I've got 4 bolt ons, two neck throughs, and a set neck. It really doesn't make much difference to me one way or the other.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
I've had neckthroughs and bolt ons and set necks - honestly I couldn't tell you the difference if I was blindfolded. Perhaps I'm just not picky?
Passinwind
I know nothing.
- Dec 3, 2003
- 23,063
- 45,970
- Disclosures
- Designer/Toaster Tech @ Passinwind Electronics
Just the opposite here. The few bolt-ons that I've ever owned all left within a year or so, the last one being ~35 years ago. Nothing to do with tone, just play feel and aesthetics. Same for guitars too. Set necks are fine by me though.
Only reason I really prefer a bolt on neck is that, as someone mentioned, if something goes wrong with the neck repairs are easier and replacement is possible.
I like the idea that I will still be able to use my bass even if the neck gives up.
Other than that I have a hard time imagining why a neck though construction should make it harder to play a bass.
I like the idea that I will still be able to use my bass even if the neck gives up.
Other than that I have a hard time imagining why a neck though construction should make it harder to play a bass.
I had a neck through pedulla which was amazing. However, i just like the tone of a bolt on better
Oh boy... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that many of us, while we have a preference, will play nicely with different neck geometries, provided the bass sounds and looks good and otherwise plays well. I myself have played everything from thick and wide vintage P necks to pencil thin Ibby necks, 4 & 5 strings, long (35") to short (30") scale necks, bolt-on and neck-through basses and have enjoyed the variety of feel and tone each one offers..... If I can be brutal, thou art too focused on this minor "issue".
Last edited:
Like others, I prefer bolt on necks just for simplicity of possible repairs.
I agree, I like to be able to pick up whatever instrument and go, but boy do I turn my nose up at a neck through. It's not even about output tone in the slightest! haha
I hear ya there, as I do most of my own repairs. Hey I'm also a jmatt, how about that?!
I've played/owned neck-through basses and bolt-ons…neither gave me any problems, neither made me prefer one over the other.
Only you can answer your question, I believe.
Only you can answer your question, I believe.
I prefer set-neck or neck-through basses, but I own bolt-ons too. I would probably like my bolt-on basses a little more if they had set necks, but it's not that big a deal. There's just something more elegant and unified about a set neck or neck-through.
Here’s a thought: If you don’t like playing neck-throughs, don’t play them.
Sound advise!
Though I don't think OP had any intention of trying to discourage people from using basses with neck through construction, it is my impression he simply is curious as to what the general view on these basses is, hence the poll.
I like the heel on through bodies, it's usually more accessible and ergonomic. I'm not going to go into sustain, because troll, but they do.
That's true, but really quite different. It's not at all uncommon for a classical stringed instrument to have the top or neck reset sometime (or several times) during it's life, and if the neck breaks a new neck can be installed. Despite the lack of bolts they're assembled with hide glue and designed to be dis-assembled and reassembled.
That's rather different from a neck through, which is not meant to be disassembled.
I feel like part of the issue is when people have a hangup with something and wrongfully blame an item or feature.
For instance... one of my guitarists had a rough spot on a bridge saddle back in the day so he broke a string like every two practices.... as a result he refuses to buy anything other than fixed bridge for the last 15 years. No logic other than that his les paul didnt do that.... hence the difference is the type of bridge.
A different guitarist of mine back in the day would leave his guitar in our non-temp controlled rehearsal space all week long and it got some pretty bad fret sprout.... so he decided that he would never buy a guitar with binding again. Because the one he had over the summer didnt have binding...and didnt do that... hence it was the binding. Not the concrete room with no insulation in chicago.
For instance... one of my guitarists had a rough spot on a bridge saddle back in the day so he broke a string like every two practices.... as a result he refuses to buy anything other than fixed bridge for the last 15 years. No logic other than that his les paul didnt do that.... hence the difference is the type of bridge.
A different guitarist of mine back in the day would leave his guitar in our non-temp controlled rehearsal space all week long and it got some pretty bad fret sprout.... so he decided that he would never buy a guitar with binding again. Because the one he had over the summer didnt have binding...and didnt do that... hence it was the binding. Not the concrete room with no insulation in chicago.
Interesting, I currently play bolt on basses , in the past neck throughs, as well set neck basses. That there may be an appreciable difference between them is greatly exaggerated. JMO. Maybe if you could explain what is so objectionable would be useful for this discussion.
Although... I will say this. I owned a bolt on warwick thumb and played about 20 of them over the years. All of the bolt ons felt better to me and I dont really know why.
Another way of thinking that i've brought up here before.... is strange but Ive never had anybody with building knowledge comment back so hopefully i can ease some curiosity .......
People think of a neckthru as a more complete neck... they feel there is more sustain.... more meat to it.... but what if you dont think of it as an extension of the neck...and rather think of it as an interruption to the body. An interruption that is assembled using a bunch of glue.... which glue and other adhesives are known for their ability to damped vibration and sound translation. A lot of guys with home studios float the drywall and caulk every sing 2x4 edge to try to stop the sound from getting through.
Look at the body of a bolt on thumb bass.... now look at the body of the neck thru version... its really just two wings glued to the neck. I understand this raises a lot of questions, especially when top level builders use both ways.
I guess what Im saying is if neck thru makes a huge difference... does that mean that the body is negligible in the first place since a neckthru literally removes about 30% of the body and then interrupts the remaining portions?
Another way of thinking that i've brought up here before.... is strange but Ive never had anybody with building knowledge comment back so hopefully i can ease some curiosity .......
People think of a neckthru as a more complete neck... they feel there is more sustain.... more meat to it.... but what if you dont think of it as an extension of the neck...and rather think of it as an interruption to the body. An interruption that is assembled using a bunch of glue.... which glue and other adhesives are known for their ability to damped vibration and sound translation. A lot of guys with home studios float the drywall and caulk every sing 2x4 edge to try to stop the sound from getting through.
Look at the body of a bolt on thumb bass.... now look at the body of the neck thru version... its really just two wings glued to the neck. I understand this raises a lot of questions, especially when top level builders use both ways.
I guess what Im saying is if neck thru makes a huge difference... does that mean that the body is negligible in the first place since a neckthru literally removes about 30% of the body and then interrupts the remaining portions?
Somebody should do a poll on favorite colors of HSC interior lining material.
Most bodies are made from multiple pieces glued together anyway. Soft glue dampens, hard glue transmits.
I can only assume that preference has most to do with tactile familiarity and muscle memory around the heel, since that's the biggest difference to me. Also 24 fret necks are more common in through body basses, so if you play upper register a lot there's that aspect.
That's an interesting thought, but I'm don't think glue is at all a barrier/inhibitor the way caulk is. Most bodies are 2 or 3 piece anyway and acoustic instuments are all assembled with glue.
I do however agree with your implication that while it is a contributing factor, the body (and hence the body wood) is much less important to the sound than many folks think. Recall that Les Paul's first instrument had only a center block of wood and he thought it sounded great. He attached the sides for aesthetic reasons.
