Naw...---Old Musicians never die...we just de-compose! Lol!
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
IME implementation trumps specs. I've had some pretty awesome - and mediocre - examples of both types over the years.
If I had a choice on a new custom build? I would definitely give it some thought.
My two active 5-strings are very different from each other. There's a lot of things contributing to that besides just neck type - but I think it does factor in.
I probably wouldn't compromise some other aspect for the sake of having neck-thru but sticking to a budget.
But I might invest extra $$$ on a neck-thru upgrade. IME maximum sustain can be one of those things that's better to have & not need than vice versa.
If I had a choice on a new custom build? I would definitely give it some thought.
My two active 5-strings are very different from each other. There's a lot of things contributing to that besides just neck type - but I think it does factor in.
I probably wouldn't compromise some other aspect for the sake of having neck-thru but sticking to a budget.
But I might invest extra $$$ on a neck-thru upgrade. IME maximum sustain can be one of those things that's better to have & not need than vice versa.
Maybe to some it doesn't matter much. It's easier to reach the higher frets with a ntb guitar, compared a more "conventional" model with a bolt on neck and a heel like a brick.
Of course these days there are bolt on guitars that have a better design. On bass you're less likely to go high up on the fretboard as frequently as a guitarist, but it's still nice to be able to play arpeggios without that chunky heel in the way.
View attachment 4968914
Funny you posted that Ibanez (I think that's the SR5000); I have that model's twin brother, the SR4600-OSL.
I see what you're saying now.
I’m not sure it is as simple as one neck construction method has more sustain than another. It has more to do with stiffness of the entire organism and loss of energy over the decay.
I’m not sure infinite sustain results in superior tone. Very subjective topic that tone thing.
I’m not sure infinite sustain results in superior tone. Very subjective topic that tone thing.
I have six basses, three neck-through (NT) and three bolt on (BO).
Here they are:
1) Yamaha TRB6P (NT)
2) Yamaha TRB6II (BO)
3) Yamaha BB2000 (NT)
4) Yamaha BB3000 (NT)
5) Fender CS '59 P (BO)
6) Ernie Ball Music Man SR 3EQ (BO)
In my view there's a difference; less discernable in the sixes, but more so in the fours.
Generally, the sound seems more even, more naturally compressed in the basses with the NT design. The TRB6P certainly fits this description, as does BB2000 and BB3000. The BB2000 seems, as far as I can tell, to best exemplify the natural sonic characteristics inherent in a bass with NT construction, i.e. smooth attack with slight natural compression to the note, making each sound very even in timbre right up and down the board, (no active electronics to colour the tone). The natural harmonics on that bass are as sweet as can be.
The slight exception to the rule is the TRB6II. Despite having a BO neck it definitely seems to have more in common sonically with the NT Yamahas than with my BO basses. It has a large neck heel with a massive surface area contacting the body, and despite retaining an element of natural compression, it's a tad punchier than the TRB6P, but that might be down to the electronics package (different pre-amp EQ with added mid range boost). The construction is impeccable - albeit with a slightly lesser boutique-level of fit 'n finish than the TRB6P. It sounds like one big string...
One scarcely needs to describe the sound of a four string with a BO neck, and mine are no exception. Both are very punchy, but the notes seems a little choked in the higher register, without as much natural headroom (sustain ?) Neither is anywhere near as 'open' sounding as the basses with the NT design.
When it comes to dead spots, the CS P has none discernable, but the Stingray has a doozey on the 5th fret of the G string. So far I've detected none on any having the NT design.
Overall I think the NT basses sound a little more refined. The TRB6P sounds best by a small margin. The TRB6II and BB2000 are neck and neck, with the latter being the best sounding four-string I've ever played. The BB3000 and CS '59 P are about equal. Both sound very good, although the BB3000 usually gets the gig because it's more versatile. I don't play the 'Ray much these days. Beautifully made, but it's the least 'warm' or 'organic' sounding of any of the basses listed and thus quite limited for what I do.
Here they are:
1) Yamaha TRB6P (NT)
2) Yamaha TRB6II (BO)
3) Yamaha BB2000 (NT)
4) Yamaha BB3000 (NT)
5) Fender CS '59 P (BO)
6) Ernie Ball Music Man SR 3EQ (BO)
In my view there's a difference; less discernable in the sixes, but more so in the fours.
Generally, the sound seems more even, more naturally compressed in the basses with the NT design. The TRB6P certainly fits this description, as does BB2000 and BB3000. The BB2000 seems, as far as I can tell, to best exemplify the natural sonic characteristics inherent in a bass with NT construction, i.e. smooth attack with slight natural compression to the note, making each sound very even in timbre right up and down the board, (no active electronics to colour the tone). The natural harmonics on that bass are as sweet as can be.
The slight exception to the rule is the TRB6II. Despite having a BO neck it definitely seems to have more in common sonically with the NT Yamahas than with my BO basses. It has a large neck heel with a massive surface area contacting the body, and despite retaining an element of natural compression, it's a tad punchier than the TRB6P, but that might be down to the electronics package (different pre-amp EQ with added mid range boost). The construction is impeccable - albeit with a slightly lesser boutique-level of fit 'n finish than the TRB6P. It sounds like one big string...
One scarcely needs to describe the sound of a four string with a BO neck, and mine are no exception. Both are very punchy, but the notes seems a little choked in the higher register, without as much natural headroom (sustain ?) Neither is anywhere near as 'open' sounding as the basses with the NT design.
When it comes to dead spots, the CS P has none discernable, but the Stingray has a doozey on the 5th fret of the G string. So far I've detected none on any having the NT design.
Overall I think the NT basses sound a little more refined. The TRB6P sounds best by a small margin. The TRB6II and BB2000 are neck and neck, with the latter being the best sounding four-string I've ever played. The BB3000 and CS '59 P are about equal. Both sound very good, although the BB3000 usually gets the gig because it's more versatile. I don't play the 'Ray much these days. Beautifully made, but it's the least 'warm' or 'organic' sounding of any of the basses listed and thus quite limited for what I do.
Yes, it is indeed an Ibanez SR5000. The people from Ibanez sure know how to build some nice, ergonomic instruments.
Yes, it is indeed an Ibanez SR5000. The people from Ibanez sure know how to build some nice, ergonomic instruments.
They do. The Prestige series punches above its price point handsomely. When I say I play Ibanez almost always they presume rock or metal, which I don't play hardly at all. I just like its lightweight, compact feel, its no-drama "airy" tone, and I love how mine looks. That translucent orange paint is sexy AF. I almost got the SR5000 except (and this is pathetic), the hardware of the bridges and knobs don't match. Everything is black on the 4600, so I went with that one instead lol
It's a bit quirky to paint the neck-through. Where to end? Where to start? Especially when someone like me wants an unpainted neck ... (sold my Spector).
The discussion is rather old: Rickenbacker International Corporation - Forum • View topic - Neck thru vs bolt on
The discussion is rather old: Rickenbacker International Corporation - Forum • View topic - Neck thru vs bolt on
Pretty common for a satin finish neck on a gloss body. 3 of my current neck though basses are that way and the custom I have on order is as well. Looks a lot like the picture MrMusicMetal posted. When I had my Spector I just had the finish sanded down on the neck and put a satin finish on it.
It all boils down to physics, e.g. a neckthrough will provide less loss of energy (of the vibrating string) compared to a bolt-on neck with similar dimensions and woods. The overtone spectrum will also differ because of this, therefore changing the timbre of the instrument.
From all the basses I've owned my Ibanez MC9240 ánd Aria Pro SB700 sound the most "clear" without amplification. Both are neckthrough constructions.
That said, neckthrough doesn't mean it'll sound better, the tonal quality of a bass is highly subjective. Some want notes to ring clear as a bell while others want thud over clarity.
From all the basses I've owned my Ibanez MC9240 ánd Aria Pro SB700 sound the most "clear" without amplification. Both are neckthrough constructions.
That said, neckthrough doesn't mean it'll sound better, the tonal quality of a bass is highly subjective. Some want notes to ring clear as a bell while others want thud over clarity.
Yeah, Ibanez did consciously create that image themselves throughout the years. Starting from the mid 80s or so, when they had a whole bunch of virtuoso guitar players/shredders endorsing their brand. Guys who were in the spotlight and on all the magazine covers. Vai, Satriani, Gambale, Paul Gilbert, John Petrucci, Alex Skolnick, etc.
Bolt-on necks avoid oversize charges when you ship them. I recently received a Fender Aerodyne from Japan, and the neck was separated from the body, resulting in a very compact box.
