Debate: Bolt-on vs. set necks
- Thread starter Dr. Lo
- Start date
Binnerscot
Well-known member
Re: Debate: Bolt-on vs. set necks
Zerb has spoken, and spoken well. I will have to disagree with the neck thru accenting low mids, I have found that all the neck through that I have played seemed to thin out the mids and low mids, giving the impression of a brighter sound in general. Carvins, Jacksons, and some old Stagemasters come to mind. Not that they sounded bad, but a Dinky seems to have more of a mid response than the Soloist with the same pups.
I do prefer bolt ons and set necks though, so maybe its just a psychological thing.
Zerb has spoken, and spoken well. I will have to disagree with the neck thru accenting low mids, I have found that all the neck through that I have played seemed to thin out the mids and low mids, giving the impression of a brighter sound in general. Carvins, Jacksons, and some old Stagemasters come to mind. Not that they sounded bad, but a Dinky seems to have more of a mid response than the Soloist with the same pups.
I do prefer bolt ons and set necks though, so maybe its just a psychological thing.
tubeman87
New member
Re: Debate: Bolt-on vs. set necks
You got my vote!:bowdown:
IMPO:All things being 100% equal and in a perfect world,
The bolt on will have a faster, "snappier", more articulate attack and will be tonally "neutral". Some will consider this neutrality "bright"
The set neck will have a slightly more sluggish response due to the glue in the joint hindering the transfer of vibration slightly, and will have attenuated highs compared to the bolt on.
A neckthru will have a strong low midrange spike which will not increase sustain but will give that impression psychoacoustically. Also mildly attenuated highs (notably less than a set neck, though), and the response will be pretty much halfway between the bolt on and the set neck as a result of the larger surface area of the body wing/neck joint reducing the effects of the glue joint itself. The faster response and "amped" mids are a direct result of the neck going all the way through as one piece, causing the vibrations to hit the bridge (response improvement) and butt end of the guitar (midrance accentuation) before they spread to the wings.
These differences will be both audible and and in feel, and will be noticed. But they will not be immense as some make it out to be, but more in the direction of an extreme pickup swap or a bridge swap from their total impact. Again, audible and tangible, but not necessarily a "make or break" factor. A change of body wood or neck would have significantly more impact.
In pure theory, if truly 100% identical and built correctly, the bolt on will actually have just minimally more sustain because of the glue´s dampening effect present in both the set neck and the neckthru. In practice and our more than slightly flawed world: all 3 suck /rule just as much as each other
You got my vote!:bowdown:
Davey
Goliath of Tone
Kivitel
New member
Re: Debate: Bolt-on vs. set necks
Every opinion in this thread is nonsense. The amount of give in any neck joint is incredibly small because if it wasn't the thing would bow and go out of tune and crack and be a pain the ass. I really think that all of the tonal distinctions you are talking about come back to the fact that set necks are traditionally mahogany (warmer) and bolt-ons are 'snappier' wood.
There might be a difference, but how many mahogany strats have people played? Alder LPs?
What makes a difference is neck-thru. A maple neck through is snappier than anything, but has great bass at the same time. Not many guitars have them, because they are expensive.
Sustain is one of those in the fingers things anyway. If you want short twangy notes, pick down at the bridge. Want warm sustain? Pick at the 12th fret.
Every opinion in this thread is nonsense. The amount of give in any neck joint is incredibly small because if it wasn't the thing would bow and go out of tune and crack and be a pain the ass. I really think that all of the tonal distinctions you are talking about come back to the fact that set necks are traditionally mahogany (warmer) and bolt-ons are 'snappier' wood.
There might be a difference, but how many mahogany strats have people played? Alder LPs?
What makes a difference is neck-thru. A maple neck through is snappier than anything, but has great bass at the same time. Not many guitars have them, because they are expensive.
Sustain is one of those in the fingers things anyway. If you want short twangy notes, pick down at the bridge. Want warm sustain? Pick at the 12th fret.
big_black
Opaqueologist
Davey
Goliath of Tone
Re: Debate: Bolt-on vs. set necks
you're wrong, zerb is right. besides, if all opinions are crap in the first place, what gives your the extra weight? sit back junior, you might learn something
sustain is one of those quality guitar things.. allignment of the planets has sometimes a bit to do with it too.
you're wrong, zerb is right. besides, if all opinions are crap in the first place, what gives your the extra weight? sit back junior, you might learn something
sustain is one of those quality guitar things.. allignment of the planets has sometimes a bit to do with it too.
BTMN
LifeIsGoodologist
Re: Debate: Bolt-on vs. set necks
Having owned several bolt on LPs, and a few set neck ones, I have to say it would boil down to an in hand feel as far as buying would go. I really dig the Warmoth Korina LP I got last week. The tapered neck/body joint is FINE too. My favorite Les Paul I own is a Schulte Les Paul Standard. Set neck and man, it's sweet.
Having owned several bolt on LPs, and a few set neck ones, I have to say it would boil down to an in hand feel as far as buying would go. I really dig the Warmoth Korina LP I got last week. The tapered neck/body joint is FINE too. My favorite Les Paul I own is a Schulte Les Paul Standard. Set neck and man, it's sweet.
Last edited:
daemon barbeque
Zuhahahaologist
Re: Debate: Bolt-on vs. set necks
Well i have to agree with Zerb and add somethin:
Most Set-Neck guitars have a great sustain because of the Mass of the wood.Try a set-neck guitar with a Jackson Soloist specs and you will hear "not" a piece of warm ,great sustain.LPs sound great because of the body.They are damn heavy ,and it's the only way to make the body have that sound and sustain.OTOH ,many bolt on ,neck-thru guitars are made of light wood and skinny bodies ,wich still makes them great guitars.But not warm.
Well i have to agree with Zerb and add somethin:
Most Set-Neck guitars have a great sustain because of the Mass of the wood.Try a set-neck guitar with a Jackson Soloist specs and you will hear "not" a piece of warm ,great sustain.LPs sound great because of the body.They are damn heavy ,and it's the only way to make the body have that sound and sustain.OTOH ,many bolt on ,neck-thru guitars are made of light wood and skinny bodies ,wich still makes them great guitars.But not warm.
ratherdashing
Kablamminator
Re: Debate: Bolt-on vs. set necks
I have a couple of bolt-ons that could go toe-to-toe with ANY set neck when it comes to sustain and resonance of the wood. The neck joint is a contributing factor, but it is one of many.
I have a couple of bolt-ons that could go toe-to-toe with ANY set neck when it comes to sustain and resonance of the wood. The neck joint is a contributing factor, but it is one of many.
