Neck Thru or Bolt on

[Jean-Luc Pickguard]

I have a few basses with Glued-in/ Neck thru construction and I've come to the conclusion that I prefer Bolt on Necks as I like to be able to shim the neck to get the angle just right for the set up. Thru necks are supposed to have better sustain, but I don't need notes to sustain while I get a bite to eat, also it could be my imagination but traditional Fender-Style bolt-ons seem to have more "punch" whereas glued/thru necked instruments have less oomph to the attack.

So what do you like best & why?

[David Nimrod]

Neck thru for me; they're just so *right* somehow...

Plus, I like the stripes ;-)

[The Burpster]

Two major points for me.....

1. Neck thrus are very slinky and low profile and feel lovely, but have to be very wellmade to be completely stable...

2. Bolt-ons are a bit more 'clunky' as they need extra material to support the neck socket, however I like you, feel happier with this set up as it gives me more control over the destiny of the neck/body realtionship.

all mine are bolt on and I guess I'm blinkered now!

[GreeneKing]

I've got all three in various guises. For upper fret access my ACG is superb and that's glued in. Neck thru is good the same way and looks cool. Some basses with bolt ons sound great and the best sustaining basses I've had haven't always been NT.

So I'd have to say whatever plays and sounds best and the neck contruction may not be the factor.

Peter

[Machines]

I've owned both and can honestly say i'm not too bothered..

[Kiwi]

I've owned all three types of neck. I think the construction processes do cause instruments to respond differently. But those differences can be ironed out to some extent depending on what materials are selected and how stiff the necks are.

I've found that bolt on necked basses often do tend to have slightly more sharply peaked mids, but the same effect could probably be achieved through selective used of a mid prominent wood like wenge in a through body neck. Ultimately I don't think neck construction type could be used as a reliable indicator of what an instrument could sound like, by itself. Having only ever owned and played one bass with a glued in neck, I can't really comment but it felt a lot like a neck through to me.

[gypsymoth]

my four basses and three of four guitars are neck through.

because I like a well built and visually pleasing paddle, and don't like protrusions which irritate my soggy palms.
as I don't tend to smash em against rocks, replacement pieces aren't an issue.

[tempo]

I try not to pre-judge, cos I'm sure there are m*ngers and stunners in all camps... but from experience, bolt-on sounds right to me. My Conklin 7 is a bolt-on with a great neck join and a wenge/purpleheart neck, which is bliss for me. My fretless is a thru-neck though, and seems "right" for what i'm after. All my guitars are set neck, so go figure.

(sorry I haven't contributed anything to this..)

[BB2000]

One isn't any better than the other, but of all the basses I have I'd say that it's easier to pick a clear strong harmonic on a neck through, but that the bolt-on's probably have more punch.

Downsides of the neck through ones is that if you suffer from a dead spot it can be hard to find a work around, whereas you can often figure something out with a bolt on (replacing the neckscrews with brass inserts and bolts often cures this). Neck through's are also a sod to repair if you damage the neck.

[Lfalex v1.1]

Ultimately, I'm not too bothered!

Frequently, Glued in or (in particular) Neck-Thru instruments have better upper-fret access due to the smoothness of the neck/body join.
Neck-Thru do seem to have better sustain, and I've never played a Neck-Thru with a chunky neck profile, silly fretboard radius or rough fret-work.

That said, I own 2 Neck-Thru instruments, 1 Glued-in, and the rest are Bolt-ons.

I tend to buy an instrument because of its sonic character and if it plays well, neither of which are necessarily dependent on the method of construction employed!

[The Burpster]

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='91222' date='Nov 20 2007, 06:30 AM']I tend to buy an instrument because of its sonic character and if it plays well, neither of which are necessarily dependent on the method of construction employed![/quote]

Or indeed cost, or name on the headstock!

Great point, well made sir!

[mcgraham]

To be honest, I've never bought a neck thru or set neck, for a little while it was because they tended to be more expensive than the equivalently featured bolt on's, now it's cos I don't notice a difference in feel at the neck joint/where the neck joint would be. Just because of how my thumb moves the higher the hand goes even the blocky Fender join doesn't actually touch my thumb. So there are only plus features for bolt on's for me. The worry that somehow, someday, some idiot is going to fall on purpose into my bass in a softcase whilst on the bus and laugh maliciously (bad experience maybe?) as the neck splinters in twain makes me glad I have a bass with a replaceable neck due to its construction.

Mark

[ShergoldSnickers]

Only ever owned bolt-on, but when I've tried a through neck they felt and played just fine.

Funny this topic came up as I had a dream last night about a neck with inset nuts that catch the bolts as they poke through the body giving a much tighter fit. If the neck needs shimming then slim copper washers are dropped over the bolts. You have firm metal to metal contact at the joint. Bet it's already been done...

What an utterly sad git eh?

Edited November 20, 2007 by ShergoldSnickers

[Lorne]

Neck Thru and preferably hand carved by Mexicans-they REALLY know their stuff

[BB2000]

[quote name='ShergoldSnickers' post='91242' date='Nov 20 2007, 07:58 AM']Only ever owned bolt-on, but when I've tried a through neck they felt and played just fine.

Funny this topic came up as I had a dream last night about a neck with inset nuts that catch the bolts as they poke through the body giving a much tighter fit. If the neck needs shimming then slim copper washers are dropped over the bolts. You have firm metal to metal contact at the joint. Bet it's already been done...

What an utterly sad git eh? [/quote]

Wall and others use threaded inserts in the neck. I've modified a Fender and a G&L (with serious dead spot problems) to have this with good results.

[BigRedX]

IMO it doesn't really matter what neck joint is used provided that the instrument was designed with that particular construction in mind. for instance I wouldn't buy a Thunderbird-style bass that wasn't through neck.

For the record I have 3 through neck basses, 2 set neck and 7 bolt on neck basses, plus my 2 Gus G3 basses which have set necks but then the whole neck and body construction is wrapped in a Carbon-Fibre exoskeleton.

[metalmaniac]

Cant choose, each has its quirks.
Switch when I feel the need.

[G-bitch]

I've never played similar enough basses to ascertain if there's any difference sound-wise, and doubt that I would really hear it!

[neepheid]

Got both set and bolt on necks, can see the merits and drawbacks in both, don't have enough playing experience to tell differences sonically. There is something elegant about an invisible (or nonexistent) neck joint. Yet to get my hands on a neck thru, but no doubt I'll sort that one day (even if I end up building it myself )

[Dood]

Has been said already- there's one pet peeve of mine.. and thats heel blocks. Big lumps of wood that get in the way for attaching necks to bodies. Completely unnecessary in these modern times of guitar construction! HE HE HE!!!!

So, I'm a neckthru'er if thats a useable description!

[tauzero]

I think I must be going mad as I just clicked on "bolt-on" for some reason, when I meant to say "neck-through" (I don't normally have this problem...).

There's some bolt-ons which have quite a smooth heel, and I am making a bolt-on out of some bits and pieces I have hanging around, but I prefer the feel of a neck-through bass to things with clunky heels like Fenders.

[eude]

I find, to my ears anyway, that bolt-on basses have a quicker attack, which lends itself to more percussive sounds and slap stylings.
Neck through basses tend to have a more organic slightly softer sound with a nice natural sustain.

As I'm sure someone's already said, you can mess with these qualities by choosing certain types of woods etc.

I prefer bolt-on's sound wise, and they're cheaper

Just my 2p,
Eude

[warwickhunt]

As a Warwick NT user I prefer the feel of the NT but I did conduct some Heath Robinson experiments when I worked for a recording/tape duplication company. We used an oscillisope to establish which sustanied longest BO Fender Jazz or NT Warwick Streamer. After a dozen tries we found that on the scope the NT sustained for about 5 seconds longer but to be quite frank the human ear couldn't really ahve perceived this. In the interests of fairness we did try several of us plucking at the same strength so that one person wasn't compensating. Ah glorious days when we had the time at work to p*ss about and conduct such meaningless experiments!

The lads I worked with were really into their music (non-musos) and Hi-Fi and they did say that with fresh identical strings on both basses that the Fender had more attack and snap (for referrence the Warwick was a SSI, maple bodied and finished in gloss lacquer, the Jazz was a rosewood block inlay 70's... I'm certain it was a 4 bolt).

[The_D]

I have always had a soft spot for Bolton but they have never been teh same since big Sam left

Seriously though, I have both Bolt on and neck thru. Both completely different types of bass though so it would be impossible to make a decision based on those. I choose dont care but I will chop and change depensing on the song.

[2pods]

I've had both and have found them both fine

Mind you, I've also had a "Screw Thru" .

This was an old pointy headstocked Washburn which a so called "repairman" (I use the term loosely) managed to bu**er up the neckplate, used screws that were too long that came up through the fingerboard

It brought a whole new meaning to the word "Countersunk"

Edited November 20, 2007 by 2pods