Are bolt on neck joints rubbish?!

[Lfalex v1.1]

2 minutes ago, Boodang said:

In terms of playability I've always preferred a neck thru, in terms of tone I liked both. I've always found a neck thru to be less prone to dead spots but that could just be luck of the draw.

Now, I'm going to put my cynical hat on here and hypothesise that 'the sound is tighter' is code for it's cheaper to to build a bolt on. Vigier did the same thing, versions 1, 2 & 3 are neck thru, then along comes version 4 and it's a bolt on. A tone decision or a cost cutting one?

 

 

Moot point given the recent news re: Vigier shutting up shop next year 😔

 

I have a Series III, and love the whole way it attacks, decays and sustains. I also have a (deep) set-neck Warwick Infinity. That's different again, as are the bolt-ons I own. 

None are better than the others because they're all very different in their own way. 

That the construction serves to augment the instrument is a testament to the people that designed and made it.

[Woodinblack]

A bolt on neck always seems a bit of a budget thing to me but TBH, I haven't really ever noticed too much issue playing at the top end. As most bolt ons are fender style they tend to not go up that many frets anyway.

I feel a neck through is nicer to play, but that doesn't mean it gets played any better. And I have never had sound issues with bolt on or neck through, for me it is a fingerboard / tonewood style microdifference that I wouldn't notice anyway.

 

[Doddy]

46 minutes ago, Boodang said:

Now, I'm going to put my cynical hat on here and hypothesise that 'the sound is tighter' is code for it's cheaper to to build a bolt on. Vigier did the same thing, versions 1, 2 & 3 are neck thru, then along comes version 4 and it's a bolt on. A tone decision or a cost cutting one?

 

I don't think it's a cost cutting decision at all, especially where the high end luthiers are concerned. When you are looking at multiple thousand dollar instruments, it's all about the tone. A number of big name luthiers talk about bolt on necks having more punch and a quicker attack, while neck through is more compressed and has more sustain.

[dave_bass5]

6 hours ago, Boodang said:

I don't think it has to be expensive to not be a bolt on. I guess the neck joint is like a DB where the body/neck join is a position indication. 

Depends what you class as expensive i guess. In all my years of playing, every bass ive owned has been bolt on, with no neck trough options. Its never something ive ever even thought about, its just how its been. 

I agree about the position indication. Although i dont go up that end much, im so used to how a bolt on feels when i do that im partially lost without being aware of the join when im playing. 

[Lozz196]

Although I had a Gibson Les Paul bass for a while I’ve always been a bit wary of neck through basses in case they get snapped/broken. Probably more indicative of the gigs I used to do than any short-comings of the instruments themselves. 

[EssentialTension]

3 hours ago, dave_bass5 said:

Unless im missing something, that has a standard joint/heel, with a curved neck plate. Not the same thing at all.

 

It's not only the neckplate that's curved. Here's a better pic. And I was only comparing it to an Elite Jazz heel posted earlier.

 

[EssentialTension]

26 minutes ago, Lozz196 said:

/Although I had a Gibson Les Paul bass for a while I’ve always been a bit wary of neck through basses in case they get snapped/broken. Probably more indicative of the gigs I used to do than any short-comings of the instruments themselves. 

 

Wouldn't a Les Paul bass have a set neck and not be neck through

[dclaassen]

This is the best I’ve ever played in regards to consistent tone and playability top to bottom. No problems with the cut away either.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2022 by dclaassen

[itu]

55 minutes ago, Doddy said:

I don't think it's a cost cutting decision at all, especially where the high end luthiers are concerned. When you are looking at multiple thousand dollar instruments, it's all about the tone. A number of big name luthiers talk about bolt on necks having more punch and a quicker attack, while neck through is more compressed and has more sustain.

You tell us that bigger parts of instrument quality woods cost as much as smaller. I don't think so. Those big chunks of usable wood are rare, and expensive, than let's say a fretboard. Try to find a one piece body of some hardwood and you may be amazed of the price.

 

If a luthier wants to produce instruments that are loyal to some design, or that the construction serves the machinery of the shop, it is another story.

 

This bolt-on vs. NT and those irrational comments about sustain and "punch" are just funny. Without real world blind tests the words are meaningless. And as woods are not as consistent as many man-made materials, the same design sounds very different from unit to another. Tonewoods, constructional differencies, no more of this, please.

[Maude]

At the risk of a very boring answer to the original question. 

If it matters to you then yes, if not, no. 

As with all things in life, different people want different things, it doesn't necessarily make one better than the other. 

[Lozz196]

41 minutes ago, EssentialTension said:

 

Wouldn't a Les Paul bass have a set neck and not be neck through

Good point, yes I think you’re right. I was still wary of it tho, bolt-ons just seem to ease my mind for some reason.

[Bassfinger]

2 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

A bolt on neck always seems a bit of a budget thing to me...

 

 

Thats to ignore the simple engineering elegance of a joint that is typically stronger than both the neck and the body.

[Maude]

There's bolt on necks and bolt on necks too though. 

 

This is a lot more elegant and smooth transition than the standard Fender P join. 

 

Yamaha BBPH. 

[chris_b]

There's nothing wrong with bolt on necks.

 

Anyone who has a problem with these instruments needs to choose a bass of a different design, one that works for their particular application.

 

Anyone who has chosen a bass that doesn't fit their requirements should be blaming themselves not the instrument.

[Woodinblack]

21 minutes ago, Bassfinger said:

 

Thats to ignore the simple engineering elegance of a joint that is typically stronger than both the neck and the body.

 

Why is that relevant - any joint where you double the size of the object is probably going to be strong - you could put another joint half way down the neck and it would have no problem with strength, it would just be bad as a design.

 

Literally the point of a bolt on neck was economy, it is handy, it lets you swap necks, it means you can produce them in different places, it lets you use more automation, it makes storage cheaper and it lets you replace if things are broken. There are lots of things that are great about it, but it is a design based entirely on economy rather than strength.

[dave_bass5]

1 minute ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Why is that relevant - any joint where you double the size of the object is probably going to be strong - you could put another joint half way down the neck and it would have no problem with strength, it would just be bad as a design.

 

Literally the point of a bolt on neck was economy, it is handy, it lets you swap necks, it means you can produce them in different places, it lets you use more automation, it makes storage cheaper and it lets you replace if things are broken. There are lots of things that are great about it, but it is a design based entirely on economy rather than strength.

Don’t forget the ability to shim the neck and make it even more personal to the individuals playing and feel. 

[Woodinblack]

13 minutes ago, dave_bass5 said:

Don’t forget the ability to shim the neck and make it even more personal to the individuals playing and feel. 

 

The ability to shim the neck is surely there to correct a problem in the build of that instrument? Are there any other instruments with a bolt on neck? Most acoustic guitars don't have them. There aren't many bolt on gibson guitars, but I don't recall that ever being much of an issue?

 

And anyway, Mr Fender when thinking about making a bolt on neck was not thinking of strength, or customisation of a players experience, he was thinking about economy. I am not in any way saying that it is a bad thing, just that it was 100% designed as a budget thing.

And that is how I see it.

I would also say my favourite bass I have is a bolt on - again, not due to sound or sustain or convenience or budget or the ability to shim, just because I like the bass.

 

[chris_b]

10 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

Why is that relevant - any joint where you double the size of the object is probably going to be strong - you could put another joint half way down the neck and it would have no problem with strength, it would just be bad as a design.

 

Many instruments have scarf joints where the headstock is joined to the neck.

 

A scarf joint is not a bad design, but is a good one. It works well if you want to set the head of the bass at a different angle to the pull of the strings; ie Gibson, or you just want to strengthen the neck where the headstock joins.

[dave_bass5]

1 minute ago, Woodinblack said:

 

The ability to shim the neck is surely there to correct a problem in the build of that instrument? Are there any other instruments with a bolt on neck? Most acoustic guitars don't have them. There aren't many bolt on gibson guitars, but I don't recall that ever being much of an issue?

 

 

 

No in my experience. If i buy an off the shelf bass, how did the manufacture make it so that i like it? Just because i don’t like something doesn’t mean it has a fault. You could surely say the same about adjustable bridges. Why have the ability to adjust the strings? Is it to rectify a fault?

I know the two arent the same, and it can be said its fixing an issue, but the ability to tweak every part of a bass so that it works better for an individual is surely not just covering a fault?

 

[Delberthot]

I can honestly say in the 34 years I've been playing I've never even thought about the way a bass was constructed - it's either bolt-on, set neck or neck through depending on what I've bought at the time.

 

I tend to buy basses cos they're shiny or just look nice.

 

I think some people are overthinking this - as Maude said above, if it matters to you then buy something else that suits you.

[Woodinblack]

31 minutes ago, dave_bass5 said:

No in my experience. If i buy an off the shelf bass, how did the manufacture make it so that i like it? Just because i don’t like something doesn’t mean it has a fault. You could surely say the same about adjustable bridges. Why have the ability to adjust the strings? Is it to rectify a fault?

I know the two arent the same, and it can be said its fixing an issue, but the ability to tweak every part of a bass so that it works better for an individual is surely not just covering a fault?

 

 

Umm.. ok.. we are going for absurd are we?

 

Right, I will bow out, sorry for suggesting that a bolt on neck was something other than a financial decision for mr fender and shimming a neck is just a normal adjustment for a perfectly fine instrument.

[dave_bass5]

11 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

 

Umm.. ok.. we are going for absurd are we?

 

Right, I will bow out, sorry for suggesting that a bolt on neck was something other than a financial decision for mr fender and shimming a neck is just a normal adjustment for a perfectly fine instrument.

Why is it absurd to adjust an instrument to how you want it to feel?

Dont we adjust neck relief and action so we get it playing how we want it? Doesn’t mean there is a fault, just that it’s not set up to our liking. Id expect almost every bass gets set up to a players spec, no matter how much it costs. Shimming is part of that. 

Why should it matter what you adjust if the end result is a bass that plays exactly as you want it?

Also plenty of high cost basses use bolt on, its a choice.

[Boodang]

1 hour ago, Bassfinger said:

 

Thats to ignore the simple engineering elegance of a joint that is typically stronger than both the neck and the body.

A bolt on might be stronger than both neck neck and body but for me that's not the point. It's not engineering elegance if it's not the best solution and for me something that means it gets in the way of playing (as I said, try playing a Cm root ten double stop at the 20th fret with a typical fender) doesn't achieve that. If the frets are there it's meant for playing, so why not design the bass with that in mind.

[Boodang]

1 hour ago, dave_bass5 said:

Don’t forget the ability to shim the neck and make it even more personal to the individuals playing and feel. 

I would say if you're shimming a neck there's something fundamentally wrong with the bass that needs fixing. Shimming is generally a botch to cover an underlying issue. 

But that's different to what I'm talking about which is a neck joint getting in the way of your thumb when you play up the dusty end.

[Boodang]

3 hours ago, itu said:

You tell us that bigger parts of instrument quality woods cost as much as smaller. I don't think so. Those big chunks of usable wood are rare, and expensive, than let's say a fretboard. Try to find a one piece body of some hardwood and you may be amazed of the price.

 

If a luthier wants to produce instruments that are loyal to some design, or that the construction serves the machinery of the shop, it is another story.

 

This bolt-on vs. NT and those irrational comments about sustain and "punch" are just funny. Without real world blind tests the words are meaningless. And as woods are not as consistent as many man-made materials, the same design sounds very different from unit to another. Tonewoods, constructional differencies, no more of this, please.

When it comes to construct and tone, as you say there's many variables but in my opinion none of those should include a neck body join that makes playability more difficult.