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



## Santuzzo (Oct 31, 2012)

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 (Oct 31, 2012)

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_ (Oct 31, 2012)

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 (Oct 31, 2012)

I prefer bolt on's personally, for travel.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 31, 2012)

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 (Oct 31, 2012)

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 (Oct 31, 2012)

Santuzzo said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2012)

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 (Oct 31, 2012)

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 (Oct 31, 2012)

Santuzzo said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2012)

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 (Oct 31, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2012)

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


----------



## M3CHK1LLA (Oct 31, 2012)

i like the look & feel of neck thru.


----------



## Santuzzo (Oct 31, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> 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 (Oct 31, 2012)

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


----------



## Dabo Fett (Oct 31, 2012)

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 (Oct 31, 2012)

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 (Oct 31, 2012)

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..


----------



## Phlegethon (Oct 31, 2012)

Sustain and Electric Guitar<br>Neck Joint Type

when it comes down to the wire, formal testing has proven that neck through construction will sustain the least. I should also say that anybody listening wasn't able to detect one lick of difference between all three neck joint types as well, meaning the difference is pretty much a moot point from a listening point of view 

bolt ons have the advantage in regard to building cost as well as the ability to service and repair a neck with a bolt on joint. neck throughs typically offer a superior neck/body joint than the other types in terms of fret access in the upper register 

set necks appear to be the odd man out, and I can't find any objective reason (or think of any off the top of my head) for the set neck method. plenty of people do prefer it for subjective reasons and that's ok, a subjective advantage for a set neck would be using the neck heel to locate your fretting hand like cellists do. I'm sure there's more than I a come up with, I'm afraid I don't have a lot of experience with set neck guitars to offer any useful insights though


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 1, 2012)

Or if you want a different body wood and neck wood. IE you can't have an all mahogany body and maple neck with a neckthru but you could do a maple neck and maho body with a set neck or bolt on.


----------



## Dooky (Nov 1, 2012)

The only reason why I have a very slight preference more towards neck-thru is because of the upper fret access. 
But it's not really a major consideration for me when buying a guitar.


----------



## Vicious7 (Nov 1, 2012)

There are plenty of bolt ons with excellent fret access, AANJ is there for a reason. 

Get a Dean RC7x and you won't have to worry about that, or a V I guess.


----------



## Erazoender (Nov 1, 2012)

I remember trying the AW 7 as well and it did feel pretty shitty. Out of the new Whitechapel sigs the BS-7 was by far the best, I'd be content with that guitar any day. The other two are meh. And as far as being worried that your neck will be fucked, don't worry about it too much man. Honestly that happens so rarely that it should be the least of your concern tbh. Just play the guitars, and if it feels and sounds good to you, grab 'er!


----------



## Pikka Bird (Nov 1, 2012)

Depending on how much of the heel is scooped out on a neck-through guitar, you might not be totally fucked if you damage the neck. If there's enough heel material left then you can "easily" have someone rout out a bolt-on pocket and fasten a new neck like it was an AANJ. I believe the AW-7 has enough meat for this to be possible.

But as Max said, there's not a whole lot of risk of a neck snapping/warping beyond repair. I only see that with old and extremely uncherished guitars, or those shitty bangers from Aldi or something.

Interesting that a few people are now coming out against the AW-7? I'd like to know _what_ it was about it that made you guys think it felt "shitty" or "cheap". Just to get everything on the table.


----------



## Edika (Nov 1, 2012)

Most of the pros and cons have been covered and the myths for sustain discussed. I'll just add my personal experience by playing both. When I switched from a bolt on with a bulky neck pocket to a neckthrough I saw a difference in higher fret access. However after some years of playing on the neckthrough and improvement in my playing and technique, when I played with my old bolt-on I had no problem with higher fret access. I saw even less of a problem on an Ibanez with an AANJ neck joint. As I see it as you progress as a player it doesn't make that much of a difference (not that I am a super good player) and it's just a matter of preference and aesthetics.
Sound wise I can't comment since my bolt-on and neckthrough guitars have different bridges, electronics, finishes and woods.


----------



## hairychris (Nov 1, 2012)

Set and/or bolt is some luthiers' preference for tonal reasons - the ability to mix & match necks to bodies. The again others go the neck-thru route and sandwich timbers for tonal reasons.

To be honest, though, you get a well constructed guitar with good wood (as opposed to tonally dead stuff) using any construction method and it should sustain. Specifics of tone and feel are subjective.

Personally I don't do enough above the 17th fret to worry about access, and my preference is rosewood necks if at all possible. I don't have any thru-necks in rotation but don't have anything against them per se...


----------



## E9977 (Nov 1, 2012)

In terms of upper fret access and tone, I personally don't care, and can't really tell the difference. If a bolt-on guitar has a contoured heel and sufficiently big cutaways, it has the same great upper fret access. My preference towards bolt-ons is for one reason: Most neck-thru guitars seem to have glossy finished necks. I prefer lightly or unfinished necks.


----------



## sear (Nov 2, 2012)

Personally I prefer neck-through, but it's a looks and comfort thing, not tone. Most bolt-ons have a poor joint, and even the nicer ones like Ibanez can't compare to the feel of a neck-through. I also think back plates etc. tend to ruin the look of a guitar, though obviously in some cases (Strats) it'd be pretty weird to do it any other way.

There's no good or bad, right or wrong, just preference. And to be honest, there is something about the craftsmanship of a neck-through that I appreciate over a bolt-on, something about it is just more elegant to me.



Phlegethon said:


> set necks appear to be the odd man out, and I can't find any objective reason (or think of any off the top of my head) for the set neck method. plenty of people do prefer it for subjective reasons and that's ok, a subjective advantage for a set neck would be using the neck heel to locate your fretting hand like cellists do. I'm sure there's more than I a come up with, I'm afraid I don't have a lot of experience with set neck guitars to offer any useful insights though


Because Gibson use set necks and everyone loves Gibson etc.


----------



## MrFoster (Nov 13, 2012)

Funny little story with a thru-neck
Friend of mine and I were jamming one day, we threw a distortion peddle on each of our practice amps for fun.
He bent over to change a couple settings and then WHAM! The strap detached from his V and it fell to the ground
Neck was nearly snapped right in half, if it weren't for the fretboard I think it would have gone completely.
BUT it was saved, his dad thought "Well there's no extra loss if we don't try" so he got some wood glue and it works the same as ever


----------



## Corrosion (Nov 13, 2012)

Honestly, the necks wood being the same type of wood as the guitar on all thru necks is crap too(most build a neck, and then put the wings on...). Different woods can be used in thru necks just as it can in set necks or bolt ons( i have a maple/walnut/swamp ash thruneck). having owned many of each, i would like to say that it really depends more-so on the guitar overall, and not really the neck. just play a few different ones and see what meshes. And, there is no true difference in sustain, or even tone, just because of the neck styling, only playability.


----------



## JP Universe (Nov 13, 2012)

Generally I love bolt ons but the neck throughs on the KxK's and Parkers really do have a 'wow' factor.... Like 'how is this not breaking????' kinda awesomeness to it


----------



## Webmaestro (Nov 13, 2012)

+1 for bolt-ons here.

I've owned a Les Paul (glued) and currently own an RGT220H SOL (neck-thru). Though I love the aesthetics of a glued or neck-thru guitar, I just prefer bolt-ons (and don't prefer neck-thrus), for all the reasons people have already mentioned. I don't notice significantly increased sustain or "better tone" with my neck-thru over any of my bolt-on guitars. If I do, it's probably because of the woods used.

I have an Apex II coming soon... which is bolt-on with a fixed-bridge. I'm curious to see if THAT is actually my longest sustainer.


----------



## mwcarl (Nov 13, 2012)

Phlegethon said:


> set necks appear to be the odd man out, and I can't find any objective reason (or think of any off the top of my head) for the set neck method. plenty of people do prefer it for subjective reasons and that's ok, a subjective advantage for a set neck would be using the neck heel to locate your fretting hand like cellists do. I'm sure there's more than I a come up with, I'm afraid I don't have a lot of experience with set neck guitars to offer any useful insights though



I'm not sure I agree with this, there are some tangible benefits from a set neck guitar. As Stealth said above, you can get a certain type of tone akin to a bolt on neck with different neck and body woods, while potentially getting some benefit from a more smoothly transitioning neck heel. As a builder, I see set necks as being easier and more enjoyable to construct than a neck-through. Having built guitars using essentially all three methods, I cannot discern any difference between them tonally that cannot be mostly attributed to the wood used.

It should also be noted that there are many different implementations of a set neck. The neck wood depending on the design can extend fairly far into the body.


----------



## Corrosion (Nov 13, 2012)

set necks = les pauls... obviously some1 has to like set necks...


----------



## tedtan (Nov 13, 2012)

Phlegethon said:


> set necks appear to be the odd man out, and I can't find any objective reason (or think of any off the top of my head) for the set neck method. plenty of people do prefer it for subjective reasons and that's ok, a subjective advantage for a set neck would be using the neck heel to locate your fretting hand like cellists do. I'm sure there's more than I a come up with, I'm afraid I don't have a lot of experience with set neck guitars to offer any useful insights though


 
Traditionally, acoustic guitars have been made with a set neck construction method. And while bolt on acoustics are becoming more and more common today, the best acoustic instruments were certainly set neck types at the time electric gutars were first built.

When the first electric guitars finally did come onto the scene, they were hollowbodies, which also used a set neck construction method. Next came semi-hollowbodies, which are like hollowbodies but they have a solid chunk of wood from the neck pocket all the way through to the end pin, so only the sides are hollow. Semi-hollowbodies are typically made with a set neck construction as well (Gibson), though they can be made neck through.

When the first production model solidbody electrics were built there were two construction approaches - Gibson took the traditional route with the Les Paul by using the set neck method and Fender invented the bolt on methodology for the Broadcaster/Telecaster. (Note that Leo Fender was an accountant and a businessman as well as an inventor, so his motivation was not for tonal reasons, but rather it was a business decision made in order to save money, which let him underprice Gibson and his other competitors). I think Rickenbacher developed the neck through construction, at least as we know it today, sometime in the 50's or 60's, but it may have been used before that.

Today, many tone hounds are still trying to replicate the sounds of vintage guitars, and the Les Paul in particular, so the set neck construction method continues. I don't know if it has any benefit over the other methods, but many traditionalists (usually Martin lovers) in the acoustic guitar world insist on set neck construction, and many electric players wanting vintage style guitars insist on set neck Les Pauls, ES-335s, etc. because *that's how they used to make 'em.*


----------



## Luke Acacia (Nov 13, 2012)

I like the bite of my bolt ons more than the smooth sound that I find my neck thrus produce. Dont get me wrong You can get both sounds out of either but I have always found that the bolt on necks have much more attack and sound more aggressive.

Its all personal preference to be honest. I wouldnt avoid buying a guitar I like because it was set neck or bolt on.


----------



## sear (Nov 15, 2012)

Luke Acacia said:


> I like the bite of my bolt ons more than the smooth sound that I find my neck thrus produce. Dont get me wrong You can get both sounds out of either but I have always found that the bolt on necks have much more attack and sound more aggressive.
> 
> Its all personal preference to be honest. I wouldnt avoid buying a guitar I like because it was set neck or bolt on.


One thing to possibly consider - a lot of bolt-on neck guitars are Strat-style and tend to have smaller, sleeker bodies and lighter woods like alder and swamp ash, whereas set neck and neck-thru designs are (more typically speaking) modeled after Les Pauls and thus tend to be made from mahogany and thicker, chunkier bodies. Could this be responsible for the perceived differences in tone and sustain between neck types?


----------



## Orikon (Nov 15, 2012)

From what I've read, the bolt on necks have more attack and have more 'twang' than neck-thru's. Neck-thru's offer more resonance and a woodier sound. Could be wrong, I don't know, but that seems to be the general consensus.


----------

