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

[Rex]

Sorry to hijack this grammar thread, but....

I haven't found any consistent tonal difference between a set-in neck and a bolt-on one. Far bigger differences come from wood, bridge, nut, and build quality. I havent noticed any consistent difference in sustain, and it's hard to believe that two pieces of wood compressed tightly together with multiple screws would have any less sustain than a single piece. There are good and bad examples of either neck style.

There can be a difference in feel at the upper frets, but even there, some bolt-ons have a very smooth and fluid joint, and some set-in neck joints can be boxy and clunky.

Bottom line: when evaluating a guitar, I don't think about what kind of neck joint it is (though I do care whether it was well made). All I care about is how it sounds, how it feels, and to be honest, sometimes how it looks.

 

[stratamania]

@statamania: I suppose, though context easily sorts that out.

Context would indeed sort it out. Which variant spelling or use of a word is clearer when the context is known. Although of course a lot of comedy is based on how language is taken out of context.

 

[Geezerjohn]

If you play a guitar, love the feel, sound, playability, and it is priced within your means, then that is great guitar for you. There are pro's and con's to both neck thru and bolt on.

I have a neck thru body. Frankenstein had a bolt on. He was taller, but a monster. Personally, I love guitars that inspire me to play better. If it makes me look better too, then it is a keeper.

 

[fatoni]

im a bolt on kind of guy but that is just a trend for me and by no means a rule. i think its funny that a lot of people *cough*les paul fans*cougn* swear that a set neck makes for better tone but somehow when you use the same principles to repair a neck, all of a sudden that glue is stealing tone. for me, i dont see how you can get more contact and resonance than a perfectly fitted bolt on

 

[clarky]

my Morgan Guitar Works V6 have set necks [glued]..
I prefer this for a number of reasons..
the heel is carved such that you don't notice it
the sustain is superb
the guitar feels more resonant

 

[ML SOUND LAB]

I like the idea of a neck-thru but bolt-on necks always sound best. At least all the "best guitars" I've owned have had bolt ons.

 

[fatoni]

my Morgan Guitar Works V6 have set necks [glued]..
I prefer this for a number of reasons..
the heel is carved such that you don't notice it
the sustain is superb
the guitar feels more resonant

while i am sure they are great guitars but im not sure any of that has to do with the fact that its a set neck

 

[SilverPlated]

No preference. If it's sounds and feels good, then it's good.

 

[swass]

For me I prefer bolt on or set neck. Reason being is that way you have much more control, (to some extent) of the tone of your wood(s). Whereas if you have a neck-thru... say, made of maple running through the body, well it'll be much more predominant in tone over the glued on wings whether they be alder, basswood or mahogany. Most of the tone is coming from the neck and under the strings up to the bridge. Since that is where the string vibrations/resonance are strongest, that'll have the most influence on your overall guitar tone. So I swing for the preceding alternatives since I "dig" alder and necks made of maple. Mahogany is a different story then since necks and bodies are that... but whatever blows your hair back. Right?... I like chocolate and you like vanilla.

 

[Tubed to Life]

For me I prefer bolt on or set neck. Reason being is that way you have much more control, (to some extent) of the tone of your wood(s). Whereas if you have a neck-thru... say, made of maple running through the body, well it'll be much more predominant in tone over the glued on wings whether they be alder, basswood or mahogany. Most of the tone is coming from the neck and under the strings up to the bridge. Since that is where the string vibrations/resonance are strongest, that'll have the most influence on your overall guitar tone.

That's what the information I linked says. That's what it seems with my neck-thrus, though much less in one case than the other, but maybe that's pick-up difference. A guy I played with years ago had an alder Ibanez that I just loved the tone of. And you could hear and see the quality of his playing in it in a way that didn't show in, say, my guitar. I liked playing his guitar better, too! Another guy I saw play some years later had an alder Anderson, and the sweetness just oozed in his playing. He was a great player, and the build quality of his guitar was great, but beyond that it was like that guitar had an aura. Both guitars were alder body, bolt-on maple neck.

 

[clarky]

while i am sure they are great guitars but im not sure any of that has to do with the fact that its a set neck

just showing pics of the heel's profiling that you get with a set neck..
bolt on necks tend to have a larger 'block' of a heel..

it makes a difference to what the guitar feels like when you're playing at up at the top of the neck..

the tone, sustain and resonance of a guitar with a set neck is superior to that of a bold neck because it's an interference fit..
this means more contact points and all are very tight..
the vast majority of bolt necks only make contact with the body via the underside of the heel..
the sides of the neck pocket are usually not in contact with the heel of the neck because the pocket is slightly oversized to ease / speed manufacture..

it does make a difference.. small, but a difference none the less..
and like most things.. the final result is a sum of all the parts rather than a single specific element..

I have a Strat and several RG's [all bolt necks, but admittedly all inferior in the quality of build, materials and components]..
but all these details do add up..

I don't hate bolt necks.. far from it.. and I'm not a 'hand made custom snob' [I built my playing career on mid-ranged RG's and still adore them]..
I'm just saying that in my experience [now that I have both kinds in my collection], set necks are better in a noticeable way..

 

[clarky]

For me I prefer bolt on or set neck. Reason being is that way you have much more control, (to some extent) of the tone of your wood(s). Whereas if you have a neck-thru... say, made of maple running through the body, well it'll be much more predominant in tone over the glued on wings whether they be alder, basswood or mahogany. Most of the tone is coming from the neck and under the strings up to the bridge. Since that is where the string vibrations/resonance are strongest, that'll have the most influence on your overall guitar tone. So I swing for the preceding alternatives since I "dig" alder and necks made of maple. Mahogany is a different story then since necks and bodies are that... but whatever blows your hair back. Right?... I like chocolate and you like vanilla.

I did some research on woods when my V6's were being designed..
whilst woods do make a difference to the tone of an electric guitar it's not as much as you'd expect..
acoustic guitars though are a whole different thing.. the woods play a vastly greater role in tone...

there are two killer factors to the tone of an electric guitar... the pups and the build quality..
these two things make the big differences... wood choices make minor differences..
the pups voice the guitar.. the build quality impacts the guitar's ability to resonate and therefore maintain the energy of the vibrating string..
although different woods have different frequency responses, the voicing of the pup is so strong by comparison that it almost [but not entirely] negates the effect of wood choice..
my V6 are alder bodied [good resonant wood, but it's light weight - which is important for the V6 because it's not Gibson scale and so is significantly bigger]
the neck is West Coast Flamed Maple because it's sooooo pretty, and also because I like the feel of bare, waxed maple as a playing surface..
the fingerboard is African Ebony and was chosen as much for cosmetic as playing reasons..
I like hard, slippery fingerboards.. so hard, close-grained woods like ebony, ziracote and maple hit the spot for me..
essentially, none for the woods were chosen for tonal reasons alone, other factors we thought more important [including cosmetics] came into play..

I mean this in the best possible way.... so please don't take offence....
there is a lot of 'opinion' regarding electric guitars, how they're made and what they're made out of, that has mis-placed origins from the world of acoustics...
there's also a lot of 'wisdom' from folk that have never really messed with this stuff [not implying you are one of them] that did not get their knowledge first hand...
although I'm not a luthier, I have been fortunate enough to take part in the design of my guitars and pups..
it means that I was lucky enough to try out and see for myself lots of different 'things'
right down to trying different types of magnets in pups [now this seriously makes a massive difference]
and to be honest, I was really surprised [and kinda disappointed too] at how small the effect of the wood was tonally..
yes there are differences... but nothing like you'd imagine..
the wood simply needs to be strong enough and stable enough to make guitars from..

and then all this counts for almost nothing when you jack into a 5150 and drown it in dirt... lmao...

 

[aleclee]

the tone, sustain and resonance of a guitar with a set neck is superior to that of a bold neck because it's an interference fit..
this means more contact points and all are very tight..
the vast majority of bolt necks only make contact with the body via the underside of the heel..
the sides of the neck pocket are usually not in contact with the heel of the neck because the pocket is slightly oversized to ease / speed manufacture..

If those factors truly make a set neck superior to a bolt-attached neck, then they also make neck-through inherently superior to a set neck.

Crappy neck joints come in both set and bolt-on varieties. Same can be said of great neck joints. I've owned bolt-neck guitars where the joint was tight enough to support the body without the benefit of bolts. On the set neck side, there's this iconic photo:


At the end of the day, a great guitar is a great guitar regardless of neck joint, type of wood, carving technology, or nation of origin. We all have our preferences but to argue that any of those variables has a value that is inherently superior is an exercise in futility.

 

[clarky]

At the end of the day, a great guitar is a great guitar regardless of neck joint, type of wood, carving technology, or nation of origin. We all have our preferences but to argue that any of those variables has a value that is inherently superior is an exercise in futility.

+1....
absolutely...

although I've never had one, just as you state, I'd expect the 'thru' to be best of all..
especially if it's a 1-piece..
thing is... it's a big piece of wood... big $$$$ if you're looking for exotic wood I bet...

ouch... those pics are horrific.... lmao...
but you are totally right... there's good and bad in all... which is why I keeps stating 'build quality is everything'..

 

[MaxTwang]

It's easier to adjust the neck angle on a bolt on to make an OK playing guitar great. On a set neck you have to drill a hole through the fretboard to steam the neck joint then remount the neck (check out ho w inconsistent Gibson's Custom shop is with neck angle). Neck thru, hmm. I guess you could plane the body, but it should have been milled correctly by the CNN equipment.

Neck angle is a huge factor in playability and perceived quality of the instrument. The problem with set necks these days is low manufacturing standards that don't allow enough time to set the neck right.

 

[fatoni]

just showing pics of the heel's profiling that you get with a set neck..
bolt on necks tend to have a larger 'block' of a heel..

it makes a difference to what the guitar feels like when you're playing at up at the top of the neck..

the tone, sustain and resonance of a guitar with a set neck is superior to that of a bold neck because it's an interference fit..
this means more contact points and all are very tight..
the vast majority of bolt necks only make contact with the body via the underside of the heel..
the sides of the neck pocket are usually not in contact with the heel of the neck because the pocket is slightly oversized to ease / speed manufacture..

it does make a difference.. small, but a difference none the less..
and like most things.. the final result is a sum of all the parts rather than a single specific element..

I have a Strat and several RG's [all bolt necks, but admittedly all inferior in the quality of build, materials and components]..
but all these details do add up..

I don't hate bolt necks.. far from it.. and I'm not a 'hand made custom snob' [I built my playing career on mid-ranged RG's and still adore them]..
I'm just saying that in my experience [now that I have both kinds in my collection], set necks are better in a noticeable way..

look at basically any suhr or ebmm and you will see great acces neck joint. those guitars you own have the advantage of not having horns so its going to have great access regardless. and you are talking about bad bolt ons. they have bad set necks too. when you look at a good bolt on you have a great fit. when you have a good set neck you still have glue between the two pieces responsible preserving resonance. with glue between the woods, i wouldnt call that contact superior to two pieces of wood sitting flush against eachother.

 

[swass]

I did some research on woods when my V6's were being designed..
whilst woods do make a difference to the tone of an electric guitar it's not as much as you'd expect..
acoustic guitars though are a whole different thing.. the woods play a vastly greater role in tone...

there are two killer factors to the tone of an electric guitar... the pups and the build quality..
these two things make the big differences... wood choices make minor differences..
the pups voice the guitar.. the build quality impacts the guitar's ability to resonate and therefore maintain the energy of the vibrating string..
although different woods have different frequency responses, the voicing of the pup is so strong by comparison that it almost [but not entirely] negates the effect of wood choice..
my V6 are alder bodied [good resonant wood, but it's light weight - which is important for the V6 because it's not Gibson scale and so is significantly bigger]
the neck is West Coast Flamed Maple because it's sooooo pretty, and also because I like the feel of bare, waxed maple as a playing surface..
the fingerboard is African Ebony and was chosen as much for cosmetic as playing reasons..
I like hard, slippery fingerboards.. so hard, close-grained woods like ebony, ziracote and maple hit the spot for me..
essentially, none for the woods were chosen for tonal reasons alone, other factors we thought more important [including cosmetics] came into play..

I mean this in the best possible way.... so please don't take offence....
there is a lot of 'opinion' regarding electric guitars, how they're made and what they're made out of, that has mis-placed origins from the world of acoustics...
there's also a lot of 'wisdom' from folk that have never really messed with this stuff [not implying you are one of them] that did not get their knowledge first hand...
although I'm not a luthier, I have been fortunate enough to take part in the design of my guitars and pups..
it means that I was lucky enough to try out and see for myself lots of different 'things'
right down to trying different types of magnets in pups [now this seriously makes a massive difference]
and to be honest, I was really surprised [and kinda disappointed too] at how small the effect of the wood was tonally..
yes there are differences... but nothing like you'd imagine..
the wood simply needs to be strong enough and stable enough to make guitars from..

and then all this counts for almost nothing when you jack into a 5150 and drown it in dirt... lmao...

No offense taken at all clarky. No worries. I do build and repair guitars and have done so for over 25 years. Guitar has been a passion of mine since first hearing "Smoke on the Water"(Made in Japan) back in '72. I've played Strats for 30 years and believe it or not, have used the exact same model pickups over that time. Have tried many, many others but always found myself going back home. The only thing I have to say in regards to this is use the exact same model pickup and move it from guitar to guitar and use the same amp...er... amp model. Whether it is made of different woods or the exact same wood from what you originally pulled it out of. There are huge differences. Especially to tweekers. Hence the reason why many people say no two same model guitars will sound identical. From Strat to Strat or from Les Paul to Les Paul.

I did the exact same thing with Les Pauls when I went through that phase. Found a pickup I really dug and popped them from Les Paul to Les Paul and the differences are quite noticeable. Same woods. Albeit not to the extent as it is with alder. I love that wood but found it to be one of the most inconsistent of the species for electric guitar and finding a nice piece is hard at times. Mahogany and Basswood are a lot more consistent in what you'd expect from them.

As far as pickups go... don't get me started on that. Most don't voice the guitar. They color it for the most part. Particularly high output pu's. They color and compress. So much so that they bury most of the tone of the wood. If that what someone likes in tone... well who am I... I don't like pissing contests. Opinions vary... and largely at times and that's OK. However in parting from this conversation, all I will say is why are there so many electrics made from many, many different species of wood and combinations of them therein... and why are there thousands of models of pickups?... to voice and color over the endless combinations of tone woods. So I know wood plays a serious part in the electric guitar's tone.

Peace brother,

 

[clarky]

my opinions on this are just based upon my own experiences..
your comments are interesting...
so given that my pups are at the hotter end of the scale, that'd make sense as to why they dominate the guitar's voice and the woods seem to play a lesser tonal role..

luckily, I was given AlNiCo4, 5 and ceramic magnets to play with by the pup manufacturer..
if I can find them I may swap out the 5's with the 4's and do some experiments...

 

[Rex]

Thanks for the insight, swass. It's rare to find someone who's taken the same configuration across multiple guitars for years, removing the variables that affect the experiment, and really establishing what the differences are.

I'm totally with you on the big differences that wood can make—as you say, even between presumeably-identical pieces of wood. I once had the chance to play two identical strats; identical except that one had a maple fretboard and the other rosewood. The one with the maple fretboard was markedly brighter.

Ditto for pickup output. The hotter the pickup, the more midrangey it is, and the more it flattens out the peaks and valleys in the guitar's natural acoustic response. For some tones, that's just what the doctor ordered. But to really hear the guitar behind the amp, low- to mid-output will get you closer.

@ clarky: you're absolutely right that the pickup can still be a big factor in what you sound like.

 

[hideous]

the types of timber can affect the tone of a solid-body significantly. one of mine is solid walnut, and that is completely different sounding to my alder one.

as above posts though, if high output pickups are used - then that's going dictate the way the whole thing sounds; especially if you use active EMG.