the point of neckthroughs?
- Thread starter UCSDBoy
- Start date
UCSDBoy
New member
Re: the point of neckthroughs?
It's true I was thinking of Carvin mainly when I asked the question... I also was wondering just why guys like Joe Satriani and Steve Vai use bolt-ons when they could have any guitar they wanted. I think I've heard Steve Vai say that the Jem is the ultimate modern rock guitar, or someone said that. I thought about that and thought it's certainly a logical evolution from a strat - it made me wonder why we all like our bolt-ons so much. My only conclusion is that there's some tone affected by the bolt-on that, because it's so good or just because we're so used to it from strats, we prefer...
It's true I was thinking of Carvin mainly when I asked the question... I also was wondering just why guys like Joe Satriani and Steve Vai use bolt-ons when they could have any guitar they wanted. I think I've heard Steve Vai say that the Jem is the ultimate modern rock guitar, or someone said that. I thought about that and thought it's certainly a logical evolution from a strat - it made me wonder why we all like our bolt-ons so much. My only conclusion is that there's some tone affected by the bolt-on that, because it's so good or just because we're so used to it from strats, we prefer...
Luke Duke
PRSlustologist
Re: the point of neckthroughs?
I still think the only reason most are tin-ny sounding is due to the use of maple and alder. A nice mahogany one would have a completely different tone.
As far as LP abandoning the neck thru, I read it was due to cost.
As far as what people like about strats, I think it's that our heads have been sooo bludgeoned by them for SO many years we make the connection that that's what a guitar is SUPPOSED to sound like. The Fenders and LP are the Status Quo of guitar tone.
I'm also interested in peoples experiences with bolt in necks like PRS.
Luke
Gary Ladd said:
I still think the only reason most are tin-ny sounding is due to the use of maple and alder. A nice mahogany one would have a completely different tone.
As far as LP abandoning the neck thru, I read it was due to cost.
As far as what people like about strats, I think it's that our heads have been sooo bludgeoned by them for SO many years we make the connection that that's what a guitar is SUPPOSED to sound like. The Fenders and LP are the Status Quo of guitar tone.
I'm also interested in peoples experiences with bolt in necks like PRS.
Luke
Hellion
New member
Re: the point of neckthroughs?
I haven't found that my Falcon is overly bright, but that may be due to the walnut laminations in it. And anyway, you can cure some of that with the right pickups. The sustain issue is simply a personal preference. For me it's a bit like a muscle car. You don't need to have the power of a 427 cid engine, but it's nice to know that you have it if you need it.
I haven't found that my Falcon is overly bright, but that may be due to the walnut laminations in it. And anyway, you can cure some of that with the right pickups. The sustain issue is simply a personal preference. For me it's a bit like a muscle car. You don't need to have the power of a 427 cid engine, but it's nice to know that you have it if you need it.
Hot _Grits
Buttery Toneologist
Re: the point of neckthroughs?
Outside of the ESP/BC/Jackson metal fraternity, it's hard to find any major player that uses a neck-thru (firebirds aside). When real high end guys like Suhr and PRS offer bolt on and set neck, but no neck-thru, I can't help but think they may have come to some negative conclusions about the design. With the kind of CNC technology these guys use, they could certainly crank them out for pretty much no more cost than a set neck if they so desired.
Modern sculpted neck joints on bolt-ons like the Jem also pretty much negate the traditional fender upper-fret access problem that was a major selling point for neck-thrus.
here's a quote from Anderson from an HC interview:
Anderson: There are three main ways to make a neck. You have bolt-on, glued-in necks, and neck-through. I like the way bolt-on necks sound. That's why we do what we do. I don't like the sound of a neck-through personally. All I'm saying is my opinion, it's what I like. These are things that hold true for our guitars. I'm not going to say that this would apply to any other companies because I don't know. Bolt-on necks transfer the sound differently than glued on necks. I think why I like bolt-on necks better is because the screws apply a constant pressure. If you look at our guitars, the bolt-on neck fits as well as if it had been glued on. It [the neck] squeezes into the body, it doesn't float in the body like some bolt-on necks you see. As far as stability, I don't give up anything by bolting it on. I feel like there is a better articulation with a bolt-on neck. It also allows you to use different woods for the body and the neck. I like the sound of softer wood bodies and harder wood necks. I don't feel that it is any easier to bolt-on a neck than the other procedures [neck-through and glued]. If you were to slop the neck on, it would be easier to bolt it on [but Anderson doesn't do that]. Our neck joints are milled to a couple of thousandths [of an inch, very close for a guitar joint], and then they are hand fitted before they are painted.
UCSDBoy said:
Outside of the ESP/BC/Jackson metal fraternity, it's hard to find any major player that uses a neck-thru (firebirds aside). When real high end guys like Suhr and PRS offer bolt on and set neck, but no neck-thru, I can't help but think they may have come to some negative conclusions about the design. With the kind of CNC technology these guys use, they could certainly crank them out for pretty much no more cost than a set neck if they so desired.
Modern sculpted neck joints on bolt-ons like the Jem also pretty much negate the traditional fender upper-fret access problem that was a major selling point for neck-thrus.
here's a quote from Anderson from an HC interview:
Anderson: There are three main ways to make a neck. You have bolt-on, glued-in necks, and neck-through. I like the way bolt-on necks sound. That's why we do what we do. I don't like the sound of a neck-through personally. All I'm saying is my opinion, it's what I like. These are things that hold true for our guitars. I'm not going to say that this would apply to any other companies because I don't know. Bolt-on necks transfer the sound differently than glued on necks. I think why I like bolt-on necks better is because the screws apply a constant pressure. If you look at our guitars, the bolt-on neck fits as well as if it had been glued on. It [the neck] squeezes into the body, it doesn't float in the body like some bolt-on necks you see. As far as stability, I don't give up anything by bolting it on. I feel like there is a better articulation with a bolt-on neck. It also allows you to use different woods for the body and the neck. I like the sound of softer wood bodies and harder wood necks. I don't feel that it is any easier to bolt-on a neck than the other procedures [neck-through and glued]. If you were to slop the neck on, it would be easier to bolt it on [but Anderson doesn't do that]. Our neck joints are milled to a couple of thousandths [of an inch, very close for a guitar joint], and then they are hand fitted before they are painted.
Last edited:
