Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

[Stringmachine]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

I like my Gibson, so set neck it is, then. But I really don't care. The sound is what's important.

 

[kherman]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

interesting i had a friend that happened to at a gig mid song with a gibson les paul studio

ne way :newbie: when ever i heard neck thru i always thought that something to do with string thru :smack: can anybody tell me wat it is im soo confused i only know set neck i like them better than bolt ons more sustain now more midpriced guitars are set necks too

String thru is when the strings go through the body of the guitar.
Like on this Carvin CT. There is no stop tail like on a Gibson LP.
The strings are strung through the back, through the 6 holes, then come out the front and go over the bridge.

Neck thru refers to when the neck goes entirelly through the body.
From headstock to bottom end.

You can see the maple neck runs through the entire body and the walnut body wings are glued onto the sides of the neck thru.

Kent

 

[kramer]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

Meh, I picked neck thru because that's what the majority of my axes are. I have no problem w/ bolt-ons either as long as access to the upper frets isn't hindered by a clunky heel....I like Ibanez's AANJ for its upper fret access.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

I listen to the sound of the guitar as a whole without worrying about the specifics of it's contstruction. I think there's much more important things to worry about than how the neck's attached.


Edit: Considering all the votes for neck through however, I am wondering how many of those voters have actually owned and prefer the sound of a neck-through....or if they're just assuming.

Myself, I've only played one and heard another one. In both cases they were too bright for my tastes.

 

[sosomething]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

I don't really hear a difference between set-neck and bolt-on designs. Most of the time the guitars that employ those different methods are so different overall it's difficult to attribute the difference in tone to just one aspect of the design. I DO hear a big difference between those two types and neck-through, though.

The biggest advantage of neck-thru is the complete lack of heel and awesome fret access, but I don't always care for what it does to the tone of the guitars I've tried.

 

[mrfjones]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

i like both set necks and bolt ons. i find most neck thoughs to have too much treble response.

i had a tele that sustained as long as a paul if not more than a les paul and i have a bluesbird that just feels great to play so yeah i prefer bolt on but there are a few different times i would like to have set necked guitars around.

 

[Rich_T]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

I've used sets and bolt ons. I personally cant tell much of a difference. A good, solid bolt on should be just as resonant and toneful as a set neck, the glue doesnt really make much difference. So yeah, whichever. Never used a neck-through though.

 

[kherman]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

Edit: Considering all the votes for neck through however, I am wondering how many of those voters have actually owned and prefer the sound of a neck-through....or if they're just assuming.
.

I own 4 neck thrus.
Carvins:
Dc127
Dc200
Dc400
Dc727

4 set necks:
Parker Fly Deluxe
Fernandes Ravelle Deluxe
Diodati 59Q
Diodati 58

1 bolt on:
Schecter V7

The Yellow DC127 is my main axe still.
I do try to rotate my guitars quite often.
But, I do find the Dc127 is played the longest period of time.
It's also the one I usually grab regularly for gigs.
Has lots and lots of spank.
It's ALL maple. (hey, I'm a Lynch tone fan)

Kent

 

[MikeS]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

I own:

1 neck thru
1 set neck
5 bolt ons (2 are currently unbolted )

In terms of playability, nothing tops the neck thru. The lack of heel makes upper fret access easier than any other guitar. It also sustains for days. Like others have said, its biggest drawback is that the tone is dominated by the maple. That may or may not be a drawback depending on how you look at it.

I like bolt-ons second, mainly for their ability to be easily replaced or upgraded. I typically do not see any tonal differences between bolt on and set construction, provided the neck pocket and heel share a very tight fit. I find that bolt ons can sustain and transfer tone just as well as set necks.

 

[kherman]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

Just so people are aware.
Many companies offer mahogany neck thrus nowadays.
Or at least a combo of maple/mahogany (3 piece or 5 piece necks).
Or maple and something else.

Carvin again comes to mind.
But, there are others as well.

Kent

 

[kherman]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

Example.

All mahogany neck thru with mahogany body wings SC90.

So there are options out there for those that do not care for the maple.

 

[RushOfBlood]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

thanks to rickenbacker, neck-through

 

[Zerberus]

Re: Your neck-to-body construction of choice:

I like them all, they all have their pros and cons

+ 10

I personally generally tend towards Neck-thrus, the low-midrange hump that Neckthru construction adds isn´t something that bothers me (au contraire)....but I also prefer the Snappiness of bolt ons, and sometimes the sluggish feel of a Set-neck.....

It all depends on the mood I´m in, and especially the specs of the rest of the guitar....Mahogany Neckthrus for example I generally find too dark, and Maplebodied Bolt-ons too bright