Warwick Thumb BO or NT

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by pmahnken@gmail., Feb 27, 2005.

  1. pmahnken@gmail.


    Feb 22, 2005
    For the money (700+ difference) which would you go for? I have played the NT and really liked it, however I was just wondering how much difference in sound and playability (if any) there is.


  2. Whafrodamus


    Oct 29, 2003
    Andover, MA
    NT! I have one with an ebony board and EMG stuff... It's so nice.
  3. Redhotbassist


    Oct 19, 2002
    There both really good basses, and amazing tone in each one, the only difference is the wood IMO, the neck-thru has a better grain. :)
  4. Lowtonejoe

    Lowtonejoe Supporting Member

    Jul 3, 2004
    Richland, WA
    Tonally there is very little difference. I demoed both at Bass NW and preferred the bolt-on.

    With the neck through you get alot more sustain (which is not a tonal characteristic). I don't know about you but I am a bass player. I like to thump, not drone. Sustain is for wanker guitarists. Or bass players who don't know any better.

    :bag: (ducks for cover)


  5. Razor


    Sep 22, 2002
    This may be a simplistic, or somewhat paranoid way of looking at it...but for an extra 700 it doesn't quite equate with me. I do agree the NT will probably sound better and definately ring with infinate more amounts of sustain, but should something happen to the neck the instrument's wasted.

    At least with a BO you have pretty much the same instrument and should something happen to the neck you can remove it for replacement/repair.

    Then again..aside from my Ric I've always been a BO guy.
  6. I have a Thumb V fretless bolt on and I love it, Ive had neck through basses and they do have good sustain but they seem more prone to temperture change, more studio bases than for the road I'd say.
  7. Being a recent convert to bolt-on necks, in that I can hear the tonal benefits of them as I didn't before - I was totally biased towards thru-necks - the only thing I'd say against the BO necked Thumbs is that they just aren't as pretty as the NTs, I don't know why - but my guess is that they are an attempt to produce a more affordable version of the 'classic' Thumb NT - which is still one of the great basses out there IMO. Every time I see a Bolt-On Thumb I am far from impressed by the looks of the thing - plus I have tried to play some of them and they really aren't as good as the NTs - just my thoughts.

  8. The Hammer

    The Hammer

    Jul 13, 2004
    play both and decide in your ears which sounds best to you. I only play neck-thru because I like their sound and mostly I like having a smooth neck to body joint. I think neck-thru or bolt-on are only one part of the tone equation. As for their roadworthness, I've played neck-thrus since 1983 and they have held up as well as any other bass I have. I have a neck-thru Warwick thumb 5 that I love, I have it detuned a whole step and it never goes out of tune.
  9. maxbass


    May 22, 2002
    Milano Italy
    I find my Thumb NT far better than any Thumb bolton I ever tried, especially all ovangkol ones.

    But my Thumb is a 1989, and back tgose days Warwick used to make only neck throug basses.

    I'd suggest a old nt instead or a new bolton.
    They should cost at least the same.
    At least Here in Italy a second hand eighties Thumb costs less money than a new bolton.
  10. maxbass


    May 22, 2002
    Milano Italy

    I dont' think you ever tried a West Germany made Warwick Thumb.
    The tonal difference is huge.

    The difference isn't just in the neck-body attachment.
    Necktru Thumbs have a 7 pieces laminate neck (newer ones 5) which make it stiffer, more stable, and less subjected to dead spots.

    And btw sustain isn't for bass players only if they play 32 notes all the time.
    If you play slower stuff you can really appreciate a more resonating note, especially played on the G string.
  11. Lowtonejoe

    Lowtonejoe Supporting Member

    Jul 3, 2004
    Richland, WA
    True, I have not.

    That is a very good thing.

    I can see what you are saying it's just that even with the slow stuff I play I really have not had a problem getting my bass to ring out.


  12. That's the type I have - a 1990 - it sounds awesome
  13. Figjam


    Aug 5, 2003
    Boston, MA
    Used, pre 98, NT Warwick Thumb. Itll be worth the wait to find/pay for one ;)
  14. maxbass


    May 22, 2002
    Milano Italy

    As well as I have tons of attack with my NT Thumb EMG equipped. ;)
  15. JayAmel

    JayAmel Moderator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Mar 3, 2002
    Aurillac, France
    I personally would spend the extra bucks for a NT.
    Though, money issues are what they are, and I am pretty much leaning towards a BO for the moment.
  16. Lowtonejoe

    Lowtonejoe Supporting Member

    Jul 3, 2004
    Richland, WA
  17. Whafrodamus


    Oct 29, 2003
    Andover, MA
    EMGs+thumb=best fingerstyle tone.. EVER.
  18. maxbass


    May 22, 2002
    Milano Italy

    I don't know if it's the best ever.... at least for me it is! :hyper:
  19. I have a '92 NT Thumb. Compared to the bolt-on it has a little more sustain, a more compressed sound that I like, and incredibly even response over the whole neck. The bolt-on is still a great bass and some slap players prefer their extra dynamics.
    Mine has a gorgeous bubinga body and the neck is wenge, an incredibly tough, heavy African timber. Prior to buying this I was planning to buy a graphite bass, but the density of the wenge seems to give a similar sound (some Corvettes used similar timbers and sound a lot like the Thumb).

    Play all the basses you can and see which one feels/sounds right. I played a Thumb in a shop and it made me play things I'd never played before - I badly wanted one but it was 10 years before I found one I could afford. Have now had it for 9 years, and as far as I can see it will remain my #1 bass.