Pros and cons of a neck-through-body vs. bolt on neck?

[Santuzzo]

Hi,

I have been wondering what are general thoughts on a neck-through-body construction versus a bolt-on neck?
What are the pros and cons of each?

I have only ever owned guitars with bolt on necks (and set neck), but never a neck-though-body.

As far as I understand the pro of a neck-through-body would be longer sustain and maybe better access on the higher frets.
But what else would come into account?
Are there any cons to a neck-through body?

Thanks,
Lars

 

[cardinal]

Neck thru doesn't automatically give longer sustain. My bolt-on RG8127 sustains longer than any of the neck thru BC Riches I've owned over the years. They can have better fret access, but it's not like most bolt ons are that bad.

It really just comes down to preference and whether you want the bridge mounted on the same type of wood as the neck. I like maple necks as they seem more stable in my experience to mahogany, and I don't like having a maple body, so bolt ons all the way for me.

 

[Matt_D_]

bolt on:
- can replace neck if it breaks
- easier to setup, can tweak neck angle with shims.
- has heel due to neck placement
- can take neck off for transport

set/through
- apparently more sustain. some people claim this makes little difference
- smooth neck join to the body (usually)
- if the neck breaks, you're screwed
- limited setup options if the neck moves, warps, or was badly built

personally, i'd buy a guitar for how it feels and plays over whether its set/bolt on. If a model came both set or bolt on, i'd probably take the bolt on depending on the heel. but itd be a minor consideration. living in a humid climate means that things are going to move, and a bolt on neck means that im less likely to have issues...

YMMV

 

[will_shred]

I prefer bolt on's personally, for travel.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

The argument about neck-thru guitars having more sustain is absolute bullshit. My AV8 with it's bolt-on neck sustains longest of all my guitars, which also includes a couple Les Pauls and a neck-thru Charvel M6. Even my Tele sustains more than at least one of my Les Pauls.

 

[Stealthdjentstic]

The sustain thing is a total myth. It stems from lower quality guitars usually being bolt-ons (and therefore being more poorly build) than higher cost guitars which are usually neck-thru.

Personally, I dont really care much, but I ordered my Vik as a bolt on because I like the security you get in case something happens to the neck. Also you aren't limited to using one wood going all the way down the body.

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

As far as I understand the pro of a neck-through-body would be longer sustain

No.

And the glue myth is also a lie.

The reason Leo Fender introduced bolt-on necks was because they're cheaper and easier to replace when the neck breaks, warps, etc, if I'm correct.

 

[AVWIII]

I find that bolt-ons sound a little snappier, and that neck-thru guitars sound a little more dull. This is purely based one my experience with guitars and basses. I'm sure there are many exceptions.
Personally, I prefer bolt-ons.

 

[Santuzzo]

Thanks, guys.

The reason I'm asking this is that I am developing some GAS for an LTD AW-7, and it has a neck-through-body.
For some reason I also thought that a neck-though-body might be more difficult or even impossible to fix if the neck is warped or set up badly, hence I am somewhat hesitant...
But maybe this is also just a myth?

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Thanks, guys.

The reason I'm asking this is that I am developing some GAS for an LTD AW-7, and it has a neck-through-body.
For some reason I also thought that a neck-though-body might be more difficult or even impossible to fix if the neck is warped or set up badly, hence I am somewhat hesitant...
But maybe this is also just a myth?

The only thing that's different is that you have to replace the entire guitar if the neck is irreparably damaged, and not just the neck.

Luckily, ruined necks are very, very rare and if there is a defect the guitar should be covered under the manufacturer's warranty and be replaced if needed.

 

[Stealthdjentstic]

You might want to try that AW out first in person btw, I tried out one of the sigs a few weeks ago and it felt pretty cheap.

 

[Santuzzo]

The only thing that's different is that you have to replace the entire guitar if the neck is irreparably damaged, and not just the neck.

Luckily, ruined necks are very, very rare and if there is a defect the guitar should be covered under the manufacturer's warranty and be replaced if needed.

Thanks!

 

[Santuzzo]

You might want to try that AW out first in person btw, I tried out one of the sigs a few weeks ago and it felt pretty cheap.

Yup, I am planning to try the AW-7 if I can find one.

Was it the AW-7 you tried?

 

[Stealthdjentstic]

I dont remember which now, Im pretty sure it was the red one.

 

[M3CHK1LLA]

i like the look & feel of neck thru.

 

[Santuzzo]

I dont remember which now, Im pretty sure it was the red one.

OK, I guess that would be the AW-7.
www.espguitars.com/guitars/signature/aw-7

 

[Stealthdjentstic]

Yeah that one. Im not even a corksniffer or anything..

 

[Dabo Fett]

I really believed in the sustain myth until I got my rg 927. My rg also has better fret access than any of my guitars other than my sg

 

[CM_X5]

This topic is highly debated but from what I can gather it's preference and build quality. I personally like the look and upper fret access of most set/through neck guitars but there are bolt ons that will suit that need as well. Sustain comes from a well built guitar and high quality materials, I think either would sustain as long if anything.

 

[cromaticas]

I generally choose set neck or neck through because they're more confortable to me.the whole sustain/sound discussion going on is a bunch of bull imo.There's no way you can hear the difference between the two.Same goes for the sustain..