• 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.

Neck through or no neck through ?

neck throught or not neck throught

  • Total voters
    89
  • Poll closed .
G

giuseppecaporus

Guest
Dec 19, 2013
115
4
27
Italy
#1
hi low enders , i just want to have a double neck bass with buckeye top and an alembic body style but i'm not decided if i'd like the neck throught or not . Actually i don't want a neck throught and i'll prefer a rosted maple one , but i like the end omega of alembic bass in which you can see the wood veheers , now i'm just asking a question should i have a contiunius top or a top divided by neck trought block , which could be nicer , vote and told me why .

P.S. it's not a neck throught but i like the last part of neck trought laminate .

Thank you and raise up that bass .
 

Attachments

  • Immagine.png
    Immagine.png
    1,010.3 KB · Views: 147
  • Immagine2.png
    Immagine2.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 142
#6
Well, bolt on does give you a second chance if you screw up the neck build. I can't hear any difference between the two, but neck through looks cool, and you can carve the neck heel away for better upper fret access. I'm an idiot, so of course its neck through for my first full build. An alternative is to match laminates on neck and body so it just looks neck through on the front, but maybe that's cheesy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tomilchik and Doner Designs
#9
Alembic built this Omega body bass with a set neck:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Personally, I like neck-through design for it's sustain and tone, but I also have some bolt-on basses that are fetching in their own way.
 
#10
I have both, although not in otherwise identical basses, but info have a few thoughts

1. There is a real upper feet access advantage with the neck through. This may it may not
Matter to you. I really don't play much in the upper octave anymore

2. There are claims about more sustain, but I've not noticed this. Frankly I've never played a bass (that didn't need a fret level) that had any issue with sustain

3. In my old age, I really see the virtue of the modular nature I bolt on necks. I was having some truss rod issues with one of my neck throughs (that mysteriously fixed itself) and was pretty worried, because the repair would have been worth more than the present value of the instrument. With a bolt on, you can get a new neck for a couple hundred bucks if need be
 
#12
If you don't like the aesthetics of the neck through block of wood on the body of the bass you can request a full book matched top from Alembic that covers it up. You can do the same on the rear of the bass. Then the only place you would see the actual neck through wood would be at the butt of the bass where the omega cut would be. I'd also imagine that Alembic could make a slightly shorter neck through block and place a special matching core wood block at the butt so when the omega is cut it would give the illusion of a set neck bass.

Personally I don't have any major playability preferences on bolt on, set neck or neck through - they all work just fine for me. However, from a pricing standpoint neck through basses frequently cost more and are usually on higher end basses. Bolt on necks are an easy replacement if one ever gets damaged, so if I were a frequent gigging bassist and traveling a lot with my gear I'd probably lean towards a bolt on neck since its easier and usually cheaper to replace when the headstock gets snapped off. From a resale standpoint a repaired neck through can be a deal breaker but as long it its like for like a bolt on replacement neck is usually a non issue.

I say vote with your pocket book on this one keeping in mind where you'll be playing. If its going to be a studio bass or lightly gigged and you can afford a neck through option go that way. However, if its going to be a rough and tumble high mileage travel gig bass I'd go with a bolt on.
 
#15
I've owned a lot of basses over the 50 years I've been playing and all but one were bolt-ons. Being a more melodic player I like a lot of sustain. Of the the bolt-on basses (mostly Fenders), I've seen a lot of differences with my '87 MIJ P-Bass having the most sustain than the rest. That said, when I got my Peavey Cirrus 5 (US), the difference in the amount of sustain is astonishing. The 5 piece neck through Cirrus (with fresh strings) practically sustains until you shut it off. With dead strings it has more sustain than any bolt-on with new strings I've played.
I'm sure different neck through basses very in the amount of sustain you get but this has been my observation. The replaceabilty option of the bolt-on neck is a big plus but my Cirrus has had the most reliable, obedient, trouble free neck I've ever had.
 
#18
Go bolt-on. There's no evidence of neck-through superiority, either in terms of tone or sustain. In fact, every comparison that I've ever heard of (including my own) has shown that bolt-on guitars/basses actually have MORE sustain than neck-through. I don't think it makes an iota of difference in tone, either. I also like the ability to replace the neck if it gets damaged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MobileHolmes

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back