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

[staccatogrowl]

. .currently looking at 2 basses from same builder. . one is a bolt-on. . the other a neck-through. . similar wood combinations. . is it worth it in tonal aspects to fork over $2k more for a neck-through? I'm checking them both out Sunday. .

Ken Smith tells of a story whereby he built 12 of the same model basses with the exact same woods and construction techniques. The finished models were all in his shop at the same time when he decided to compare tonal properties of the identical basses. According to his ear, there were 4 distinct tonal variations for these basses. He concluded that the difference was attributed to the individual pieces of wood, which were all the same species of similar weight.

The point of the story is that generalizing rules can result in stereotypical myths that may also be inaccurate. The best thing the original poster can do is preview the two basses and pick the one he likes best, if any. The differences apparent in these basses may be due to neck construction, or not.

 

[TyBo]

When you play both basses on Sunday, you'll have your answer on which you prefer. People have different opinions on this, but yours will be the one that counts, for a bass that you buy. That's the bottom line.

 

[Epitaph04]

I've owned 5 warwick thumb bass guitars. 2 bolt on. 3 neck through. All three neck through instruments have been significantly punchier and have a stupid amount of sustain when compared to pretty much every bolt on I've ever owned (EBMM, Fender, Wal, etc). Oh and I mean the actually noticeable sustain, where the note seems to stay strong much longer before it starts decaying.

HOWEVER Im sure there are bolt on instruments with more sustain than neck throughs, vice versa, yadda yadda, ding dong, and everything I stated above is probably meaningless, but that's my experience with it.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Ken Smith tells of a story whereby he built 12 of the same model basses with the exact same woods and construction techniques. The finished models were all in his shop at the same time when he decided to compare tonal properties of the identical basses. According to his ear, there were 4 distinct tonal variations for these basses. He concluded that the difference was attributed to the individual pieces of wood, which were all the same species of similar weight.

The point of the story is that generalizing rules can result in stereotypical myths that may also be inaccurate. The best thing the original poster can do is preview the two basses and pick the one he likes best, if any. The differences apparent in these basses may be due to neck construction, or not.

Ken Smith electronics have a much larger affect on the tone of his basses than most other instruments in the same vein IME. I'd put Alembic in a similar light. It's not that it's a bad thing, it just is what it is.

 

[JRA]

no.

 

[bikeplate]

I had 3 Fodera’s. My fave was the least expensive bolt on. Who knew?

 

[JW56789]

In my time I've owned neck-thrus (Alembics and MIJ BB Yamahas), set-neck Gibsons (Gibson Ripper and RD Artist), and various bolt-ons.

It's all down to your ears.

TO ME, neck-thrus very subtly carry through the lowest harmonics, but it's not something everyone can hear, and not every pickup and amp combination can present to you, as well. Sustain in real life is a non-starter on any good bass with fresh strings and no setup or pickup issues. More neck-thrus tend to be built as 24-fret axes with deeper treble-side cutaways if it's important for you to play 'up there'. Bolt-ons are easier to adjust as you can move everything if need be, but neckthrus tend to hold setup longer as they're pulling against the length of the scale with no joint partway down the length.

Each has subtle differences and advantages and disadvantages. You have to decide what's important for your ears to hear, and which choice suits your needs best; no one can answer this except you.

I feel like once you get there, and play them in A vs B fashion, the question (and the answer) will be quickly evident.

I will say I don't know of many builders who offer the same bass in neckthru or bolt-on versions, an interesting choice, but geez a 2 grand difference seems like a lot, but what do I know?

 

[Ric5]

Is there a difference between neck through and bolt on?

Yep with a bolt on you can shim the neck, and if needed replace the neck.

If you have a problem with a neck through then you better have a lot of money or just smash it

 

[LiquidMidnight]

There definitely is a difference. Does that difference justify a 2K increase in price? Hellz, no! (IMHO, of course )

Then again, I generally have some hang-ups when it comes to paying thousands of dollars in the first place for a bass with bolt-on design. For the longest time, when I was coming up, you understood that there were some very tangible reasons why Gibsons generally would cost more than Fenders. One of the reasons was set-neck if not neck-through design. I'm not a luthier, but I understand there's more to building an instrument when you're permanently attaching a neck or building the entire instrument around the neck versus first cutting a body and then screwing on a pre-fab neck.

For the record, that's not a slam against bolt-ons in general, and I think the lines have become much blurred in terms of quality and accessibility between the two. Schecter puts out some nice neck-troughs that are very affordable. Likewise, there are some really great bolt-ons that kill. When I pick up my Stingray, I can actually feel concentrated weight centered in the neck pocket.

Just all in my unscientific opinion, of course.

 

[Mannyinnewyork]

Do a blind test. Then save the 2k.

 

[maturanesa]

If both basses are high end the difference is subtle or unnoticiable

You may expect more overall stability and added sustain in a NT in the medium range basses

 

[Fender_Bender]

My brain tells me that there has to be some sort of advantage, theoretical or otherwise, to having both ends of the string anchored to the same uninterrupted pieces of wood. Whether that’s worth 2k is a whole mother ball game. One of the well known luthiers in the book ”American basses” discusses the subject. I remember him saying that the perceived punchier tone on bolt ons was in fact an illusion brought on by the way the brain perceives sounds etc.

 

[hombass]

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 dont think so, and all the falderall about super tight neck pocket joints isnt all that big a deal eithter. My main bass has a Moses graphite neck bolted to a flat 1/4 inch thick aluminum plate and its fantastic. I think what matters most is keeping the neck securely fastened to the body. If you really rock a lot those neck screws will loosen and need tightening maybe more often than you think. As far as if youre building a bass, i wouldnt bother trying to make a perfect neck pocket, just carve a neck through, much easier on the brain and nerves. Lol i had a short neck ibanez bolted to an oak 2X6 for fretting and decided to try it. Played some gigs with it and a fender strat lace sensor pickup, and built a bracket on the oak for a muffin fan to cool me off!!! Lool the guys in the band said i should put a cup holder on it. Lool sorry off the subject but i just think if the neck is tight with the body youll get equal tone.

 

[M.R. Ogle]

My brain tells me that there has to be some sort of advantage, theoretical or otherwise, to having both ends of the string anchored to the same uninterrupted pieces of wood. Whether that’s worth 2k is a whole mother ball game. One of the well known luthiers in the book ”American basses” discusses the subject. I remember him saying that the perceived punchier tone on bolt ons was in fact an illusion brought on by the way the brain perceives sounds etc.

I think you're right.
Although, really, the strings are atached to two different mechanical metal chunks (tuners and bridge) screwed to the wood. Wonder if one more "bolted" attachement (body to neck) makes that much difference?

Given an equal cost, I'd probably prefer the neck-through because of it's "uninterrupted" design seems more elegant and correct. However, gotta give credit to the genius of a replaceable bolt-on neck.

And in terms of sound differences, I don't think there's any real way to A/B that, maybe if you very QUICKLY sawed off a neck-thru and then bolted the piece back on, lol.

I've had many of both bolt-ons and neck-thru's, never was able to draw and straight-line comparisons.

 

[muddycreek]

This is one of the eternal questions on TB. In my experience neck-throughs have a lot more note compression, and bolt-ons have a much snappier attack. You takes your choice, depending on what you're after in your music.

...Or a bolt on is one of the common decisions when one is designing a bass with a snappier attack in mind, and a neck through when looking for note compression, although I don't know what that is.

Pink basses would have a snappier attack if bass players who wanted snappier attack also preferred to buy pink basses.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Similar to others, I find neck through basses to be smoother with their attack. Sustain is negligible as to whether it's better or worse.

 

[3bc]

I believe the most compelling reason to go NT is all about esthetics. There is artistry baked into NT designs that is usually lacking on bolt on necks.

Unless you have a big ass money tree growing in the back yard the tone differences won't be worth $2k.

 

[Fender_Bender]

Got the book out,here you go.

 

[smogg]

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 wishing 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!!!!!!

WOW DUDE! You REALLY need to lighten up. If it offends you walk away.

 

[Ric5]

One of the big selling points of Rickenbacker basses is the neck through design, and how the neck through design gives you a piano like sustain.

Well ...

I have owned and worked on over 60 Rickenbackers ... the one with the very best sustain was a bolt on 2030 bass.
This one here is modified to be a 5 string which also helps sustain, and it has a 3 band preamp.