Sure you can - you can bolt whatever you want onto a neck through, if that's your thing. You don't need a neck plate, of course, but that doesn't preclude you from adorning your bass with one.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Bolt-on or neck through - what's the real difference?
- Thread starter Ron Berenato
- Start date
Sure you can - you can bolt whatever you want onto a neck through, if that's your thing. You don't need a neck plate, of course, but that doesn't preclude you from adorning your bass with one.
My bolt-ons don’t either
but I don’t own a FSO either
I've owned a few Carvin neck-through basses. I don't recall anything magical about their sound due to the neck construction. Upper fret access was great, if that is something that matters to you.
The typical 7th fret G string dead spot was there on them as well, though it might have been +/- a fret.
One downside to neck-through is if you someday want to convert to fretless you can't just swap in a different neck.
The typical 7th fret G string dead spot was there on them as well, though it might have been +/- a fret.
One downside to neck-through is if you someday want to convert to fretless you can't just swap in a different neck.
I have had some of basically the same basses with/without, e.g. Warwick Thumbs and once had both an Ibanez Musican and Roadstar. I don't have a big enough n= to draw any confident conclusions. But those very similar basses didn't give me an impression that it had much effect on sustain, sound, or frequency of needing truss rod adjustments.
None of my basses are neck-through, but I have a couple of guitars that are. Other than the neck joint being smoother and easier to play around, I cant tell any difference in sustain etc.
Over the years, I have found that the most likely robbers of sustain are pickups set too high and slightly high frets. Frets that are uneven, but not quite high enough to cause really noticeable buzz will still rob a lot of sustain. I still have an old Squier VM Jaguar Bass that had poor sustain when I bought it new. I planned on selling it later, but noticed it had a couple of high frets, so I decided to do a fret level on it before selling it. That fret level improved the sustain so much that I still have that bass. I've seen the same thing happen to several other basses and guitars I have worked on over the years.
Over the years, I have found that the most likely robbers of sustain are pickups set too high and slightly high frets. Frets that are uneven, but not quite high enough to cause really noticeable buzz will still rob a lot of sustain. I still have an old Squier VM Jaguar Bass that had poor sustain when I bought it new. I planned on selling it later, but noticed it had a couple of high frets, so I decided to do a fret level on it before selling it. That fret level improved the sustain so much that I still have that bass. I've seen the same thing happen to several other basses and guitars I have worked on over the years.
Same here, I’ve had the same model Warwicks with neck thru and bolt-on and never really noticed a difference in sustain. The neck through often looks better
I've always played neck through - for no particular reason. They seemed more elegant to me.
It more or less simply happened that those Instruments that came into my possession happened to be neck through. Then I played a Dingwall and this is a bolt on that does everything people claim about neck through and then some. I lost interest afterwards.
I mean, my current bass is a bolt on. It has a body that was fashioned from a gorgeous single piece of ash.
You can't do that with a neck through. But you can have that smooth transition where the neck just glides into the body, which is impossible on a bolt on.
If the builder is known to produce high quality instruments, I would go with their recommendation after I described what I want the bass to do.
It more or less simply happened that those Instruments that came into my possession happened to be neck through. Then I played a Dingwall and this is a bolt on that does everything people claim about neck through and then some. I lost interest afterwards.
I mean, my current bass is a bolt on. It has a body that was fashioned from a gorgeous single piece of ash.
You can't do that with a neck through. But you can have that smooth transition where the neck just glides into the body, which is impossible on a bolt on.
If the builder is known to produce high quality instruments, I would go with their recommendation after I described what I want the bass to do.
I will admit part of why I bought the neck through was because it was beautiful. Also 26 frets! 24 is just the minimum.Same here, I’ve had the same model Warwicks with neck thru and bolt-on and never really noticed a difference in sustain. The neck through often looks better
Better transfer of vibration to the clip-on tuner?
Other than that,it's damned sexy!
(That's a low A by the way!)AEBF#C#G#tuning.
Other than that,it's damned sexy!
(That's a low A by the way!)AEBF#C#G#tuning.
Last edited:
Once we're at a certain quality level, it's really not a lot of difference. Better upper fret access maybe? Yes, the bolt-on is safer from a set up perspective, but again all of my well made neck-thrus did NOT need a shim or anything nor shift.
Tone wise, bolt ons 'might' have more snap but that depends. The better sustain of neck-thrus is exaggerated too. It has more to do with getting pieces of wood that sing and I've found this on both types.
Tone wise, bolt ons 'might' have more snap but that depends. The better sustain of neck-thrus is exaggerated too. It has more to do with getting pieces of wood that sing and I've found this on both types.
It really comes down to the specific bass brand. Any generalizations we come up with here will vary quite a bit brand to brand. I have a Spector Euro and I LOVE their Neck-Thru models! Their bolt-on models are nice too, but I definitely hear a difference between the two.
I have picked up Schecter neck-thru basses and they sound NOTHING like my Spector Euro's.
I have picked up Schecter neck-thru basses and they sound NOTHING like my Spector Euro's.
I've owned both over the years. After seeing this post, I realized that all of my regular players and stage basses especially, are all bolt on. The only exception is the Steinberger...and that's more like a "just neck" proposition.
I only have one remaining neck through, Rickenbacker 4003.... the rest are bolt on. I previously had 2 Carvins and a Spector that were neck through. I ended up selling them. Neck throughs are nice, but not mandatory, IMO.
I have an Ibanez SRF 705 and it has a little bit better sustain and tone than my bolt on. That could be the woods in the neck and body, not sure. I will say that when you flip it over, the carved area where the neck meets the body is absolutely stunning. It really does feel and look like that much better of a bass. I'm not a die hard of either, but do tend to play my neck through more. Although, it's mostly due to the tone possibilites with the three pickups. BASS.
Around 1997 I went to a store to buy a Warwick Streamer Stage 1 (which had through necks), they didn’t have one in stock but they had a bolt on neck version. I demo’ed it and really liked it, the sales person said that the thru neck version was very similar (except for the neck of course).
Anyway, I ordered the bass on the strength of how much I liked the bolt-on version, when my bass arrived however I was a bit disappointed and actually liked the bolt-on version better. Visually the thru neck looked the business, sound wise (and sustain-wise) the bolt on had it. There may have been other reasons for this but that was my experience.
Anyway, I ordered the bass on the strength of how much I liked the bolt-on version, when my bass arrived however I was a bit disappointed and actually liked the bolt-on version better. Visually the thru neck looked the business, sound wise (and sustain-wise) the bolt on had it. There may have been other reasons for this but that was my experience.
Neck through basses generally have more sustain IMHO. Bolt on basses tend to be a little punchier and funky, again IMHO. I like both incidentally.
I had a somewhat in depth email conversation about this with a few people including the guys at FBass and their stance at that time was that bolt ons have better attack. I do not know why this would be, but I trust that they know what they are taking about.
I have read that neck thrus have better sustain; presumably because some energy could be lost at the neck joint, but having only owned one neck thru and not having a bolt on at the same time, it is tough to confirm this myself.
I can say that my bolt on Fbass has incredible sustain. We have a little inside joke we do in one of my groups where the last note played is allowed to ring and my Fbass outlasts both the acoustic and electric guitars every time.
Lastly, I love the look of a neck through...just such a sleek sexy line.
I have read that neck thrus have better sustain; presumably because some energy could be lost at the neck joint, but having only owned one neck thru and not having a bolt on at the same time, it is tough to confirm this myself.
I can say that my bolt on Fbass has incredible sustain. We have a little inside joke we do in one of my groups where the last note played is allowed to ring and my Fbass outlasts both the acoustic and electric guitars every time.
Lastly, I love the look of a neck through...just such a sleek sexy line.
