Bolt-on or neck through - what's the real difference?

[Ron Berenato]

I've owned 13 basses in my lifetime - 3 of which were neck through and to be honest I can't tell the difference. My 2 main basses are bolt ons and my acoustic is . . whatever an acoustic is (set neck?) I'm thinking about having a custom bass made and is it worth the expense to have a neck through?

 

[bholder]

Some believe neck throughs have better sustain and tone. Some don't. Purely subjective, much like the tone wood debate.

 

[micguy]

My first bass was neck through - a 4001 Rick. My second bass was bolt on - an 80's aluminum necked Kramer. While it would seem that an interface like you have on a bolt on is an "opportunity" to lose energy (and therefore sustain), the Kramer had much longer sustain. This was not a subtle thing - I had to learn how to manage that ridiculous amount of sustain in certain places in certain songs - at the end of a song, if we let it ring out, the difference was obvious to everyone in the band. Yes, there was a huge variable there (aluminum vs wood neck), but that example shows that there are other factors that can influence sustain besides the neck joint architecture.

With a well made wood necked bass, it shouldn't matter all that much if it's bolt on or neck through. A bolt on gives you an out if the neck goes South at some point, but if the builder has properly aged that wood and knows how to make a good neck, that shouldn't be an issue with either route.

If the neck has a tilt back headstock, I'd make sure the builder knows how to make a good scarf joint, especially if you're gonna go neck through - that definitely lessens the chances you'll be fixing a broken headstock down the road.

 

[Warpeg]

...it worth the expense to have a neck through?

Ask diehard Rickenbacker, Thunderbird, and Spector players.

 

[Killing Floor]

Can’t get a custom neck plate for a neck-through.

 

[ThudThudThud]

$400 most of the time.

 

[B-Mac]

None of my neck thru basses have dead spots.

 

[RGerhart]

I haven't really noticed much difference, other than playability--neck-through designs supposedly make it easier to play in the upper registers of the instrument (but who actually uses the 24th fret anyway?).

The only thing I can really think of a "benefit" would be the aforementioned post about it being easier to replace a neck if anything happens to it, if it's bolt-on. Replacing a neck-through design is, well...not really an option.

 

[6-3-2]

Is it worth it for a custom bass? Probably not.
Is it cool? Yes.

 

[Auspuff]

I've owned 13 basses in my lifetime - 3 of which were neck through and to be honest I can't tell the difference. My 2 main basses are bolt ons and my acoustic is . . whatever an acoustic is (set neck?) I'm thinking about having a custom bass made and is it worth the expense to have a neck through?

There is, apparently, something to it.

Out of my six basses, three are neck-through, and of those three, my two Carvin's have immense sustain, while the Ric 4003, not as much.

Of my three bolt-on's, all Fenders, they are pretty much the same in the sustain department - adequate, not stunning.

I believe, when it comes to neck-through, it comes down to maker, and the woods used.

Shop around.

 

[Ron Berenato]

Ask diehard Rickenbacker, Thunderbird, and Spector players.

I assumed that I was . . as for the Thunderbirds - people are raving about the Epiphone 'Birds out now and they are bolt on.

 

[Ron Berenato]

None of my neck thru basses have dead spots.

I've heard that

 

[bucephylus]

It is generally not possible to discriminate a neck through construction from bolt on from dove tail set neck based on recorded or house sound.

At the same time, the neck through instruments feel to me while playing to be smoother and provide more sustain vs bolt-on instruments which feel punchier. Strictly a feel thing.

 

[BuddhaFingas]

Technical note: Standard Les Paul construction is set- neck, not neck-through.

Difference in construction and cost, pretty large.
Difference in performance...#MeNotNoe

 

[Marko 1]

Maybe three or four of my basses, I've put shims in the neck pocket to get them set up just right.

I feel insecure that a neck-through would be/stay perfect.

 

[Auspuff]

None of my neck thru basses have dead spots.

THIS!

 

[Michael Stanley 2112]

Technical note: Standard Les Paul construction is set- neck, not neck-through.

Difference in construction and cost, pretty large.
Difference in performance...#MeNotNoe

Oooops! I mis-read and sit (NO ONE stands to type) corrected.

I will delete.

 

[deepestend]

I like being able to easily work on a bolt on neck.

Had a gibson guitar tumble over a few years ago and the set neck broke at the headstock. Typical damage and I fixed it. Still, I was pretty done with set necks after that from a repair perspective.

 

[TBird1958]

I assumed that I was . . as for the Thunderbirds - people are raving about the Epiphone 'Birds out now and they are bolt on.

No, that would be incorrect. The Epiphone Vintage Pro ( or '60s Thunderbird) is multi laminated neck through.

 

[Cave Puppy]

I don’t have any neck-through basses atm but when I did, I found the neck/body joint to be more comfortable and easier to play at that spot than a bolt on. Also - if a person wants to replace the neck on a neck-through, that is obviously a much more difficult thing to do than on a bolt on. I’ve found neck-through also feel like there’s more tension on the strings. As far as the actual sound difference? Subjective.