# the more we stick together



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

so...was thinking about this...and then...squirrel...yea...it happens sometimes...

anyways...everyone 'sh*ts' on bolt on necks especially (mostly) on LP style guitars b/c it decreases sustain...

would gluing the neck into place, with the bolts increase this? has anyone ever tried?


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Not sure. I glued several Tele and Strat necks in place earlier in my...um...career...I sanded and/or scraped the surfaces as smooth as possible to marry the surfaces as close as possible and to give a good glue joint. The parts were then clamped with the neck screws. At the time I THOUGHT I could detect a difference, but at this distant time, I can't be sure. It certainly didn't hurt. 

I'd hate to be someone today trying to take those necks off for any reason...that might be a surprise.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2013)

All About Bolt-on and Set Necks 

From the article. It's a long read, but, informative.

Tonal considerations aside, bolt-on necks—as per Leo Fender’s original intention—do offer 
an ease of maintenance that many players and techs enjoy. Poor neck angle? Pull the neck, 
slip a shim under it, and bolt it up again. Neck badly damaged in a fall? Order a new one, 
and slap it back on yourself. Such work still takes a little skill, but it’s infinitely easier than 
achieving similar adjustments or repairs with a glued-neck joint.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I'd always thought that a neck through would give the best sustain, just by construction methods,
then set neck and finally bolt on, but it's apparently the opposite of that theory...

http://www.guitar-list.com/guitar-science/set-neck-better-sustain-myth


----------



## Solaceguitars (May 3, 2010)

After building enough guitars myself for years, I have found that there is SOOO many more variables than neck construction. However a quality neck pocket and heel will help.
Scale length and mass are quite important factors, but the most important I feel is how the strings connect to the body.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Solaceguitars said:


> After building enough guitars myself for years, I have found that there is SOOO many more variables than neck construction. However a quality neck pocket and heel will help.
> *Scale length and mass are quite important factors*, but the most important I feel is how the strings connect to the body.


So a thick, wide bold-on neck would, in theory, give more sustain than a skinny, thin glued in neck. --- Your thoughts, please.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Solaceguitars said:


> .....but the most important I feel is how the strings connect to the body.


Could you please tell us more about this. Thanks

Cheers

Dave


----------



## -ST- (Feb 2, 2008)

My preference for set-necks goes back a very long way. 

It might have started when I was able to dissassemble my Fender Mustang. I remember pulling off the neck and thinking "Is that all there is?"

For me, it's never been about sustain or the details of the mechanics or physics. I felt that a set-neck/neck-through required some level of skill and craftsmanship that was opaque to me: a glorious mystery. True or not I imagined that it took more to make set-neck/neck-through guitar than one with a bolt on neck. 

When I look at a guitar, I want to imagine that someone (or several people) put something special into it. Somehow, bolting on a neck doesn't seem to make the grade.

This is not rational, based on fact, physics, or evidence. I don't think that I have ever said or thought anything about sustain or tone in relation to the construction of the neck joints. 

Now it turns out that I have guitars with bolt-on necks. I've logged a lot of time playing them. I like them. I think of them as great tools; machines. They are completely up to the task for making music, and for all of that, they seem less art than science, less musical-instruments than implements. 

I'm not asking that anyone disabuse me of my illusions. I just thought I'd share them.


----------



## YJMUJRSRV (Jul 17, 2007)

gone fishing


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

YJMUJRSRV said:


> In all industries there are forums where people go on and on about useless facts they made up. Bolt on's having less sustain would be one of those. Wait for it .. the same guy that always jumps on me is gonna pop in and tell me what a moron I am and how much pine he has cut. Here he comes, cue the music ......


I'm from a lumber and mining town. When he shows up, refer him to me. He's not cut more pine than most of the guys where I grew up.:rockon2:


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I don't build, but as a player I have no preference soundwise--there are a lot of variables that will affect the sound--not just how the neck joins the body.

It can affect the playability depending on the neck to body connection-but as long as it's well made, I'm not too concerned whether it's a bolt-on, set-neck or neck-through.
I have bolt-ons & set necks.
No neck-throughs, yet.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

I always assumed, as sulpher remarked, that a neck through or glued neck would seem to be the obvious winners for sustain and tone. Then I bought a Godin LG P90 with a bolt on neck and that guitar has sustain and great tone. Maybe due to the thick Honduran Mahogany body and neck, low neck angle and a tight fit between neck and body with no finishing on the neck join parts. Robert Godin says that these are his major considerations when designing an instrument.

So I ignore the woods and neck joints now when trying a guitar because it is the overall design of the guitar that determines the finished product quality.

If it plays and sounds good, among other considerations of course, and suits my needs at the time, a little gas relief is probably imminent.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

http://liutaiomottola.com/myth/neckJointSustain.htm


----------

