# bolt on or set neck?



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

Im looking to buy an electric guitar from rondo music.I havnt played an electric in a long time and was wondering if i should get a bolt on or a set neck guitar?I hear that bolt ons are not as reliable as set necks.Anyone have any advice?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

xuthal said:


> Im looking to buy an electric guitar from rondo music.I havnt played an electric in a long time and was wondering if i should get a bolt on or a set neck guitar?I hear that bolt ons are not as reliable as set necks.Anyone have any advice?


Bolt on


I prefer a neck that I can replace without sending the guitar to a luthier.

Reliable? I don't think there are any reliability issues with most bolt on necks.


----------



## Gene Machine (Sep 22, 2007)

*ca ne fait rien*

i don't think it really matters, largely preference.

Leo Fender used a bolt on neck so that working musicians could continue working even if they needed a refret or work done on it. They could just give the neck to the shop, and bolt on another neck. ( at least that's what it says n the telecaster bible) Thehre are bolt on fenders that are 50+ years old and going strong.

soome people may argue that set necks have better sustain, but it also depends on the construction. is it a deep neck tenon, or completly neck through body. Is a bolted on neck any worse than a glued in neck? ???

as far as playing at clubs, being a working musician etc. i would suggest thhat a fender is a good strong durable tool thaht is easily repaired and modified.

and just to contradict myself, I have seen some of Zak Wyldes' beat up les pauls, and they certainly haven't been babied.

pick one thhat you like. play lots.

good luck searching.

G.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

it's all preference. bolt on: strat, tele, some superstrats.

set neck: les paul, SG, some superstrats.


----------



## starjag (Jan 30, 2008)

Although it is a much debated factor, you can also talk about guitar construction, the tonewood type used and their contributions to tone.

For instance, the tone of a neck-through guitar will be mostly determined by the neck wood. The "wings" of a neck-through guitar are pretty much there just for the looks.

Guitars that have set-in necks tend to be constructed with a single tonewood type. Mahogany neck, mahogany body being the traditional combo for LPs. Guitars that have bolt-on necks offer many alternatives that might affect tone. Maple neck, alder body is one of the traditional combos for strats.

There is also the issue of upper fret access. The pocket needed for set-in necks sometimes limits upper fret access, particularly for small hands. Neck-through and bolt-on guitars tends to have friendlier upper fret access, specially double cutaway guitars.

In the end, though, these are broad generalizations. You have to go out play a bunch of guitars and then buy what is right for you.

My current guitars are neck-throughs, but I have owned several set-in and bolt-on guitars. I have never had reliability issues with any of them. But I have never dropped a guitar yet, so my opinion might change


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

I'll go the opposite way, I prefer a set neck. Why? I prefer there feel. A bolt on will play well and yes easy to replace the neck but I find the set neck like on a les paul to have a sturdier feel. If I play hard on a bolt on neck ie: my strat or tele, when you dig in, pull back a bit on the neck, it sometimes can alter the pitch. This is where the set neck comes in, IMO they can be played hard with out the pitch altering. They are beefier at the body joint and it does require a little flexing when playing up in the high end. Try them both and take your preference.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Personal preference. I find that the double cut set necks like the Gibson SG and Hamer Studios/Special have excellent high fret access - both are very comfortable for me to play. I love my stratocaster - the most comfortable player. Upper fret access not quite as good as an SG but I have no problem working with it. I also have a semi-hollowbody ES335 style guitar - set neck, very comfy player with good upper fret access. I find upper fret access more awkward with the single cuts like the Telecaster (bolt-on) and the Les Paul (set neck).

Scale - I have a slight preference for the set neck Gibson scale 24.75" over the bolt-on Fender scale of 25.5".

When it comes tones, I like the differences, but if I had to choose one, it would be a vintage Les Paul with PAFs through a vintage Marshall.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

dr_iggi said:


> Guitars that have set-in necks tend to be constructed with a single tonewood type. Mahogany neck, mahogany body being the traditional combo for LPs. Guitars that have bolt-on necks offer many alternatives that might affect tone. Maple neck, alder body is one of the traditional combos for strats.


Well that's true in some cases. My Mustang has an ash body and a maple neck with rosewood fingerboard, but my Iceman has a set neck and different woods-mahogany body & maple neck. My Les Paul is a mixture by virtue of the body--the usual mahogany with maple cap. The neck is mahogany.

Overall though, there are good examples and poor examples of set in necks & bolt ons--I do think it affects the tone, but that's not necessarily good or bad. I tend to prefer set necks--but I wouldn't refuse a guitar based on how the neck joins the body--as long as it's done well.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I prefer set necks or neck thru's.
Contrary to Dr_Iggi, I find the joint area of bolt on necks to be too bulky/blocky for upper fret shredding, esp when compared to the much smoother neck through's (my personal fave).
Here's some pics to illustrate what I mean:

















Very subjectively speaking, it seems to me that set neck and neck thrus have better sustain and deeper tones, whereas the bolt-ons I've played have sounded brighter, and maybe even facilitated harmonics more.
About half my guitars are set neck, the other half have been neck thru's. I'd like to spend more time with a good quality bolt on neck guitar though, so I'm looking for something like an Ibanez Jem for my collection, with its more accessible AANJ joint, or maybe a higher level Washburn Nuno.

I've gotta ask you guys that prefer bolt ons due to the ease of repair/replacement....How often do you find you're taking the neck off?

In about 25 yrs of playing, I've only had a neck off once...and it was unintentional (I was a stupid teenager who thought I could flip my guitar around my back the way Yngwie did in a video...except I used an Explorer with the strap hanging way too low  ). To me its like when old school hotrodders prefer carburetors for their tweakability over fuel injection, when for most other people who will never fiddle with stuff, fuel injection is superior and the less maintenance way to go.


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

I don't have a preference... I like both set necks and bolt-ons. Each affords different tonal characteristics. Never owned a neck-through, that's something I wouldn't mind investigating. Love that vermillion/reptillian (!) crackling on that guitar, Diablo. Very sharp. You mentioned the Nuno series... yes, most of those use a bolt-on called a Stephens Extended Cutaway neck... five bolts arrayed in a circular sweep - very solid joint and excellent neck access. I have that on two Washburn WG-series guitars. Super easy to play way up the neck with it.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Tone-wise, neither is better in my opinion. I think they are simply different. The quality of the construction is much more important, in my opinion. I'm more concerned with the quality of the neck than with how it is attached to the body.


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

Yeah, a good neck is a good neck but you also don't want it to have too much play where it meets the body. There are significant tone variables like how tight the neck joint is, how snugly the neck it fits into the pocket... excess stuff like paint residue and finish can get in the way there, too.

That said, modern-day production guitars, being C&C'ed up the wazoo, have way tighter tolerances for body specs and neck joints. Even cheap guitars are generally put together better than they were 20 years ago... electronics excluded.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Thanks Maxer, its an old guitar that Joe Lado built for me about 20 yrs ago back in the "good ol' days" of rock/metal. It brought a tear to both of our eyes when I took it to him last year for a setup and we got to talking about how much things have changed since then.....Anyways, Yes thats the exact joint I was thinking of on the Nuno. Looks to be a good hybrid of both types of joints...other than the "swappability" of the necks that I suspect some of the DIY'ers in this thread are looking for, might be limited since few guitars seem to have this joint.
But as I said before, many of us may never need to cross that bridge.


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

I wish Washburn would make that licensed cutaway available on more than just the N Series, Diablo. Chalk it up to a marketing decision - helps keep the price of the N Series high I guess. If they made an X40 or X50 type guitar with a fixed bridge and a SEC I'd be looking to get my hands on one in a hurry. I had one of my SEC-equipped guitars blocked with a hard tail bridge. Now they're two related but different guitars.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

That cutaway is liecensed to Washburn from Stevens Stringed Instruments. It actually started out as a neckthru design, and then became available as a bolt on..........


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Accept2 said:


> That cutaway is liecensed to Washburn from Stevens Stringed Instruments. It actually started out as a neckthru design, and then became available as a bolt on..........


Sure does look solid and accessability looks excellent, but interchangeability is next to zero, which makes it a non starter for me.


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

It might work for you if a company like Warmoth were to be able to secure the rights to make SEC necks and bodies. But for whatever reasons Stephens Stringed Instruments has apparently only dealt with Washburn.

In any case, it's one solution among many - it's certainly not the be all and end all of neck joints. I think they look beautiful and they might as well be set necks for all the strength inherent in the design, but whatever... variety is a great thing. A lot of neck-through designs have very slick upper fret access as it stands. I'm sure there are some other bolt-on designs with fairly minimal heels that don't get in the way of your fretting hand.

Hell, many people don't even go that far up the neck all that much anyway.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Maxer said:


> It might work for you if a company like Warmoth were to be able to secure the rights to make SEC necks and bodies. But for whatever reasons Stephens Stringed Instruments has apparently only dealt with Washburn.
> 
> In any case, it's one solution among many - it's certainly not the be all and end all of neck joints. I think they look beautiful and they might as well be set necks for all the strength inherent in the design, but whatever... variety is a great thing. A lot of neck-through designs have very slick upper fret access as it stands. I'm sure there are some other bolt-on designs with fairly minimal heels that don't get in the way of your fretting hand.
> 
> Hell, many people don't even go that far up the neck all that much anyway.



It does look like a smart design for sure.


----------



## xuthal (May 15, 2007)

thanks guys i guess ill have to try some set and bolt on necks.How do you like the sound of those washburns Maxer?I used to have an idol,the lowest on the food chain so to speak.I didnt like it mostly becouse of the low quality.I do own a washburn festival series and i love it.After reading these posts i think ill go with a set neck,i like the bass side on a guitar but ill give bolt ons a chance.


----------



## zinga (Apr 22, 2007)

i like a bolt on neck. bin playing for 20 years never had a problem with playing upper frets.


----------



## tubetwang (Dec 18, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Bolt on
> 
> 
> I prefer a neck that I can replace without sending the guitar to a luthier.
> ...


I agree...

You cannot adjust a set neck but a bolt on is easy enough...


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

To be honest xuthal, it's been awhile since I played either of them through an amp... I've not got a proper sound-proofed studio setup yet and my main amp is over at a friend's place where we jam. Most often I am jacking my guitars straight into an audio box connected to a Mac tower, which I am using to record & compose in Logic 7, GuitarRig 3 and MOTU Ethno Instruments and a few other DAW goodies. I know the electronics on my Washburns are fine but the real question is how organic they sound. The necks are rock maple, which is great, but the bodies are basswood. That wood is less of a tonewood, according to some, than classics like alder, ash, mahogany, maple... it's said to be rather colourless and sterile. These are the only guitars I have that are basswood bodies... most of them are alder or mahogany. I'm going to have to bring one of 'the twins' over to my buddy's place and put it through my Fender on clean and listen to the tone. Lots of low and mid-range metal guitars use basswood - I suspect because it's cheaper and players are going for less of a natural woody sound and more of a scooped/overdriven one, coloured as it is by overdriven amps and pedals. This site gives a good rundown on common tone woods used in guitar building - I've found it very useful to better understand why some guitars tend to sound the way they do.

So to answer your question, I think my Washies are probably decent tonally but I expect they lack the same dynamic range that other guitars have. I would rather their bodies have been alder or ash, but whatever.

I'm also guessing basswood is more common in all sorts of low and mid-range guitars these days because it's cheaper than the more traditional options and it's very soft, making it easy to work with.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Maxer said:


> To be honest xuthal, it's been awhile since I played either of them through an amp... I've not got a proper sound-proofed studio setup yet and my main amp is over at a friend's place where we jam. Most often I am jacking my guitars straight into an audio box connected to a Mac tower, which I am using to record & compose in Logic 7, GuitarRig 3 and MOTU Ethno Instruments and a few other DAW goodies. I know the electronics on my Washburns are fine but the real question is how organic they sound. The necks are rock maple, which is great, but the bodies are basswood. That wood is less of a tonewood, according to some, than classics like alder, ash, mahogany, maple... it's said to be rather colourless and sterile. These are the only guitars I have that are basswood bodies... most of them are alder or mahogany. I'm going to have to bring one of 'the twins' over to my buddy's place and put it through my Fender on clean and listen to the tone. Lots of low and mid-range metal guitars use basswood - I suspect because it's cheaper and players are going for less of a natural woody sound and more of a scooped/overdriven one, coloured as it is by overdriven amps and pedals. This site gives a good rundown on common tone woods used in guitar building - I've found it very useful to better understand why some guitars tend to sound the way they do.
> 
> So to answer your question, I think my Washies are probably decent tonally but I expect they lack the same dynamic range that other guitars have. I would rather their bodies have been alder or ash, but whatever.
> 
> I'm also guessing basswood is more common in all sorts of low and mid-range guitars these days because it's cheaper than the more traditional options and it's very soft, making it easy to work with.


Ya, we have a basswood tree at the cottage. Its a sh!tty tree. When you cut into it, it seems barely harder than cedar, and with very little visual appeal. Grows like a weed too.

Does anyone know why they dont seem to make guitars out of oak?


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

There's a reason basswood bodies tend to be painted solid, opaque colours and then clear-coated with something hard - they ding otherwise and besides, their grain and colour are not generally considered very attractive. Though I'm a fan of natural looks in guitars and lovely grain - not flame and quilty stuff up the wazoo, mind - it's even more important to me that the proper wood is used. I am happy to have my Washie twins but at the time I got them I was less knowledgeable about tone woods. I am moving slowly and steadily along a great learning curve here... I'll probably be doing so until I croak! So it's all grist for the mill.

That said, I will not likely buy any more guitars with basswood bodies. As for oak guitars, I don't know what the deal is there. Perhaps someone more up on wood can tell us why we don't see oak guitars.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

tubetwang said:


> I agree...
> 
> You cannot adjust a set neck but a bolt on is easy enough...


I have to wonder if you need to adjust the neck BECAUSE its a bolt on neck?
I've got 3 guitars ( 2 set necks, 1 neck thru) that I've owned since the 80's (early to late 80's depending on the guitar), and none of them have required any neck adjustment, service or replacement...except the aforementioned Explorer that took a nosedive onto its headstock.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Diablo said:


> I have to wonder if you need to adjust the neck BECAUSE its a bolt on neck?
> I've got 3 guitars ( 2 set necks, 1 neck thru) that I've owned since the 80's (early to late 80's depending on the guitar), and none of them have required any neck adjustment, service or replacement...except the aforementioned Explorer that took a nosedive onto its headstock.


Never needed any neck adjustment--other than a slight tweak to the truss rod--and that was on a newer guitar. I've had my guitars from 11-33 years.


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

I have an old Guild S100, from 1971. About all that's ever happened to the neck is a refret in the late 80s and the odd truss rod adjustment. Pretty darned stable.


----------



## Archer (Aug 29, 2006)

Neither technique is more 'reliable' than the other. They are different flavors.


----------



## Archer (Aug 29, 2006)

Diablo said:


> Ya, we have a basswood tree at the cottage. Its a sh!tty tree. When you cut into it, it seems barely harder than cedar, and with very little visual appeal. Grows like a weed too.
> 
> Does anyone know why they dont seem to make guitars out of oak?


Oak is VERY heavy, prone to splitting and twisting and is very hard to work with.


----------



## Maxer (Apr 20, 2007)

Thanks, Archer. I knew about the heaviness aspect but not the rest. Well, there you go.


----------



## Spikezone (Feb 2, 2006)

Gene Machine said:


> pick one that you like. play lots.
> 
> good luck searching.
> 
> G.


HEAR HEAR!
-Mikey


----------

