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

[KJung]

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



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.

+1 Who really knows? Might be some sort of small impact that could be identified if you could ever do a large enough sample, an accurate enough test (i.e., consistent playing and listening/rating), and meaningfully measure and control the other 100+ things that interact (often non-linearly) in a bass build.

I enjoy the topic. There are so many pieces (many of which are organic/inconsistent) that make up a bass guitar that it is very difficult to isolate the impact of a 'low variance explained' effect (i.e., an effect of a component that is either very small in the total voicing of the instrument, or an effect that might be large, but is very inconsistent and hence hard to really nail down and understand).

Again, my main point is that players do not do either of these two things 1) eliminating an otherwise wonderful option because it is a neck construction method they 'think' they don't like and/or 2) Spend a TON of extra money on a neck through because the want 'more sustain' or whatever

 

[lug]

It is a funny book. One of the examples he uses is:
The number of albums Foghat has sold is a fact. Whether or not Foghat should play the Superbowl Halftime Show is a matter of opinion, based on your perceived opinion of them.....

I'm afraid he's dead wrong. It's a absolute fact that Foghat should not play the Superbowl Halftime show.

 

[Clef_de_fa]

I prefer NT over BO just because the access to the 24th frets is easier. With a BO you always has to change the thumb position which change the shape of the whole hand.

Also ... ( this may be just me ) but I haven't found a dead note while on a BO there is always a dead note around the D and C on the G string ...

 

[Brad Johnson]

Upper fret access can be identical regardless of neck joint if the bass is designed for it.

There have been some pretty inexpensive neck throughs available for quite a few years. When NT first gained popularity cost was a factor, now that increase over BO is largely based on perception. Plus as we well know, higher price = better bass. Just my opinion.

I've played a ton of basses and my preferences are based on that body of experience. I won't try to convince others of the superiority of one over the other. As someone who's never broken a neck, repairability hasn't been a factor. Neither has playability, that can vary from build to build. I have noticed tonal qualities in general that differ and for me one typically works better for how I play than the other. I do own some "exceptions" from the other camp.

 

[steve_rolfeca]

...Again, my main point is that players do not do either of these two things 1) eliminating an otherwise wonderful option because it is a neck construction method they 'think' they don't like and/or 2) Spend a TON of extra money on a neck through because the want 'more sustain' or whatever

In my case, it's the other way round.

Cost was the #1 consideration behind my current neck-through. I was offered the chance to build my own bass, in a well-equipped shop. At the time, I cared more about sustain and lack of dead spots than tone, which I figured I could massage with electronics. I could just barely afford the $600-$700 it was going to cost me to build it, and I would only have one chance to get it right.

My survey of the product in local stores in the early 90's regarding sustain and dead spots, could be summed up quite simply: Fender = bad, Alembic/Ken Smith/Pedulla = good. Note that those guys were still firmly associated with neck-through construction at the time.

Further reading seemed to suggest that a single-cut would be a safe starting point, and that any element that stiffened it up (ebony fingerboard, carbon fibre neck inserts, chunky neck contour, angled headstock with a big volute, bookmatched laminations in denser woods like maple and bubinga) would help. Ditto for a lockdown bridge.

In retrospect, many of my assumptions were neither fair nor accurate. Regardless, the end result was the bass in my avatar, and it meets every stereotype that people expect from a neck-through: compressed, relatively neutral tone, very stable tuning, no dead spots...

...and it's a boat anchor. Even after a re-shaping a few years ago, it's still over 11 pounds. If I had the $$$, I would upgrade to a master-built instrument in a flash, and with what I know now, I would worry far more about feel/playability/sound than wood types or neck joints.

The thing that continues to impress me about guys like Fodera, Furlanetto, Roscoe and Tobias, is that they can produce such a high degree of stiffness, structural integrity and consistency from light, resonant instruments that weigh pounds less, and don't follow a particular formula.

 

[jim777]

I want to say that clear finishes sustain better than painted finishes, and that pickguards really bring out the mids in a bass but judging by some other recent threads here I'm not sure if everyone would get the joke Personally I like both, but often prefer the feel in my fretting hand of a neck through. I honestly do like both though. And maple boards lol

And as someone else said in a recent thread, this really is a fantastic time to be a bass player - there really are quality instruments of all kinds at all sorts of price points. So many choices!

 

[nostatic]

Upper fret access can be identical regardless of neck joint if the bass is designed for it.

Can you show examples? I've owned/played variants and with other factors being equivalent, a bolt on doesn't have as clean access as neck-through. Of course it depends on the details and technique, but that is my personal observation.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Can you show examples? I've owned/played variants and with other factors being equivalent, a bolt on doesn't have as clean access as neck-through. Of course it depends on the details and technique, but that is my personal observation.

Sure. Here's one of my Brubakers...

View from the back...

Granted this is Brubaker's "bolt-thru" design but I've seen other bolt-ons with this kind of upper fret access. You just have to design and build it that way. A neck thru not designed for upper fret access won't have it either.

Many builders got away from the "block" heel design of a traditional bolt-on a long time ago.


The bass in my avatar is a bolt-on too...

Here's a Jazz style bass...

 

[Brad Johnson]

Can you show examples? I've owned/played variants and with other factors being equivalent, a bolt on doesn't have as clean access as neck-through. Of course it depends on the details and technique, but that is my personal observation.

Sure. Here's one of my Brubakers...

View from the back...

Granted this is Brubaker's "bolt-thru" design but I've seen other bolt-ons with this kind of upper fret access. You just have to design and build it that way.


The bass in my avatar is a bolt-on too...

OTOH this was one of my neck thrus...

 

[Tunaman]

Bass Gear mag bolt on vs neck through part II

Good stuff

Link Removed

pg 102

 

[dedpool1052]

i think the only way to answer the tonal differences would be to build all 3 types entirely out of carbon fiber/graphite to eliminate the variables of wood densities within species, etc.
graphite is consistant in weight/density, wood is not.


just my opinion.

 

[BruceRichardson]

I have owned three Pedulla basses, two Raptures and a Pentabuzz. I think it's significant that Mike doesn't prefer one over the other, as he builds both types...but also that he builds the "Thunder" model with both methods.

I have played two each of the Thunders, and the Neck Throughs are indeed very different basses than the bolt-ons. The other interesting comparison is the difference between the ThunderBOLT and the Rapture. The necks are radically different-sounding, acoustically, just by virtue of the flat-sawn neck on the Rapture (it puts out a LOT of sound...which means that energy is being transferred away). It's not surprising that the Rapture is a punchier-sounding bass than the Thunderbolt, because that neck is certainly siphoning off some degree of the sustain by design...not that it doesn't still have a ton of sustain.

I don't find any difference in dead notes on Mikes basses. There aren't any, no matter which design he's using.

I am probably taking a long way around the block to agree that there is no real quality difference in a NT versus bolt-on, save the difference in labor, and the less forgiving nature of the NT during construction and finish out. And of course, if things later go bad. For instance, Mike has built me a replacement neck for a PJ Rapture which was damaged in shipping. There was a difference in the way the bass felt with the new neck, but I actually attribute it to the larger frets he used for the second build...the older neck had smaller fretwire.

But I think the assumption of neck-through stiffness, sustain, etc., is actually not always that valid. Take the Pentabuzz, which may be a bolt-on, and may be a very sturdy and well made neck...but it's not a super-stiff bass. My Rapture is a lot "stiffer" than the Pentabuzz.

I think there's a lot of grey area between "there's no difference" versus "I have no preference."

 

[BruceRichardson]

ps...those Brubakers sure are pretty...

 

[mntngrown]

In the end, the way a bass neck is constructed, is of little importance. I've owned and loved basses with all 3 types of construction, and currently own both bolt-on and neck-through basses. A good bass is a good bass, regardless of neck type.

There are even some posts I have read on TB by builders pointing out that the whole tight neck pocket issue is not an issue, except the two mating surfaces where the bolts squeeze the two together. Not the bottom,(truss edge etc mating with body) or sides of the pocket. Interesting stuff.

 

[grendle]

I prefer NT over bolt on. Having played identical basses of bolt on and NT construction. The NT just resonates differently than the bolt on. The NT has a natural compression about it that the bolt on doesn't have. Sustain can be close but the NT is defiantly stronger/ longer sustaining. The bolt does have a different attack that can be cool, but that's one of the main things I prefer with the NT. at the end of the day though its all personal pref. for me it's easily NT ( the bolt I has been hand me downed to my son who likes it better)