physics behind bolt-on vs thru-neck

[funkingroovin]

I'm sure there's scientific data out there that maps the details of soundwave transfer and reproduction for every style of everything,down to the umpteenth decimal point. BUT..what the data proves and what we can humanly perceive are very different things. The human ear is very limited in it's frequency range. We can also only perceive volume changes in 3db increments.. From a scientific standpoint,our senses are pretty dull,so most of the exacting data can only be realized on paper.

I believe it's more of "What's it made of" than "How it's made". Woods with a larger and/or more porous grain are less dense(obviously),and will absorb vibrations more than a tighter,non-porous grained wood,regardless of how the pieces are joined.. Keep in mind,that's only one small piece of the puzzle. One also has to figure in the hardware,electronics,string choice,etc..

I've had all three types of neck configurations,and honestly believe the vast majority of tonal aspects come from the p'ups and strings used.

 

[Beej]

Heres a post by Mica Wickersham from the alembic club:

Bob, we're not huge midrange fans in band settings. The traditional Tom Walker design does quite nicely, even with with a neck through Alembic bass. We've got thousands of happy customers with this pairing, so there are some that share this opinion. It won't suit everyone's taste, and there are a variety of different ideas out there when it comes to preamps. When playing at home, many people miss the rest of the band, and pump up the mids when practicing.

I find that bolt-ons have less sustain overall, affecting all frequencies. Bolt-ons with a stronger, better fit joint improve sustain and frequency response, and a glued joint brings the two pieces together even more completely. Material choices impact the sound even more on bolt-on and set neck designs.

The skill of the fret installation and the setup work can have an impact on sustain as well.

Dense woods tend to emphasize high frequency response in Alembics. The shorter wavelengths can course through the tightly packed cells. Less dense woods emphasize the low frequencies on Alembics, where the longer wavelengths have room in the larger more open cells. The neck through construction still results in an predictable EQ "smile."

For instance, a Maple (dense) body Alembic neck through, like an Elan or original Essence, has a very bright sound. An original Spoiler, with a solid Koa (less dense) body produces a much warmer sound emphasizing lows. Both examples have the same neck construction and materials.

The basses we've made with Alder, a fairly traditional bolt-on wood, seem to have limited high end response when used on Alembics, producing an overall "thunky" sound. Ash for bodies seems to keep the midrange more active, even on Alembic neck throughs, but the smile persists.

With the personification of "eating" the mids, it's less important if they are lower or if the bass and treble is higher, the resulting sound is still one of an EQ smile on a neck through. If someone wants more mids, and a punchier sounding Alembic, I'll suggest a set neck construction so they aren't fighting the nature of the bass. There are many individual players capable of making a neck through sound plenty punchy through technique, but not every player has that at their disposal.

I'd also suggest that bolt-ons are less expensive to produce. If the neck or body fails, you can replace that part. On a neck through, it's a much more expensive task to salvage a body or neck. It takes us at least 10 hours more to produce a neck through over a set neck.

Not to be overly picky, but just a point of note that nowhere in that quote from the Alembic fellow is any science, anywhere. Just thought I'd add the perspective of an actual scientist...

 

[Meatrus]

Not to be overly picky, but just a point of note that nowhere in that quote from the Alembic fellow is any science, anywhere. Just thought I'd add the perspective of an actual scientist...

I thought the same. Also, when it gets to the "this guy says this" stage the rest dosen't matter (IMO). If you cant hear it, whats the point in deciding there may be a difference according to someone else?

 

[The Lemon]

Every bass is unique and there are honestly too many variables, even between identical basses, to be able to narrow down what exactly the neck pocket is contributing to the sound.

I prefer bolt-on, but that's just a question of feel, not sound.

 

[gitlvr]

Every bass is unique and there are honestly too many variables, even between identical basses, to be able to narrow down what exactly the neck pocket is contributing to the sound.

I prefer bolt-on, but that's just a question of feel, not sound.

+1. And yeah, i prefer bolt on for a bass. It's absolutely feel, because the first bass I ever owned was a bolt on. It's what I learned on and what I'm used to.
On the guitar, it doesn't matter, but if I had to pick, it would be the set neck, simply because i like the geometry of the build.

 

[Jazzdogg]

All generalizations are false. Including this one.

Death to all absolutists!

 

[sonic assassin]

i prefer everything about bolt on. never played an NT that i was particularly thrilled with. all seemed a little dead. of course, that may just be what im using them for and what i happened to pick up.

i think if this NT=sustain and BO=punch thing is true, its very simple, and a lot about perspective. if the transfer is smoother, therefor giving more sustain, then the highs and lows may be brought out more. whereas if the transfer is less smooth, and the highs and lows are dampened, we get what feels like a mid boost. one mans grind/growl/punch is another mans honk/low fi/garbage. meanwhile one mans smooth/hi fi/sustain is anothers dead/sterile/weak.

if you reeeeeeally think about it, most of those arguments are saying the same thing, they just dont realize it. from there, its all a matter of perspective and whos "better".

 

[Coolhandjjl]

From an engineering standpoint, a bolt-on is stronger because it has more edges (which is where the strength really lies). A single piece is weaker, easier to snap. This apparently translates to increased sustain and punch as well.

 

[pilotjones]

From an engineering standpoint, a bolt-on is stronger because it has more edges (which is where the strength really lies). A single piece is weaker, easier to snap. This apparently translates to increased sustain and punch as well.

Care to explain your engineering analysis? I'm quite interested.

 

[Musiclogic]

Care to explain your engineering analysis? I'm quite interested.

LMAO this is just dripping with skepticism

 

[Coolhandjjl]

For the same reason a laminated beam is stronger than comparably sized dimensional lumber.

 

[Nev375]

For the same reason a laminated beam is stronger than comparably sized dimensional lumber.

Problem is that a laminated beam runs the full length beyond the nodes where stress is induced, a neck joint on a bass does not, making things inherently weaker. (typically)

In comparing the neck through, almost all the stress is applied axially, so for that stress, the neck acts like a column with the weakest point being the area of thinnest cross section. (near the nut) However, since the force is applied from one side rather than the absolute ends, there is a small, but very significant bending stress applied from a pair of coupling nodes near each end. (nut and tuning post, and the front edge of the bridge and the screws that attach the bridge) This stress makes the neck act like a beam with the weakest point again near the nut. So, if the thing fails it will probably break the headstock off.

Now, in a neck through, things are a lot more complicated to analyse because of the neck joint. There are too many variables and details in how the thing is constructed. The greater axial stress is (usually) handled entirely by the butt of the neck heel against the edge of the pocket. The bending stress is dependent on the wood fibers between the screw threads, the screws themselves and the distance and layout of the patten of the screws. The total stress will be divided by the number of screws with the greatest amount at either end of the pattern. Any middle screws will receive a lot less of that stress unless any excessive tightening is done there.

What this means to "punch" is anyone's guess. There's just way too many variables in play, but I do know that the stiffer overall the instrument is between the nut and bridge the brighter and richer the sound. The weakest point of the structure will have the greatest impact on tone. But, if done properly, a bolt on can be just as strong as a neck through.

 

[rockosocko]

It would seem to me that with a bolt on necks, there is always a gap at the joint regardless of how tight the joint is or how many screws are holding the neck onto the body. In light of this fact, I'd assume that this would lead to energy loss of sorts in the sense that vibrations are getting lost at the gap rather than remaining in the body/neck. There is clearly a weaker fundamental tone in bolt ons (which Michael Tobias supports). Once again, this is pretty much specualtion based upon my knowledge of physics.

 

[David Jayne]

Not to be overly picky, but just a point of note that nowhere in that quote from the Alembic fellow is any science, anywhere. Just thought I'd add the perspective of an actual scientist...

This, and:

For instance, a Maple (dense) body Alembic neck through, like an Elan or original Essence, has a very bright sound.

All well and good until you play my Pedulla Thunderbass (all maple, ebony fingerboard, neck-through) which is the darkest sounding bass I've owned, by a mile. Acoustically, or plugged-in. Not that that's a bad thing. I'm just saying, go figure.

 

[viper4000]

I have played all 3 and own a Cirrus 5 neck-thru and PBass and G&L bolt on's.

I prefer the NT, as I feel a little less restricted in the upper register. Typically little to no heel to contend with as compared to a traditional Fender design or other bolt-ons. Of course, there are many designs with a contoured heel, so that may be moot.

On my basses:
Most Sustain = Cirrus
Middle Sustain = G&L
Less Sustain = PBass

Could be electronics, as the Cirrus is active, and I usually run the G&L in active as well. Both Peavey and G&L have great pickups too, so that could be most of it.

I never drank the Kool Aid, I just bough basses I liked and felt good.

 

[Lee H]

because of the potential for this to go sideways, I am starting with the disclaimer that the following is my opinion only, and should be given no further significance...

I have read quite a bit on the physics of NT vs bolt on. While it did make sense to me, I really think for my personal playing it is a moot point. I do not normally hold notes until the tone stops. When I do, there is usually some kind of effect being utilized. What minor differences in sustain really do not substantially effect my playing. I cannot remember ever playing with treble, midrange, or bass turned all the way up on my bass and on the amp. I think the tonal differences can more than be compensated for with the right gear

So, for me, it comes down to what I like, and what feels good to me. I think I probably play better with something that I am comfortable and confident with. I think when the time comes that I am so anal about music that I cannot enjoy either a well played bolt on or a well played NT, I will no longer be having fun. That is when it will be time to quit

 

[Grooveman1961]

Not to be overly picky, but just a point of note that nowhere in that quote from the Alembic fellow is any science, anywhere. Just thought I'd add the perspective of an actual scientist...

Actually, I wasn't presenting this fellow's quote as any kind of science, only as an excerpt that might create some interest...

 

[DirtyDeRock]

because of the potential for this to go sideways, I am starting with the disclaimer that the following is my opinion only, and should be given no further significance...

I have read quite a bit on the physics of NT vs bolt on. While it did make sense to me, I really think for my personal playing it is a moot point. I do not normally hold notes until the tone stops. When I do, there is usually some kind of effect being utilized. What minor differences in sustain really do not substantially effect my playing. I cannot remember ever playing with treble, midrange, or bass turned all the way up on my bass and on the amp. I think the tonal differences can more than be compensated for with the right gear

So, for me, it comes down to what I like, and what feels good to me. I think I probably play better with something that I am comfortable and confident with. I think when the time comes that I am so anal about music that I cannot enjoy either a well played bolt on or a well played NT, I will no longer be having fun. That is when it will be time to quit

Excellent point. Play what you like, and if you're in the business of building, learn to build all varieties.

 

[pilotjones]

For the same reason a laminated beam is stronger than comparably sized dimensional lumber.

Care to explain your engineering analysis? I'm quite interested.

 

[curbowkid]

I think the only difference in sound between an NT and a BO is the woods used. If you have two of the same bass but one is a bold on maple neck with a mahogany body, it's gonna sound different from a full mahogany bass. If you see what I'm saying.