Bolt-on better than set?

[4 Strings]

Neck-through is the best design. No joint, simplicity itself and the integrity of the wood is the same from top to bottom. (Do we congratulate Rickenbacker for being the first to do this - I mean the original designers not the present 'management'?) It's expensive though as you need longer pieces of straight wood and the length means more susceptible to resonant frequencies meaning sandwich construction is necessary.

But, I've been thinking about neck joints, and how the Fender style bolt-on neck works and whether it might be better than a nicely made set joint.

If I understand correctly, apart from practical strength etc, the joint is to transmit the vibrations without loss. Our through neck does that well.

In making a set neck, it's clamped together while the glue dries and is then left to relax upon removal of the clamps.

In making a bolt-on, although there is no glue, it's as if the clamps don't get taken off. The joint remains under the heavy compression of the screws. I'm wondering if this compression makes this simple joint, designed for mass production by machine workers, actually better in vibration transfer.

Assuming good materials, nice flat mating surfaces etc in all cases.

Would an even better joint be screwed and glued?

Or am I talking out the back of my neck?

[thodrik]

I really don't think it makes that much of a difference.

[Kiwi]

There's no best design, just different designs depending on what the priorities are . The bolt on design was developed by Leo Fender because he anticipated needing to quick swap a neck if one got damaged. Neck throughs have slightly better ergonomics for those who like spending a bit of time up the dusty end of the neck...which isn't where 90% of gigging bassists spend most of their time anyway.

Although some say the bolt on construction adds a bit of mid scoop and loses a little sustain, it's technically possible these days to design a bass to sound the same regardless of which neck joint is used. If anything, wood selection and pickups have more of an influence IME and I doubt very much anyone will be able to tell the difference between the two joint types in the middle of a song anyway. I like the look of neck through, but nothing beats that micro tilt function in my 78 'Ray and 75 Jazz for setting the neck angle up just right.

All wood dampens vibrations to some degree and selection of wood influences how that dampening takes place. Sometimes not enough dampening results in an overbright and brittle sounding instrument so there's a balance to achieve. Deadspots happen because the neck has less rigidity at a frequency that co-incides with a note being played on the neck. Neck laminations were developed by Alembic to isolate the influence of wood on the vibration of the string for that reason. John Diggins says he prefers set neck construction because it addresses the issues of deadspots while giving the ease of construction of a bolt on with the ergonomics of a through neck...or something like that...maybe someone can provide a direct quote. My Jaydee had deadspots anyway but they weren't significant like the 5th fret/G string deadspot on my '78 Ray. They're easy to solve though with a tweak on the truss rod, change in string gauge or even tightening the neck bolts can help.

[Muzz]

Rickenbacker first? I think Tutmarc might be a bit upset about that...

[neepheid]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1373269826' post='2135375']
In making a set neck, it's clamped together while the glue dries and is then left to relax upon removal of the clamps.
[/quote]

I'll bite (owning several set neck instruments) - why do you think the joint moves in any way after the clamping pressure is released? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? If it moved after the clamps are released then I would guess it would pull apart like a Curly Wurly when string tension is applied.

[Wil]

I think the overall quality of construction is more important for sustain etc than the joint type.

[4 Strings]

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1373273443' post='2135419']
I'll bite (owning several set neck instruments) - why do you think the joint moves in any way after the clamping pressure is released? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? If it moved after the clamps are released then I would guess it would pull apart like a Curly Wurly when string tension is applied.
[/quote]

Not movement so much as transference of vibrations. It was a thought that the bolt-on retains the compression.

[Junkyard Rocket]

The benefit of a screw-on (or much rarer bolt-on) I like most is that it can be shimmed to change the pitch when the bridge saddle height is as low as it can go.

[Roland Rock]

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1373273443' post='2135419']


I'll bite (owning several set neck instruments) - why do you think the joint moves in any way after the clamping pressure is released? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? If it moved after the clamps are released then I would guess it would pull apart like a Curly Wurly when string tension is applied.
[/quote]

That's not the way I read that bit. There's no doubt that a well made set neck will not move.
It's more that with a bolt on, the joint is constantly under pressure from the screws (should they not be called "screw on"?). With a set neck, the glue holds firm, but the joint itself is under no pressure. The OP wonders whether this could create differences in sustain. Correct me if I'm wrong 4Strings.


Edit: took too long!

Edited July 8, 2013 by Roland Rock

[4 Strings]

[quote name='Muzz' timestamp='1373273303' post='2135416']
Rickenbacker first? I think Tutmarc might be a bit upset about that...
[/quote]

Thanks for that, I learned something there!

http://tutmarc.tripod.com/paultutmarc.html

[4 Strings]

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1373271204' post='2135385']
There's no best design, just different designs depending on what the priorities are . The bolt on design was developed by Leo Fender because he anticipated needing to quick swap a neck if one got damaged. Neck throughs have slightly better ergonomics for those who like spending a bit of time up the dusty end of the neck...which isn't where 90% of gigging bassists spend most of their time anyway.

Although some say the bolt on construction adds a bit of mid scoop and loses a little sustain, it's technically possible these days to design a bass to sound the same regardless of which neck joint is used. If anything, wood selection and pickups have more of an influence IME and I doubt very much anyone will be able to tell the difference between the two joint types in the middle of a song anyway. I like the look of neck through, but nothing beats that micro tilt function in my 78 'Ray and 75 Jazz for setting the neck angle up just right.

All wood dampens vibrations to some degree and selection of wood influences how that dampening takes place. Sometimes not enough dampening results in an overbright and brittle sounding instrument so there's a balance to achieve. Deadspots happen because the neck has less rigidity at a frequency that co-incides with a note being played on the neck. Neck laminations were developed by Alembic to isolate the influence of wood on the vibration of the string for that reason. John Diggins says he prefers set neck construction because it addresses the issues of deadspots while giving the ease of construction of a bolt on with the ergonomics of a through neck...or something like that...maybe someone can provide a direct quote. My Jaydee had deadspots anyway but they weren't significant like the 5th fret/G string deadspot on my '78 Ray. They're easy to solve though with a tweak on the truss rod, change in string gauge or even tightening the neck bolts can help.
[/quote]

The deadspots I understood came from resonant frequencies. Those of maple necks of the size of a MM or Fender is at the point you described, you can feel the whole bass vibrate as it dampens the string. Laminated necks reduce the effects of dead spots. Funnily enough, my old Jaydee is remarkably free of dead spots.

[chris_b]

Neither is better.

The neck type is only one part of the equation. What you need to look at (listen to) is the overall sound of all the components and how they work together.

A set neck and bolt on will give a slightly different sound, but what that difference is will depend on the build process and the materials.

Most players, bands and audiences wouldn't notice the difference especially when the band starts up.

[Dad3353]

Is it odd that acoustic basses, double basses, cellos, violins and more don't have this notion..? 'Through-neck' or 'set-neck'..? Bolt on..? What's so special about basses (and electric guitars...) that this should be such a defining factor..? Are the influences of these construction techniques really that important to the final usage..? For my part, I'd be hard put to identify by ear the construction in a blind test (...but then again, I'm a drummer, and deaf with it...).

[chris_b]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1373276497' post='2135465']
Is it odd that acoustic basses, double basses, cellos, violins and more don't have this notion..? '
[/quote]

They don't have either. Their necks are just glued on.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Junkyard Rocket' timestamp='1373274986' post='2135440']
The benefit of a screw-on (or much rarer bolt-on) I like most is that it can be shimmed to change the pitch when the bridge saddle height is as low as it can go.
[/quote]

IME the only reason that those bolt-on necks need shims in the first place is because they aren't made as accurately as through and set necks. That's not to say that all bolt-on necks are shoddily made (just look at Ritter), but at the cheaper end of the market (Fender and below) there seems to be less incentive to get the neck joint pitch exactly right when it can be fixed later with a shim.

[4 Strings]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1373276855' post='2135475']
They don't have either. Their necks are just glued on.
[/quote]

They are large empty boxes with a short neck too. The important resonance is through the bridge to the box. The neck is an accessory, replacement necks on vintage instruments have little effect on their value (assuming they are well made etc) as the box is the important part. The glued on neck is pushed into a wedge ensure good contact and pressure.

[4 Strings]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1373277115' post='2135483']
IME the only reason that those bolt-on necks need shims in the first place is because they aren't made as accurately as through and set necks. That's not to say that all bolt-on necks are shoddily made (just look at Ritter), but at the cheaper end of the market (Fender and below) there seems to be less incentive to get the neck joint pitch exactly right when it can be fixed later with a shim.
[/quote]
Yep, they are made for mass production. There needs to be little accuracy at the neck joint (apart from keeping the neck along the centre line) as too long or too short gets taken up with the inch or so available intonation adjustment.

I find the shimming potential to be a good advantage for bolt-on, but only required if it's not made properly in the first place. I wonder how many Fenders have shims. Nearly all of mine have.

[Prime_BASS]

I'll always opt for bolt-ons due to if the neck breaks or gets damahed some how it's easier to buy replacement and fit it yourself.

True for your bog standard fender and its copies, but EBMM and Sandberg I know require you to send the bass in to them.

While if i snap the headstock off a Gibson any smuck worth their salt should be able to glue it back to together correctly and as if no breakage ever happened.

How it sounds is negligeble to me.

[BigRedX]

I've never seen any bass or guitar that had a neck so badly damaged that a good luthier repair was going to be more expensive than replacing the neck, when it didn't also have significant damage to the body as well.

IMO it's impossible to quantify the sonic difference between neck joints because there are too many other aspects of the bass that are different, so for me it boils down to playability. On the whole I prefer a through neck or heelless set neck as they offer better high fret access over the average bolt-on neck design.

[Dingus]

Most bass builders of repute acknowledge that there is a significant difference in sound between bolt -on and neck - thru or set neck in terms of the relationship between the fundamental and overtones in the sound of the final bass . A lot of builders ( and players ) prefer a bolt-on neck because they think it gives a more punchy and direct sound with plenty of snap and sizzle in the high frequencies . Neck-thru was considered one of the benchmarks of a high quality bass in the late'70's / early 80's , probably due to the fact that it was one of the construction techniques developed by Alembic in the early '70's as they sought to revolutionize the sound of the bass guitar . However , in recent years neck - thru has very much fallen out of fashion as players and builders have generally come to the consensus of opinion that in fact the less "efficient " neck join of a bolt -on is sonically preferable in most cases . A lot of players also think the feel of a bolt on neck is better in terms of the way it affects the perceived string tension and overall playability of the bass .

[Dad3353]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1373280745' post='2135533']
Most bass builders of repute acknowledge that there is a significant difference in sound between bolt -on and neck - thru or set neck in terms of the relationship between the fundamental and overtones in the sound of the final bass . A lot of builders ( and players ) prefer a bolt-on neck because they think it gives a more punchy and direct sound with plenty of snap and sizzle in the high frequencies . Neck-thru was considered one of the benchmarks of a high quality bass in the late'70's / early 80's , probably due to the fact that it was one of the construction techniques developed by Alembic in the early '70's as they sought to revolutionize the sound of the bass guitar . However , in recent years neck - thru has very much fallen out of fashion as players and builders have generally come to the consensus of opinion that in fact the less "efficient " neck join of a bolt -on is sonically preferable in most cases . A lot of players also think the feel of a bolt on neck is better in terms of the way it affects the perceived string tension and overall playability of the bass .
[/quote]

This rings with authority, but is any of it [i]true[/i]..? Not wishing to pick a fight, but it doesn't square with my experience (admittedly limited...) or intuition. As stated above, I've yet to be able identification of construction from listening alone (either 'live' or recorded...). As for status of current 'fashion', surely, almost by definition, this is a transitory phenomenon, likely to be reversed if (when..?) the wind changes..? Terms such as '"...also [i]think[/i] ..." and "...[i]perceived[/i] ..." reinforce, to me, the subjective nature of these statements. Are there any undisputed facts available, or is all simply conjecture..?

[Dingus]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1373281665' post='2135548']
This rings with authority, but is any of it [i]true[/i]..? Not wishing to pick a fight, but it doesn't square with my experience (admittedly limited...) or intuition. As stated above, I've yet to be able identification of construction from listening alone (either 'live' or recorded...). As for status of current 'fashion', surely, almost by definition, this is a transitory phenomenon, likely to be reversed if (when..?) the wind changes..? Terms such as '"...also [i]think[/i] ..." and "...[i]perceived[/i] ..." reinforce, to me, the subjective nature of these statements. Are there any undisputed facts available, or is all simply conjecture..?
[/quote]

Well , if you're asking me what I think , I would say that a good bass is a good bass , so judge each instrument on its' own merits . I have owned and can enjoy both designs ( and set-neck too , for that matter ) . Some designs will be better as bolt-on , some sound right as neck-thru . I don't think an Alembic would be improved by changing over to bolt-on construction because that is what is currently fashionable , but by the same token I don't think a Fender would be improved by being a neck - thru . If it sounds good and feels right then it is O.K by me , regardless .

Edited July 8, 2013 by Dingus

[Dad3353]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1373282068' post='2135556']
Well , if you're asking me what I think , I would say that a good bass is a good bass , so judge each instrument on its' own merits . I have owned and can enjoy both designs ( and set-neck too , for that matter ) . Some designs will be better as bolt-on , some sound right as neck-thru . I don't think an Alembic would be improved by changing over to bolt-on construction because that is what is currently fashionable , but by the same token I don't think a Fender would be improved by being a neck - thru . If it sounds good and feels right then it is O.K by me , regardless .
[/quote]

Ah, that's better. I'll go along with all of that, 100%. Thanks for the clarifacation.

[CHRISDABASS]

Actually using large (M8) bolts and threaded brass inserts creates a neck to body joint that is hard to beat with just a bit of glue!

Also there is a lot more work in a proper BOLT on neck then there is in most set neck designs. (all IMO of course )

[4 Strings]

[quote name='CHRISDABASS' timestamp='1373294478' post='2135758'] Actually using large (M8) bolts and threaded brass inserts creates a neck to body joint that is hard to beat with just a bit of glue! Also there is a lot more work in a proper BOLT on neck then there is in most set neck designs. (all IMO of course ) [/quote]

As long as the inserts hold in the holes better than the normal screws.