set neck vs bolt-in neck

darnright

RepententRodentologist
Is there a difference in sound? Sustain? If I have a bolt neck and I glue it in will it sound better..worse.. or no different? Is it only the long tenon necks (glued in) that really make a difference? I have a couple of LP copies with bolt-in necks and I can't really tell much difference between them and some of the glued-in neck copies I have. Just curious. I know this is a topic that has been hashed and rehashed...but I welcome all opinions.
On a second note..on the glued in necks with long tenons...does the long tenon effect only the neck pup..or both?

-dave
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

Sustain might improve, but only a small amount.

As for tone, I'm not sure you'll hear any difference. If the neck is already tight in the pocket, then the glue line would be minimal at best. There's a lot more that comes into play with something such as glued in versus bolt on.
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

Sustain might improve, but only a small amount.

As for tone, I'm not sure you'll hear any difference. If the neck is already tight in the pocket, then the glue line would be minimal at best. There's a lot more that comes into play with something such as glued in versus bolt on.

Are you talking the woods involved..electronics and hardware? I hvae a bolt neck LP copy with the exact same pups ('59's), hardware (tonepros) and strings. I am unsure about the woods. I can't really tell much difference. I played a set-neck Tele once and it sounded a lot different from a regular Tele. Maybe Fenders sound better with bolt necks..was a lot brighter.


-dave
 
Last edited:
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

Hell, you could go with the same woods, hardware, pickups, and everything and they'll still theoretically sound different. No two pieces of wood are alike.

I recently had a bolt on Greco LP (about a year ago, when things was good) and there was nothing about it that sounded like a Les Paul to me, unplugged.

But as for the set neck tele sounding brighter, I can understand that. Seems to me that the set neck would emphasize the higher frequencies and increase sustain as compared (theoretically all things equal) to a bolt neck.
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

I dunno. My strat can get Santana-sustain under the right settings. And I have 2 paper shims under the far side of the pocket to elevate the neck slightly, just enough for slide.
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

Putting glue into an existing functional bolt-on joint will do nothing but make the neck angle non-adjustable and make the tone a bit duller by introducing soft aliphatic resin (wood glue) into what was once a tight wood-wood connection. Sustain increases will be negligible at best ("set neck / Neck thru = sustain" is = Total BS).

I´ve seen it done at least a few dozen times over the years, usually on teles, but you would be the very first I´ve seen to be pleased with the result.

There are just flat out too mnany other variables to make sweeping genarizations about neck joints, one of them being that a set neck / bolt on neck and thru neck are joined to the body with a completely different geometry in the joint. THis alone makes a much more massive difference than the idea of setting /bolting /going thru does... ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

Bolt-on guitars are easier to refinish, so I'm selling my set-neck ones. :D
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

The difference amounts to how you are able to shape the heel, vs serviceability, and ease of manufacture. That's about it.
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

Ritchie Blackmore did this to some of his strats, but that was because he was playing '70's era strats with 3 bolt necks and sloppily routed neck pockets- so with that bad combination, gluing it in will help.

These days, the routing is alot better so you might not get much of a benefit
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

pretty sure most of the fender set neck teles are mahogany it seems like (most the ones I can remember) so that could have played a big part. Anyway to me it all has to do with how tight the neck pocket is. I had a strat that could not sustain for the life of it. Then again, the ESP bolt on I used to have had more sustain than my LTD neck thru so it really varies from guitar to guitar I would think
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

A good bolt-on neck, with a expertly crafted heel and pocket, should resonate for days. If there is massive wood on wood contact, why not?

The trick is all about finding an instrument that resonates and feels alive, no matter what style of construction it is.
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

Putting glue into an existing functional bolt-on joint will do nothing but make the neck angle non-adjustable and make the tone a bit duller by introducing soft aliphatic resin (wood glue) into what was once a tight wood-wood connection. Sustain increases will be negligible at best.

Unless the wood is bare & unfinished, you don't have true wood-to-wood contact with a bolt-on, and therefore also have a foreign material in between the neck & body. It's not like set necks have half a pound of glue in the pocket.
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

Unless the wood is bare & unfinished, you don't have true wood-to-wood contact with a bolt-on, and therefore also have a foreign material in between the neck & body. It's not like set necks have half a pound of glue in the pocket.

In a properly constructed bolt-on, you have zero foreign material in the neck pocket, with the possible exception of a small shim. No luthier in his right mind paints neck pockets. Period.

Maybe my error is NOT assuming that every guitar people talk about is a 50$ POS ;)
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

The important part is that you have two different pieces of wood joined. That's the biggie compared to a neck-through. Whether you screw or nail or glue or tape the thing in is really a minor issue.

I also know a person why once glued in a Strat neck, the point being to pull it strongly against two pocket walls. Didn't do anything that I remember hearing. How would it?
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

in a properly constructed bolt-on, you have zero foreign material in the neck pocket, with the possible exception of a small shim. No luthier in his right mind paints neck pockets. Period.

Maybe my error is not assuming that every guitar people talk about is a 50$ pos ;)

+1
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

A good neck joint is a good neck joint. I don't care if it's held in by any number of bolts, with glue, or by sheer force of will.
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

I think someone performed an actual scientific experiment recently and discovered that between set-neck, neck-thru, and bolt-on, bolt-on actually has the best sustain! The reason Les Pauls are known for their sustain has more to do with the bridge than the neck joint.
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

A good neck joint is a good neck joint. I don't care if it's held in by any number of bolts, with glue, or by sheer force of will.

Agreed 100%. And the tonal difference is there, as is the difference in response, but these come down to feel and personal taste. Some people like the fast, articulate response of a bholt on, some prefer the attenuated highs and tube like "sag" of a set neck, and some prefer the effortless playability, low midrange chunk and "middle of the road" response of a neck thru (all other things being equal between the 3)

I can live with all 3, but prefer bolt on.

... The reason Les Pauls are known for their sustain has more to do with the bridge than the neck joint.
This is just as flawed as attributing it to teh neck joint.

Everybody, repeat after me: A guitar is a system, and as such is the sum of its components. By definition, no one component being substandard or different can render the entire system useless, though it can cause massive complications to the original function.

In other words: A set neck fender with a tuneomatic will not sound or sustain like a les paul, an alder bodied, maple necked Les paul will not sound and sustain like a stratocaster, and a 50$ guitar will still be crap regardless of how much one may like polishing turds :laugh2:

Science generally does not function on a "Make a wish" basis, and it makes no exception for guitarists ;)
 
Last edited:
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

I think someone performed an actual scientific experiment recently and discovered that between set-neck, neck-thru, and bolt-on, bolt-on actually has the best sustain! The reason Les Pauls are known for their sustain has more to do with the bridge than the neck joint.

It was R.M. Mottola who did the testing you're probably referring to. Though his tests were limited, they were very well controlled and responsibly carried out and evaluated. Though the test results did come out with the bolt-on measuring with the greatest sustain, I believe his intentions were quite honest in claiming that the difference was negligible, and probably within what could be speculated as a range of error, or standard deviation. I believe his final conclusions were that if there were any difference, it was too small to be accurately measurable, and ultimately insignificant. I believe he did note that of the listeners involved, no one could actually hear any difference with their ears, and it was only slightly discernible on charts displaying measured decay.

In the end, it doesn't really seem to matter. The neck joint often gets credited with a number of tonal effects and sustain, but this credit has inevitably only been assumed by correlation, with plenty of other variables that should deserve to be considered long before method of fastening the neck.
 
Re: set neck vs bolt-in neck

My final word.


In theory: Neck thru should have best sustain, set-neck and then bolt on.

In practice: There's not a huge difference in sustain from well-made guitars, be they Fender, Gibson, ESP or otherwise. Bad guitars are just bad guitars, but good guitars usually have fine sustain if you've got it set-up right and good strings on it.
 
Back
Top