Which do you prefer, neck-thru or bolt-on ?

T

Tubed to Life

Inspired
I found this page on guitar woods (some I hadn't heard of), and came across this bit:

"...some of the compressed sound you get with neck through construction.

What is your experience with this?
 
Last edited:
I don't have a preference on construction methods. Bolt on such as Strats means adjustments and replacement is possible but some feel sustain can suffer with bolt on.
Jointed glued necks, may have better sustain properties but adjustment and replacement is non trivial.
Neck thru is where the same piece of wood or woods which form the neck runs all the way to the tailpiece and the the sides of the instrument are stuck on, the idea being that this wood will resonate consistently, whereas when separate neck and body wood is employed within the vibrating length of the string there maybe differences in resonance and so forth.

Whatever method is used, the wood selection can and does play a part in tone, I mostly have bolt on Strats, a Jem 7v but also a Hamer which I bought new in 89 which is mahogany neck jointed to a mahogany body and that sustains like crazy, the quality of the woods and construction was great on those Hamers, not quite the same today.

Overall I think bolt on necks are more practical, but good jointed necks or neck thrus can give more consistent vibration properties, but are more costly and the downsides are adjustment and repairs, which if you are wanting to throw them around on a stage could be a problem.
 
Last edited:
I have both bolt on and neck-thru on guitars and basses, and I personally prefer bolt on, simply because of the neck ever happens to need to be replaced for whatever reason, you can just get a new neck. If anything nasty happens to a neck on the neck-thru, it seems like the money you'd spend on a repair like that would be way more than you'd spend on a new guitar, plus it wouldn't be pretty, if it was even possible. From a tone standpoint, to be honest I haven't noticed much of a difference. People say there's a difference in the tonal qualities and maybe there is, but I guess it's so subtle that I just don't really notice it. So from a personal preference standpoint, for me its bolt on, but if I want an instrument, I'll take whatever it is either way. It's not a deciding factor for me, just a personal preference.
 
These broad statements like "...the compressed sound you get with neck-through construction..." are generally useful only as argument starters.

No doubt the person who wrote it believes it, but there is absolutely no consensus on these sort of subjective qualities about wood and design choices. Even things you'd think people could easily measure (like sustain) remain largely unresolved.

Bottom line - luthiery is still as much an art as a science, and hence it's best to take most things you hear as opinion, not fact.
 
I agree, Manning.

IIRC I've read somewhere that bolt on can deliver better sustain than glued necks, written by a reputable builder. In any case, my opinion is that neck/body woods make more difference to the guitar's acoustic tone and sustain properties.
 
I think 'compression' is a silly way of describing the sound of a neck-thru. More sustain, perhaps, but certainly not compression. That just doesn't make sense :S
 
Well, say what you will, but neck thru is a hell of a lot easier for me to play.... as for sustain... I have a sustainatic!
 
I love the idea of neck thru, have owned a few, never got along with them. I don't know if its a compressed sound, but I haven't ever found one that I liked. I like set necks like on Gibsons and I like bolt ons. Kind of like DLM, if there is something not quite right on a set neck you are looking at money, but with a bolt on you've got some wiggle room to try to adjust it and dial it in or even just replace the thing.

I do think that thru neck guitars sound and respond differently.
 
For me, I suspect it comes down to theory vs. practice. Most theories would indicate that a neck-thru is "superior" (whatever that means) to a bolt on in aspects other than replaceability. My experience playing neck thru guitars hasn't borne that out. I've played a bunch but never brought myself to plunk down my money. The closest I have to neck thru is a set neck with a very long tenon. Access to those last few frets is great...not that I often venture past the 17th fret. Most of my keeper guitars have bolt on necks. Not a conscious choice, just happened that way. If anything, my early guitar experience prejudiced me against bolt on necks.
 
imo 2 cent:
there used to a be a time when neck-through or set neck was probably superior for sustain etc. -but imo that's not the case anymore; they can make the bolt-on joint so accurate now that the difference can be negligible.
generally doesn't make any difference imho; and having both in my collection - no preference for either.
 
I've had both and I didn't really like one more then the other. Neck thrus look neat though lol
 
I prefer set and neck thru's. mainly for the feel. Not a fan of the heals on a bolt on. Though Ive owned a few strats and still look for them. This is the same as everything else in musical gear, its all preference. Certain guitars work for certain styles/songs better than others, but its all down to what YOU like at the end of the gig/session/day...
 
I grab the neck and bend it for mild whammy effects (like Adrian Belew, 'cept I did it before he did ;-0). Bolt-ons are preferable for this, of course, especially since over time you will need to adjust it if you're foolish enough to use this technique!

In terms of tone, I a not a 'sustain freak' - most of my guitars are semi-hollow single coils. They are not long sustain guitars like an LP or a travis bean etc. I have never wanted to emulate the 'sustain forever' style of playing, so it's not an issue at all. All I know is that I like the tone of all three of my main electrics which are bolt on, and my Martin which I thought was glued-in but it's a bolt-on too, seems to ring just fine (especially after I changed the nut to bone).
 
There are a lot of different factors that affect sustain. I have bolt-on necks that have a lot of sustain. Depends on the tremelo, bridge, block, pickups, etc.
 
I ve always liked the bolt ons with my ibanez guitars. the back of their necks are finished with just a clear coat or something and have a certain type of woody feel that i like. I never really liked the backs of the necks painted. I recently tried one of the epiphones satin finished necks and i really liked that a lot. So I would say that i prefer a bolt on but I also like certian finishes as well.
 
Neck through or set neck for me... The tone seems to be more coherent throughout the guitar + I really like how the neck is one with the body at the heel. I have only found a few bolt-on necks that I really liked, one being a Suhr and the other being a custom Charvel.
 
I prefer set necks. Neck through is when the pickups are mounted on the neck board and wings are attached to make the body, my least favorite guitar configuration, but great on basses.
 
I'm with rsf on this one. I like the feel of a nicely sculpted neck thru though during solos. As far as tone go, I find quality of construction and wood selection to be far more important than neck joint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom