Thru-neck vs Bolt-on

[metalfiend666]

As some of you may have seen on other posts, I'm selling off some of my guitars to buy a high end 7-string. I want people opinion's on thru-necks. How much difference do they REALLY make to your tone? Are they worth paying out for, or would I be better off sticking to a bolt on neck with an AANJ or similar?

At the moment I have a few options I'm considering.

1. Blackmachine B7 (bolt on)
2. Jackson SLS Soloist 7 Custom Shop (neck-thru)
3. Carvin 727 retro fitted with better pickups (neck-thru)
4. LGM Leviiathan (bolt on), but I'm still not sure about that body shape.

I think I can get 2 Carvin's or LGM's for the price of the Blackmachine and Jackson. I also have to think about shipping costs and import duties on all but the Blackmachine.

 

[Jerich]

wow...this will start all of us on the ranting and raving . I prefer the thickness or consistant sustain a Neck thru gives but there will be many guys who prefer Bolt on's for the same reason . A Bolt on neck guitar is more versitile to work on and do intonation on . You can also not worry as much about a Bolt on in the humindity factor. Neck thrus once you go neck thru you usually stay neck thru . They require more work to keep them perfect . CARVIN neck thrus..like my AVATAR are sustain machines and thick with tone. Bolt on's to me seem thin but seem to crunch in the midrange more often (Ibanez). This will be very interesting to see all the posts on this.

 

[metalfiend666]

Didn't know about the humidity thing.

Another thing I've thought of is the risk of neck breakage. I know I've not broken a neck yet, but if I did break a through neck that could be the whole guitar screwed. Though the chance of breaking a neck is very small.

 

[7seven7]

I've owned both - and quite honestly I would go with the bolt on neck. Why? - Well first of all, Like the earlier post, if anything goes wrong with the neck of a bolt on guitar, it can be replaced, If you play alot like I do then fret wear becomes a problem, and it is more cost effective to refret or replace a bolt on neck than it is a set neck or neck thru. I've always had better intonation from a bolt on neck, and I've always had a more crunchy sound with bolt ons. Neck through and set neck guitars, can get real muddy, and usually more EQ tweeking is involved to find that sweet spot, for me anyway. My main reason that I like a bolt on neck is for the sheer slippery feel that they have, they are usually unpainted and are a lot faster to play on, I have small hands, and my palm usually sticks to painted necks, so go figure and good luck my brother, I hope that I've helped you make the best decision.

 

[Doctor J]

I've got both (and set neck too). To be honest, it wouldn't bother me what it was, once it's a good guitar. I think every design has positives and negatives, though overall they pretty much equalise each other out. I couldn't say one way is better than the other though if pushed for a preference (which is what it comes down to in the end) I'd probably go for bolt on with a well sculpted heel. Personally, I like to be able to remove a neck (if work needs to be done) and I've never played a neck though that had sufficiently superior tone or sustain or any other magical quality to make bolt on seem inferior.

Edit -> plus you can change the angle of the neck against the body to suit your playing style, which you can't do with set or neck through.

 

[eaeolian]

I think I can get 2 Carvin's or LGM's for the price of the Blackmachine and Jackson. I also have to think about shipping costs and import duties on all but the Blackmachine.

You can get THREE Carvins, with nice maple tops, for what a CS Soloist will run you (around $3100). That's why I don't have a CS Warrior 7 to go with my Soloist 7.

As for the debate, the guitars have slightly different tonal characteristics, but both can sound good. My Soloist 7 is neck-thru, and my Sonic 7 is bolt on, and both sound good. The bolt-ons temd to have a slightly higher midrange presence, all things being equal, but of course that all depends on the woods used. There's no sustain difference between a properly bolted bolt-on and a neckthru, so that's not an issue. Access *can* be an issue - the access on my Soloist is so good, I'm now spoiled, since it has almost no heel and a neck scallop.

(As an aside, Jerich, a properly done neck-thru will give no humdity worries - I haven't had to touch the truss rod on my Soloist since I set it up for 10s three years ago, and the action could go considerably lower than it is. It's stable as a rock.)

 

[eaeolian]

Didn't know about the humidity thing.

Another thing I've thought of is the risk of neck breakage. I know I've not broken a neck yet, but if I did break a through neck that could be the whole guitar screwed. Though the chance of breaking a neck is very small.

I've seen neck-thru Jacksons repaired with breaks you couldn't imagine would EVER be fixed. Since you're talking 7 strings, it's not like you're going to go to Warmoth and buy a $200 replacement neck, anyway.

 

[eaeolian]

and it is more cost effective to refret or replace a bolt on neck than it is a set neck or neck thru.

Hmm. I've never had a different price quote unless binding over the frets is involved. It's no more work. Replacement is a different issue, but once I have a neck "broken in", I'd like to keep it, if possible.

I've always had better intonation from a bolt on neck,

There's no mechanical reason that this should be true. If anything, a bolt on is more likely to shift if the pocket swells or changes over time, although the distances you're talking about are so small that the bridge should be able to compensate easily. It's more a quality of build thing than a construction type issue.

and I've always had a more crunchy sound with bolt ons. Neck through and set neck guitars, can get real muddy, and usually more EQ tweeking is involved to find that sweet spot, for me anyway. My main reason that I like a bolt on neck is for the sheer slippery feel that they have, they are usually unpainted and are a lot faster to play on, I have small hands, and my palm usually sticks to painted necks, so go figure and good luck my brother, I hope that I've helped you make the best decision.

I have an oiled neck-thru - it's not a big deal to do, and since he's talking about custom orders, anyway, it's a no-brainer. Bolt ons generally do have a bit more midrange than neck-thru, but the woods used in construction will probably have as much of an effect as the neck joint.

 

[metalfiend666]

I've seen neck-thru Jacksons repaired with breaks you couldn't imagine would EVER be fixed. Since you're talking 7 strings, it's not like you're going to go to Warmoth and buy a $200 replacement neck, anyway.

True, I've seen some bad breaks fixed myself. And your right, a new bolt on neck would be a fair bit. As I'd said though, the realistic chances of me breaking a neck are next to none.

The Jackson is the most expensive. The quote for what I'd want is about $4000 for a neck through, and it'd have to be a neck through. I find Jackson heels get in the way more than my Ibanezes.

 

[Drew]

I've heard SO many tonal arguments on this one - some guys think that the best tone comes from having a single vibrating peice of wood, while others think that the best tone comes from having the neck and body vibrating entirely independant of each other, and will even go so far as to use shims made out of vibration dapmening material (nylon, apparently) to improve tone. Both make sense, physically - the former sould give great resonance, while the later should be VERY overtone rich. Practically, through a high gain guitar amp, the difference is probably minimal.

The neck breakage argument comes up a lot too, and I used to be a believer. But realistically, how often do you break necks? Hell, even Vai's Evo is only on it's second neck, and that one only broke when it got thrown across a stage and dropped. Sure it's possible a bolt-on will save you from tossing a otherwise fine body down the road, but the odds are so long that I'd hardly count on it.

So, why are all my guitars bolt-on? Two factors. The first is sheer luck - all the guitars I've wanted happened to be bolt-on. The second is tweakability - I happen to like my guitar set with a slightly sharper-than-normal neck angle and a slightly higher-than normal bridge. We're not talking huge differences, but at the action I'm comfortable with, my UV's Lo-Pro was actually making contact with the bottom of the trem cavity, at it's leading edge, and the CST was damned close. With a neck through, you've got a fixed angle, but with a bolt on you can shim it up or down slightly to personal taste. Not a HUGE deal, but I'm a tweakaholic and it's nice to have that added degree of flexibility in a setup.

As far as the Ed Roman-esq "bolt ons are cheaper than neck thrus" sort of argument, personally I would think it'd almost be HARDER to do a quality bolt-on - you certainly can't cheat with wood filler. A good bolt on and a good neck through should take approximately the same amount of skill to execute.

-D

 

[eaeolian]

As far as the Ed Roman-esq "bolt ons are cheaper than neck thrus" sort of argument, personally I would think it'd almost be HARDER to do a quality bolt-on - you certainly can't cheat with wood filler. A good bolt on and a good neck through should take approximately the same amount of skill to execute.

I hate it when people refer to bolt-ons as "cheap". Being a Jackson player, I hear that a lot.

 

[Drew]

Roman is more or less who they had in mind when they coined the phrase "scum of the earth."

You know, for a Jackson player, you're pretty cool.

 

[metalfiend666]

Had another thought on the neck breakage issue. If you terminally break a neck, is there any reason that you couldn't remove the neck and get another made as a bolt on or set neck? It should be possible.

 

[eaeolian]

Roman is more or less who they had in mind when they coined the phrase "scum of the earth."

True, although I do think he's got the vintage guitar market pegged. (Most touted as being very "original" are anything but.) Otherwise, the guy's a waste of air.

You know, for a Jackson player, you're pretty cool.

Coming from an Ibanez player, I'll take that as a compliment.

 

[noodles]

You know, for a Jackson player, you're pretty cool.

There's more of us here than just him, dick.

Considering the absolutely dizzying array of pickup, amp, cab, and speaker choices available these days, the tonality arguement of bolt-on versus neck-thru should not even be occuring. I've A/B'ed a Dinky and a Soloist (both alder bodies, both original Floyds, both ebony on maple necks, both with Duncan JB's on the bridge) before, and no difference in tone was so great that it could not be solved with a couple of eq knob tweaks.

Are any of us here playing jazz through a Twin Reverb? Then just go ahead and throw the sustain argument out the window, too, since gain instantly vaporizes the comparison..

Playability is what the real argument should be, and for me, it's neck-thru, hands down, every time. Just like eaeolian, I've been playing a Soloist for so long that I'm spoiled (and mine is from the 80s, before the neck scallops). I just don't like dealing with a neck heal, no matter how nice Ibanez makes them these days. The first time you reach out and tag the 24th fret without going CLONK...man, you'll never go back. Otherwise I'd own a bunch of bolt-ons, because it gives you one more thing to adjust, and I love options.

 

[Rev2010]

I prefer neck-thru. The sustain on neck-thru's is amazing, longer than any bolt on I've had. Also, the smooth seamless heel joint feels so much better. As for tone, as already said this is highly debatable. I personally don't see any world of difference in sound between the two. At least, nothing so drastic that a little EQ couldn't make up the difference for. Lastly, I've found neck-thru's are better with alignment and angle than bolt-on's which sometimes need tweaking. Refretting costs the same on both neck-thru and bolt-on. So I'd say if you're spending a decent amount of cash go with the neck-thru.


Rev.

 

[grimmchaos]

You know, for a Jackson player, you're pretty cool.

Hey, I'm one too!! Ya lush!

 

[eaeolian]

I prefer neck-thru. The sustain on neck-thru's is amazing, longer than any bolt on I've had.

Then you've had some really bad bolt-ons. Any mechanical engineer could debunk this easily - in fact, there's at least one web page devoted to it, although I can't find it at the minute - but the loss of vibration through a properly bolted-on joint would be negligible from an audio perspective. Now, if the neckthru was fixed bridge and the bolt-on had a Floyd, you might be on to something...

 

[Kagami]

I really wish you didn't HAVE to have the rounded body edges on the carvin 7s, it's just ludicrous...I emailed them about it and they wouldn't budge...soo lame.

Hmm...I'd get a Carvin, they're cheap and are really quite nice. I actually saw a practicall brand new one at guitar center for 500 bucks, it had the fixed bridge and black but still...500 bucks.

 

[Rev2010]

Then you've had some really bad bolt-ons. Any mechanical engineer could debunk this easily - in fact, there's at least one web page devoted to it

Debunk it in fact? I think not. See the laws of physics itself will tell you an item physically bound through the middle and entire length of an object will transmit vibrations far more efficiently than one that is bound at a much smaller degree of area (small neck joint). That's physics and you can't change that not matter how much we'd like to think. I do agree however that done well the degree of difference between the two can be made to be quite minute. But regardless, there will always be a difference.

By the way, I've had both Floyd's and string through body bolt on's and neck thru's so I didn't just have bad bolt on's and it wasn't just Floyd's ;-)


Rev.