# Do you guys prefer bolt on to neck through for any reason other than cost?



## endmysuffering (Nov 26, 2016)

Not looking to start a war here, just interested in knowing if any of you prefer bolt on guitars. My main axe is neckthrough and heel less and I way prefer the high fret access and looks. What you guys prefer?


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Nov 26, 2016)

Too late......war has started! haha

No but I love the upper fret access on neck thrus. I have a couple of Agile Septors that are neck thru. I played a Jackson Slathxmg 3-6 soloist yesterday at GC . It was neck thru and I'm gassing for this guitar now. I also have a Agile Septor custom that is a bolt on neck. It's a nice guitar as well. At the end of the day I'd say I don't prefer neck thrus for any other reason other than comfort and access.


----------



## endmysuffering (Nov 26, 2016)

Unleash The Fury said:


> Too late......war has started! haha
> 
> No but I love the upper fret access on neck thrus. I have a couple of Agile Septors that are neck thru. I played a Jackson Slathxmg 3-6 soloist yesterday at GC . It was neck thru and I'm gassing for this guitar now. I also have a Agile Septor custom that is a bolt on neck. It's a nice guitar as well. At the end of the day I'd say I don't prefer neck thrus for any other reason other than comfort and access.



Same, if a war starts I'm on the neckthrough part of the thread.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Nov 26, 2016)

Personally I prefer neck through. I've played great bolt on and set neck guitars that had good sustain but I feel like my neck throughs have a bit more sustain (at least my vader 8 does compared to my strandberg and some other bolt ons). The aesthetics of a smooth transition at the heel always makes me gravitate towards neck through. I've always hated how the PRS heel looks with that knob sticking out (jackson doesn't have that, a lot of ESPs don't do that, hell even some Gibsons don't have that abrubt transition). Also I don't tour or abuse the .... out of my guitars so I'm not worried about having to replace a neck so that becomes a moot point.


----------



## endmysuffering (Nov 26, 2016)

KnightBrolaire said:


> Personally I prefer neck through. I've played great bolt on and set neck guitars that had good sustain but I feel like my neck throughs have a bit more sustain (at least my vader 8 does compared to my strandberg and some other bolt ons). The aesthetics of a smooth transition at the heel always makes me gravitate towards neck through. I've always hated how the PRS heel looks with that knob sticking out (jackson doesn't have that, a lot of ESPs don't do that, hell even some Gibsons don't have that abrubt transition). Also I don't tour or abuse the .... out of my guitars so I'm not worried about having to replace a neck so that becomes a moot point.



I definitely agree that some guitars are just better than others, specs don't determine the feel.


----------



## budda (Nov 26, 2016)

I don't care what the heel is so long as the instrument is well made, reliable and comfortable to me personally. I want the best fit for the job.

If you're prone to throwing gear around, get a bolt-on


----------



## StrmRidr (Nov 26, 2016)

I have nothing against bolt ons but I generally prefer neck through. I prefer the feel of them and also the look.


----------



## Rawkmann (Nov 26, 2016)

Can't say I have strong preference either way, but I've played more high quality Bolt-Ons than neck through over the years. I just get aggravated when people think neck through automatically makes it 'high end' and bolt on means 'cheap'.


----------



## InCasinoOut (Nov 26, 2016)

...I actually prefer bolt-on now. I feel like they're snappier and have more attack, but i might be attributing those qualities to the wrong variable. I have no problem hitting the 24th fret on my bolt-ons, by the way.

My first neck-thru was an Agile Interceptor. Thought it was a super bad-ass feature reserved for guitars that cost a lot more. Then I got 2 Ibanez RGA121s and much preferred the tone, even acoustically. Picked up a modded neck-through LTD later on, and although it sounds better than the Agile, I don't think it has the snap and attack of the Ibbys.


----------



## Promit (Nov 26, 2016)

The neck-throughs I've played just don't have something... a certain snappiness in the feel. I don't know if it was those specific guitars and woods and pickups or if there's really something to it. I've never had that problem with set necks and bolt ons though. The Schecter deep set necks work really well for me, great access without that weird dead feeling. But I'm happy with bolt-ons too as I'm not hugely fond of the upper high end of the fret board.


----------



## laxu (Nov 26, 2016)

Right now I have pretty much 50/50 bolt-ons and set necks. Only neckthru is a 5-string bass. I guess I prefer bolt-ons, I feel they have a bit more snap to the attack.

I recently ordered a custom guitar and went with bolt-on because the neckthru would have been a pretty big price bump for no real benefit. A well made bolt-on heel is very unnoticeable. The best I've played is the Kiesel Aries heel.


----------



## InCasinoOut (Nov 26, 2016)

Alright 3 in a row mentioning bolt-ons and snappiness. I haven't been imagining things!


----------



## Ebony (Nov 26, 2016)

I've never owned a bolt-on, probably never will. Not my preference.


----------



## Shask (Nov 26, 2016)

Yeah, I tend to prefer bolt-on because they sound and feel tighter, snappier, chunkier, etc.. I don't care much about the neck heel because I spend maybe .0005% of my time playing the 24th fret 


I do like some neckthroughs, but overall, I have never found one I loved the tone of. They seem flatter, and not as resonant overall.


----------



## Ebony (Nov 26, 2016)

One might postulate that bolt-ons tend to be snappier because they are usually on the lighter end of the scale.

Fender, suhr, tom anderson etc, etc, all super lightweight, slim guitars


----------



## Yodel (Nov 26, 2016)

+1 for bolt-ons, neck-throughs always feel kinda mellow and "slow" when it comes to attack


----------



## Shask (Nov 26, 2016)

Ebony said:


> One might postulate that bolt-ons tend to be snappier because they are usually on the lighter end of the scale.
> 
> Fender, suhr, tom anderson etc, etc, all super lightweight, slim guitars



Most of my bolt-on guitars are actually much heavier. My neckthrough is the lightest.


----------



## InCasinoOut (Nov 26, 2016)

Ebony said:


> One might postulate that bolt-ons tend to be snappier because they are usually on the lighter end of the scale.
> 
> Fender, suhr, tom anderson etc, etc, all super lightweight, slim guitars



I wouldn't think so... my RGA121s are mahogany, not light by any means. Probably just as heavy as any of my other mahogany guitars.


----------



## Ebony (Nov 26, 2016)

InCasinoOut said:


> I wouldn't think so... my RGA121s are mahogany, not light by any means. Probably just as heavy as any of my other mahogany guitars.




One of my Kxk's are mahogany (honduras). It is the lightest guitar I have ever owned.

Interesting wood family, mahogany. Everything from super-hard and sharp sounding to chunky and heavy.


----------



## Dudley (Nov 26, 2016)

Neck-throughs all day every day for me. There are no doubt some great bolt-on guitars out there I'm sure, but I just far prefer the average neck-through to them is all. To me they always just feel more 'together' and lively, like the whole instrument is resonating when a chord rings out. Bolt-ons in comparison feel quite 'dead' IME. Good thing there's a world of options out there for people of both persuasions


----------



## Yodel (Nov 26, 2016)

Ebony said:


> One might postulate that bolt-ons tend to be snappier because they are usually on the lighter end of the scale.
> 
> Fender, suhr, tom anderson etc, etc, all super lightweight, slim guitars



Nope, comparing my old Caparison Dellinger (solid walnut body BO, heavy as ....) against a friend's Mayones Regius (swamp ash NT and really light) the Dellinger makes the Regius sound like a muffled Jazzbox both unplugged and through an amp (EMG 81s in both)

Slow lead playing sound sweeter on the Mayones, but I guess good metal guitar tone needs some acoustic decoupling along the strings to keep the sound lively (be it a FR trem or the neck joint)


----------



## You (Nov 26, 2016)

I've only owned bolt on and set neck construction guitars, and all of them are well built (mostly). I would personally prefer a bolt on or a neck through as both seem to be sturdy for their own reasons.


----------



## ASoC (Nov 26, 2016)

I prefer bolt-on necks simply because I like having the option to swap the neck. I have huge hands so upper fret access isn't ever an issue. Also, when modding/refinishing/restoring it's much easier to work with a guitar if you can remove the neck.


----------



## Rawkmann (Nov 26, 2016)

Don't know if I agree with the 'other than the cost' title of the thread. Besides the really low end stuff do neck throughs really cost more? Guitar makers like Suhr, Tom Anderson, Vigier, James Tyler and others might make You rethink that opinion.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Nov 26, 2016)

I picked up a fender Tele yesterday and forgot how bulky and cumbersome the bolt on neck-heel-block is. Never again will I pick up a fender for that reason


----------



## Necris (Nov 26, 2016)

I've never cared for neck-through guitars (or set necks). I've never once felt impeded by a bolt-on neck so there's no benefit a neck-through or set neck can provide for me. 

I decided I'd never buy a neck-through after an experience a few years ago when a friend gave me his guitar to do a set-up on because he felt the action was uncomfortably high (it was). Even after a proper setup the action was still higher than he or I would have liked and dropping the string saddles as low as they could go still left things just a few millimeters too high. While with a bolt-on this would have been a simple case of pulling off the neck and shimming it, with the neck-through we were more or less stuck and he just had to deal with it.


----------



## A-Branger (Nov 26, 2016)

I know these are basses, but well


----------



## ImBCRichBitch (Nov 26, 2016)

all three types have different advantages and disadvantages. Personally, a deep set neck is my favourite. Ive played quite a few neck throughs that i liked but they didnt feel quite right. Same with some bolt ons.


----------



## feraledge (Nov 26, 2016)

I love the heel on a neck thru, but a good bolt on heel and you shouldn't even notice it.
I'm on an old ESP bolt on kick. I'm of the opinion right now that bolt on lets the body wood add more to the mix, but not about to get scientific about it. 
If the guitar is built well, then construction is hardly the biggest issue. The joint on my Sully 624T is absolutely amazing, best bolt on joint I've felt. 
Put it this way, if I ended up getting another custom again, I'd go bolt on.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 26, 2016)

I prefer the tone of a bolt on, it has a nice snap to it.
I prefer the aesthetic of a bolt on when done well.
A good bolt on design doesnt have to be obstructive , but many of them are - that is true. Easier to achieve on a bass where the neck pickup isn't an obstacle.
I like that the neck is replacable too.
Also that the neck finish doesn't have to correspond with body paint etc. I know it doesn't have to on a set neck, but tends to look weird when it changes.


----------



## Nlelith (Nov 26, 2016)

I prefer bolt-on because of better attack, sustain & maintainability.


----------



## erdiablo666 (Nov 27, 2016)

Bolt-on lover here. More snap is what I like.


----------



## sniperfreak223 (Nov 27, 2016)

Neck through fan here...mostly for the way they feel, and I really like the smooth aesthetic they have.


----------



## Grindspine (Nov 27, 2016)

My neck thru USA B.C. Rich has my favorite neck.

My bolt-on Ibanez RGD and PRS CE 24 necks are pretty damn nice though.


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 27, 2016)

Funny to hear people talking about better sustain and attack with a bolt on. Years ago everyone said that neck thrus gave the better sustain and attack, and that the nature of the lack of wood continuity in a bolt-on robbed the guitar of tone and sustain. 

I used to be in the "neck-thru is better" camp, because years ago you couldn't get a low cost instrument with a neck thru. (Before the days of Agile.) These days, there doesn't seem to be a significant cost difference between the styles (and I can afford nicer guitars ) so I'm good with either. The only thing that drives me nuts is a neck through that has an arbitrary heel protuberance. Like this Interceptor Pro...







Generally, do we not all want easy access to all the frets? It baffles me why all guitars aren't designed with that in mind. Take the PRS neck heel, for instance. The contour of the body is actually really nice. But the neck has this random heel shape, which (as has been shown by a number of high end luthiers) has no purpose. I find that exceptionally irritating, and a glaring design flaw, and it's why I own zero PRS guitars.






Compare that with this Gary Kramer Turbulence (F-1, Delta Wing, R729, etc) heel (or lack thereof):






At least in theory, either style can be designed well, or poorly. The actual type of joint is a non issue for me at this point. I don't factor it in when I buy a guitar. I DO factor in whether I can easily play higher up the neck - irrespective of the heel type.


----------



## endmysuffering (Nov 27, 2016)

Grindspine said:


> My neck thru USA B.C. Rich has my favorite neck.
> 
> My bolt-on Ibanez RGD and PRS CE 24 necks are pretty damn nice though.



My nj bc rich' neck is amazing. I'd love to get one of the usa ones, nice score.


----------



## endmysuffering (Nov 27, 2016)

Hollowway said:


> Funny to hear people talking about better sustain and attack with a bolt on. Years ago everyone said that neck thrus gave the better sustain and attack, and that the nature of the lack of wood continuity in a bolt-on robbed the guitar of tone and sustain.
> 
> I used to be in the "neck-thru is better" camp, because years ago you couldn't get a low cost instrument with a neck thru. (Before the days of Agile.) These days, there doesn't seem to be a significant cost difference between the styles (and I can afford nicer guitars ) so I'm good with either. The only thing that drives me nuts is a neck through that has an arbitrary heel protuberance. Like this Interceptor Pro...
> 
> ...


My next buy I probably gonna be a neckthrough agile, ridiculously cheap for the specs.


----------



## budda (Nov 27, 2016)

Yet so many people have no issue reaching upper frets on PRS guitars 

To each their own, and that's fine.

re: the "snap". Most bolt-ons are alder bodies with maple necks. Most set necks are mahogany bodies with mahogany necks. Yes that's a sweeping generalization.

I'm sure if you had a hog/hog bolt-on, 24.75 scale guitar it would be much more comparable to a set-neck counterpart.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Nov 27, 2016)

Hollowway said:


> Funny to hear people talking about better sustain and attack with a bolt on. Years ago everyone said that neck thrus gave the better sustain and attack, and that the nature of the lack of wood continuity in a bolt-on robbed the guitar of tone and sustain.
> 
> I used to be in the "neck-thru is better" camp, because years ago you couldn't get a low cost instrument with a neck thru. (Before the days of Agile.) These days, there doesn't seem to be a significant cost difference between the styles (and I can afford nicer guitars ) so I'm good with either. The only thing that drives me nuts is a neck through that has an arbitrary heel protuberance. Like this Interceptor Pro...
> 
> ...



glad to see I'm not the only one that thinks the PRS heel is stupid and more of an aesthetic choice at this point. I wish PRS would actually build a guitar without that obnoxious heel, because I'd totally buy one then.


----------



## laxu (Nov 27, 2016)

Hollowway said:


> Funny to hear people talking about better sustain and attack with a bolt on. Years ago everyone said that neck thrus gave the better sustain and attack, and that the nature of the lack of wood continuity in a bolt-on robbed the guitar of tone and sustain.
> 
> Generally, do we not all want easy access to all the frets? It baffles me why all guitars aren't designed with that in mind. Take the PRS neck heel, for instance. The contour of the body is actually really nice. But the neck has this random heel shape, which (as has been shown by a number of high end luthiers) has no purpose. I find that exceptionally irritating, and a glaring design flaw, and it's why I own zero PRS guitars.



In reality the sustain difference is not huge. I think the better sustain thing comes from a time when guitars were not as precisely made as they are today with CNC machines and so on. Sustain is really not an issue on any of the guitars I own, whether bolt-on or neckthru. All have more than enough to get thru say a Gary Moore tune which might have fairly long single notes.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think PRS's reason for that rather bulging set neck is that they believe it reduces the chance for dead spots on the neck. You also have to remember that the neck doesn't have that much wood to hold it in, the neck joint only goes to the end of the neck humbucker slot so having more beef in the area should add rigidity. In reality that neck joint just _looks_ less ergonomic when it is about the same as a typical Les Paul or Fender bolt-on neck joint.

Guitars are always compromises on manufacturing and repair. They could make the neck go further in the body but with a top on it would mean the neck could never be removed if someone has an expensive PRS that gets broken, they would be out of luck having it repaired. With the way it is the neck can be removed and replaced if it cannot be repaired in any other way. Of course the guitar breaking at the headstock end is the most typical break and can usually be repaired with a scarf joint but on something that costs as much as PRS guitars that might not be what the owner wants and they can afford a whole new neck.

I think people make a bit too big a deal about upper fret access. I have no trouble with that on a Les Paul or a block heel Fender. Just have to change hand position a bit. Of course there are heels that are more ideal for this like the Kiesel Aries bolt-on heel which despite looking blocky is super unintrusive or a neckthru or a deep and contoured set neck. But overall at least I don't spend _that_ much time on the upper frets for the neck heel to be a huge concern for me.


----------



## Grindspine (Nov 27, 2016)

Hollowway said:


> Generally, do we not all want easy access to all the frets? It baffles me why all guitars aren't designed with that in mind. Take the PRS neck heel, for instance. The contour of the body is actually really nice. But the neck has this random heel shape, which (as has been shown by a number of high end luthiers) has no purpose. I find that exceptionally irritating, and a glaring design flaw, and it's why I own zero PRS guitars.


 
Isn't that pretty much a volute, which serves the purpose of preventing breakage at a point in the neck where stress is more likely?


----------



## Rawkmann (Nov 27, 2016)

My PRS Custom 24 has GREAT upper fret access. The heel is a total non issue on a PRS. It might look that way in pics but playing one IRL is a different story.


----------



## VMNT (Nov 27, 2016)

Neck-thru > Set-in > Bolt-on for me. Not sure why.


----------



## Rachmaninoff (Nov 27, 2016)

Necris said:


> I decided I'd never buy a neck-through after an experience a few years ago when a friend gave me his guitar to do a set-up on because he felt the action was uncomfortably high (it was). Even after a proper setup the action was still higher than he or I would have liked and dropping the string saddles as low as they could go still left things just a few millimeters too high. While with a bolt-on this would have been a simple case of pulling off the neck and shimming it, with the neck-through we were more or less stuck and he just had to deal with it.



Exactly. Bolt-on necks can be easily shimmed to lower the action, that's a *huge *plus.


----------



## thraxil (Nov 27, 2016)

Rachmaninoff said:


> Exactly. Bolt-on necks can be easily shimmed to lower the action, that's a *huge *plus.



That's the thing though. If you look at it a little differently, bolt-on necks essentially enable cheaper mass production. You can worry a bit less about tolerances and just crank out necks and bodies and slam them together. Making a neck-through, you have to be a bit more precise in your workmanship.

So, if I'm looking at inexpensive production models, I would probably prefer bolt-on. But if I'm looking at higher end guitars, bolt-on seems like something of a cop-out (when not done specifically for the other reasons discussed in this thread). In contrast, if I pick up a neck-through guitar and it has good action, to me that's an early indicator that the workmanship is going to be good overall.


----------



## Yodel (Nov 27, 2016)

A neck-through probably requires less precision in workmanship, no neck pocket, heel angles and general alignment issues... just a fingerboard and a bridge on a flat slab of wood


----------



## thraxil (Nov 27, 2016)

Yodel said:


> A neck-through probably requires less precision in workmanship, no neck pocket, heel angles and general alignment issues... just a fingerboard and a bridge on a flat slab of wood



For a small shop making guitars one at a time, perhaps. But when you are looking at it in terms of a factory with CNC machines producing large numbers of guitars, I think bolt-ons are much simpler and cheaper to produce. For a neck-through, you need to source longer pieces of wood that are straight and stable enough to be necks. If tolerances are off a little when it's cut, you have to throw the whole thing away instead of fixing it by shimming a bit or shaving a bit off the pocket/heel.


----------



## Viginez (Nov 27, 2016)

i have some neck thrus, they feel great and comfortable, but the bolt-ons are unbeatable for the more open sound


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 27, 2016)

Grindspine said:


> Isn't that pretty much a volute, which serves the purpose of preventing breakage at a point in the neck where stress is more likely?



No, that's what I was saying about high end luthiers disproving it. There is no need for that much wood there, and there is no more stress there than anywhere else up the neck. It's simply a design choice, and it baffles me why it was made.


----------



## laxu (Nov 27, 2016)

Yodel said:


> A neck-through probably requires less precision in workmanship, no neck pocket, heel angles and general alignment issues... just a fingerboard and a bridge on a flat slab of wood



On the contrary. Depending on the chosen bridge you might have to do a precise neck angle and you have to do that earlier in the build than you would for a set neck.


----------



## Genocyber (Nov 27, 2016)

I don't prefer one over the other... As long as the guitar is well made and is comfortable... There are so many heel types these days anyway... Each to their own...


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 27, 2016)

Good point on neck shimming. On a non-high end instrument there's WAY more adjustability. It's why I tell people not to buy an agile neck through wth a Kahler. Kahlers require recessing into the body, or a higher neck/neck angle.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 27, 2016)

I don't have a preference, I consider each guitar as a whole, I like it or don't. Neck construction so far hasn't shown to be a decisive factor, ie I like and dislike guitars with both techniques used.


----------



## endmysuffering (Nov 27, 2016)

Andromalia said:


> I don't have a preference, I consider each guitar as a whole, I like it or don't. Neck construction so far hasn't shown to be a decisive factor, ie I like and dislike guitars with both techniques used.



The question wasn't really about the guitar as a whole, just that aspect.


----------



## Grindspine (Nov 27, 2016)

Necris said:


> I decided I'd never buy a neck-through after an experience a few years ago when a friend gave me his guitar to do a set-up on because he felt the action was uncomfortably high (it was). Even after a proper setup the action was still higher than he or I would have liked and dropping the string saddles as low as they could go still left things just a few millimeters too high. While with a bolt-on this would have been a simple case of pulling off the neck and shimming it, with the neck-through we were more or less stuck and he just had to deal with it.


 
I have to ask why the action was so high after a "proper setup"? Was the neck at a bad angle to the body? Did you do truss rod adjustments to straighten the neck? Was the bridge set too high off the body?

Action being a few millimeters too high sounds like a terribly badly designed guitar. Do you recall the brand?


----------



## Hollowway (Nov 27, 2016)

Grindspine said:


> I have to ask why the action was so high after a "proper setup"? Was the neck at a bad angle to the body? Did you do truss rod adjustments to straighten the neck? Was the bridge set too high off the body?
> 
> Action being a few millimeters too high sounds like a terribly badly designed guitar. Do you recall the brand?



Yeah, I'd be interested to hear the brand, as well. Like I said above, neck through Agiles with a Kahler suffered from this issue, because the Kahler really needs to be either recessed, or have the neck at an angle. I have a BRJ with a Kahler, and what he (aka the Mexican luthiers who built his guitars) would do is to add a shim on the neck before the FB was glued on. This had the same effect a neck shim would on a bolt-on. Others deal with the issue by gluing the body wings at an angle, so that the beck through blank it's flush with the body. At the end, it leaves the 24th fret higher than the nut (relatively speaking), much like a shim would. (FWIW, I have a Strictly 7 8 string - the first one Jim built - and he ended up recessing the Kahler to get the action to the right height. Which worked fine, but the fixed-bridge set screw is now buried, and unaccessable.)


----------



## eugeneelgr (Dec 2, 2016)

I haven't played a mahogany bod and mahogany neck 25.5 inch set neck/neck thru, so I can't comment whether that scale length contributes to the snap and attack, but I have 2 bolt on 25.5 inch scale guitars with mahogany bodies and mahogany neck and rose wood neck with ebony fretboards, and those have way more snap and attack than my 24.75 inch les paul custom.

That being said, I prefer bolt ons to neck thrus. Neck thrus sound compressed to me, no idea why(passive pickups) and way too much bass and treble. And to me, with regards to upper fret access, I've always felt that the lower cutaway does more for access than the joint. And no, I don't measure access by how easily you hit the 22nd or 24th fret on the high E but how easily or how difficult it is to hit the 24th on the low E. Yes some neck thrus have insane upper fret access, but I just hate the thought of the guitar being firewood if the neck breaks or something. I love the aesthetic of a bolt on too. And as I mentioned above, not a fan of the tone from neck thrus as well.

In the world of bolt ons though, I prefer something with a really sculpted heel and a seamless tapering from neck to neck joint. Something like this





As compared to


----------



## RobbYoung (Dec 2, 2016)

I've only owned budget variants of both types, but honestly I prefer a bolt-on neck. YMMV but the models I've played often feel better in the hand, and the sound is one I like more over the "mellower" sound from neck through guitars that many others have mentioned. I also love the versatility of a bolt on; if I decide I want to change scale length? No problem, buy a different length neck, set up correctly for the scale and away you go. If I want to change the fretboard material, or even neck material, then I don't need to buy and sell a whole guitar, instead just one part.

Also, I don't know if this is true for every case, but I find neck through instruments are much more susceptible to neck warping on large temperature changes. As a Brit I have to deal with maybe extremes of 20 degree changes between inside and outside temperatures, but my neck through instruments always warp more than the bolt ons with a relatively tame amount of temp change.

I understand that my reasons might be irrelevant to someone who's forking out thousands of (insert currency) for the _EXACT_ instrument they want, but I see no benefit in restricting that customisation opportunity.


----------



## hairychris (Dec 2, 2016)

I prefer bolt-ons, generally. But I can't deny that the top-fret access of a good neck-thru is a thing of beauty. However, as I spend sod-all time up there it's not an issue.

There's an argument that they (and set-necks) react differently to thru as the neck wood doesn't run the length of the body, and this is where the perceived "snap" comes from. Now, is this actually the case? I dn't know. My preference in a guitar is an extremely stiff neck bolted to a lighter body as it just feels better to me. Whether it sounds better after shoving through an amp is debatable.


----------



## gogolXmogol (Dec 2, 2016)

I was getting the most sustained and articled sound from high-end bolt-on guitars: Carvin C66 and my ESP original viper. The sound was more "live and open", sustain longer than on the neck-through ESP custom V. Since Carvin use CNC machinery, I heard their bolt-on neck joints are super tight, in other words one can not remove the neck out of the joint without applying significant force after ALL the bolts are removed. Fantastic precision and modern heel shapes make a huge step forward for bolt neck designed guitars. I'm not considering Fender and their mid XX century-era construction design as an example of a good guitar for that reason. 

Have no idea why do these 2 guitar giants prefer to stay in the past with their mass production line and keep manufacturing obsolete inferior designs... Consumer-wise, it's like wanting to buy a motorized carriage instead of a modern car. Don't get me wrong, it's a good choice for a collector, but man, why ignore progress and continue to mass produce it?!


----------



## laxu (Dec 2, 2016)

eugeneelgr said:


> In the world of bolt ons though, I prefer something with a really sculpted heel and a seamless tapering from neck to neck joint. Something like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting that you mentioned it, because I found the Strandberg neck joint the least ergonomic part in an otherwise very ergonomic guitar. It stuck too far and got in the way. By comparison that Mayones one should be unnoticeable because it starts closer to the body and also tapers.


----------



## laxu (Dec 2, 2016)

gogolXmogol said:


> I was getting the most sustained and articled sound from high-end bolt-on guitars: Carvin C66 and my ESP original viper. The sound was more "live and open", sustain longer than on the neck-through ESP custom V. Since Carvin use CNC machinery, I heard their bolt-on neck joints are super tight, in other words one can not remove the neck out of the joint without applying significant force after ALL the bolts are removed. Fantastic precision and modern heel shapes make a huge step forward for bolt neck designed guitars. I'm not considering Fender and their mid XX century-era construction design as an example of a good guitar for that reason.
> 
> Have no idea why do these 2 guitar giants prefer to stay in the past with their mass production line and keep manufacturing obsolete inferior designs... Consumer-wise, it's like wanting to buy a motorized carriage instead of a modern car. Don't get me wrong, it's a good choice for a collector, but man, why ignore progress and continue to mass produce it?!



Fender did try changing their neck joint in the past. The problem is they did it as a 3 bolt one for cost cutting reasons more than anything. There is nothing wrong with a 3-bolt neck joint when done properly though, I own an older G&L that has that kind of joint and it works perfectly fine. However the Fender neck joint caused a backlash from guitarists and eventually they went back to the 4 bolt design. G&L also did, probably because the Fender 3-bolt had a bad reputation. Fender does now have some models that have a similar neck joint to the Carvin C66.

Both Fender and Gibson are trapped in their legacy. Straying too far from their classic models means guitarists stuck in nostalgia will not buy them. Just look at Fender's custom shop site and most of the models are either artist signatures or relics or some other repro of vintage models.


----------



## gogolXmogol (Dec 2, 2016)

laxu said:


> Fender did try changing their neck joint in the past. The problem is they did it as a 3 bolt one for cost cutting reasons more than anything.



Yeah, looks silly anyways:






Why not make a heel like caparison does, or ran or even the more innovative designs like Anderson's joint:






I agree with you that the legacy series will always be their major selling point, but why not extend mass production and offer "modern" era guitars line. Why not introduce volute and locking tuners on Gibson, Slimmer neck joint on Fenders, etc.


----------



## Possessed (Dec 2, 2016)

gogolXmogol said:


> I agree with you that the legacy series will always be their major selling point, but why not extend mass production and offer "modern" era guitars line. Why not introduce volute and locking tuners on Gibson, Slimmer neck joint on Fenders, etc.



They tried, better but still not slim


----------



## laxu (Dec 2, 2016)

gogolXmogol said:


> I agree with you that the legacy series will always be their major selling point, but why not extend mass production and offer "modern" era guitars line. Why not introduce volute and locking tuners on Gibson, Slimmer neck joint on Fenders, etc.



Fender does not have to. They own several other brands that can offer different stuff from theirs. As said, they do offer some slightly modernized versions.

Likewise Gibson has had quite a few attempts at modernizing but often guitarists have shunned them because they have an idea how a certain classic design should be. So now most of their models are made like they were back in the day, for better or worse and their most expensive models are typically 1959 repros of Les Pauls.

Sevenstring's visitors are probably a lot more forward thinking in their gear choices than if you go to a few Fender forums or The Gear Page where there is more interest in vintage styled stuff.


----------



## tylerpond05 (Dec 2, 2016)

For me, I've only been able to keep bolt on guitars. I loved my LTD EC1000, just wanted a strat more. So, I'm ok with either, but for now, I own only bolt ons.


----------



## Dcm81 (Dec 2, 2016)

From a purely ergonomical/feel aspect I tend to prefer neck through as the heel transition is barely noticable. That said, there are plenty of bolt-on neck joints that feel really good to me too i.e. AANJ from Ibanez or the Mayones Joint on the Duvell. For me it needs to be a seemles curve, flowing from the neck into the body.
As soon as a shelf type joint is used it kills it for me. If I slide my hand up the neck and my thumb bumps into the neck joint so I have to open my grip again to get further up, then it's not for me i.e. Fender or the schecters with the square heel.


----------



## beerandbeards (Dec 2, 2016)

I don't notice any difference other than any guitar other than my EBMM Majesty has a heel joint in my way 

That being said I'm not playing to much above the 15th fret for the most part so it's not to much of an issue for me


----------



## Jeffbro (Dec 3, 2016)

Regardless of how well built a neck thru is, you cannot change the action without changing string height from body. If you want the best playability you need a bolt on where you can achieve ideal action and string height for ideal playing in both hands. You can even adjust string distance from either side of the fretboard to a small degree.

being able to switch necks and not buy a whole new guitar when the neck gets messed up is a big plus

tone is subjective

heel varies by brand, but generally not much difference

therefore bolt on is a superior design, not up for debate


----------



## endmysuffering (Dec 3, 2016)

Jeffbro said:


> Regardless of how well built a neck thru is, you cannot change the action without changing string height from body. If you want the best playability you need a bolt on where you can achieve ideal action and string height for ideal playing in both hands. You can even adjust string distance from either side of the fretboard to a small degree.
> 
> being able to switch necks and not buy a whole new guitar when the neck gets messed up is a big plus
> 
> ...



What do you mean by adjusting string height on both sides? Elaborate please because this is something I definitely don't know about, sorry if I sound like a guitar scrub.


----------



## angl2k (Dec 3, 2016)

Jeffbro said:


> Regardless of how well built a neck thru is, you cannot change the action without changing string height from body. If you want the best playability you need a bolt on where you can achieve ideal action and string height for ideal playing in both hands. You can even adjust string distance from either side of the fretboard to a small degree.
> 
> being able to switch necks and not buy a whole new guitar when the neck gets messed up is a big plus
> 
> ...



I disagree. What's wrong with changing string height to adjust the action? Best playability is subjective since my neck through guitars play just fine (for me).

I can understand that if you really abuse your guitar then you might want to switch necks but for me that's never happened.

Claiming that bolt on is superior in all cases is just plain wrong IMO. In the end I guess you just pick a guitar you're comfortable with and that sounds good to your ears, no matter the construction. It's like claiming chocolate ice cream is superior to every other ice cream and manufacturers should only make chocolate ice cream


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Dec 3, 2016)

Jeffbro said:


> Regardless of how well built a neck thru is, you cannot change the action without changing string height from body. If you want the best playability you need a bolt on where you can achieve ideal action and string height for ideal playing in both hands. You can even adjust string distance from either side of the fretboard to a small degree.
> 
> being able to switch necks and not buy a whole new guitar when the neck gets messed up is a big plus
> 
> ...


>gives opinion about a subjective subject
>tries to imply opinion is objective fact


----------



## Jeffbro (Dec 3, 2016)

angl2k said:


> I disagree. What's wrong with changing string height to adjust the action? Best playability is subjective since my neck through guitars play just fine (for me).
> 
> I can understand that if you really abuse your guitar then you might want to switch necks but for me that's never happened.
> 
> Claiming that bolt on is superior in all cases is just plain wrong IMO. In the end I guess you just pick a guitar you're comfortable with and that sounds good to your ears, no matter the construction. It's like claiming chocolate ice cream is superior to every other ice cream and manufacturers should only make chocolate ice cream



I said superior by design, people can prefer one over another all they want. Having equal function but allowing easy exchanges and the capacity to be adjusted to personal preference is a better designed product, period.

Have you tried adjusting string height? You think what you're used to is what's best, in all likelihood your current neck thru set up isn't ideal for you due to hand size, picking position, etc etc. Les pauls are tough to solo on because the strings are so high off the body, as others said in some neck thru guitars even with the bridge all the way down the action is too high, so the strings would be too close to the body. Not an issue if they were bolt ons...


----------



## Hollowway (Dec 3, 2016)

Jeffbro said:


> I said superior by design, people can prefer one over another all they want. Having equal function but allowing easy exchanges and the capacity to be adjusted to personal preference is a better designed product, period.
> 
> Have you tried adjusting string height? You think what you're used to is what's best, in all likelihood your current neck thru set up isn't ideal for you due to hand size, picking position, etc etc. Les pauls are tough to solo on because the strings are so high off the body, as others said in some neck thru guitars even with the bridge all the way down the action is too high, so the strings would be too close to the body. Not an issue if they were bolt ons...



Lol, you're just talking about guitars that are poorly set up. There is absolutely no reason a well made neck through cannot achieve the same string action that a bolt on can. 

And do you even know of anyone who's had to change the neck on their instrument? If it's not a Fender, it's not as easy as you think. It's very likely that a luthier will tell you it's cheaper to make a new body as well. It's damn hard to retrofit a guitar neck. And having a swappable neck in case the neck breaks is solution looking for a problem. Unless you're buying a Gibson it's a non-issue. 

How does hand size make a bolt on better? It doesn't even make sense that hand size affects string action.

And I'm the one that said that on Agile neck thrus with Kahlers the string action could not be put low enough. It doesn't mean that the strings are too close to the body. It means the opposite. And it's one example of one style of one model of a relatively low end instrument, so you cannot really extrapolate that to all neck through guitars. In a well made guitar the action will be adjustable based on all variables other than heel construction. Heel construction doesn't come into play at all.


----------



## EmaDaCuz (Dec 4, 2016)

My vote goes to... set neck. Especially paired with a Tune-O-Matic bridge. I like the extreme neck angle, the heel shape and accessibility, and the sound is just "full". 

Second in the list, bolt-on necks. Nice snappy tone, lots of attack, great sustain. The Fender implementation is my favourite, even though I loved the look and feel of my old RG7420.

Last, neck through. I love the way it looks, I love the accessibility to the high registers, I love the string action when the guitar is properly setup... but the attack is dull. Yes, great sustain, but sustain without attack is useless, to me. I owned 3 neck through guitars, I always thought it was an issue with the pickups. After talking to a luthier, I understood it is just about the neck construction. Granted, if you are not used to a bolt-on or even a set neck, the attack on a neck-through would not be that bad... but when you switch repeatedly between different neck constructions, you can't help notice the tonal difference.


----------



## A-Branger (Dec 4, 2016)

funny how few people keep saying the "I can swap necks with a bolt-on" argument. But apart from really really really few famous touring bands video rigs, I havent seen or read or know anyone who has had their neck sawp in their guitar because it broke or something

if not being us here a such a GAS fuelled crowd, having a neck break is like the perfect excuse to just get a new guitar.

how you even manage to break a neck either way? again being us such gear whores, I would say most of us take really good care of it, especially an expensive guitar (the kind of that it would be worth enough to get a replacement neck for)

and like its being pointed out, the neck its prob the most expensive part of a guitar build


----------



## eugeneelgr (Dec 4, 2016)

laxu said:


> Interesting that you mentioned it, because I found the Strandberg neck joint the least ergonomic part in an otherwise very ergonomic guitar. It stuck too far and got in the way. By comparison that Mayones one should be unnoticeable because it starts closer to the body and also tapers.



Not gonna lie, when I first got the guitar, I felt the heel was too far extended too. Even right now, I wish it could have just a little more access. But like i said earlier, to me, access is how easily one reaches the last fret on the lowest string, not the high E. When I look at the mayones lower cutaway, it looks just as tight as my Suhr modern's. With proper technique, ie. thumb at the back of the neck, I couldn't use my pinky to fret lower than the G on my modern whereas with the Strandberg, I can reach the low E's 24th fret with it.

I spoke to a few Strandberg owners and they all mentioned that the neck heel is so thin you can place your thumb behind the heel to get all that access.

I remember reading on the strandberg thread that you were never happy with yours though, so I don't blame you for feeling this way at all.

@A-branger You brought up superb points and I agree with most of them, but sometimes, we like the body(beautiful maple top) etc etc, so getting a neck rebuild may be the way to go. For the sentimental owners, it would make alot of sense too. And for exotic owners, buying a brand new piece would probably be impossible due to wait times and all, so it makes perfect sense to be able to get a new neck with a bolt on than risk breaking the neck on a neck through.


----------



## laxu (Dec 4, 2016)

eugeneelgr said:


> Not gonna lie, when I first got the guitar, I felt the heel was too far extended too. Even right now, I wish it could have just a little more access. But like i said earlier, to me, access is how easily one reaches the last fret on the lowest string, not the high E. When I look at the mayones lower cutaway, it looks just as tight as my Suhr modern's. With proper technique, ie. thumb at the back of the neck, I couldn't use my pinky to fret lower than the G on my modern whereas with the Strandberg, I can reach the low E's 24th fret with it.
> 
> I spoke to a few Strandberg owners and they all mentioned that the neck heel is so thin you can place your thumb behind the heel to get all that access.
> 
> I remember reading on the strandberg thread that you were never happy with yours though, so I don't blame you for feeling this way at all.



I did actually like a lot of things on the Strandberg and now with them apparently clearing some stock at a discount I came pretty close to ordering another OS 8. The particular guitar I got just had a lot of build issues and an underwhelming "limited edition" quilt top that at 2400&#8364; was hard to swallow. The heel was a minor issue that would not have bothered me at all if the rest of the guitar had been up to scratch.


----------



## Jeffbro (Dec 4, 2016)

Hollowway said:


> Lol, you're just talking about guitars that are poorly set up. There is absolutely no reason a well made neck through cannot achieve the same string action that a bolt on can.
> 
> And do you even know of anyone who's had to change the neck on their instrument? If it's not a Fender, it's not as easy as you think. It's very likely that a luthier will tell you it's cheaper to make a new body as well. It's damn hard to retrofit a guitar neck. And having a swappable neck in case the neck breaks is solution looking for a problem. Unless you're buying a Gibson it's a non-issue.
> 
> ...



lol... stop... you have no idea what I'm talking about why are you arguing different things? You cannot change string height from body on neck thrus with affecting the action.

Example: if you have huge hands or certain picking position and like strings higher off the body, you MUST have high action on a neck thru.

If you like strings closer to the body, you MUST have low action. Even the most perfect neck thru doesn't solve this problem.

Also I've swapped the neck off my main stage prestige rg twice, first when there was some headstock damage, again when I wanted the super wizard 17mm neck.


----------



## eugeneelgr (Dec 4, 2016)

Jeffbro said:


> lol... stop... you have no idea what I'm talking about why are you arguing different things? You cannot change string height from body on neck thrus with affecting the action.
> 
> Example: if you have huge hands or certain picking position and like strings higher off the body, you MUST have high action on a neck thru.
> 
> ...



Took me awhile but I think I understand where you're getting at now. If I like the strings to be higher off the body(say a player who has larger hands and anchors on the guitar body), then the action of a neck thru will have to be high. However, if a player likes the string nearer to the body, the action will have to be low unless you deepen the neck pocket.

And I think neck shimming is a great advantage over neck thrus. Unless a neck thru is built with the neck at an angle, raising the saddles on the bridge will lead to higher action on the high frets than on the lower frets(on a neck thru with the neck parallel to the body).

@laxu I would wait for the modular nut to be implemented. That could be the solution to the action problems you had on your strandberg. I get buzz too, but I'm not bothered by it because the sustain and tone isn't affected in my books and I get super low action that has spoilt me so much I find my other guitars to be more difficult to play now..


----------



## laxu (Dec 5, 2016)

To me neck shimming is a repair, not something you would do to adjust action as it is usually caused by an issue in the build of the instrument.

I don't see how string height at the body end is particularly relevant. Your pick should never be deep between the strings and even when fingerpicking you're unlikely to hit the top. Any properly built set neck or neckthru will have neck angle to accommodate if a tall bridge like a TOM needs it.


----------



## A-Branger (Dec 5, 2016)

what he said ^^


----------



## Jeffbro (Dec 5, 2016)

laxu said:


> To me neck shimming is a repair, not something you would do to adjust action as it is usually caused by an issue in the build of the instrument.
> 
> I don't see how string height at the body end is particularly relevant. Your pick should never be deep between the strings and even when fingerpicking you're unlikely to hit the top. Any properly built set neck or neckthru will have neck angle to accommodate if a tall bridge like a TOM needs it.





A-Branger said:


> what he said ^^



you guys are still clueless...

People have a certain sized hand, anchor their hand a certain way, pick a certain position, where a certain string height at the bridge feels most comfortable and allows them to play the best. People also like their action at a certain height. Only a bolt on allows the adjustments of both.


----------



## A-Branger (Dec 5, 2016)

Jeffbro said:


> you guys are still clueless...
> 
> People have a certain sized hand, anchor their hand a certain way, pick a certain position, where a certain string height at the bridge feels most comfortable and allows them to play the best. People also like their action at a certain height. Only a bolt on allows the adjustments of both.



I get you point, but the string height to the body is a feature of a guitar construction, one that you cant really change. Thats the way its build. If you need more then something like a Gibson with a neck angle and a high TOM bridge is your answer.

low action on a neck can be accomplished in both scenarios (as we are talking about good guitars not 200$ constructions were you need a bolt-on to fix a bad/wrong neck angle/pocket)

To be fixing your desire string height in the body by raising the whole neck and the bridge saddles Its IMO a pretty bad approach to a guitar. The neck wasnt designed to have a few mm of shimming so you can raise the action. You would have "less contact" of the neck with the body, and if you raise it too much, the screws might dont hold it as good, as the grooves arent tighter for the tip anymore. Plus I dont think the bridge saddles are designed to be at their maximum height either (I might be wrong and it wont affect anything) 

If you need more string to body accion, then get a guitar with a high TOM bridge, and avoid any low profile bridge and guitars with pickguards like an Ibanez RG.

I still dont see how someone hands size has anything to do with the strings height in the body of the guitar. It might be a personal taste, or the way they like it better, but it doesnt has anything to do with the sizes of their hands


----------



## Grooven (Dec 5, 2016)

I've only owned bolt on guitars, never really payed any mind to it, as long as it don't sound like poo and its comfortable its alright with me


----------



## hairychris (Dec 5, 2016)

Jeffbro said:


> you guys are still clueless...
> 
> People have a certain sized hand, anchor their hand a certain way, pick a certain position, where a certain string height at the bridge feels most comfortable and allows them to play the best. People also like their action at a certain height. Only a bolt on allows the adjustments of both.



For *picking hand* this is absolutely irrelevant. Body carve, body shape and bridge type are the main players here. I know - I really have problems with TOMs on carved top guitars like Les Pauls because of how I angle my right hand. However, adjusting the neck and/or action will not affect this, and a TOM/carved top will be equally a problem on set, thru or bolt-on guitars.

As for string height, shimming a bolt on lowers the action, and if you have to do this then I agree with laxu. It's a last resort. On the other hand you can shave the neck pocket and/or neck down to raise the action but again, this implies crappy building. To raise action on any guitar you can change the nut with shallow slots cut and raise the bridge, but you can do this with any neck type.

My personal preference is bolt-on: there are things that sets and thrus do better, but all summed it's what works _for me_ most of the time.

None of these methods is "objectively" the best. They all have different properties and you need to make that subjective decision for that specific guitar.


----------



## Jeffbro (Dec 5, 2016)

A-Branger said:


> To be fixing your desire string height in the body by raising the whole neck and the bridge saddles Its IMO a pretty bad approach to a guitar. The neck wasnt designed to have a few mm of shimming so you can raise the action. You would have "less contact" of the neck with the body, and if you raise it too much, the screws might dont hold it as good, as the grooves arent tighter for the tip anymore. Plus I dont think the bridge saddles are designed to be at their maximum height either (I might be wrong and it wont affect anything)
> 
> If you need more string to body accion, then get a guitar with a high TOM bridge, and avoid any low profile bridge and guitars with pickguards like an Ibanez RG.
> 
> I still dont see how someone hands size has anything to do with the strings height in the body of the guitar. It might be a personal taste, or the way they like it better, but it doesnt has anything to do with the sizes of their hands



Bolt ons can absolute be shimmed, you've obviously never done it so why are you making up all these theoretical negatives? What if I want an RG and I want low action but strings to be higher off the body? That right, I shimmed the neck and that's what I got. 

Personal taste is the whole point I'm making, bolt on allows adjusting to the personal taste, neck thru doesn't...



hairychris said:


> For *picking hand* this is absolutely irrelevant.



String height from body is not relevant to picking hand? Do you guys even guitar...


----------



## A-Branger (Dec 5, 2016)

Jeffbro said:


> Bolt ons can absolute be shimmed, you've obviously never done it so why are you making up all these theoretical negatives? What if I want an RG and I want low action but strings to be higher off the body? That right, I shimmed the neck and that's what I got.
> 
> Personal taste is the whole point I'm making, bolt on allows adjusting to the personal taste, neck thru doesn't...
> 
> ...



actually I have. My bass had a terrrible action, due to a bad neck angle on the pocket, so no matter how perfect was the trussrod, and the fact that I had my bridge saddles all the way down I still had a pretty bad action. Only solution was to introduce a lot of shiming to the end of the neck. So the angle the neck sits now is different, making a better alignment with the bridge, so now I have a nice perfect low action. But 2 of the neck screws were barely holding, I changed the neck angle (and raised it too) soo much that the grooves didnt align anymore

and this was with what it was a 800$ bass when new.

my new bass is a neck trough and I was scared to be faced with the same and not being able to fix it. Bass came perfect

on guitars I got one Ibanez with neck trough, and one LTD with set neck. Both are perfect too, same as a cheap LTD bolt-on that doesnt need any shimming.

Like I said, I get your point that you can raise the whole thing up, get a higher sitting neck and raise the bridge saddles for a higher action in the body. But I still think thats its a bad approach to a guitar. Also thats a thing of personal taste, its what you like, not what the size of your hands require

EDIT: and to answer your question more directly, No, Ive never done it. Ive never feel a need to get more or less action in the body of the guitar. I have feel that I dont like the feel of a TOM bridge in my hand, Ive no preference in bevels/arched/flat tops, Im happy in any of them, and I do like certain string spacing at the nut, plus the usual neck/fretboard specs/action. If not I would say my 3 guitars have a pretty similar string to body action between the pickups


----------



## eugeneelgr (Dec 5, 2016)

A-Branger said:


> thats a thing of personal taste, its what you like, not what the size of your hands require



Just a thought, but what if the size of the player's hands determined his personal taste? I have small asian hands, so while I feel comfortable on a les paul, I do prefer something with lower string to body action, especially when I anchor my fingers on the guitar body.

But I do agree, a properly made guitar should not need shimming. And that shimming can affect how well coupled the neck and body is and how the screws holding the neck will be affected. And I doubt raising the action at the bridge does anything significant to one's picking hand preferences.


----------



## sixesandsevens (Jan 5, 2018)

eugeneelgr said:


> I spoke to a few Strandberg owners and they all mentioned that the neck heel is so thin you can place your thumb behind the heel to get all that access.



For me the issue is really the _transition_, not the access. One of my wishes on the OS8 is that it had a smoother heel so I didn't feel like I was as aware of my thumb when I'm up there.



laxu said:


> I did actually like a lot of things on the Strandberg and now with them apparently clearing some stock at a discount I came pretty close to ordering another OS 8. The particular guitar I got just had a lot of build issues and an underwhelming "limited edition" quilt top that at 2400&#8364; was hard to swallow. The heel was a minor issue that would not have bothered me at all if the rest of the guitar had been up to scratch.



Agreed. I got comparatively lucky with my top and also got it for $500 off on clearance. The blue color has grown on me but still isn't my first choice.


----------



## marcwormjim (Jan 5, 2018)

Two years, dude.


----------



## Metropolis (Jan 5, 2018)

Bolt-on has snappier attack, notes have different kind of flavour to them. On the downside sound is often thinner and has less sustain than glued neck constructions, especially when playing leads. Sometimes I prefer bolt-on, and in the other hand neck-through or set-neck. I've had guitars with TOM and slightly angled necks, and hate both. Combination just feels uneven and wrong.


----------



## Strobe (Jan 5, 2018)

I like both. I slightly prefer the neck heel on my neck throughs, but it's really not that big of a deal. The importance of the neck heel is often overstated, as even with my modestly sized hands, I don't have much trouble hitting any of the frets on my Les Paul (and that's not a very ergonomic design).

Bolt ons are nice in that I don't worry about them, can swap necks if it gets battered, etc. My strat sounds and feels great, but it's not great for sustain (not sure if it is just that guitar in particular or bolt ons in general). Neck throughs have the slightly better heel joint. No idea what the set neck advantage is other than my Gibson set necks (3 of them) sustain better than any of my other guitars.


----------



## marcwormjim (Jan 5, 2018)

Metropolis said:


> Bolt-on has snappier attack, notes have different kind of flavour to them. On the downside sound is often thinner and has less sustain than glued neck constructions, especially when playing leads. Sometimes I prefer bolt-on, and in the other hand neck-through or set-neck.



This isn’t targeted at you personally, but moreso everyone who makes a point of saying it on the internet:

You have the power to end the propagation of that particular series of presumptive prejudices, communicated with those particular adjectives, that you’ve accumulated from reading guitar messageboards over the years. That rhetoric is too pervasive in internet guitar subculture for anyone to believe you arrived at those conclusions on your own. They are fundamentally, conceptually flawed; and demonstrably untrue.

Everyone’s free to prefer what they prefer, but being entitled to one’s own opinion doesn’t entitle one to their own facts. You simply will not pass a blind listening test between those three styles of construction. I know that’s presuming a lot about you, but perpetuating the cycle of that old neck attachment dogma being thrown around like gospel is no different from telling someone how their mahogany-bodied guitar they just ordered is going to sound: It assumes very _little _of the reader - That they have a quality of mind that would require such beliefs to know how their own guitar sounds.

To reiterate: If the average poster would only communicate something less-prescriptive; such as “The buzzy bedroom distortion I fetishize in my Periphery cover videos makes all my guitars sound the same; because the weakest link in my signal chain is my playing IMO”, then we have the opportunity to learn something from it. To keep beating people over the head with a belief system that ultimately boils down to “my one guitar is snappy because the other one isn’t” is just a longer way of saying nothing at all.

It’s a flat earth last I checked.


----------



## Metropolis (Jan 5, 2018)

marcwormjim said:


> You have the power to end the propagation of that particular series of presumptive prejudices, communicated with those particular adjectives, that you’ve accumulated from reading guitar messageboards over the years. That rhetoric is too pervasive in internet guitar subculture for anyone to believe you arrived at those conclusions on your own. They are fundamentally, conceptually flawed; and demonstrably untrue.
> 
> Everyone’s free to prefer what they prefer, but being entitled to one’s own opinion doesn’t entitle one to their own facts. You simply will not pass a blind listening test between those three styles of construction. I know that’s presuming a lot of you, but perpetuating the cycle of that old neck attachment dogma being thrown around like gospel is no different from telling someone how their mahogany-bodied guitar they just ordered is going to sound: It assumes very _little _of the quality of mind that would require such beliefs to know how their own guitar sounds.



What even affects the guitar sound  Blind test is a whole different kind of situation, than feeling an instrument by yourself. If everything tone related would be justified by a blind test, then things would be much more simple... Assumable qualities I stated or believe should be taken as a pinch of salt. So yeah, as always it assumes very little about the reality of certain part of signal chains qualities.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Jan 5, 2018)

marcwormjim said:


> This isn’t targeted at you personally, but moreso everyone who makes a point of saying it on the internet:
> 
> You have the power to end the propagation of that particular series of presumptive prejudices, communicated with those particular adjectives, that you’ve accumulated from reading guitar messageboards over the years. That rhetoric is too pervasive in internet guitar subculture for anyone to believe you arrived at those conclusions on your own. They are fundamentally, conceptually flawed; and demonstrably untrue.
> 
> ...




you keep necroing the necro. necroception

i prefer neckthrough because the heel is more comfortable.


----------



## marcwormjim (Jan 5, 2018)

Metropolis said:


> What even affects the guitar sound  Blind test is a whole different kind of situation, than feeling an instrument by yourself. If everything tone related would be justified by a blind test, then things would be much more simple... Assumable qualities I stated or believe should be taken as a pinch of salt. So yeah, as always it assumes very little about the reality of certain part of signal chains qualities.



I would have deleted my post, had it not been quoted - I was just butthurt over a thread being necrobumped with those old myths. My post is worthy of even fewer grains of salt.



diagrammatiks said:


> i prefer neckthrough because the heel is more comfortable.



As do I. That means we’re married, now.


----------



## diagrammatiks (Jan 5, 2018)

marcwormjim said:


> I would have deleted my post, had it not been quoted - I was just butthurt over a thread being necrobumped with those old myths. My post is worthy of even fewer grains of salt.
> 
> 
> 
> As do I. That means we’re married, now.



but i also like it because it sounds better, sustains better, and adds 4 degrees of warmth to every other note.


----------



## Metropolis (Jan 5, 2018)

How glued neck guitars always feel more "solid"? Is it because body and neck is almost like a single piece of material?


----------



## CapinCripes (Jan 5, 2018)

Its not logical at all for me but the only guitars I will take as a bolt on are fender-esque shapes and their offshoots such as teles and strats (and by extension superstrats) and charvel type stars, both of which I would take either way. I would never buy a bolt on les paul, V or explorer or any extreme style shape or thing like that. That being said all the guitars I currently own are bolt on as I have no real qualms about it as a construction technique.


----------



## crankyrayhanky (Jan 5, 2018)

I currently enjoy bolt on the most, but that might just be I really enjoy playing my Wolfgangs. My AM7 is also awesome. I miss my Gutierrez neck thru... Neck thru, set neck, bolt on, I dig them all TBH.


----------



## BigViolin (Jan 5, 2018)

No, I prefer bolt on construction simply because I'm much more familiar with it than anything else. I have to say it's a very minor and subtle preference.

I don't see it as a compromise or a cost cutting measure, just a different color or flavor. I also really enjoy currently a set neck tuned to drop C and a 7 that is neck through. 

If you pinned me down to choosing one single style of construction it would not be an easy choice!


----------



## Stemp Fester (Jan 5, 2018)

I don't hold strong opinions with regard to the difference in tone between bolt-on and neck-through, but a bolt-on definitely wins for air travel purposes...

Take off neck... wrap in bubblewrap / clothes... dump in suitcase...


----------



## marcwormjim (Jan 6, 2018)

Works for more than guitars, too.


----------



## HerbalDude420 (Jan 6, 2018)

Can't say I ever noticed a difference between how the neck is set. If its done proper I suppose it does not matter. I currently have a set neck and its awesome.


----------



## BMO (Jan 7, 2018)

Stemp Fester said:


> I don't hold strong opinions with regard to the difference in tone between bolt-on and neck-through, but a bolt-on definitely wins for air travel purposes...
> 
> Take off neck... wrap in bubblewrap / clothes... dump in suitcase...





Relevant to your pic AND first half of your response lol!


----------



## Science_Penguin (Jan 7, 2018)

I like bolt-on (Fender, specifically) for modding purposes. Its nice to be able to replace the entire neck if something breaks or if there's something I don't like about the stock neck.

...That said, I love the aesthetic of a set or through neck painted to match the body, and considering most of the Gibson-scaled guitars (my preference as far as size) on the market have set necks, its kind of unavoidble.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 7, 2018)

I like the look and feel of a good neck through joint. But I like the convenience of being able to just remove a jacked up neck that you only get with a bolt on. I'm torn... Cost doesn't matter because there are some VERY expensive bolt ons in the world just as there are some very expensive neck throughs in the world.


----------



## Discoqueen (Jan 8, 2018)

I prefer the tone of bolt one over neck thru. They seems brighter and louder as far as I have been able to observe anyways. .


----------



## Shoeless_jose (Jan 8, 2018)

I used to be a believer in the "neck thru has better access" myth, as well as a the "bolt on's are cheaper instruments" which may have just been because I disliked most fenders.

However now that I have a Mayones Duvell, that guitar is bolt on and has the smoothest transition access is no issue and the craftsmanship on the guitar is second to none.

However nothing gets my gas going harder than looking at an 11 piece neck thru instrument from behind.


----------



## larry (Jan 8, 2018)

Pretty much a deal-breaker these days if it has a bolt-on neck, unless the particular guitar has some new tech I’m interested in like the boden OS8 I have. When production neck-through Strandbergs happen, I’ll be selling it on.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Jan 8, 2018)

I much prefer the tone of a bolt-on neck, the attack and cut off is much quicker than a set-neck. With technical rhythms I love how articulate and fast a bolt-on tracks. With that said my Vik had a deep set in neck and had a similar attack to a bolt-on but the roundness and fullness of set-neck.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 8, 2018)

I guess this debate is happening again.

I'll do something rare for me and sum this up with: it really doesn't matter, and and of itself.


----------



## Unleash The Fury (Jan 8, 2018)

My Les Paul is the loudest, most resonant, I-can-feel-the-vibrations-on-my-stomach-guitar i have. So set neck ftw possibly!

Btw, i discovered a cool trick a couple months ago. When your playing the guitar unplugged, stand next to a wall; lean the headstock into the wall and play. The vibrations will transfer through the wall and sound much bigger/louder. Its really cool and you should all stop what your doing right now and try it


----------



## will_shred (Jan 8, 2018)

I'm late to the game. I think anyone saying that they can hear the difference between neck sets is fooling themselves. I don't have a preference, but all my guitars happen to have bolt on necks. Not because of any personal preference, but because the guitars themselves fit my needs.


----------



## eugeneelgr (Jan 9, 2018)

will_shred said:


> I'm late to the game. I think anyone saying that they can hear the difference between neck sets is fooling themselves. I don't have a preference, but all my guitars happen to have bolt on necks. Not because of any personal preference, but because the guitars themselves fit my needs.



Unless someone comes along with 2 guitars with the exact same specs ie. scale length, pickups, woods, number of frets, bridge, body thickness, but different neck construction, any test to determine *how much* neck construction affects tone is honestly moot. Then comes the question of how consistent are the set factors, ie. density of wood used in both guitars even if they are the same species.


----------



## marcwormjim (Jan 9, 2018)

Even the few scientists we have registered here seem to ignore that variables do not remain constant between the guitars they’re comparing.


----------

