IbanezDaemon
Raptus regaliter
Neck thru for more sustain, set neck a close second, bolt on not far behind and
if the first two take a tumble in a bad way then trouble!!
if the first two take a tumble in a bad way then trouble!!
Is neck through vs bolt a deal breaker for any of you?
- Thread starter Bearitone
- Start date
MASS DEFECT
SS.ORG Infiltrator
I like bolt ons for their snappy and bright sound. My neck thru soloist sound a bit darker than the bolt on dinkys. But the soloists do sound full bodied and fat. Sort of like an SG vs Les Paul kind of sound.
Hollowway
Extended Ranger
In the past, I loved a neck through for access. Now, like an alcoholic that will drink shampoo for a buzz, I’ll buy anything. 
Andrew Lloyd Webber
Super Duper Moduraturr
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2017
- Messages
- 781
- Reaction score
- 1,306
Yes but, according to the guy who designed the guitar after looking at an RG for thirty seconds, the Aries neck joint is the best neck joint in the history of ever-anything.
Sometimes I attribute it to snappy and bright tonewood instead!
A-Branger
SS.org Regular
exactly. Thats a point lots of people always tend to say when talking about bolt-on "but I could change the neck blah blah"... which Im surprised theres only been one coment here.....
how many times you or someone have taken the neck out of the guitar?.... I get if it need shimming, but talking about high quality or custom stuff it shouldnt matter.
You never are going to "take the neck off" in order to travel with the guitar, or any other reason tehy can think off in order to be a regular affair. Yes, you can take the neck off, but gutiars are not designed to be taken apart and put back together every day like a lego. Ideally the neck should be sitting flush taht bolts are almost un-nessesary, so taking the neck off/on would only help to damage that gap
and the argument of "but if I break the neck" is bullshit. How many ppl do you know that they got their necks broken (that wasnt a Gibson)??.... plus if we are talking about a Fender, fair enough you can buy any neck you want out there, but anything else, good luck finding a replacement part, plus one that the price of it would be low enough in order to keep the guitar and not buy a new one
JustinRhoads1980
Jackson Elitist
deal breaker. If it is not a set neck or a neck through might aswell consider it out of consideration
GXPO
SS.org Regular
I picked up an ESP M-2 in my local Gibson/Fender/PRS only shop which had come in second hand yesterday, it had a 'square heel' which is on a slant with a corner missing. It's actually the least square thing I have ever held but you know what I mean..
But the neck to body transition was absolutely one of the best I've ever felt and I traditionally have been of the opinion that if your guitar has corners it isn't perfect.
https://www.coda-music.com/esp-mk2-black-secondhand.html
But the neck to body transition was absolutely one of the best I've ever felt and I traditionally have been of the opinion that if your guitar has corners it isn't perfect.
https://www.coda-music.com/esp-mk2-black-secondhand.html
Play them, gig them, travel with them, tour with them.
Do I think it's an advantage to your average bedroom shredder? Of course not, but for working musicians it can be an advantage.
There's a whole parts industry that caters to swapping out necks and bodies, not to mention warranty work.
I've been on the other side too, working on guitars professionally, and it's not too unheard of for a neck to need so much work that it's just easier to replace. A lot of the times, when necks fail, it's covered by warranty so it's not just the easier and faster option, but the cheapest one as well.
Again, it depends on a number of factors. It would definitely be more of an added benefit then a primary reason for liking a bolt-on.
Yash94
SS.org Regular
- Joined
- May 3, 2018
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 82
To be honest, it kinda is, because all three guitars I own are neck-through. Maybe, I've just not met a bolt-on guitar that I'd fall for. Set neck is fine, since I do wanna own a Gibson Les Paul Custom in the future. But bolt-on is mostly a no-no. Maybe I'll get a good strat and then be ok with it? Right now, it's kinda a deal breaker. I just need to meet the right guitar. So, convince me otherwise 
Wolfhorsky
Regular idiot
This is funny to read about snappiness and brigthness of bold-on vs neck-through-body. The same goes to sustain. I currently have 9 guitars and had 30+. My experience is that the instrument construction per se is not sufficient factor that predetermines the overall sound. The same goes with the wood species. The darkest sounding guitars that i have are two bold-ons: MIJ Jackson Dinky and MIC ESP/LTD M-something. Both with maple necks. LTD has even maple fretboard. In theory they should sound bright and snappy, but in reality they sound massive and meaty. BUT Jackson has hiddeous square neck joint. The only reason i don’t regard it as a almost-perfect guitar. I keep it only for the looks and huge sound.
My Skervesen Lupus for instance is ntb and it is balanced sounding or mid-to-bright. Regarding heels imho Ibanez AANJ is one of the best mainstream heel available.
When considering the ergonomics as the main criteria, the properly made ntb is unbeatable imho. But aanj is not dealbreaker. Even the sqare heel may be accepted in extraordinarily good guitar.
My Skervesen Lupus for instance is ntb and it is balanced sounding or mid-to-bright. Regarding heels imho Ibanez AANJ is one of the best mainstream heel available.
When considering the ergonomics as the main criteria, the properly made ntb is unbeatable imho. But aanj is not dealbreaker. Even the sqare heel may be accepted in extraordinarily good guitar.
Really curious which KxK DC? The figured mahogany he used on a bunch of those was insanely resonant and mine with the highly figured back / neck sounds insaneNot that it matters much since Rob doesn't seem to be building any more.
It's not terrible by any means. It sounds clear and articulate for the fast technical metal stuff and chords are clear. But it is just rather lifeless and sterile for anything with lower gain. I have the original wood covered P90 pickups (Dimarzio PAF7 currently) and I plan on putting those back in, which I'm sure will improve this deficiency (especially since I LOVE P90's). But as an example, I can plug in one of my older Peavey Nitros with stock pickups, roll back the volume knob, and even with an AMT P2 drive still get great breakup and medium gain tones. Heck, I even have some killer blues going on with that Peavey and a Hoe-tone Djent pedal lol.
The other issues are the side dots were obviously installed by Jeff Kiesel, and the majority of the fret ends are exposed probably due to different climates of different owners.
To answer the question which has been discussed a million times again, I have guitars with all 3 construction methods and none rules a guitar out for me. I've got examples of all 3 that sounds great
Yup. I think a well-constructed guitar is the key. Anything outside of that is user preference. Some people can't handle clunky joints and avoid them for that reason. I loved the tone and look of the Gretsch Setzer, but my god anything past the 14th fret was awkward at best.
mguilherme87
SouthShoreSeven
I dont necessarily think that a bolt on neck will always have less sustain than a set-neck guitar. I have an 89' american strat that sustains longer than my set-neck SG or Les Paul...Pickup output and setup and a host of other factors come into play...sometimes its just the peices of wood that made the guitar and the individuality of the exact guitar that determines these things.
TedEH
Cromulent
I think we're maybe not the ideal crowd for this kind of thing, but there's a whole market for parts-casters and things like that. I really like the neck of my "road worn" strat - the relic job included a sort of sanded/worn down back of the neck that makes it super fast to move around on (for a strat). It's the least sticky neck I own. If I ended up with a strat body that was really great, but the neck was a bit lame/sticky, I would gladly throw this neck on it. I like the idea that this is an option.
Shask
SS.org Regular
I have taken the neck off my Charvel So-Cal many times because you have to, to adjust the truss rod.
Most of my other guitars though... yeah, just a few times, to shim, and sand, the neck.
A-Branger
SS.org Regular
like I mention, I get it for fender style guitars. But for the other guitars is not a common thing to find. OR at least not that easy. Without having to custom order one to a luthier
thats like a really specific thing that only applies to that one guitar (and a couple of traditinal fenders), and its something you are obligated to do, you got no option, you arent taking the neck appart "beacuse" .... and Im sorry for you, that really sucks to have to go torugh all that only to adjust the trussrod, it would drive me crazy
hairychris
Hairy Old Bloke
Generally bolt-on > set > thru. I prefer that a very stiff neck that doesn't run through the body feels to play. I've owned a bunch of thru-necks and they were fine, but it seems that my general choice of guitar always brings me to the others.
FWIW I have a replacement neck for my Tele on the way, modern carve with satin back & jumbo frets to replace the 50s style I have currently.
FWIW I have a replacement neck for my Tele on the way, modern carve with satin back & jumbo frets to replace the 50s style I have currently.
Almost all bolt-on guitars are either actual Fenders or use the same neck pocket specs.
Yup. Warmoth. *cough*
I massively prefer bolt-ons. In fact I made a thread about this a while back, but I think it was the last Carvin I ordered that totally put me off of Neck Thru designs. There's something about neck throughs that I can't quite describe, but I feel a little more encumbered by their design even though, yes, the heels are usually superior to bolt models. I also feel like there's more room to experiment with a bolt on, whether with shimming or completely swapping out necks but there's definitely more flexibility in setting them up how You want them to play.
