My basses (MIJs and a MIM) are all toploaders. I play the MIA P and J Basses that are stringthroughs for a little less than an hour every time I visit GC (I get distracted by the MMs) and always at non-gigging volumes.

I don't have the chops yet to call myself a proper bassist although I got the grooving part down.

What are the significant differences between the Stringthrough and the Toploader, for those who regularly use both and/or have used both?

All opinions appreciated. I'm lusting after a PBass. Thanks!

Well, really, it's the same as string through and nonstring through guitars.

Sustains better I suppose.
In the bass chat:

<Jon> take the quote of me out your sig plx
<Jon> i hate seeing what i said around lol

Leader of the Bass Militia PM to join!

And now on BANDCAMP!

Officially the funniest member of the Bass Forum.
Stringthough has more sustain, as the strings pull the bridge down onto the body, hence better contact. Interestingly, 2 part bridges such as Warwick bridges also do this, as the bridge id held downwards by the part that holds the strings.
Warwick freak of the Bass Militia. PM Nutter_101 to join

Quote by elliott FTW
Damn you and Warwickyness

Quote by ScottB
gm jack knows everything
The sustain is better (on this I'll agree).I have also heard that it improves or changes tone, though I have never seen evident of that myself with my current string through bass vs bridge through basses.
^ Traben? Hehe..

From what I've seen, there's a little more sustain, but putting a better set of strings on a top loader would make about the same difference.
Nope, no sig here.
Quote by smb
I don't think it makes much of a difference, to be honest.

That's what I was thinking/feeling.
Quote by Mutant Corn
^ Traben? Hehe..

From what I've seen, there's a little more sustain, but putting a better set of strings on a top loader would make about the same difference.

Interesting. I use .050 to .110 on my Toploaders. I know the American Standard were slighter ... .045 I believe.

Off-topic: I also saw a MIK with a Quilt Maple top, looked like a neckthrough or set neck and was stringthrough. Looked sharp.

Thanks for all the responses.

the difference maybe small, but there is a difference. of the basses i've owned, the string-through were the better basses. a couple of MIA Jazz's, and a G&L, not to mention the Peavey T-40, were all string-through. and were all my fav's.
You had a T-40? I've wanted one of those for quite a while...the T-60 has excellent sustain as well.

I've been thinking...wouldn't this depend on how hard or soft the body wood is? It seems to me that ST would be much better on harder woods, and TL very close to it on softer ones.
Nope, no sig here.
well the tons and sustain is suppose to be better. I have 2 basses with each style of string loading.

the strings thru does have better sustain, but its also better bass in pretty much every aspect.

but really.. i am a sucker for strings thru. its a requirement on every guitar i buy nowadays.
Grammar and spelling omitted as an exercise for the reader.
I agree, the difference is minimal(depending on the quality of your top-loader). But, I am also a sucker for the string-thru. Looks mighty fine to me.
The Japanese are the biggest fans of MIA Fenders because of the stringthrough! Other than the '50s RIs (similar to Sting with the non-split SC), I don't think there are any MIJ Fenders with stringthroughs. I could be wrong.

The MIA stringthroughs are so sexilicious.