To an engineer (and I'm a retired engineer) the answer always has to be - yes, there's a difference. Is there a
significant difference? I'd have to say it depends on whether or not you want it to be so, and your definition of "significant". I can tell you that a $2K price difference certainly qualifies in
my world. But, what difference neck-thru vs. bolt on makes to the sound, I couldn't really say. There are so many other variables that, IMO, I don't think you really
can say, one way or the other. Out of 24 basses I own, 10 have bolt on necks; 7 are neck-thrus, and 7 are set necks. But, I didn't buy any of them because of the type of neck. I bought them because of what they were. Gibson Thunderbirds and Rickenbackers are neck-thrus. Period. P-Basses and their clones, with very few exceptions, are bolt necks. Period. They simply are what they are...
Some people say bolt necks have a sharper/more defined attack. IMO, my set neck Alembic Epic and my neck-thru Kramer Forum III will give any bolt neck a run for their money in that category. Personally, I think other variables are more significant in this category, though..
Some people say that a neck-thru has better sustain. My Ricks are certainly very good at this; The Forum III and my Carvin LB-20 are no slouches; but, my T-Birds actually don't do well, sustain-wise. But, my bolt-on Aluminum-necked Kramer 450B will sustain well into the next century... it's just ridiculous. And, personally, I think all basses have too much sustain, anyway...
So, I'd say it really boils down to which bass you really want. If it were me? I don't really care how the neck is put on, as long as it doesn't try to wiggle around - or come off. I
do care about having 2 Grand to spend on something else, though...
