# Set neck vs Bolt On.



## Petey D (Sep 8, 2011)

I'm curious. When you're talking about High End Les Paul type guitars, and many other types as well, a set neck pretty much a must have, but when considering a similar quality Strat or Tele type, bolt on necks are standard fare. Why is that?


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

They are two different types of builds. The Gibson is fashioned after traditional guitar building methods. Fender developed the bolt on neck and string trees so that there was no neck joint to lessen production cost and under cut the competition and allow semiskilled labour to be used. It was all about the manufacturing process. The Tele design was simple, effective and caught on. Then came the rest of the models.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I personally think of it in car terms....bolt on necks are like carbureted cars...easy to work on, much more "hot-rod" friendly i.e. swap out necks, minor tweaks etc. Set necks are like fuel injection...not much room for manipulation, but its pretty slick and works well most of the time.

Due to my own prejudices and knowing the amount of labour involved and ease in mass producing bolt-on guitars, I personally have a hard time paying more than a $1000. for a bolt-on guitar, even if Jimi, eric or yngwie himself played it 
But I do own a bolt on charvel that I paid signifcantly more than that for, and I do love it as well as my most of my neck-thru or set necks. to my ear, there are some subtle differences....bolt on neck guitars seem more friendly to pinch harmonics and have a brighter sound....set necks/neck thrus are a little darker sounding, and IMO infinitely more playable past the 15th fret for my clumsy hands. I hate that bulky neck/body joint on most bolt ons.

the perfect guitar for me is a neck thru that has the harmonic brightness (and price) of a bolt-on.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

That's a good analogy Diablo.

It should be noted that a set neck and neck through are different animals.

It's wierd that an LP with a bolt on neck is poopooed, but it's OK to have a Strat styled guitar with a neck thorugh.
I suppose the LP has to do with tradition and something to do with the tone though.


----------



## Petey D (Sep 8, 2011)

^ That's what I mean. Why is it bad to have a Les Paul with a bolt on neck, but not a Strat?


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Its all a matter of preference, but as for me, I see neckthru as the ultimate so I would view the neckthru Strat as an upgrade but the bolt neck LP as a downgrade. However I have played some nice bolt neck LPs, but they were cheapys. The worst guitar for a bolt neck is a V.............


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Ya, most of the bolt on LPs are inexpensive.
Some people, especially someone used to a traditional LP, don't or won't like a bolt on.
Mostly a feel thing and accessablility to the upper frets.

I agree with Accept2. I have a Strat type with a neck through. The lack of a heel makes it really comfy.
It could also come into play with sustain. 
Concivably, a neck through is one piece of wood from headstock to tail of the guitar, giving the most sustain.
A set neck, being in intimate contact with the body should be a close second.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Petey D said:


> ^ That's what I mean. Why is it bad to have a Les Paul with a bolt on neck, but not a Strat?


Tradition mostly. There are things that you can't do with a set neck. Like shaking the neck to get vibrato and doing a neck dives. If Gibson had made more bolt on necks then there would have been less headstock repairs.You could gotten a new neck.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Petey D said:


> ^ That's what I mean. Why is it bad to have a Les Paul with a bolt on neck, but not a Strat?


I guess when most of th LPs out there have set necks, if one comes along that was built with a cheaper manufacturing process, it just seems like a shortcut was taken?


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

shoretyus said:


> Tradition mostly. There are things that you can't do with a set neck. Like shaking the neck to get vibrato and doing a neck dives. If Gibson had made more bolt on necks then there would have been less headstock repairs.You could gotten a new neck.


But the "collectibility" would be out the window due to the non original neck!


----------



## BEACHBUM (Sep 21, 2010)

Being one of those that believes body and neck resonance doesn't contribute enough to a guitars performance to make any audible tone difference I don't have a preference one way or the other. I'm good with them both.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

Yeah, there's a lot of cork sniffing going on in this thread. They're just different construction methods. If I fill my neck pocket with wood glue and then bolt it on does that give me the same tone and sustain of a set neck?

Frankly there is no way to measure the tone factor empirically unless you were to make two identical guitars cut from the same slab of wood with the only difference being the neck joint method. Then you sit someone in a room with a blindfold and make them listen to each guitar played by the same player through the same equipment.

Again, I think they're just the way each type of instrument is built. You don't see bolt on LP's because they look stupid. And you see very few set neck Teles or Stats because they look weird.


----------



## Nick Burman (Aug 17, 2011)

What of the idea that strings pickups and bridge are all resonating on the same piece of wood, as in a neck through? Wouldn't that produce a different set of harmonics compared to a bolt on? I don't have identical guitars to do an AB.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

*Optimists* buy set neck guitars because they think they've made a good choice in their purchase of the guitar. They will look after it and everything will be fine.
*Pessimists* buy bolt on necks because they know that, no matter how well they look after their guitar, something is going to happen to the neck and they will be able to change it.

Which one are you?


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Diablo said:


> But the "collectibility" would be out the window due to the non original neck!


Pssst the headstock is broken ... along with the collectable value ..


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Actually you have to also count in the feel. When you play you are touching the guitar. A neckthru has a certain feel that a bolton doesnt have. Just as I like the look of fancy inlay but hate the feel of them, its all down to playing style. If you are playing in the first 5 frets only, Im sure youre biggest feel worry is whether or not there is binding, but move around the neck and there are tons of factors that affect the feel of your guitar. If it feels yuck, youre gonna suck.............


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I like them both, but in terms of serviceability, the bolt on wins hands down.

I started using bolt ons in the 80s. At the time I was into Frankenstrats and was building all my guitars. It was great if you were out on tour and a neck broke or wore out. I could have a new neck within a day or two. 

Refrets obviously take more time and planning.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

shoretyus said:


> Pssst the headstock is broken ... along with the collectable value ..


pssst...it was a joke.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> Yeah, there's a lot of cork sniffing going on in this thread. They're just different construction methods. If I fill my neck pocket with wood glue and then bolt it on does that give me the same tone and sustain of a set neck?
> 
> Frankly there is no way to measure the tone factor empirically unless you were to make two identical guitars cut from the same slab of wood with the only difference being the neck joint method. Then you sit someone in a room with a blindfold and make them listen to each guitar played by the same player through the same equipment.
> 
> Again, *I think they're just the way each type of instrument is built*. You don't see bolt on LP's because they look stupid. And you see very few set neck Teles or Stats because they look weird.


What does that explain? Earlier in the thread, it was explained correctly. 
Fender went with the modular approach because it was cheaper to build and easier to service.

What cork sniffing is going on here? Jeezus, you leave an opinion on a discussion board and it's cork sniffing? Ok.

Oh, it looks like a study has been done and there is a difference, just contrary to what I had been led to believe.

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


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

Although it wasn't mentioned specifically, another factor worthy of consideration is scale length. Bolt-on usually = Fender & set neck usually = Gibson, so all other things being equal (i.e. electronics, type of wood, neck thickness, sufficiently tight fit between neck heel & neck pocket in the bolt-on) the bolt-on/Fender will be brighter thanks to the longer 25 1/2" scale length.


----------



## Morkolo (Dec 9, 2010)

I like both set neck and bolt on... and neck through too. Each has it's own characteristics in terms of playability and sound and for that reason I like them all.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

BEACHBUM said:


> Being one of those that believes body and neck resonance doesn't contribute enough to a guitars performance to make any audible tone difference I don't have a preference one way or the other. I'm good with them both.


My Reverend Flatroc convinced me of this. I don't feel the it being a set neck or bolt on neck style would have any drastic change on it's tone. It's other construction elements contribute more to it's design. I don't think one is 'better' than the other. It just depends on the guitar as a whole.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

BEACHBUM said:


> Being one of those that believes body and neck resonance doesn't contribute enough to a guitars performance to make any audible tone difference I don't have a preference one way or the other. I'm good with them both.


+ 1. It causes more debate than there is substantiation for either design.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

sulphur said:


> What does that explain? Earlier in the thread, it was explained correctly. Fender went with the modular approach because it was cheaper to build and easier to service.What cork sniffing is going on here? Jeezus, you leave an opinion on a discussion board and it's cork sniffing? Ok.Oh, it looks like a study has been done and there is a difference, just contrary to what I had been led to believe.http://www.guitar-list.com/guitar-science/set-neck-better-sustain-myth


I agree. So much of the money we spend on gear, IMO, has a pretty low return on investment based on blind listening by other people...BUT the PLAYER hears a difference. And that's what counts...so whether it's a few more milliseconds of sustain, or a pinch harmonic that just seems "easier", as players, that has some quantifiable value to us. If it didn't, I'm pretty firmly convinced that most players would be playing epiphones and squiers and have some money in their bank accounts, because the people listening to you play sure as hell can't hear the difference between that $500. guitar or $8k Pearly Gates.

IMO, even fairly big changes to a guitar like pickups, are barely discernible to non players.
If you really want "cork sniffing", talk to the ppl that claim to hear differences in the finish used on guitars,or even the cables used.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Guitar101 said:


> *Optimists* buy set neck guitars because they think they've made a good choice in their purchase of the guitar. They will look after it and everything will be fine.
> *Pessimists* buy bolt on necks because they know that, no matter how well they look after their guitar, something is going to happen to the neck and they will be able to change it.
> 
> Which one are you?


This, is a fantastic post.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Guitar101 said:


> *Optimists* buy set neck guitars because they think they've made a good choice in their purchase of the guitar. They will look after it and everything will be fine.
> *Pessimists* buy bolt on necks because they know that, no matter how well they look after their guitar, something is going to happen to the neck and they will be able to change it.
> 
> Which one are you?


I'm an optimist except when it comes to guitar necks. I'll go bolt on if possible but I like hollow body guitars the most and they are harder to come by in a bolt on. That's exactly the reason I bought the Dean Boca.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

Diablo said:


> IMO, even fairly big changes to a guitar like pickups, are barely discernible to non players.
> If you really want "cork sniffing", talk to the ppl that claim to hear differences in the finish used on guitars,or even the cables used.


Right on all counts. Honestly 99% of the crowd can't tell the difference between a Chinese Epiphone and a 1959 Gibson LP. 

Anyway, my "cork sniffing" comment was prompted by some of the pontificating about perceived tone advantages to construction methods. It reminded me a lot of what you mentioned about cables and finish.

Maybe a set neck sounds slightly different than a bolt on, but since we're talking about tone - and like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, tone is in the ear of the listener. One is not better than the other, they're simply different. Maybe that's why you don't see many set neck Strats or Teles and why you don't see many bolt on Les Pauls or SG's - they're all radically different guitars and they sound how they're supposed to sound. One could ask, "why don't you see any Les Pauls with Strat style single coil pickups?" - because they just don't sound or look right to us.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Guitar101 said:


> *Optimists* buy set neck guitars because they think they've made a good choice in their purchase of the guitar. They will look after it and everything will be fine.
> *Pessimists* buy bolt on necks because they know that, no matter how well they look after their guitar, something is going to happen to the neck and they will be able to change it.
> 
> Which one are you?


both of my guitars are maple set necks. does that make me an optimist who hedges his bets? :banana:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Of course, there are exceptions. My favorite guitar these days is a mahogany bodied set neck, shaped more or less like a Les Paul, and outfitted with three singles.

It struck me as unusual, but combined elements we seldom see and that appealed to me.

Sometimes, often in fact, it's beneficial to break out of our comfort zones.




Powdered Toast Man said:


> One could ask, "why don't you see any Les Pauls with Strat style single coil pickups?" - because they just don't sound or look right to us.


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

Agreed 100%, Milkman.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i live in bolton, so i'm not sure i have a choice.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

So anybody live in Setneck?
Neckthrough?

Actually Setneck sounds like it could be a city or town name.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I think I've visited Redneckthruandthru............


----------



## Nick Burman (Aug 17, 2011)

Diablo said:


> I agree. So much of the money we spend on gear, IMO, has a pretty low return on investment based on blind listening by other people...BUT the PLAYER hears a difference. And that's what counts...so whether it's a few more milliseconds of sustain, or a pinch harmonic that just seems "easier", as players, that has some quantifiable value to us. If it didn't, I'm pretty firmly convinced that most players would be playing epiphones and squiers and have some money in their bank accounts, because the people listening to you play sure as hell can't hear the difference between that $500. guitar or $8k Pearly Gates.
> 
> IMO, even fairly big changes to a guitar like pickups, are barely discernible to non players.
> If you really want "cork sniffing", talk to the ppl that claim to hear differences in the finish used on guitars,or even the cables used.


Couldn't agree more. If it makes a difference to the player, there's a difference. Its all about getting the music out, and if that takes a different finish, a tube transformer, pressed in frets or loose pedal case screws, then so be it. 

For me the perfect guitar is one you wouldn't even think about or maybe notice is there. You just play the music.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> Right on all counts. Honestly 99% of the crowd can't tell the difference between a Chinese Epiphone and a 1959 Gibson LP.
> 
> Anyway, my "cork sniffing" comment was prompted by some of the pontificating about perceived tone advantages to construction methods. It reminded me a lot of what you mentioned about cables and finish.
> 
> Maybe a set neck sounds slightly different than a bolt on, but since we're talking about tone - and like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, tone is in the ear of the listener. One is not better than the other, they're simply different. Maybe that's why you don't see many set neck Strats or Teles and why you don't see many bolt on Les Pauls or SG's - they're all radically different guitars and they sound how they're supposed to sound. One could ask, "why don't you see any Les Pauls with Strat style single coil pickups?" - because they just don't sound or look right to us.


fair enough...and when I was describing the differences between the 2 guitars sounds, I wasnt implying that one was better than the other, even to my ears...I view them as different tools...Kind of like a mitre saw is no better than a table saw...if you work a lot, youre going to need both. And thats how I justify my need to have 10 guitars to my wife


----------

