Bolt on vs set-necks

Which do you like best?

  • Total voters
    42
I used to think neck-through was the only way. But, my Strandberg is bolt-on and it’s my favorite guitar ever. So, I honestly just don’t care anymore. I have guitars that are both and I enjoy all of them.
 
I never had to replace a neck or take one of to have it repaired.
I like the construction and since Chris Larkin's guitars all had set necks I went with that.
Except for one for which I wanted a neck through (the red one) and IMHO he did a bang up job.
I have two Kramer Stagemasters from '89 with a neck through construction.
Never had any problems with those either.
I didn't like a lot of the 70's strats though because of the sloppy fit and finish of some neck pockets.
 
Generally I play 25.5 scale bolt-ons and 24.75 set-necks. One of my best sounding guitars is a neck-through. I have no idea whether it because of the construction, because it's as heavy as an anvil, or because the pickups are just right.....
 
Andy Eagle said:
I see no tonal advantage of a set neck or a neck through so the practicality of a bolt on wins.
Click to expand...
A thousand times this. I see no advantage whatsoever with a set neck, only disadvantages. Unless you want something with really really high fret access beyond 24. For which I have no needs. 22 frets is all I need.
 
I have 2 bolt-on and 2 set-neck guitars. So I have no preference. I will say one of my set-neck guitars gets significantly less playing time than the others... But that is probably more closely related to the fact it is an Epiphone and the other three are American made custom instruments.
 
for the guitars I have neck through has fatter sound imo, though I play a bolt on more often, go figure...
 
Tonally, I don’t have a preference but conceptually I like the bolt-on’s serviceability and open-endedness (is that a word?) in terms of future options and/or replacements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom