set neck/bolt on

[rashayritto]

"certain" big brands really stick to their guns when it comes to necks. set and neck-thru really make a lot of sense, and apparently bolt on is preferred by others. What are the pros and cons of these construction methods?

 

[big_black]

Re: set neck/bolt on

I prefer bolt-ons. They seem more clear-toned to me. The less glue, the better IMO.

I love what Travis Bean did to combine neck-through and bolt-on designs.

His neck style slides into the body and bolts together at the bridge. It uses no glue and needs only to be held in place with three bolts at the bridge (on the other side) This creates a neck/body/bridge "sandwich", the body channels hold everything else tight. It's never been used with anything other than an aluminum neck, but I think it would work awesome for a wooden neck and body as well. This design gives the stability and the added neck-rigidness of neck through designs, with the ease of changing and repair that bolt-ons are loved for. There is also no heal at all (the 22nd fret is right where the body begins). Bean designed his necks this way so that all necks would be interchangeable with the different body designs. I think it's brilliant.

 

[Pete Galati]

Re: set neck/bolt on

One of the big pros of bolt-on construction, if you're talking about a very standard design like a Tele or Strat, is that the necks are very strong compared to a mahogany Les Paul neck, and if it something goes wrong with one of them, they're pretty easy to replace.

 

[Dr.Mavashi]

Re: set neck/bolt on

Dint Richie Blackmore had some starts with 4 screws and glue and some just with glue? I like minimum glue and minimum paint, burst finish, maple neck strats, you get the best violin tone and articulation. For some however it might be to twangy/bright.

 

[scottish]

Re: set neck/bolt on

ive never had a problem with bolt ons being too bright or twangy. some people will say that set necks get more sustain...but a bolt on that is seated properly will have just as much sustain.

personally since i started building my own bodies and buying necks from usacg, i havent even thought twice about wanting a set neck guitar

 

[Moonsorrow]

Re: set neck/bolt on

One of the big pros of bolt-on construction, if you're talking about a very standard design like a Tele or Strat, is that the necks are very strong compared to a mahogany Les Paul neck, and if it something goes wrong with one of them, they're pretty easy to replace.

Exactly.....this is why i prefer bolt-on necks over everything else,if anything goes wrong with it you can easily replace it!!!

 

[jmh151]

Re: set neck/bolt on

Dint Richie Blackmore had some starts with 4 screws and glue and some just with glue? I like minimum glue and minimum paint, burst finish, maple neck strats, you get the best violin tone and articulation. For some however it might be to twangy/bright.

Ritchie Blackmore had a few of the bad 70's strats which had the poorly routed neck pockets. His solution was to glue the neck in place. He'd put epoxy in the pocket then screw the neck down.

EVH had this problems as well. Through the years he routed his neck pocket to accomadate a 2 1/4" Charvel heel. He switched necks alot. When he went back to a standard 2 3/16" Fender size heel, he stabilized the neck by placing 2 extra screws under the neck plate.

I have all 3- a set neck Les Paul, neck thru Jackson, and many bolt ons. A properly constructed bolt on has all the sustain and attack of set neck and possibly a neck thru.

What people don't necessarily take into consideration in the strat/les paul sustain debate is that the Strat has other factors, other than the bolt on neck, which decreases sustain. Immediately, I've found the pole pieces on strat single coil pickups pull the strings too much, decreasing sustain. The Fender Tremolo compared to a Fender hard tail or Gibson Tuneomatic contributes to a decrease in , even if it's blocked. If the strat neck is improperly shimmed that'll result in a decrease in sustain as well.

The sustain on my Malmsteen strat was good, but increased through the roof with EMG pickups, which had less pull. Sustain is comparable to my Jackson Soloist nect thru. Both are made of similar woods.

My Ernie Ball Music Man Axis is bolt on witha Floyd, and sustains as well as my Les Paul.

Tonally, bolt ons have more attack and are clearer. Neck thrus can be a bit compressed, and set necks fall in between.

The advantage with getting a Strat, Tele, or Fender variant is the necks and bodies are easily and cheaply changed to suit your tastes or needs. It can be quite expensive to change a neck on say an Ibanez or Jackson since they have to be custom built. On neck thrus or set necks you're pretty much stuck with whatever specs are on the neck.

 

[blueman335]

Re: set neck/bolt on

Set necks have a solid connection in more surface area, and therefore can transfer tone & sustain more efficiently (but not as good as a neck-through). It's a question of being enough to make a difference. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Plus there's so many other factors in a guitar's design (and amp) that come into play. The wood the body is made of is more important.

What do you guys do to necks that you feel the need to replace them anyways? I've never messed up a neck or felt the urge to have a modular instrument. I'm used to set necks & look at bolt-ons as a feature on an entry-level guitar. Sorry.

 

[uOpt]

Re: set neck/bolt on

Here's Blackmore's solution, you can see the black epoxy:

It is fairly likely that Blackmore just pulls a lot harder and hence need more stable necks. In one of the youtube videos about his guitars you can also see him like a Strat with a smooth heel that looks like a neck-through (although it probably isn't).

I don't think there's too much of a difference when properly executed, but another problem with bolt-on, apart from the pocket spacing that was already mentioned, is that sometimes people put quite a bit of paint into the neck pocket, so that parts of the neck rest on paint and other parts have less contact.

EVH had this problems as well. Through the years he routed his neck pocket to accomadate a 2 1/4" Charvel heel. He switched necks alot. When he went back to a standard 2 3/16" Fender size heel, he stabilized the neck by placing 2 extra screws under the neck plate.

Where exactly does he put the 2 screws?

 

[millsart]

Re: set neck/bolt on

Its really not a black or white issue

A properly cut neck pocket with a bolt on neck can sound just as good, sustain as long as a set neck, particuallary if its a set neck thats poorly done.

Lets face it, theres some very very low quality LP type guitars and while they can brag all they want about using a long tenion neck joint etc, that doesn't mean that its going to sound great "just because"

generally speaking a properly installed set neck will have e bit more sustain though it certainly adds to the cost of the guitar to do it right.


I'd buy based on how much upper fret access you need as thats really the only real difference I've ever found. I nice Jackson style set neck gives great access for example. The other tonal differences take something of a backseat in my book

 

[big_black]

Re: set neck/bolt on

Set necks have a solid connection in more surface area, and therefore can transfer tone & sustain more efficiently (but not as good as a neck-through).

For realZ?

The Gibson Les Paul has *slightly* more connection of neck and body as compared to the Fender Telecaster, but not much. And most of that has 1/8" of glue surrounding all sides anyway - see all that room that's going to be filled up with glue? It doesn't transfer vibration as well as wood-on-wood contact. If you are talking about the SG or DC, that's even less the truth.

Give me a Warmoth or USACG that stays together without bolts.

 

[JB_From_Hell]

Re: set neck/bolt on

I'm used to set necks & look at bolt-ons as a feature on an entry-level guitar.

This is the most untrue statement you'll ever read regarding guitars. I know that's your opinion, but though you're entitled to it, dismissing bolt-on necks as "entry-level" is pretty silly.

Unless you consider something like a Tom Anderson, Suhr, or even Fender Custom Shop to be entry level.

 

[david kornblatt]

Re: set neck/bolt on

there are arguments pro and con on both sides

strat/tele: more articulation and precision sounding notes
les paul: power and melodic tones come from it

really it is the whole product of fender vs gibson guitars the some is more the the sum of its parts motto applies
and there will be people who disagree with me

my challenge is try to miz and mash necks and humbuckers and tilted headstock and mostpeople come to that conclusion

 

[jerryjg]

Re: set neck/bolt on

I gotta say that IMO, Set Neck on is Ferrari/Lambhorghini, and bolt on is only Porsche. That said, Porshe beats the exotics alot, but Set neck is King.of course, Neck -Thru is also awesome.

 

[cream123]

Re: set neck/bolt on

if it sounds good, play it.


if it doesn't, don't

simple as that

I have more bolt on guitars than set necks. I'm not partial though...like I said, i play good sounding guitars (that are in my price range. )

It's really, really hard to judge unless you have a guitar that is a bolt neck...that you then took that wood and used for a glue in neck...with the same everything.

 

[daemon barbeque]

Re: set neck/bolt on

i play both neck-thru and bolt-on
I can say ,that a neck-thru guitar have to be made of really high quality material..My neck is "curved" now ,and we can't change it anymore.That's why many companies don't build neck-thru guitars..

Bolt-on is a great construction method...You need good machinery to build it perfect..Anderson ,suhr ,vigier...Al do that just well...And the sustain is awesome...

Set-neck has it's own qualities ,like neck/body angle and such.But set neck guitars need more body wood and thicker necks to get that sustain and tone.

Try a set-neck schecter with a strat body.You need some EMGs to get tone.it sounds like plastic unplugged!

All-in All..there are better methods like BB said.like Bolt in (check Framus or Travis Bean or Siggi Braun)...Or multi laminated (5-7 piece) neck-thru models...(many custom 7s and 8s...Or ibanez Xyphos)

 

[Smilemon]

Re: set neck/bolt on

I love set necks and bolt next equally. i think bolt are more versatile and stronger, but set definantly wins for fret access.

 

[blueman335]

Re: set neck/bolt on

Unless you consider something like a Tom Anderson, Suhr, or even Fender Custom Shop to be entry level.

Those are high-end guitars, borrowing a number of features that Leo Fender designed in the 1950's to reduce production costs. Granted, the expensive Andersons & Fenders are built with high quality materials & workmanship, but the bolt-on neck concept was developed for financial, not tonal reasons (Leo wasn't a player). The fact that some of you guys have since come to love the look & sound that those cost-cutting features produced, doesn't make its origins any more noble.

 

[blueman335]

Re: set neck/bolt on

most of that has 1/8" of glue surrounding all sides anyway - see all that room that's going to be filled up with glue? It doesn't transfer vibration as well as wood-on-wood contact.

Except its not "wood-on-wood" contact. The wood has a finish on it, that acts as a barrier as much as glue does. The advantage of glue is that it seals the air space between the neck & body. Whereas with a bolt-on, unless it's really well done, and even on unfinished wood, will have many small gaps throughout the fit. A tilt-adjustable neck is potentially the worst fit of all, as adjusting the angle means that there WILL be increased air gaps.

But if you guys like the tone & sustain of bolt-ons, that's great. I know all set necks certainly aren't perfect. What matters is the final result, and for all of us, it gets down to a matter of taste & opinion. I just wanted to throw mine into the mix. Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

 

[blueman335]

Re: set neck/bolt on

This is the most untrue statement you'll ever read regarding guitars.

And thank you. Although I do try my hardest, I don't know if I am really deserving of such an honorable acheivement.