I have always thought that although there are advantages to both methods of contruction and of course - how much care, attention and skill goes into a bass matters more than the method - I still have this feeling that you can get a lower action from a neck-through bass.

So, I was in a bass shop yesterday and tried two basses that were pretty much equivalent and well set up - but ones was bolt-on and one was neck through.

So I was comparing the Warwick Streamer LX - wide neck 5-string (bolt-on) with the Yamaha TRB5P (neck though). As I say both were well set up and of pretty high quality for production basses - in the same price/quality bracket.

BUt it was very noticable how the Yamaha had a much lower action all ower the fretboard - right up to the 24th fret, making it very much easier to play in the upper register. Whereas the Warwick's action was higher as you went up the neck. Looking closely at both basses - the only reason I could see for this was that the Warwick's neck joint meant that the angle was such at the higher register that it was impossible to get a lower action. The neck joint was very good and tight, but it seemed to impose an angle that mean the strings couldn't be low at this point.

The Yamaha had no such problems - and the through neck mean that the string height was even all the way.

So - is it always the case that all other things being equal (of course cheap neck-throughs will not be as good as high-end bolt-ons!) that a neck through bass will have lower action and improved playability in the upper register?

I was able to obtain a much(well maybe not much) lower action without fret buzz on my Sting Ray then on my Rick, so I think it just depends on the bass...

well, all my conklins have really good action - my bolt on fretless has awesome action, hardly have to press at all.

i think it's mainly based on construction quality.

Like you, I like my necks pretty flat, so this is important to me, too.

The bridge type hasn't been as much of a factor to me as the fret wire. The jumbo, high profile, stuff turns me off because I almost always can't get the neck flat enough without buzz or clank.

I can see why some bassists like Sklar tried mandolin wire.

Then again, it almost seems some luthiers don't expect anyone to play above the 15th fret. :confused:

Originally posted by john turner
well, all my conklins have really good action - my bolt on fretless has awesome action, hardly have to press at all.

i think it's mainly based on construction quality.

I agree. I think it has to do more with having a good fret job, and a good true neck.

Originally posted by rickbass1
Like you, I like my necks pretty flat, so this is important to me, too.

The bridge type hasn't been as much of a factor to me as the fret wire. The jumbo, high profile, stuff turns me off because I almost always can't get the neck flat enough without buzz or clank.

I can see why some bassists like Sklar tried mandolin wire.

Then again, it almost seems some luthiers don't expect anyone to play above the 15th fret. :confused:

This is something I didn't think about, but the bolt-ons I have looked at in shops tend to be that much higher, that the sort of distances we are talking here wouldn't come into play. I suppose it surprises me that fairly expensive Warwick basses with bolt-on necks can't seem to be set up to get a low action.

I think there may also be something in the fact that I have noticed a lot before, which is that Warwick tend to go for pretty chunky necks which are thick from front to back and Yamaha go for much flatter profiles. I can ony imagine that Warwick users don't want high register access?

I suppose, what I am really saying here is that I try a lot of basses in shops in London and find very few which feel comfortable to play all across the fretboard - the high end Yamahas are very much an exception - but it was only the TRB5P at £1649 (!) which felt right to me.

OK - I know that there must be more basses in the US, but surely the ones we get are representative of the whole? I just can't believe that so many people put up with basses that are so hard to play?

Neck radius plays a big part in how low you can go.

Flatter= lower. Having the frets leveled properly is a big deal as well. High performance is always high maintenence. As the humidity goes up and down an unsealed fretdoard will move and swell in some places more than others complicating the issue.

We're talking thousandth's of an inch difference between buzz and no buzz if you want action that low.

Exactly how low are you talking about? I find anything less than 3/16 at the last fret on a B string is a real pain to maintain.

A factor that you seemed to bring up surprised me that it didn't get more attention is the issue of neck angle. It's known by some better luthiers and repair shops that this problem exists on bolt-ons. The way that this problem is often minimized is to use neck shims.

I don't know this for fact, but I thought I'd read where Roger Sadowsky used them (or uses them) to keep bolt-ons' action lower and the necks straighter.

Originally posted by RAM

A factor that you seemed to bring up surprised me that it didn't get more attention is the issue of neck angle. It's known by some better luthiers and repair shops that this problem exists on bolt-ons. The way that this problem is often minimized is to use neck shims.

I don't know this for fact, but I thought I'd read where Roger Sadowsky used them (or uses them) to keep bolt-ons' action lower and the necks straighter.

I suppose this is one of the reasons that Sadowskys are so sought-after - you can get it set up to exactly your spec by an expert. I think this is the problem I am seeing in most of the "off-the-shelf" bolt-ons that I try in the shops. I was trying in my original post to describe this phenomenon.

This is a difficulty for me - I have played and tried hundreds and hundreds of different basses over more than 20 years and know by "feel" and playing the actual bass what is good and bad about it - but I can't always describe it in words.

This is why I have avoided custom basses so far, as I don't know how to describe my "perfect" bass, although I would know it instantly if I picked it up and played it for a few minutes! ;)


OK so it's "neck angle" that prevents a low action on most factory built bolt-on basses?

I wonder how many people have asked a luthier to adjust this with shims to get a lower action in the higher register?

Maybe I'll start a new thread to ask this, if I don't get many replies here.....

You know, I thought about this for a long time last night and I think I may have something.

I think wood bass necks have to be reasonably thick unless they're reinforced with graphite or have a huge truss rod in them - and a huge truss rod adds weight.

Also, I think there needs to be enough wood at the neck joint of a bolt-on bass to keep the neck jount from flexing under normal use at best, and from breaking at worst.

Bridge design is pretty much standard and customers probably don't like really thick bodies, so maybe to keep enough wood at the neck joint they have to set the neck a little higher in the pocket than they would have to with a neck-through bass.

It's just a theory and I might be full of hot air, but it makes some sense to me.

I know my Cirrus has lower action than my Lakland does, but not by much.

allan

I think this could be right - certainly the Warwick bolt-ons I have looked at are pretty thick at the neck joint.

Originally posted by allan grossman
You know, I thought about this for a long time last night and I think I may have something.

I think wood bass necks have to be reasonably thick unless they're reinforced with graphite or have a huge truss rod in them - and a huge truss rod adds weight.

Also, I think there needs to be enough wood at the neck joint of a bolt-on bass to keep the neck jount from flexing under normal use at best, and from breaking at worst.

Bridge design is pretty much standard and customers probably don't like really thick bodies, so maybe to keep enough wood at the neck joint they have to set the neck a little higher in the pocket than they would have to with a neck-through bass.

It's just a theory and I might be full of hot air, but it makes some sense to me.

I know my Cirrus has lower action than my Lakland does, but not by much.

allan

I don't get it, sorry. If the neck is "higher" in the pocket, wouldn't that give lower action on the high frets?

Originally posted by hujo


I don't get it, sorry. If the neck is "higher" in the pocket, wouldn't that give lower action on the high frets?

Well, I think you have to think about the situation overall - you have to adjust action for the whole length of the neck.

I think that what both Alan and RAM have said comes into play - so that is additional thickness and neck angle. To have really low action you basically need a very flat board - even across the whole thing.

The effect of the neck angle is to create a "dip" at the high end of the fret board and cause higher action there.

I don't think this is straightforward - or every manufacturer would get it right. So - someone like Sadowsky can set up a bolt-on just right; but I think very few can. And all the bolt-ons I see in shops have not been set up in such a way - in fact I can't see how they can be - but then not every bass is a Sadowsky! ;)

Well, this is pretty abstract, I'll give you that. ;)

There is not one iota of difference between the action potential of a neckthrough and a bolt on.

All of the set up geometry is exactly the same for both. The only difference is that one has a fixed neck angle and the other can have the neck angle mechanically adjusted. Using shims in the neck pocket does not indicate shoddy building practice. Except for Fenders micro-tilt method, it's probably used by all bolt on manufacturers.

If one says that action on a neckthrough is different than a bolt on, why can't the difference be quantified?

There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what setup adjustment does what.

In a setup there are only three adjustments that affect action.


Nut height which dictates string height at the nut end of the neck. Exactly the same on both types of bass.

Relief, which affects string height from the first fret through the the fifth to seventh fret. Exactly the same on both types of bass. NOT an action adjustment although it does have a very minor effect on string height when adjusted properly. On the order of .010" to .015". The relief is the only adjustment that directly pertains to fret buzz.

Bridge height which dictates string height at the highest fret (as related to pitch). Exactly the same on both types of bass.

If a general difference exists between the two types of construction it is because a neck through bass usually, but not always, has a higher quality of fret leveling.

Well - I would say - try the test I did and which I outlined at the start of this thread.

Go to a shop and get both a Warwick bolt-on 5-string - the LX wide neck is the closest to the Yamaha - and compare the neck with a Yamaha TRB5P neck-through.

The difference is huge on basses which are in similar price brackets and have similar build quality.

I really wish somebody else would do this and see if they agree with me and attempt to explain what the difference is !!

(I did it in the Bass Cellar in Denmark Street London - I'm sure loads of shops in the US would have both as well)

Well, I don't want to start a fight, but just because one of the two basses you tried didn't have a perfect setup, doesn't mean that they can't have one.

Or, they could have been set up by two different people, with different taste in setup, and so on.

Two basses is not enough to base your idea on.

And even if you did set both up professionaly, with production basses like these, there will always be irregularities, but then it's not about bolt-on vs neck-through any more.

I could maybe swallow your argument, if you had tried the neck-through TRB5 against a bolt on TRB5, that both had equally good fretjobs. To complicate this further; One could argue that neck-throughs have more stable necks. They probably do, but the curvature of the neck is in the trussrod mostly, wether it's bolt on or neck-through.

Yadayadayada. Have a nice weekend!

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
Well - I would say - try the test I did and which I outlined at the start of this thread.

Go to a shop and get both a Warwick bolt-on 5-string - the LX wide neck is the closest to the Yamaha - and compare the neck with a Yamaha TRB5P neck-through.

The difference is huge on basses which are in similar price brackets and have similar build quality.

I really wish somebody else would do this and see if they agree with me and attempt to explain what the difference is !!

(I did it in the Bass Cellar in Denmark Street London - I'm sure loads of shops in the US would have both as well)


I completely agree that there is a huge difference between the examples that you used.

I'm pretty sure that the huge difference that you feel is because of the quality of building/setup. Not to mention comparing two different brands.

It seems that a fairer comparison of the two building methods, so far as action is concerned, would be to compare J.Ts bolt on Conk to his neck through Conk. They both have the same build/setup quality. They both are the same builder.

How about it John, will you give us an A-B between the two?

Two more better comparisons would be a Thumb Bolt-On compared to the neck-thru version, or even a Peavey Cirrus vs. a Millenium (or Millenium Plus).

...Just my 2 cents on the subject.

- Frank.

There shouldn't be a major difference, but one some bolt-ons the neck doesn't really fit the body in terms of height.
The singer of my old band has a 70s Fender, and it's neck is set in too low. So even when you lower the bridge all the way, the action is still (too) high.

Originally posted by JMX
There shouldn't be a major difference, but one some bolt-ons the neck doesn't really fit the body in terms of height.
The singer of my old band has a 70s Fender, and it's neck is set in too low. So even when you lower the bridge all the way, the action is still (too) high.
Tell him to shim the neck:rolleyes:

Originally posted by pkr2



I completely agree that there is a huge difference between the examples that you used.

I'm pretty sure that the huge difference that you feel is because of the quality of building/setup. Not to mention comparing two different brands.



Well they are very similar in price over here and are examples of factory-built, but very high quality basses from two manufacturers who are not "boutique" class, but are well-respected by many pros.

My argument was particularly not about the hand-built "boutique" basses, as I know very well that they can be made equally as well, but rather about factory made basses.

I just wonder why Warwicks are so popular if there is such a huge difference - or maybe their standards have slipped recently?

Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
...I just wonder why Warwicks are so popular if there is such a huge difference - or maybe their standards have slipped recently...

I don't about the quality slipping or not, but I can speak to the difference in a good vs. bad setup. While I'm not too partial to the classic Warwick "baseball bat" neck profile, I have played a number of FNAs and Thumbs (both neck-thrus and bolt-ons) that had good, if not great action. I've also seen them with setups so high that you could do the limbo under the strings (I'm reminded of this EVERYTIME I visit my local Guitar Center). To be fair to Warwick, I've seen equally poor setups on some Spectors & Pedullas (as well as yamahas) at the same GC.

I guess YMMV.

- Frank.

Originally posted by JMX
There shouldn't be a major difference, but one some bolt-ons the neck doesn't really fit the body in terms of height.
The singer of my old band has a 70s Fender, and it's neck is set in too low. So even when you lower the bridge all the way, the action is still (too) high.

I agree with you,JMX. There are lots and lots of bolt on necks that are badly in need of a good set up.

The bright side, though, is the fact that what you describe with your friends Fender is very easy to correct with a neck pocket shim. If the pocket is really cut too deep, a shim of the proper thickness will bring it into specs.

If it's a neck tilt, or angle problem, it's corrected either by shimming only one end of the neck pocket or using a tapered shim.

I believe all standard production Fenders, especially new ones will benefit from a careful set-up. Most are pretty bad out right of the box.

Pkr2

Originally posted by bizzaro

Tell him to shim the neck:rolleyes:

We did, but it's a pain to get it correct.
One of the reason I'm not too fond of Fenders. Why do I have to correct this myself? It's Fenders job to get it right in the first place.

Originally posted by JMX
We did, but it's a pain to get it correct.
One of the reason I'm not too fond of Fenders. Why do I have to correct this myself? It's Fenders job to get it right in the first place.

Well just jump in your time machine, go back 25 years and have Fender do it right this time :)

Seriously, it makes little sense to complain about a bass this old when you have little or no idea of what it's history is. For instance, I can imagine it would be some yahoo's idea that, to lower the strings, they should deepened the neck pocket :rolleyes: If the bass has had a lot of playing done on it, then I would imagine that it was suited to it's previous owners.

In this case I would make a maple wafer that fit the neck pocket perfectly. This wafer would have parallel top and bottom surfaces to make sure the original neck angle was transferred to the new height. If the neck needs still needs shimming, then use thin strips of veneer for the fine tuning. All of this could be removed to restore to it's original condition to sell or whatever.

Well, Bruce, I gotta say that this issue is NOT solely determined by whether a bass is a neck-through or a bolt-on. I can say, as a mechanical engineer, that this is strictly a matter of how the designer chooses to dimension the fretboard vs. the back of the neck heel vs. the bottom of the neck pocket. For your perfect high frets, the top of the end of the fretboard has to be perfectly coplanar with the low adjustment of the bridge saddles. But if you design it that way, only a tiny error in any of the three surfaces can put the highest fret too high, rendering the entire top half of the fingerboard unplayable.

So I would guess that the design is to leave the action up there a little high -- that is, design the high frets so the higest ones fall away as you describe -- so that even with manufacturing tolerances (irregularities in fabrication which must be taken into account on less-expensive production instruments) the final result can still be adjusted to play reasonably well on the higher frets. Maybe you can't get it perfect, but at least it won't fret out.

This parallel mating surface problem, of course, is nonexistent on a neck-through instrument.

So perhaps the answer to your question is that it is LESS EXPENSIVE to build a bolt-on if it is designed in such a way that the highest frets can't have low action. This supports your empirical observations, but it does not eliminate the possibility of building a really properly aligned bolt-on joint. In fact, that's pretty much what fine luthiers do for a living, isn't it?

Originally posted by Hambone


Well just jump in your time machine, go back 25 years and have Fender do it right this time :)

Seriously, it makes little sense to complain about a bass this old when you have little or no idea of what it's history is. For instance, I can imagine it would be some yahoo's idea that, to lower the strings, they should deepened the neck pocket :rolleyes: If the bass has had a lot of playing done on it, then I would imagine that it was suited to it's previous owners.

In this case I would make a maple wafer that fit the neck pocket perfectly. This wafer would have parallel top and bottom surfaces to make sure the original neck angle was transferred to the new height. If the neck needs still needs shimming, then use thin strips of veneer for the fine tuning. All of this could be removed to restore to it's original condition to sell or whatever.

Well ,it's in almost mint condition and with no mods.
BTW, I see this on new models too.

Sorry, I don't get the line of thinking that there's some inherent difference in string height capabilities based solely on the type of neck. By that logic, would set necks fall somewhere in the middle?

Here's the only general difference I can see between the two: the neck/body joint on most bolt-ons will be bulkier than the same area on a neck-through and can hinder upper fret access. The rest of the neck does not have to be any bulkier or thicker than a neck-through.

Anyone ever play a Yamaha TRB 6II? US MTD? Either of these will go as low as any bass I've seen and they're both bolt-ons. My Lakland 55-94 can go as low. My Zon is another example of being able to go super low.

It's not about the neck joint, it's about the total package. A neck-through with a poor leveling job and setup will not go as low as a well designed and executed bolt-on. Flatness of the fretboard has nothing to do with it either. You can have a curved fretboard with very low action... it may take more effort on the builder's part but it's hardly impossible. Again, all things being equal, you'll get the same action either way and a bigger neck to body joint on the bolt-on.

BTW shims are not evil;). They're for the purpose of adjustment, you can find them on Fenders and Zons, they're even used on several set-neck basses though I doubt most people realize that's what they're looking at, like the back of my Elrick:


http://www.talkbass.com/forum/attachment.php?postid=224291

The dark wood between the Mahogany body and the Maple neck is a shim. A permanent shim but still, a shim.

I guess I'm kind of confused as to how the correlation came to be... maybe because there are more bolt-ons than NT's and most people don't spend the time it takes to learn how to be able to use low action explains why people are seeing what they think they see. Just a guess.

Originally posted by JMX


We did, but it's a pain to get it correct.
One of the reason I'm not too fond of Fenders. Why do I have to correct this myself? It's Fenders job to get it right in the first place.

That's why you take it to a qualified bass tech. If it was easy...

this thanksgiving i played about 8 BO warwicks in a row - this is when i still had my thumb but was just about to get my SSII.

all of them played great and had nice action all the way to the 24th fret, even the streamer standard i tried.


as for the specific problem you're talking about, shimming the neck would definitely fix it. i had to shim the neck on my musicman when i got the graphite neck for it now it plays as good or even better than my SSII.


jason

I still don't see why I need to have it fixed.
Again, it's Fender's duty (quality control).
A MIA Fender is almost 1500$ over here.
I can choose from at least half a dozen handmade custom-build German brands in that price range that don't need shimming - guaranteed.
YMMV, but no Fender for me.

Originally posted by JMX
I still don't see why I need to have it fixed.
Again, it's Fender's duty (quality control).
A MIA Fender is almost 1500$ over here.
I can choose from at least half a dozen handmade custom-build German brands in that price range that don't need shimming - guaranteed.
YMMV, but no Fender for me.

I'm not defending Fender but it's not realistic to expect any maker to perform warrantee work on an instrument made in the seventies.

As someone else pointed out, it could have had faulty work performed on it by anyone in that period of time.

I believe as do millions of others that Fender builds a good instrument. I also don't think that their production basses are even set up before they are shipped. Anyone that disagrees only needs to look at the new fenders hanging in stores all over the country that I don't even consider playable.



I also think that nearly all of them can be made into good players with a proper setup.

The simple and easy thing to do is just fix it and play it. The other alternative is to stand on principle and try to play it the way that it is.

Either light a candle or curse the darkness. It's ultimately your choice.

Pkr2

The action on my Modulus is just as low as the action on my Cirrus. Different price ranges, of course, but one is bolt on and one is neck thru.

why dont you just do what guitar techs have done for ages and rip off a little piece of match book cover or the like and stick it in the pocket... it changes the angle of the neck... that or check for a neck angle screw... some basses have em.

its so simple most anybody with 2 hands and a screw driver can accomplish it on a BO

neck throughs i havnet a clue...

Originally posted by bassist4ever
why dont you just do what guitar techs have done for ages and rip off a little piece of match book cover or the like and stick it in the pocket... it changes the angle of the neck... that or check for a neck angle screw... some basses have em.

its so simple most anybody with 2 hands and a screw driver can accomplish it on a BO

neck throughs i havnet a clue...

It really can be that simple.

:)

The reason purists shy away from the shim option is that it can change the sound of the instrument. A bolt-on's only contact between the neck and the body is that little rectangle. Sticking in any shim -- especially a piece of spongy cardboard -- can compromise the integrity and rigidity of the entire structure, and so can interrupt the vibrations that should be transmitted from the neck to the body.

That having been said, back in the real world, if you're playing rock'n'roll through a $500 combo, you may not notice much of a difference. And then if it feels better, you're gonna play better anyway, so the subtle nuances of the tone change can be outweighed by the fact that your "feel" is better, and as a whole you sound better.

Just to clearify it (again).

It was our singer's bass, not mine. If it was mine, I would've complained when I bought it new.
We did get it set up very well, but it took a while, since we wanted it to be really good, and we used wood (2-3mm!), not scraps of paper (sic).

I still wouldn't buy an instrument in that condition new (or used, unless it sounded really good and looks fixable) , and there are enough flawless bolt-on, neck-thru and set-neck alternatives around...