I do too.Completely off-topic but I have to say I really love your avatar.
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.
Is there a significant difference in tone between neck-through and bolt-on basses?
- Thread starter capnsandwich
- Start date
Th
I’ve had bolt on and neck through versions of Warwick thumb basses.
The bolt on did not sound the same. It had a good sound in its own right but was a bit raunchier to my ears particularly in the midrange, the neck through sounds a bit more polished and balanced with more polished highs and thunderous lows. I would recommend either one to someone really just depends on the sound they were going for. I prefer the neck though versions personally. I feel with these particular basses the neck trough versions are more versatile because you can’t really get that raunchy midrange dialed out with the bolt on without totally destroying your tone and it’s just not suitable for everything.
Are they warwicks? Lol
I’ve had bolt on and neck through versions of Warwick thumb basses.
If that's what it costs to get a bass like that from that builder and you prefer it and are cool with the upcharge... yeah I guess.
IME building a NT isn't much different in difficulty than a BO of the same design if not actually easier... no neck joint to fool with. You would need longer pieces of wood for the neck but that cost difference should be nominal.
Tonally, I found similar NT and BO basses to exhibit the following differences: attack, frequency range, sustain. These may or may not be obvious depending on how you play. For example, I find that slapping can really expose differences that playing fingerstyle may not. So if you don't slap it may seem that there's no difference.
Personally, with the variants I've played and/or own(ed) BO's like Fenders sound less refined, more aggressive. NT's were relatively more refined and less aggressive. "Better" would depend on what you want at the moment. I lean towards BO's but have a few NT's that I love too. My Brubakers are a hybrid of both (Bolt-thru) and I dig that too. Bolt-on aggression coupled with neck through sustain.
I've played some higher end NT's that exhibit extended low range aka more fundamental. The same is true of sustain.
Can it be simplified down to X does this and Y does that? Nope... because who cares what the rules or general consensus are if you're holding an exception?
You'll be better armed for an opinion on the basses in question this weekend when you get your hands on them. If the BO sounds great and the NT sounds amazing, you still have to decide if that's $2k worth of difference. OTOH if the results are reversed you may have a relative bargain. Good luck.
I would say - no, not USD 2,000 worth. If you have a strong desire to support the builder's artistry, then by all means go ahead and spend the dough.
Has the builder NEVER made a neck-through? You're paying this premium to set them up for neck-thru builds? Even so, you are more than subsidizing the builder many times over for what is essentially the purchase of a few more bar clamps. Unless they are building with prefab bodies and necks, then it's hardly possible to claim a neck-thru build is creating substantial extra labor costs... maybe if they want to get real fancy, it could justify another $300-400?
Maybe they just have a strong philosophical aversion to neck-thrus, and charge 2K extra to discourage their clients?
Short answer: NO
Long answer: YES
Long answer: YES
Lots of assumptions being made.
I've known of builders who buy parts for their lower end basses and build their higher end basses by hand. The difference could easily be $2k in price. So a higher end NT could easily be worth more than a lower end BO. Or they could easily make a lower end bass at a lower cost than a higher end bass while doing all of the work. Neither of these practices is at all odd.
I've known of builders who buy parts for their lower end basses and build their higher end basses by hand. The difference could easily be $2k in price. So a higher end NT could easily be worth more than a lower end BO. Or they could easily make a lower end bass at a lower cost than a higher end bass while doing all of the work. Neither of these practices is at all odd.
OK, the basses in question are both Foderas. So yes, they've built bolt-ons and neck-throughs before. I've always wanted a Fodera and I may have a chance at owning one here soon. OK, I refrained from telling you this because I didn't want another "is a Fodera worth $10k+ but I see now that I couldn't hold it in any longer.
IMO Yes, there definitely is a difference in tonal characteristics. Is the additional labor cost of a NT worth the extra bucks, it depends on the specific bass.
You've got to A/B the instruments, I can hear the difference as a whole in general; Bolt on has more articulation on most builds but, there so many combination of woods and bridge density not to mention the electronics that are a factor as well.
With today's processing technology it boils down to mostly "ergonomics and economics".
Just give me a bass with new strings and a highend flexible pre-amp, I can make it "sound" like almost any other bass.
You've got to A/B the instruments, I can hear the difference as a whole in general; Bolt on has more articulation on most builds but, there so many combination of woods and bridge density not to mention the electronics that are a factor as well.
With today's processing technology it boils down to mostly "ergonomics and economics".
Just give me a bass with new strings and a highend flexible pre-amp, I can make it "sound" like almost any other bass.
It all depends on whose imagination you're listening to.
I have a 1996 Emperor 5 Bolt-on and a 1992 Anthony Jackson Contrabass 6. My general comments about the difference between the two neck joints stands for both of these basses. The fundamental on the AJC is phenomenal, the Emperor with singlecoils is a great representation of a 70's Fender Jazz, adding a low B and minus the weight. It also has a killer bridge pickup burp. Both have Lane Poors and Hazlab preamps.
Both can be set up to play effortlessly, if that's important. It's surprising how easy my Contrabass is to play... with low action it feels like my hands are floating over the bass. Particularly surprising with its 36" scale and 21mm spacing.
MDBass
Supporting Member
- Nov 7, 2012
- 8,590
- 14,892
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Dingwall-Fender-Bergantino-Dunlop-Tech 21-Darkglass-Nordstrand
Nope.
The overall design and construction of the bass is what matters; the only commonality that ALL bolt-on basses all share is that the neck is removable
Last edited:
MDBass
Supporting Member
- Nov 7, 2012
- 8,590
- 14,892
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Dingwall-Fender-Bergantino-Dunlop-Tech 21-Darkglass-Nordstrand
There are plenty of bolt-on basses with incredible sustain, so unless (potentially) better high fret access is worth $2k to you...no.
Even if sustain was quantifiably better on a neck through, which it isn't, would that slight increase be worth $2000? Doubtful.
I recently sold a neck through Stingray. Best sounded Ray I’ve ever played and I played a lot of them. The truss rod needed to be adjusted every time I played it. Every single time. Even if I didn’t take out of my studio. Never had a neck that unstable before. Truss wheel made it easy but still.
The big advantage I find with bolt-on is the ability to swap out necks if need be. Tonally, some claim bolt-on have more grunt/attack on the front end of the note and that neck-thru the note is more even overall and sustains longer. My ears are not good enough to pick up such nuances. When ever I shop for a new bass I have almost always come home with a bolt-on. No idea why, it just ends up that way.
Another thread that illustrates one of the value added features of Talkbass...so many people who read the OP, nothing else, then make a comment which has been covered over and over again already within the thread.
Sorry OP, it just gets so old with all the laziness around here. If you want to comment READ WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN ALREADY!!!!!!
Sorry OP, it just gets so old with all the laziness around here. If you want to comment READ WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN ALREADY!!!!!!
Last edited:
Neck through is certainly different than bolt on, but not necessarily better (and most definitely _NOT_ $2K better), IMHO.
Gaolee
Official leathers tester and crash dummy
I have a P (bolt on, of course), Thunderbirds (neck through and bolt on), an EB-2 and an EB (both set neck). Never mind the differences in everything else, the P and the 2013 EB seem to have the longest sustain. The EB-2 is hollow, which has an effect, and I guess one of the effects is that it sustains a little less. The neck-through Thunderbirds sustain least, perhaps because they are mahogany, perhaps for some other reason. It's fairly consistent across three of them. The bolt on Thunderbird sustains a bit more and has a different sound. Different pickups, different wood used in construction. So, what does this tell you? Absolutely nothing about what different Fodera construction might get you or might not. Too many variables don't get accounted for.
No offense, I've never had to replace a neck on any bass I've owned, regardless of neck type. It's not quite as bad as the advantage I was once told of having a string through bridge... it would keep the bridge from flying off of the bass.
I feel strongly ambiguous about this.
