Pros and cons of bolt on vs. neck through

I'm just curious as to what people think. I have guitars with both and I'm not sure which I like better? What are the differences?

Practically, a bolt-on is much easier to fix than a neck-through if something goes wrong. That said, a neck-through may be tougher to begin with and if you **** it up, you **** it up big time. But we're talking extreme, neck-breaking situations here (pun intended).

As far as the endless "sustayn" debate goes, I do think neck-through has a better disposition to sustain longer. I have a set neck, a neck-through, and various bolt-ons and in the end I think the pickups contribute more to that than neck joint type.

I prefer neck-through because it's almost like a sign of quality to me. If I were offered two identical guitars, one bolt-on and one neck-through, I would go with the neck-through.

I think it all depends on the construction. I've built two guitars now, both bolt=on's and my number one priority was to get the neck joint as tight as possible before doing any kind of mechanical fastening. I read a lot about this before I started and the most compelling arguments I read said that many bolt-on's have a bad reputation because they don't have to be done as tightly as a set neck since they'll be attached firmly with wood screws essentially. The other thing about bolt-on's is that they have been associated with large production, and mostly cheaper guitars. This has led to a reputation that the bolt on guitar is of inferior quality, but I think this is more a case of people playing an already inferior instrument, seeing that it's a bolt on and then drawing the conclusion that the neck joint is the cause of that inferiority. I think it's more likely that it's just an inferior instrument that hasn't had as much attention to detail in construction as a set neck has.

Wood glue will only work well when there is a close proximity between wood surfaces, but enough space that the wood can swell and bond. You can actually get a tighter joint between the two surfaces with no glue as such a tight surface, when glued and clamped, would likely starve the joint of glue. So what I did was go for a total pressure fit between my necks and body, one that would be self supporting when the guitar is held horizontal by the neck, with the bolts ( I use machine screws in threaded inserts while fender still uses wood screws screwed into wood), being placed to counteract the rotational forces that string tension exerts on the top side of the neck.

Another reason I did this was I was terrified my first guitar would have a problem with the neck and I wanted an easy way to replace it should the unthinkable happen. It's been absolutely rock solid and if you want to see it it's in the "new guitar day! (Almost!)" thread down below.

I can only speak to my experience but I'm quite happy with the sustain on this guitar and it is by far the best sustaining guitar I've ever played. I regularly sit on the couch and play it unplugged and can quite easily hear it over the sound of the television. The guitar feels alive, which is just what I wanted. I did not want a guitar with a sloppy neck joint that lacks good contact between the two elements, because I think that is the biggest cause of degradation in sustain for electric guitars. Tight joint=nowhere for vibrational energy to dissipate. When you hold the headstock of one of my guitars up to your ear and rap on the body it sounds like a bell. If the joint isn't set right or loose, it sounds like a thud.

I think the superiority of set neck construction is often overstated, though it's easy to understand why. Nearly all cheap guitars have bolt on necks, that doesn't mean that the construction method is inferior though, and in the end it all depends on how the guitar that's in your hand sounds, feels and plays. There are set neck guitars that I've played that felt dull, lifeless, flat.

I got some advice from an old timer awhile back and it's stuck with me. If you're checking out electrics, pull one off the wall and go sit in a quiet corner of the music store (if you can find it). Don't plug it in. Sit and play it unplugged and see how loud it is, how long you can hold a note, see if it buzzes. Only after you've found one, (and this is totally independent of price, brand, style) that plays nice in your hands should you go plug it in. In essence an amplified instrument will make up through electronic manipulation for some of its inherent flaws. However, no amount of effects, sustainers or other gimmicks will make up for a dull, lifeless, flat guitar.

Which is better? Neither? Both?

i don't care for neck thrus

i like bolt ons

and

glue ins, ala long tenon les paul style

you would think, just common sense stuff, that neck thru would be the best for continuous transmission of string vibrations, etc...

but for me, it just doesn't play out that way.


and when it comes to bolt on, i have a very specific list of things that has to happen to make the 'magic' come out of it.

not all bolt ons are equal, not by a country mile.

same for glue-ins

Good question. I have many guitars and I play a bolt on neck guitar all the time when I play with my classic rock band and I use a neck through most of the time when I play in my metal band. I have two Randy Rhoades V's from the eighties that are neck through and I can't imagine them bolt on. Same thing with maple verses ebony or rosewood fret boards, I never ever noticed a difference other than visual. Of all the variables in tonal make up, I think fret board material ranks low on the scale, neck though/bolt on is in that same tonal difference category. Cons of the neck through, at least with the Jackson's is, they're fragile!!! Cons of the bolt on, harder to access the upper register notes. I played a made in USA Gibson SG the other day, neck through, and it was TERRIBLE! I traded a neck through PRS SE that was horrible in every way possible, it rattled and everything, cheap junk, ugg, for a MIM stratocaster the plays like warm butter and sounds dreamy, (it came with active emg's.) My bolt on San Dimas Jackson strat with 10-52 strings is heavy, and I recently put a big brass tremolo block in it, 5 springs in the original JT-6 floyd rose, that guitar sustains acoustically unbelievably long, one solid guitar, many miles on it, my favorite guitar of all time hands down, no doubt about it. All in all, and I can't say why, I like neck through guitars a little bit better, I think I'm starting to feel G.A.S. coming on.

If I could only have one type, I'd probably have a bolt-on because of the twangy characteristics. When I started playing in the late '80s, I remember everyone was focused on neck thru as being the ultimate setup, and they were known for NOT twanging and for having supreme clarity and upper register access. But twang is part of the personality of a bolt on that I love and has created my favorite tones ever produced. Having said that, the neck thrus can really nail the F22 fighter plane type riffs with max saturation and machine gun leads high in the register with almost unnatural ease. But they don't do the vintage thing as well.

Heavily built set neck guitars have the most warmth and caboose.

In conclusion, it's a good thing we don't have to settle. I have awesome examples of all three types!

The neck-through was originally touted as a feature for bass guitar because of the low resonance. It was ported to guitar because of cosmetic reasons as much as the idea that it could be more sustain-y. Like the idea from the '70s that "heavier is better" for sustain, most luthiers have dropped the neck-through design as a tone feature. Bass luthiers in particular have gone back to bolt-on because it is punchier.

For many years I preferred maple fingerboards to other materials because they were more punchy and clear sounding. To me, the neck-through guitars I have played have been too well-behaved. Too... polite. I like to have a little misbehavior in the top-end.

This is, of course, entirely subjective. To each his own. :mrgreen:

All the pros and cons are really subjective to the player. As long as the neck joint is made properly and to tight tolerances, both guitar will play very well.

One con a bolt on neck guitar has over a neck through is ease of transportation on an airplane. Do you want to trust your neck through guitar in case(whether ATA flight case or not) to the guys working that baggage area of the airport that treat all luggage like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-e96m4730

With a bolt on, you can disassemble the guitar and put it in your carry on bag.

logic would indicate that a neck through would be a better choice for tone, however my experience seems to indicate that choice of woods have more impact than bolt on or neck through. I have two les paul's a custom and a custom shop axcess but my Suhr modern with bolt on neck has superior tone and just as much sustain.

Has there been a scientific study regarding sustain on neck thru vs bolt on guitars?

And lets say OK, a neck thru sustains for a couple of seconds longer. So what? Unless you play only 1 note every 12 to 20 seconds, does it matter? lol.

I prefer bolt on necks. Easier to work with. If they break, you replace them. I also like the option of being able to shim them.

I have a collection of both. I don't notice any real difference in sustain. I do love the way a neck through looks and also how they feel when I am up on the neck.
They just seem prettier too, IMHO. I had 2 bolt on necks totally **** the bed already and had to be replaced. 1 48th Street Custom (ESP) and the other was a custom dreams by Paul Unkert (Kramer/ EVH.)

I've not had one single problem ((knock on wood! LoL) with the Neck Throughs. maybe that's just luck

In terms of tone, quality or sustain, neither a bolt on nor a set neck (or neck thru) is better. The quality of the instrument; specifically the neck joint, will determine the transfer the vibrations to the body. zemurray's Suhr is a prime example of that. I think one of the most intriguing neck designs I have seen recently is what Anderson is doing with their T and S style guitars; not sure if they are doing it on their bulldogs. Both the neck and the cavity on the body make a shape similar to this \_/, where the sides are a little flatter and not so steep. The explanation is that as the 2 bolts pull the neck down to the body making it very tight. It fits in more snug and makes more contact overall compared to either Fender's or Gibson necks. The end result, more surface area to transfer the vibrations. Does it work? I don't have an Anderson but I've messed with a few and I can say I have yet to see a gibson or fender that can match the feel, fit and finish of an Anderson and their quality is held in high regard.

I think a bolt on is a better design for the simple reason that it is easier to fix, and that if you like a guitar, but don't like you neck you have options. I've recently learned that I prefer a fatter neck because of the 50's neck on my LP for comfort reasons. At least I can buy fatter necks for my strats and make them play more comfortably. At the end of the day, any neck joint executed properly will be inferior.

I have a few guitars of each construction.

There is no best guitar or neck setting.

I tele sounds better to me with a bolted neck. Strat too.. That is for blues and such. For rock, I have a few glued necks I like. Neck thru metal oriented guitars with actives.

I think it gets down to what serves your playing the best. The guitar is just an expression device for your musical intent.

One of my favorites for variety playing is a Suhr bolt on tele with a fat baseball bat maple neck. It can get a huge range of tones, but it can't get the 30 year old LP chunky tone, or the super Strat tones of an Anderson Pro Am.

I say there is no best. There is a best tool for the particular job.

Pros and cons, should also include set neck as well.
I have all three types in various body styles. Most of my neck through guitars are similar in shape to a Stratocaster. I have three set neck guitars, one similar to PRS, one similar to LP and the other is like a double cut LP. I used to have a negative bias towards bolt on necks that I had used for 17 years. I sold most of them and the last one I kept did not last the test of time. It all depends on the quality of materials and workmanship of the instrument. That being said, Pros for bolt on, you can replace the neck vrs a neck though which would be impossible to replace and expect the same guitar to be returned, sure if you are willing, the body can be cut and glued onto another neck assembly (fools errand). I would say another issue with neck replacement with bolt on type, matching the neck angle and scale (which is probably a standard based on Stratocaster design. Considering the issues I had with bolt on necks, they always came loose. Just about every bolt neck guitar had shims under the heel of the neck. To me that is not a good transfer of energy. Then again, they were inexpensive to start with. I now have a new bolt on neck and I am impressed with the overall quality, tone, and playability. I am also positive there are no shims between the neck and body on this one. Sustain is similar to my other neck though and set neck guitars. Resonance is more of a factor of the tone woods used in the body of the instrument as well as energy transfer of the neck and neck joint. However, bolt on neck guitars may also suffer spits in the wood of the body around the neck pocket. Again, that is related to type of wood and how well it is cured before assembly. The same would apply to neck though and set neck guitars. You do not always get what you pay for (though distribution or places like guitar center with high margins). I would agree with the pickups as well as the bridge assembly. Unplugged, my bolt on neck guitar has about the same resonant energy as my set neck LP type guitar. My neck through guitars do not seem to exhibit the same vibrational characteristics.
Then there is the neck straightness. I normally keep my necks flat with a very minor upward bow if at all. Setting up a bolt on neck may be more difficult if the neck is not a tight fit in the pocket (even worse when there are shims).

I doubt that I would go through the trouble of removing the strings and disassembly of the neck on my bolt neck guitar. Getting the strings back on and tuned is more trouble since I have a Floyd Rose on it. Reason why I mentioned that the bridge also contributes to the sustain factor. I have played many other guitars with Floyd Rose bridges and I was not impressed. But the one I have now is incredible. I believe the key is in the body woods (thick maple cap over alder body). It all becomes subjective anyway.

Set necks, if there is a weakness in the tenon or loos fit, may also be in relation to tenon length into the body of the guitar that makes a difference. Pro would be good transfer of energy between neck and body (all depends on design integrity). Con would be cracks in finish around the heel of the neck. Con, neck heel can limit fret access which depends on design once again. My LP type guitar has no heel, since it was carved and blended into the body which provides a smooth transition. Bolt type guitars will always have interference where the neck meets the body. Some guitars will have some relief as well as contoured cuts to improve playability of the guitar.

Neck Through: Pro, no heel on the neck, completely contoured. All depends on the body style. Con, choice of neck wood will dictate overall tone of the guitar. There are some MFG that have top wood choices (caps that cover the body of the guitar and in some cases cover the neck wood) that will influence the tone of the guitar to some degree. Benefit for bolt on neck guitars is that the body and the neck can be made of different woods. Same applies to some of the set neck guitars where the neck wood may be maple and the body mahogany or any combination of various woods if available. This usually only applies to Custom builds (of course will have a premium for that service). I can think of one company that only builds custom guitars based on your choice of neck woods, fret board, body woods, etc. would be Carvin. There are other brands like SUHR guitars, Roman, Tom Anderson (just to name a few).

I generally prefer neck though guitars, but I also like my bolt on guitars an set neck Guitars. They all have their own unique tone, character, and playability. Actually I recently ordered a new bolt on guitar and I am eagerly waiting its arrival.

Very broadly speaking:

Bolts on
Pros: have more bite to them (imo), easier to fix if problem, easy to upgrade if say you are not happy with your neck (Ibanez/Charvel users do this alot), usually people prefer the feel of a non-neck through neck (back of neck finish), cheaper to make therefore does not cost extra
Cons: Neck joint is usually bulky - see ESP, Fender Strat

Neck-through:
Pros: Feels and looks like its of higher quality, usually smooth neck joints, some claim they sound better, more sustain
Cons: If you damage it good luck with getting it fixed, usually the back of neck has the same finish as the body which may look nice but add in sweat and humidity and it feels sticky, usually comes at a premium (more $$). Like someone else mentioned they seem to have been more popular in the 80's many of today's higher-end builders don't builders don't use this design anymore...examples: Musicman, Suhr, Tom Anderson, etc...

Great thing is tho that yo have choices. Try em all out then decide. For me personally the best is Bolt-ons with sculpted and smooth neck joint like Ernie Ball Musicman guitars (Ibanez, Washburn and others offer it as well).