Bolt-on versus Neck-through: What do the experts say?

[cfsporn]

Wasn't there a thread a couple months ago about three otherwise identical Foderas each with a different construction? I am on my cell now so I can't link it.

After a blind listen, I found that I preferred the bolt on to the neck through to the set neck. While I liked the clear, piano-like sound of the NT, I feel that the BO has a bit more low-mid kick that (IMHO) is the key to cutting through the mix. The SN, to me, sounded slightly muffled, especially in the higher register, almost as if a pillow was pushed in front of the speaker.

I have noticed this with my personal basses as well. My Alembic Epic sounds a little darker than my Persuader, even though the Persuader is a 32" scale vs the Epic's 34". However, this could just as easily be attributed to the wood combo of the Epic (Mahogany/Zebrawood, Maple/Ebony) vs the Persuader (Mahogany/Burled Maple, Maple/Ebony).

 

[MCS4]

My anecdotal experience supports the cliche'd bolt-on "punch" and neck-through "openness" view, on the average. This is based in large part on more than a decade of playing/owning several Carvin basses that share various similarities but differ in neck attachment.

I haven't seen evidence of any difference in sustain, nor evidence that one style is "better" than another in some objective measure of quality rather than being a matter of personal preference. However, I do find that I easily prefer neck-through for both feel and sound, although not to the extent that it prevents me from buying bolts (in fact, I only currently own one true neck-through, which is my main bass, but have two bolts and a set-neck).

I do agree that many factors go into the sound of the bass, and you can't predict a bass' level of punch vs. openness based solely upon the neck attachment. However, I do believe the neck attachment is a significant factor.

 

[nostatic]

wrt this aspect of a build, tone is secondary for me. I can push tone around, and subtleties are often lost in a mix. Playability however, is not answered by any "sound tests". One reason I spent big bucks to move from a Fodera Yin Yang Standard to a custom was the neck joint. The dovetail provides better access up high than the bolt on. And the neck-through, which the pair I have on order will be, provides even better access. Given two equivalent instruments, there is no way a bolt-on can provide the same access up high as a neck-through (note - that is comparing equivalent instruments, not different designs like a 21 fret neck through vs 26 fret bolt on).

If you don't play up high - total non-issue. Bolt-on will almost always be cheaper (depending on the other variables). I have two bolt-on basses, one dovetail, one neck through. I don't make playing choices based on the neck joint - they are different instruments that do different things well.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

...Doing this sort of test with a 'sample of two' is not going to answer the question totally.

...if you had a dozen instruments spec'd as close as you can get them other than neck attachment design and compared 'on average', if there was any difference, it would most likely be trivial, and most likely not even in the expected direction of 'punchy versus sustain', etc.

I mostly agree with the points that Ken has made on this issue, but I find it ironic that after giving us a lesson on scientific method, he demonstrates his own bias so clearly.

Since no-one has done the "dozen instruments test", and the outcome is unknown, why would there be any reason for him to state that the difference would be trivial, or that it would be in any particular direction, expected or otherwise?

I thought the YouTube vid with the two Ken Smiths was a good example of the difficulty in answering this question conclusively. It only takes a cursory look to see that the setup geometry is different on the two basses. If they were truly identical, the pickup height would not be visibly different...

In my personal experience after sampling hundreds of basses over the last 40-odd years, the basses with the longest sustain that I've played, happen to have all been neck-through. Ditto for eveness of sound up and down the neck, relative lack of dead spots, and ease of access to the upper frets.

However, if we eliminate the poorly-constructed examples, the amount of difference in those areas between "good" instruments with various neck joint types was relatively trivial.

More importantly, the differences in overall tonal character didn't line up as neatly with the type of neck joint, thus seeming to prove that just about everything else about construction and setup is more important.

Furthermore, some of the instruments that weren't "good" from a technical point of view, sounded very musical. Any brand or model of beatle bass, for example, is a near-perfect example of how to not terminate the ends of a vibrating string. Yet you can make some pretty interesting sounds on them...

 

[KJung]

I mostly agree with the points that Ken has made on this issue, but I find it ironic that after giving us a lesson on scientific method, he demonstrates his own bias so clearly.

Since no-one has done the "dozen instruments test", and the outcome is unknown, why would there be any reason for him to state that the difference would be trivial, or that it would be in any particular direction, expected or otherwise?

Always assume the null hypothesis when no information is available. Put another way, science always tries to minimize Type I error (saying something 'is' when it 'isn't')

In my experience of playing and owning a ton of neck throughs and bolt-ons, and playing a number of quite similar instruments side by side, with very little being different other than the neck construction, I have experienced no consistent, meaningful, systematic differences between different methods of neck construction over many decades and literally hundreds of instruments (including playing quite a few Fodera's of the same basic spec and model Emperors, in bolt-on and neck through and set neck configuration).

That suggests that even if there is a 'significant' (i.e., consistent non-chance) difference, it most likely explains a trivial amount of variance in the overall tone, performance, sound, sustain of a well made instrument.


Put more simply, buy a bass you dig, and don't limit yourself to one neck construction technique or the other


Edit: Put MOST simply, I sure wouldn't eliminate a USA MTD from consideration because it had a bolt-on design and fearing that it would not sustain as much as another brand's neck through! Or a neck through Fodera not being as 'punchy' as a bolt-on whatever!

 

[Solarmist]

Always assume the null hypothesis when no information is available. Put another way, science always tries to minimize Type I error (saying something 'is' when it 'isn't')

In my experience of playing and owning a ton of neck throughs and bolt-ons, and playing a number of quite similar instruments side by side, with very little being different other than the neck construction, I have experienced no consistent, meaningful, systematic differences between different methods of neck construction over many decades and literally hundreds of instruments (including playing quite a few Fodera's of the same basic spec and model Emperors, in bolt-on and neck through and set neck configuration).

That suggests that even if there is a 'significant' (i.e., consistent non-chance) difference, it most likely explains a trivial amount of variance in the overall tone, performance, sound, sustain of a well made instrument.


Put more simply, buy a bass you dig, and don't limit yourself to one neck construction technique or the other


Edit: Put MOST simply, I sure wouldn't eliminate a USA MTD from consideration because it had a bolt-on design and fearing that it would not sustain as much as another brand's neck through! Or a neck through Fodera not being as 'punchy' as a bolt-on whatever!

Great post

What type of neck joint is basically meaningless to me - I just don't see what difference it makes as long as it's a rigid joint IMHO.

 

[Baird6869]

I think owning (even borrowing for a few hours) the 3 Foderas in question would be helpful, but I wouldn't expect to come away with an opinion other than which type of Fodera construction I liked better.

Most of the basses I own/have owned are bolt on as I am predominantly a "Fender Style" player. I also like Gibson set necks as well as Pedulla and Spector NT basses.

I think Ken's Fender vs. RIC example is dead on. I grew up being a "bolt on guy" as I didn't like RICs. If asked, I guess in the 80's I would have "hated NT basses" based soley on my dislike for this one brand. If Fender made NT basses.... Who knows. In The the mid '80s, Spector, Pedulla, Alembic and a few other NT basses were out there, but I never saw many in the flesh.

I DO have a bit of a fear of a NT bass having truss rod issues which could be a very tricky issue to fix. Not sure why this worries me as I have never had neck issues on basses other than bolt ons.

In any case, these days I would buy a NT, Set neck or bolt on if I liked how it sounded/played.

 

[Ric5]

If your neck goes bad with a bolt on bass then you get a new neck ...

With a neck through bass you get a new bass ...

 

[awilkie84]

I have a bolt-on 2006 Spector ReBop 5DLX & a Neckthru 1996 Spector NS-2000/5.
These basses use similar hardware (the bridges are slightly different in dimension) and identical electronics. Neck profiles are VERY similar, weight is about 2oz difference, and they are the same scale length. The NS-2000/5 definitely sustains longer than the ReBop5. The feel on both basses is virtually the same, punch is no different.

I can honestly tell you that I find next to no difference, other than the minute sustain difference.

 

[Turnaround]

If your neck goes bad with a bolt on bass then you get a new neck ...

With a neck through bass you get a new bass ...

I think this point is as relevant, or perhaps more so, than questions of tone and sustain. As a repair technician I will add that I much prefer to work with bolt-ons - I can do defrets, refrets, all kinds of cleanup, heat setting, etc. etc. much more easily (and at less expense to the owner) with bolt-ons. And I can shim the neck as needed when the owner decides on a different bridge, or the break angle over the saddles requires adjustments. Much more limited on the NT.

 

[awilkie84]

wrt this aspect of a build, tone is secondary for me. I can push tone around, and subtleties are often lost in a mix. Playability however, is not answered by any "sound tests". One reason I spent big bucks to move from a Fodera Yin Yang Standard to a custom was the neck joint. The dovetail provides better access up high than the bolt on. And the neck-through, which the pair I have on order will be, provides even better access. Given two equivalent instruments, there is no way a bolt-on can provide the same access up high as a neck-through (note - that is comparing equivalent instruments, not different designs like a 21 fret neck through vs 26 fret bolt on).

If you don't play up high - total non-issue. Bolt-on will almost always be cheaper (depending on the other variables). I have two bolt-on basses, one dovetail, one neck through. I don't make playing choices based on the neck joint - they are different instruments that do different things well.

I find this hard to believe, as this is going to be more dependant on body & neck shape than on bolt-on vs neckthru.
With a little more time put into R&D, I'm sure a bolt-on could deliver the same neck contour & dimensions at the same points as the neckthru.

 

[MCS4]

The huge differences in opinions among these luthiers supports my (and many others') feeling that there is very little, if any systematic tonal differences between these two construction methods.

I would say the fact that almost all of these luthiers prefer one style over the other, and can identify specific reasons why, supports the concept that there *are* systemic differences between the two. However, it also supports the point that one style is not somehow objectively better or higher quality than the other, but instead the differences are more relevant to personal preference of the player (or luthier).

 

[Showdown]

I would say the fact that almost all of these luthiers prefer one style over the other, and can identify specific reasons why, supports the concept that there *are* systemic differences between the two. However, it also supports the point that one style is not somehow objectively better or higher quality than the other, but instead the differences are more relevant to personal preference of the player (or luthier).

I agree.

 

[KJung]

I would say the fact that almost all of these luthiers prefer one style over the other, and can identify specific reasons why, supports the concept that there *are* systemic differences between the two. However, it also supports the point that one style is not somehow objectively better or higher quality than the other, but instead the differences are more relevant to personal preference of the player (or luthier).

If the reasons weren't all over the map, I would agree There are definitely construction issues of course, and if you are a luthier like Sadowsky, Coppolo, Lull, etc. who get their inspiration from more classic instruments, that would also be a strong motivation to choose one over the other. Tonally... seemingly not so much.

 

[MCS4]

If the reasons weren't all over the map, I would agree

I would use my bass to bash through your little wall, but I'd be out of luck if the through-neck snapped...

Sounds better than a bolt so long as it's not broken though.

 

[KJung]

I would use my bass to bash through your little wall, but I'd be out of luck if the through-neck snapped...

Sounds better than a bolt so long as it's not broken though.

 

[Musiclogic]

Better late than never....LOL

I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.

The main difference I have found between Bolt On and Neck Through is pretty simple. Attack.

Bolt Ons have a percussive thud that you cannot get with a neck through. It's almost an immediate decay like having wood saddles on a neck through.

Neck Through have an almost mechanical ring. It's a little more clear at the moment of attack of the note.

This is the only real difference I have ever found between the 2, and can be blurred with a set neck a bit.

I use all 3 methods in my shop as do a number of small builders I know such as Alan Crinnegan(ACG).

I don't think there is a better method, just a preferable method to each builder. Some choose 1 over the other, and some like to do them all.

 

[Ric5]

Supposedly a neck through makes the bass sustain better ... but the best sustaining bass I ever owned was a Rickenbacker 2030 with a bolt on neck.

 

[phillybass101]

I used to travel the country doing system upgades and to keep me sane and safe I always took my bolt on Yamaha P-J bass. It was BB something or other. I would take the neck off, pack it in my suitcase, padded by my clothing. Quick assemble and I'm jamming in ATL, or Miami, SF, Chicago, Albany etc. Can't do that with a neck through. Quick disasemble, pack it in the suit case and I'm on my way home. I did this for at least two years or so. My enture collection of basses (8) are all bolt ons. Now this does not mean I won't play on a neck thru, I just won't buy one.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

Always assume the null hypothesis when no information is available. Put another way, science always tries to minimize Type I error (saying something 'is' when it 'isn't')

Fair. That makes total sense, although you worded it more strongly the first time.

...In my experience of playing and owning a ton of neck throughs and bolt-ons, and playing a number of quite similar instruments side by side, with very little being different other than the neck construction, I have experienced no consistent, meaningful, systematic differences between different methods of neck construction over many decades and literally hundreds of instruments (including playing quite a few Fodera's of the same basic spec and model Emperors, in bolt-on and neck through and set neck configuration).

That's a significant point, too. We don't shop in the same places...

I'm a cheap SOB, and a series of reversals stopped me from stretching my wings just as I was starting to enjoy real financial freedom. As a result, the bulk of my bolt-vs-nt experience has been in the middle price ranges.

Down in the bargain basement, a solid, friction-fit neck joint can't be taken for granted. That would tend to stack the deck against bolt-ons vs nt for sustain and stability.