Is there a significant difference in tone between neck-through and bolt-on basses?

[Two-Spirit]

I have a Peavey Cirrus and Its a little woody but more importantly there isn't any nastyness to pass on to the amplifier. I've played cheap jazz bass copies and It's not the same, it's dead as a fence post and some nastiness that shouldn't be there. Even my Seagull acoustic sounds dead and a little nasty compared to my bass.
I know theres a camp that thinks certain cheaper basses sound as good as anything, and some upgrade cheap basses but I just don't agree with them.

 

[blubass]

I'm not going to go through 14 pages, but absolutely there's a difference.

In the very unfortunate and unlikely event that you may break or damage a neck beyond repair.... the bolt-on is replaceable, whereas the neck through is not. to be more accurate, a neck-thru probably is replaceable by a luthier, but would cost more than the instrument itself most likely.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

You're trying to turn this into a physics lecture.

To me that's common sense, as actual common sense is sometimes shown to be wrong when scientific scrutiny is applied. I've worked as a scientist, or in research support almost my whole adult life, which probably also colours my personal methodology

"If you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough." Albert Einstein

That doesn't mean you should over simplify things, though. But then to me, the physics of waves and materials is the simple explanation, rather than sometimes seemingly conflicting properties ascribed to various species of wood.

I'll attempt a simple explanation, though. Imagine you have a little model yacht in a pond. You bounce it up and down half a dozen times, rhythmically. Saying the wood, which is pretty amorphous at audio frequencies, can 'keep the string vibrating' is like saying that the ripples coming back from various angles of the pond will arrive back at the yacht and bounce it up and down with largely the same frequency as you originally gave it. In reality, some ripples are lost in the reeds, some are intercepted by warlords, er ducks, some bounce off hard objects then into other ripples and die there and then, and almost nothing comes back in phase to do anything other than gently rock it.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I know theres a camp that thinks certain cheaper basses sound as good as anything, and some upgrade cheap basses but I just don't agree with them.

More expensive basses tend to have better QC, frets, electronics, and not have necks made of green wood that will warp. But a cheap bass with an alder body and an expensive bass with an alder body will have bodies that, relative to audio frequencies, are pretty much identical.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I stand corrected! Strings have a much bigger impact on tone than body wood or neck construction, which, in reality, have zero point zero effect on tone.

There are people who believe that and there are people who find that ridiculous. As it should be... opinions vary.

 

[Brad Johnson]

The issue is not what people think, but what is actually true. Actual experiments suggest the difference is minimal.

Or not. ijs

 

[Brad Johnson]

By what mechanism is the tone in the wood?

If wood is so crucial why do perspex guitars and basses (even more isotropic than wood) or made of concrete (much denser), or stiffened cardboard (much less dense) sound much the same?

Note that these comparisons don't apply to hollow instruments like an ABG or DB as these use flat plates of material, not solid blocks.

There is no tone in wood. That's why any basses that have the same bridge, electronics and strings sound identical.

And there is no tone in the individual either. We all sound the same.

It feels great to finally admit that.

 

[Brad Johnson]

To me that's common sense, as actual common sense is sometimes shown to be wrong when scientific scrutiny is applied. I've worked as a scientist, or in research support almost my whole adult life, which probably also colours my personal methodology



That doesn't mean you should over simplify things, though. But then to me, the physics of waves and materials is the simple explanation, rather than sometimes seemingly conflicting properties ascribed to various species of wood.

I'll attempt a simple explanation, though. Imagine you have a little model yacht in a pond. You bounce it up and down half a dozen times, rhythmically. Saying the wood, which is pretty amorphous at audio frequencies, can 'keep the string vibrating' is like saying that the ripples coming back from various angles of the pond will arrive back at the yacht and bounce it up and down with largely the same frequency as you originally gave it. In reality, some ripples are lost in the reeds, some are intercepted by warlords, er ducks, some bounce off hard objects then into other ripples and die there and then, and almost nothing comes back in phase to do anything other than gently rock it.

No doubt the yacht, regardless of construction (Balsa or petrified wood) would behave identically in all circumstances.

The effect of wood on tone can be explained simply. The fact remains that many refuse to believe it despite that. I'm just glad that my instruments don't read TB and continue to sound different from each other. It helps to support my fantasy... and that's really what matters.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

No doubt the yacht, regardless of construction (Balsa or petrified wood) would behave identically in all circumstances.

In this case the pond stands in for the wood of the bass. The type of wood of the toy yacht would be analagous to the type of string. I hope that helps.

The effect of wood on tone can be explained simply.

It's relatively simple to test.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

There is no tone in wood. That's why any basses that have the same bridge, electronics and strings sound identical.

Experimental evidence, under controlled conditions, does tend to show that this is the case.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

There are people who believe that and there are people who find that ridiculous. As it should be... opinions vary.

Opinions vary, facts do not. That's why basing things on opinion is not helpful, and why I put my trust in the scientific method.

People claim, for example, that remedy X works, but we know about the placebo effect. People say they can hear the effect of brand Y cables, but then in double-blind tests it is shown they cannot. Common sense and opinions are things to be tested.

 

[moonshinegtrs]

"Can't we all just get along?"

I posted the following on the very first page of this thread...

Bass Bench: Can You Hear the Difference Between Different Neck Joints? | Premier Guitar

I do think it is a very effective non biased approach to the "Bolt on vs. Neck through" debate...


I do think it's funny that: A; The original question was "My question is this; is it worth it in tonal aspects to fork over $2k more for a neck-through?".

Dude just wanted to know if there was $2000.00 worth of tonal difference between a Bolt on vs a Neck Through bass, I don't think he was wanting to start physics debate (I could be wrong, maybe this was his intention... If so, Well played Sir!).

And B; He's already decided and purchased a bass so problem solved.

I see this on Facebook all the time; People just like to argue (debate?)... I seriously doubt that any of you will ever convince the opposing point of view to admit they are incorrect.

It will be interesting to see how many more pages this thread will go.



Moonshine

 

[dbsfgyd1]

I'm currently looking at 2 basses, both from the same builder. One is a bolt-on body style and the other a neck-through. The neck-through, however, is roughly $2k more than the bolt-on. Both are gorgeous basses and have similar wood combinations.

My question is this; is it worth it in tonal aspects to fork over $2k more for a neck-through? BTW, I'm checking them both out come this Sunday so that answers that but still want to know the opinions of some of you all.

I’v played both and can find no difference.. with today’s active pickups, you could have a paper towel core taped to a cigar box and still get a respectable sound. Save the cash. Put in in a mutual fund and leave it alone.

 

[FunkySpoo]

IMO, no tonal advantage to spending 2k more. I own both types of basses btw.

Really? 2K more? I paid $1600 new for my Spector Euro5LX. So if I had gotten a Fender B.O. they would have paid me $400 to take it? I'll see if I can still get that deal.

 

[lowendblues]

I think a bolt on neck bass can be setup better than a neck though, as far as tone, I've always been able to tell "something" different, what it is however, I cant tell you. But something.

 

[GreyBeard]

One way to do this would be to compare a StingRay5 Neck Through with a standard StingRay5 H. Pretty much the same wood and electronics except for the fact that one is bolt on and the other is neck through. I've owned 2 neck through and I could not hear or feel all that much difference than a bolt on.

 

[Jeff Scott]

There is no tone in wood.

If so, why do luthiers tap tone woods when making guitars?

 

[mellowinman]

Neck throughs are always better than bolt ons. They are constructed by magical elves using unicorn tears and symbolic suffering. That's why bolt ons are always better than neck throughs. I hope I've been as helpful as I had hopinged.

 

[Pops OB]

Neck throughs are always better than bolt ons. They are constructed by magical elves using unicorn tears and symbolic suffering. That's why bolt ons are always better than neck throughs. I hope I've been as helpful as I had hopinged.

^^ EXACTLY ^^

 

[capnsandwich]

Neck throughs are always better than bolt ons. They are constructed by magical elves using unicorn tears and symbolic suffering. That's why bolt ons are always better than neck throughs. I hope I've been as helpful as I had hopinged.

You know, you have a good point. I did see some kind of magical glitter-looking stuff when I opened the case.