Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I'm no stranger to guitars and building. I've been doing it since high school, and have played most of my life. I'm familiar with the arguments for or against one or the other, as well as the traditions and history. 

As I progress on my current build, my wife asks me why I would glue it in and not just bolt it on? Strangely, I had no good answer. There are so many benefits to bolt on that I had a hard time justifying why I would do a set neck other than "perceived quality difference" or a tiny bit of extra sustain - that honestly I believe to be negligible after all the pickups and electronics.

I thought I'd ask the group for their thoughts, even though this has probably been discussed before in multiple ways. 

PS - And just for a tiny wrinkle, here is a picture of a mini-guitar I built for my son that has NO joint, but was cut from a single piece of white limba (korina).

 

10399844_769541735099_2837_n.jpg

Edited by komodo
Posted

I have only ever made set necks and long tenon ones at that. My thought process was that first I don't like the feel of a clunky heel and bolt on block like a Fender. I wanted smooth neck transitions so went with long tenon set necks. I also didn't like the thought of screws pulling out or worn threads or bolts eventually loosening from use. I actually have no idea if that really ever happens, but in my mind the possibility exists. I have since seen some very nice smooth transitions with bolt ons and some nice threaded fittings that are surely quite stable.

So for me throw out all the voodoo and mojo about the tone and sustain of one over the other. Made either way it will still sound like a guitar. I feel more confident in the connection with my set neck construction but that's letting the voodoo and mojo back in. I just flat out like the look and feel of it better than any bolt on I've seen or handled.

That's what it boils down to for me- taste. I like the way a set neck looks and feels best.

SR

Posted (edited)

I totally hear you and concur. The wild cards for me are the very smooth bolt on joins with inset ferrules, and the ability to remove a neck for bridge replacement, body or neck work, etc. 

My next is a bolt on and a through body, so clealy I have no preference LOL.

Edited by komodo
Posted

Having only built bolt-ons, but owned a few set necks, I get the impression that there are too many variables at play to nail down a particular characteristic of neck contruction against a specific tonal behaviour of an instrument.  There may be tonal and/or sustain differences between a set neck and bolt-on, but I'm yet to be convinced otherwise that those differences are far outweighed by pickup choice, scale length, string gauge, body mass, bridge construction etc. I've personally never owned two guitars so similar, with the exception of neck attachment method, that I could formulate an opinion about the matter.

The minimal heel on a set neck is attractive, as is the separability/adjustability of a bolt-on.  There are ways to minimise the heel area of a bolt-on to alleviate the big block of wood that gets in the way on a Strat (Ibanez's All Access Neck Joint or ESPs tapered neck joint for example). Likewise, there are set neck guitars where the joint is such an unwieldy shape it makes you wonder why they bothered (the heel on a PRS Custom 22 is just plain weird).

The first 'proper' guitar I owned was a Yamaha Pacifica, which had an ingenious bolt-on system which just about eleminated the heel completely.  The neck heel attached to an aluminium tongue, which fitted into a matching socket in the body underneath the neck pickup.

 

Posted

That guitar your son is holding is bad ass!

I've build both set necks and bolt ons and I'm in the camp that with a set neck you can achieve a much smoother and transparent to the touch transition from the neck to the body,  Comparing my own builds I can say that my bolt on builds seem to edge out my set necks for sustain and resonance but just barely. Part of that might be the fact that my bolt ons are a marriage of a mahogany and maple vs my set necks which use mahogany for both the neck and body. 

I could be wrong here but I feel the bond between the neck and body is tighter and more solidified using a bolt on method than a glued  set neck construction. If you google (and I'm sure you have) Set neck vs. bolt on you'll find hours of reading material. 

Posted

I've consistently found that when it comes to basses, bolt-on adds in a different aspect to the body-vibrating string system interaction. In many ways, bolt-ons have a different balance of overtones which for want of a better term add more "cut" in a mix. Set necks and neck-through necks are deeper and smoother in terms of overtone balance. Glorious when heard in isolation, but less useful in a broader setting. Realistically it takes a good engineer to take advantage of the differences.

Am I advocating bolt-ons over the other two? Totally. Unless you're a solo bassist, a lot of what makes sets and throughs great doesn't translate to a band setting and gets lost.

This is an interesting comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAdQPkbyEG8

Posted
On 11/7/2015, 8:37:04, sdshirtman said:

That guitar your son is holding is bad ass!

Thanks! I was doing a Tele / strat / LP thing, and the little one was sort of a prototype for a larger one. That one is a neck-through, all korina.  Really this thread should be called "Set neck AND bolt on", as I wasn't really trying to debate which is better but just to start a discussion on fundamental differences, pros and cons, etc. It never hurts to revisit basics and challenge traditions. For me, the ability to remove a neck for body refinishing, neck repairs, neck angle setup. bridge replacement and many more things - really makes the case for bolt on. There are so many really clean and low profile bolt configurations, that it seems like a preferable way to go. That said, I would never build a bolt on LP? It would seem out of character. 

Posted

There is no such thing as better really unless you are looking for certain specifics. For example, neck repairability is hands-down better on bolt-ons. Upper access is always better with neck-throughs or some set simply because there is no need for a heel and there are no glue lines to cause potential weaknesses. Through neck becomes a logistical challenge if angles between then neck and body planes exist. Sets with a flush heel are a challenge in making the cuts cleanly and joints that close up tightly.

I don't favour one over another in the slightest. I'll whichever one my whimsy tells me to, whether it be aesthetic or the challenge. I really liked making a Fender-style bolt-on purely as an exercise in dabbling with manufactured design and simple stock. It's all good fun until somebody loses their mind.

Posted
On 11/9/2015, 2:48:42, Prostheta said:

It's all good fun until somebody loses their mind.

#QOTD

  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...