Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by bass element, Dec 25, 2004.
opinions? comments? prefrences?
I had both. I prefer sound of bolt. I am not sure of the physics but it seems that a bolt on design of two different woods yields a more complex sound than a neck-through design. Though they say the lowest fundamentals are transmitted better with a neck-through.
I also like the lower costs and repair/replace options you get with a bolted design.
You might have a look at this thread, which is posted under the "newbie links":
I have also read that the neck-through gives a greater fundamental.
However, it's intriguing to note that, apparently, the human ear/brain system "hears" the fundamental of a bolt-on more predominantly than the physics would suggest. The ear/brain "extrapolates" all of the harmonics to create a fairly strong fundamental (hope that makes sense).
So you're still going to hear/sense the fundamental with a bolt-on.
Further, many players supposedly like the tighter sound of the bolt-on since it produces a less fundamental-heavy tone that can get a bit muddy I guess.
I only own one bass and it's a neck-through.
I have owned both. I prefer the liveliness of a bolt-on design. I would add that I have not noticed any particular sustain disadvantage on any of my bolt-ons. My Yamaha TRB6 in particular has fantastic sustain.
This topic has been beat to death, resurrected, and beat down again numerous times, but what the hey...
I have two basses wich are both neck-through/set neck, but I think my next bass would be a bolt-on. The thumpiness of n-t's is great, but I like the "zing" of a b-o as well.
I don't think I've commented on this thread in its myriad incarnations, so here goes.
Never a fan of bolt ons. Always seemed crude to me, could never figure an expensive bass with that crude Fender type bolt on joint. I can't argue the physics behind it and have never come across the exact same bass in both varieties to make a true comparison.
I never liked that on bolt ons, you had to deal with restricted upper register access, never liked the feel of the big clunky square heel joint.
Then I got a Tobias Killer B, and things began to turn around. A bolt on done right! Smoothly sculpted joint, less of a heel than some neckthroughs, all nice and rounded.
My current 5, a Ristola, is a bolt on while my 4 strings are neckthroughs. I can't say how much the neck joint contributes, but the 5 is deep and clear, but still bright. Not too middy, but a presence to contend with in the mix. So now, while there are still many bolt-on joints I'm not fond of, I realize some can be awful nice. But I'll always be a sucker for the look of a neckthrough with a multi piece laminated neck of light and dark woods.
Personally, I like both but prefer bolts..
set necks maybe?
You might check out conklin. They have a really really smooth bolt on design. I really want a Conklin 4.
If I saw a Conklin 4 I'd certainly check it out. Just seen them in pics, but they look nice. Usually when I see a Conklin it has 12,896 strings. More than 5 makes me nervous.
Neck-thru? Bolt-on? Too fancy-schmancy. Mine's nailed on!
Pfft!! nails are too clean and neat, I just keep mine in place with a c-clamp.
hah! back when i was a kid we would have given our eye teeth for a c-clamp! we just used chewing gum. And don't think we afford it! We just searched under school desks till we found some and chewed it back up before slapping it on the neck joint! and we were glad to have that!
Hmm, bolt-on, neck-thru? Ive never played a neck through, ive only owned bolt-on basses, but ive always thought that Neck-thru were the better of the two.. apparently, feel and tone-wise..
sorry about the redundant thread topic
At least youre the first who admits it and says sorry
For some reason, I have always preferred the tonal quality and "feel" of a bolt-on even though I've never owned a Fender ... the only bass I ever owned that was neck through was a pre-Gibson Tobias.
All my current basses are bolt-on; Elrick, Lakland, and Roscoe ... and they all sound great to me.