OldskoolD Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 What are the advantages and disadvantages of both? Is one better than the other or is it personal preference and playing style? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Technically, a set neck will be the best way to go, but, a well-fitted bolt neck can also provide adequate tonal "coupling" between the neck and the body. By well-fitted I mean that the neck should be able to support the weight of the guitar body without the bolts... For real fun, try asking about the "long versus short tenon" angle--that'll really bring the opinionated and the voodoo quacks out of the woodwork. So, given that a set neck is tonally superior, even if only marginally, to a bolt neck, you may wonder why there are so many bolt neck guitars out there (especially ones whose name rhymes with "Bender")... well, in a nutshell, from a manufacturing point of view they are less expensive to make. They use less materials and require less labour, plus, a big advantage, if the neck is damaged in manufacturing or after, it's a simple job to replace it; likewise with the body... if a body gets garfed in manufacture at least the neck can be recovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hbucker Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 I'll have to argue a little bit here. A set neck is the best way to go if you're going for an LP kind of tone. If you want a Tele or Strat tone, a bolt neck is the best way to go. Each has their strong points. I love a good LP tone. I also love a good Fender Strat/Tele tone. Set necks tend to be warmer with more sustain although plenty of bolts have great sustain. Honestly, it's an apples an oranges thing. Both are fruit but that's about where the similarities end. Neither is bad IMO and neither is inherently better. It just depends on what tone you're going for. And don't tell the neck-through people we're having this discussion without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotcanX Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Wellll... I see your point but basically I feel that the difference between a set or bolt neck is actually rather insignificant in relation to the major factors such as pickups, body wood, and neck and fingerboard wood, assuming, as I said, that the bolt neck joint is of good fit. I'm pretty sure if you built a Strat out of alder with a set maple neck and nice single coils it'd still sound pretty much like a bolt-neck Strat. It's the humbuckers and mahogany/maple top woods used that make a Les Paul sound like a Les Paul; again, you could probably do a bolt-neck version and I doubt that many people would be able to discern the difference in a blind comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tulsaslim Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 I tend to agree with Spud. I think people believe set necks are inherently better simply because they do require quite a bit more labor (and skill, for that matter). I, too, own plenty of both & IMO from a 'tone' standpoint I don't believe one to be superior to the other. In either case it's the fit that counts. To me, Leo Fender's true genius was the creation of the one-piece bolt-on neck. Man, did he save some production costs with that or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.