• 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.

NBD: When MusicMan screws up!

#42
StuartV said:
I would not be happy. I've had my share of neck-thrus and I only want bolt-ons anymore. My EBMM Sterling 5 needed a neck shim to get the action really low. I have another bass that is neck-thru that I can't get the action any lower because some of the saddles are bottomed. I would shim it, but it's neck-thru.

Plus, I hate necks that are painted on the back. I LOVE the feel of the neck on an EBMM bass with their normal Tru-Oil finish.

The fact that they normally charge an extra $500 for it would mean nothing to me, if I didn't like it as well as what I ordered. Even with your discount, I doubt you could sell that bass (now that it's used) for even what you paid for it. Maybe, but still probably not for any kind of profit. I would be getting them started on what I ordered and swap when the new bass is ready.

If you do like it better, then awesome for you! Just don't let the idea that you got an extra $500 in value throw you off from getting what you really want.
Click to expand...

MesoBoogie said:
Yup, it's going back for the right bass...I can't stand the painted neck and I don't really care for painted head stocks.
Click to expand...

Talk about a world of differing opinions! I can't imagine not liking neck-thru.
 
#46
mellowinman said:
Talk about a world of differing opinions! I can't imagine not liking neck-thru.
Click to expand...

When I started playing bass I totally bought into the neck-thru thing. Now, I feel like it doesn't make any difference (to ME) in the sound and the practical issues make it something I now avoid.

Also, in his thread on the RV69K, Roy Vogt said that he and Kiesel went with bolt-on for that bass because it gives it a little more attack.

The Roy Vogt Signature Bass by Kiesel Guitars is out!

So, that's a personal preference thing, but I could see where someone who could hear that difference might prefer bolt-on for sonic reasons.

Personally, I just don't hear a difference. A good bolt-on will give just as much sustain and just as good a low B string. To MY ear, anyway.
 
#50
There's nothing intrinsically "better" about neck-through construction in my experience. All my bolt-on basses had more sustain than my Rickenbacker. Not that it mattered much... The Ric had all the sustain you could ever need. Many people have compared bolt-on vs neck-through vs set neck with the same results, and there's no discernable advantage to neck-through when it comes to tone.

However, there is a huge advantage to bolt-ons if you develop problems with the neck/action further down the road.
 
#51
StuartV said:
When I started playing bass I totally bought into the neck-thru thing. Now, I feel like it doesn't make any difference (to ME) in the sound and the practical issues make it something I now avoid.

.
Click to expand...
I had a scare with a neck through carvin a while back (thought the trussrod was shot, well outside of warranty time), that really turned me off to neck throughs. Bass turned out to be fine, but had it needed surgery, it wouldn't have been worth fixing, whereas I can just chuck a problem bolt on neck
 
#55
phishaholik said:
Out if curiosity, how low can the action go with the neck through? I had one stingray that I couldn't get near the action I wanted without a shim and another that took the lowest action if any bass I've owned.

It's a concern I had with the neck through basses too.


Michael
Click to expand...
I've had 2 MM Classics that both CAME with neck shims and I still couldn't get the action I wanted. Maybe it was part of the design but made me sell them immediately.
 
#56
I don't mind a neck shim. I just don't understand why so many basses seem to need one. You would think it would be the exception, not the norm. You would think top manufacturers, like EBMM, would update their manufacturing specs so they would almost never need a shim.
 
#58
Jared Lash said:
Passive Stingray? Probably not. Passive EBMM basses? Yes. They recently announced the Cutlass and Caprice.

instrument-62.png

instrument-63.png
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd like a passive stingray.
Nothing interesting to me about a P or PJ at the moment. That said; I'd like to try that P.:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: justin fleenor
#59
Mosstone said:
There's nothing intrinsically "better" about neck-through construction in my experience. All my bolt-on basses had more sustain than my Rickenbacker. Not that it mattered much... The Ric had all the sustain you could ever need. Many people have compared bolt-on vs neck-through vs set neck with the same results, and there's no discernable advantage to neck-through when it comes to tone.

However, there is a huge advantage to bolt-ons if you develop problems with the neck/action further down the road.
Click to expand...
When I started out playing, pretty much all basses were bolt-on. Then the boutique basses like Alembic came out and all the builders were making neck-thru 24 fret basses. So, of course we all thought that neck-thru 24 fret basses were better. After all these years, I also found that it doesn't matter. Neither is better or worse than the other. Bolt-on does have the advantage of being able to shim it and replace it if necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mosstone

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back