change. Just maintain your current bridge and its attaching screws and you'll be just fine. Trust me.

I just came back in to expand on this a bit.

You have the same physical bridge that I have on my current-model 3+2 L-2500. What G&L did when they started offering thru-body stringing was to eliminate the 5 screws under the saddles, drill for strings & ferrules, and use those holes. Because of the cast-in protrusion in the bridge baseplate for the body rout, there is no other location to replace those screws that were eliminated. That leaves the bass with only two #8 screws holding the bridge in place. For this reason, and as I mention in my bridge mod piece, G&L recommends that the 5 string basses be strung thru-body only. This, obviously, holds the bridge down.

What I have found in my travels is that a properly attached bass guitar bridge is a helluva lot more important sonically than stringing thru body. This is particularly true with G&L's superb Saddle Lock bridge. When strung thru-body, the slightly different string break over the saddles doesn't really buy you anything sonically and the extra 1.5" of string is behind the saddle. Making sure that the break is actually a neat break and not a loopy curve is more important. My L-2500 actually sounds notably better as a top loader than it did strung thru-body. I have a Lakland Skyline 55-01 that I have strung both ways and I can't hear any difference. So for my money, there just isn't a benefit to stringing thru-body. Of course, YMMV and the basic bridge design has a LOT to do with this.

Would such a change be a direct swap size wise on the bridge - I know I should open my two up and get out a tape measure, but I'm working with only one good hand at the mo & I'm lazy

You'd actually use your current bridge. Not that I recommend that you do so. I don't. Really. Think how much easier finding strings will be. Think too about the value of the bass that would be lost by making such a non-reversible change. Those 4+1 L-2500 basses are few and far between.

Ken...

[AlEebee]

Interesting. Thanks. I was only thinking of changing the older fretted bass in the thought that it might tighten & focus the B. So your mod is actually to remove the string through on a 3+2 which you've found has a beneficial effect on the sound.

I now have a 3+2 fretless strung through, but with a slightly heavier set on so not a perfect comparison, and a fretted 4+1 obviously bridge strung. Can't do a playing comparison just yet with my right hand in a splint for at least another week

If its the same bridge just with screws out then perhaps just through body the B on the 4+1 for the (apparent) tightening of that string and leave the rest - but then again the serial on the neck plate stamp is early (B000627) so perhaps I should leave well alone! In a band situation it's fine, just sounds a bit flabby on its own

[Ken Baker]

Interesting. Thanks. I was only thinking of changing the older fretted bass in the thought that it might tighten & focus the B. So your mod is actually to remove the string through on a 3+2 which you've found has a beneficial effect on the sound.

Yes. Just remember that it's more than just top loading. That bridge is seriously attached to the body.

If its the same bridge just with screws out then perhaps just through body the B on the 4+1 for the (apparent) tightening of that string and leave the rest - but then again the serial on the neck plate stamp is early (B000627) so perhaps I should leave well alone! In a band situation it's fine, just sounds a bit flabby on its own

It's obviously your bass to do with as you please. But perhaps playing with different strings might be enlightening before going the surgical route.

Best of luck to you and heal well.

Ken...

[AlEebee]

Interesting. Thanks. I was only thinking of changing the older fretted bass in the thought that it might tighten & focus the B. So your mod is actually to remove the string through on a 3+2 which you've found has a beneficial effect on the sound.

Yes. Just remember that it's more than just top loading. That bridge is seriously attached to the body.

If its the same bridge just with screws out then perhaps just through body the B on the 4+1 for the (apparent) tightening of that string and leave the rest - but then again the serial on the neck plate stamp is early (B000627) so perhaps I should leave well alone! In a band situation it's fine, just sounds a bit flabby on its own

It's obviously your bass to do with as you please. But perhaps playing with different strings might be enlightening before going the surgical route.

Best of luck to you and heal well.

Ken...

Believe me it's not something I'd launch into without a lot of thought - when I think how close I came to butchering my Wal Pro1 years ago I still shudder. I've had the 4+1 for awhile now and am more than happy with sound in the band context so I doubt it'll happen soon.........if ever

Thanks again for the input