Thru neck, set neck or bolt on?

[Wolverinebass]

I've been giving quite a great deal of thought to getting a new bass. However, something has got me thinking. Preferance of differing types of construction is really the main thing. I am someone who likes to use the whole neck so I like the upper register access. About 2 years ago I got an 8 string bass made and I didn't take into account that it'd be a bolt on. I got the heel carved down a bit, (although I wouldn't say using the high area of the neck on an 8 string is that much of a priority), it just doesn't feel right to me any more (though the neck profile is brilliant) and I'm contemplating flogging it and getting a neck through made.

I learned on some shortscale japcrap bass (Fenix - anyone?!!) which was a bolt on but the heel was very small (sort of in the shape of the Dean bass in the for sale section) and very sculpted.

Now I figure this is a reason that I don't like Fenders that much due to the block heel, but having never played a set neck, what are people's experiences? Basically why do people prefer certain types of construction (leave aside cost as a consideration) and why.

Plus, does anyone have an 8 or 12 string neck through bass or set neck bass.

Grateful for any thoughts or opinions.

[BigRedX]

How far up the neck do you want to play?

My cheap Carlo Robelli 8-string although being a bolt-on design has a 24-fret neck with a minimal heel, so easily playable all the way up to the body joint at the 19th fret.

How obtrusive the neck joint is depends entirely on the inventiveness of the designer/luthier. Generally a neck-through instrument will have the least intrusive heel and the shape of the body will have the most impact on upper-neck access.

Set neck instruments offer no guarantees either way. My short-scale Burns Sonic bass has a truly innovative neck joint (more so since the design dates from 1960) where the heel is as minimal as a good through neck design. On the other hand if you look at the new Reverend basses the set-neck versions offer no better playability than the bolt-on ones.

It is possible to improve the access to the higher notes on a bolt-on neck mainly by moving where the heel and bolts are further along the neck. Most basses with 24-fret necks will have the heel starting at the 19th rather than the 15th fret (as on Fenders-style necks).

The only neck-though 8-string basses I know of are Tune [url="http://www.cc.rim.or.jp/~tune/narucho's.bass/framepage,narucho's,bass.htm"]Narucho sinature instruments[/url]. All 5 of his 8-string models appear to be through neck construction but they're not cheap with prices ranging from ¥310,000 to ¥700,000 plus shipping and import taxes...

[Davo-London]

Basically the bolt-on gives a bit more snap and the ability to bend the neck and of course remove it. THe thru-neck gives potentially better intonation and looks better.

It's not something that would bother me in buying a bass. That said if you have a custom bass made they will never be a bolt-on neck. So obviously it's a cheaper construction method. Some people prefer bolt ons so there's not much either way.

Davo

[Doddy]

[quote name='Davo-London' post='1289006' date='Jul 1 2011, 01:42 PM']That said if you have a custom bass made they will never be a bolt-on neck.[/quote]

Will they not?

Plenty of custom bass makers make bolt on necks.

[Wolverinebass]

To be fair, it's the fact that the neck is that slight bit further away as well. Maybe about an inch or two. The block per se is annoying, but work roundable. The join is at about the 15th fret which is a bit of a pain too considering it's only a 21 fret bass. Again, another thing to remedy.

[Danimal]

[quote name='Davo-London' post='1289006' date='Jul 1 2011, 01:42 PM']Basically the bolt-on gives a bit more snap and the ability to bend the neck and of course remove it. THe thru-neck gives potentially better intonation and looks better.

It's not something that would bother me in buying a bass. That said if you have a custom bass made they will never be a bolt-on neck. So obviously it's a cheaper construction method. Some people prefer bolt ons so there's not much either way.

Davo[/quote]
My custom bass has a bolt-on neck...

Tonally, the body wood has more of a bearing on things with a bolt-on neck than with a neck-through, where the body 'wings' are more or less just there for show.

As mentioned, it's also possible to replace the neck on a bolt-on, should anything happen to it. Apart from those things, I don't see any other advantages or disadvantages to one over the other. Things like the high fret access and intonation are all down to design/build quality.

[thestick]

All Wal basses are bolt on!!
and I have two ken smith bolt on,s
I would not call them cheap!

[AttitudeCastle]

I'd e-mail or PM Alan from ACG he prefers setnecks to neckthrough or bolt-on he also prefers to make them and from the looks (and i'm sure any ACG owner who reads this will agree) the fret access is flawless i'd imagine right the way to the 24th + fret

I prefer Neck through tonally, and the smoothness and feel of one piece of wood running into the body (A design like Doods 7 strings set-neck would be similar i would imagine!)

[henry norton]

Just to dip my oar in, there is allot of bullsh#t surrounding different neck joints. In spite of what allot of makers will tell you, the chances are most wouldn't be able to tell much difference between one type and another in a blind test. That said, neck thru will more likely give you good access up in the high register if you find the right design. It will be more usable if you use an 8 saddle bridge [url="http://www.warmoth.com/Schaller-471-8-String-C724.aspx"]Schaller 8 string[/url], but whatever neck joint you have, it'll be pretty out of tune past the 7th or 8th fret if you can't adjust the intonation of the octave strings.

[Wolverinebass]

[quote name='henry norton' post='1289215' date='Jul 1 2011, 04:10 PM']Just to dip my oar in, there is allot of bullsh#t surrounding different neck joints. In spite of what allot of makers will tell you, the chances are most wouldn't be able to tell much difference between one type and another in a blind test. That said, neck thru will more likely give you good access up in the high register if you find the right design. It will be more usable if you use an 8 saddle bridge [url="http://www.warmoth.com/Schaller-471-8-String-C724.aspx"]Schaller 8 string[/url], but whatever neck joint you have, it'll be pretty out of tune past the 7th or 8th fret if you can't adjust the intonation of the octave strings.[/quote]


This is exactly what I mean. Aside from possible better access is there any sound difference? BTW - the Schaller bridge you mention is the one on my 8 string. The thing holds it's tuning brilliantly. The heel and general feeling of the bass is that "something" that seems be missing in some indefinable way. It sounds great, plays great and stays in tune has a brilliant low action and does what I want it to. I just wish it had a smaller heel. I'd have to post a few photos to show what I mean.

[BigRedX]

There's no way of empirically measuring the difference that different neck constructions do to the sound of a bass unless you know of a manufacturer/luthier that has built instruments that are identical in features except for the neck joint.

In the case of an 8 or 12 string bass the ability to remove the neck is a bit of a red herring IMO since the neck will most likely be completely custom, so it's not as though you can go and get a generic Fender-style neck to replace it.

Edited July 1, 2011 by BigRedX

[JTUK]

[quote name='Davo-London' post='1289006' date='Jul 1 2011, 01:42 PM']Basically the bolt-on gives a bit more snap and the ability to bend the neck and of course remove it. THe thru-neck gives potentially better intonation and looks better.

It's not something that would bother me in buying a bass. That said if you have a custom bass made they will never be a bolt-on neck. So obviously it's a cheaper construction method. Some people prefer bolt ons so there's not much either way.

Davo[/quote]

Not entirely true as I have two Sei customs bolts on..

All Sadowsky basses are bolts on


Since I have both..I wouldn't say there is much in it tonally and Sadowsky himself came to this conclusion ages ago...AIUI.

I would put wood, pups and electrics higher up in terms of influence, myself.

[Grand Wazoo]

Bolt on doesn't mean cheaper. if you snap a neck on a fixed neck bass the repair cost will be twice as much.

A decent bolt on joint will resonate as good or in some cases better than a dove tail glued in one. Oh and as for access to high frets today's manufacturers are building some recessed heel joints that make them as smooth as it if it was a glued set neck.

See here for example, look ma', no heel!

[Lfalex v1.1]

I currently own Bolt-ons, Neck-throughs, a set-neck and a monocoque (Status Streamline - It's all one bit!)

I have a Yamaha Attitude which is a bolt-on, but has no heel at all thanks to the design.
The Set-Neck is a Warwick, and like some of their Neck-throughs, the joint is concealed beneath the top, which looks nice and tidy. Upper fret access is as per through-neck designs.
Neck throughs offer no immediate advantages over Set-Necks, unless you like the exposed multi-laminate look. The joints are a joy to behold, and "spread" into the body more than Set-necks, which are generally straight into the body.

Tonally, Bolt-ons are [i]meant[/i] to be most aggressive sounding and respond better to staccato/slap, whereas through-necks are [i]supposedly[/i] smoother with better sustain. [i]Allegedly[/i] Set-necks fall in between.
Except there are many other design/construction/electronic/player variables, all of which make a whole lot more of a difference than the way in which the neck and body stay together...

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1289279' date='Jul 1 2011, 04:56 PM']There's no way of empirically measuring the difference that different neck constructions do to the sound of a bass unless you know of a manufacturer/luthier that has built instruments that are identical in features except for the neck joint.[/quote]
I think Bernie does some of his stuff in the same model as through or bolt on neck.

[xgsjx]

[url="http://www.ritter-instruments.com/item_info.php?i=295"]Budget bolt on.[/url]

My Ibby is a bolt on neck & in the past 20+ years I've never had any trouble getting access to the dusty end (& I actually have a few songs that use the 24th fret). I haven't compared this to a set neck or a straight thru job either, but having played a straight thru before, it wasn't something that had been an issue so never paid attention to access (both fine for 24th access).

Doesn't help you on the 8/12 string version though.

Edited July 1, 2011 by xgsjx

[henry norton]

[quote name='xgsjx' post='1289540' date='Jul 1 2011, 08:44 PM'][url="http://www.ritter-instruments.com/item_info.php?i=295"]Budget bolt on.[/url] [/quote]
I like Ritter's basses, even this stupid, blingy more money than sense version but why oh why, after spending a shed load of time and money on custom made hardware does he go and install a crappy Stratocaster jack plate????????????????? ON THE BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Back on topic Dammit! If the heel is the only thing that's causing you problems I would shop around for a bass with the right heel and not worry too much about the neck fixing. I've seen a few bolt ons and set necks that have virtually no heel and also a few thru necks with heels that wouldn't look out of place on a Precision. If you've got some cash, shop around. I build mainly set necks because I just like the way they look and feel - I certainly don't do it for sonic superiority, that's why we spend money on decent pickups and strings

[Fat Rich]

There are plenty of bolt-on basses with extended neck joints, the neck extends beyond the end of the fingerboard sometimes right down to the neck pick-up like this:



and that gives you full access to all the frets, much the same as a neck-thru or set neck.

[Lorne]

[quote name='Wolverinebass' post='1288775' date='Jul 1 2011, 11:03 AM']Plus, does anyone have an 8 or 12 string neck through bass or set neck bass.[/quote]


I have 2 Thru neck 8 string basses, always set up as 4 stringers though



If you can get a "Heel less" designed bass, then the upper access is awesome, such as on a B.C.Rich Bich



Most of my basses are Neck Thru, no idea why though, just the way I buy things I guess, although a well constructed Bolt on is just as good as a Thru neck, but sometimes the upper access can be compromised

[Lorne]

Oh, and the g***ar in the bottom picture is a Limited edition Japanese B.C.Rich Condor (Basically a set neck archtop Eagle) it's neck heel is quite chunky

[Wolverinebass]

Finally got round to doing a picture. You may now see what I mean. Put my hand in for scale. I quite like the idea of a heelless join however. However, any thoughts on this, let me know.

[xgsjx]

That's not a heel, that's a spare neck!

[Wolverinebass]

[quote name='xgsjx' post='1289888' date='Jul 2 2011, 09:47 AM']That's not a heel, that's a spare neck![/quote]


Exactly.

For those in the technical know, can that get carved down to virtually nothing or not?

Edited July 2, 2011 by Wolverinebass

[xgsjx]

I don't see why the heel couldn't get carved to a slope. Retaining the depth at the top side & down to about 8mm at the bottom with a curved edge.

I was having a look on google but couldn't find a good pic, so I'll get a pic of mine after work so you can see how the heel is on my bolt on.

[Lorne]

Is that a "V" shapped bass? it looks like there is not a lot of side support to the neck, and the neck is not deeply set into the actual body length, it also appears that there are some stress cracks showing in the very corner of the body in the neck pocket, if all of the above is true, then I wouldn't have the heel shaved at all, it will end up breaking