Bolt-On versus Neck-Through

[funkyjazzjunky]

Why do some of you play bolt-ons?  I realize that many fine bolt-ons exist, but I consider neck-thrus inherently superior in construction.  I also believe that the legendary bolt-on growl is more attributable to the woods commonly used in bolt-ons (Basswood, Poplar, and particularly Ash).
While Ritter, Sadowsky, Lakland and others make fine, basses, aren?t they innately inferior to comparable neck-thrus?
Even when Warick, Ken Smith & others have bolt-on lines, aren?t they usually lesser models when compared to the top of the line?

[bsee]

If there were one ideal tone with huge sustain and the most massive bottom, then the answer would probably be that the bolt-on design is inferior.  Then, lighter woods would also be inferior since the denser materials tend to provide a thicker tone.  The reality is that there is no one right tone and everyone has personal taste, so they are just different colors on the palette.
 
Are neck-thru basses superior in construction?  I don't believe it is fair to generalize.  Anything may be built well or poorly as the craftsman's ability and conscience allow.  
 
To generalize a little, it seems that it is significantly less costly to make bolt-on instruments as opposed to neck-thru construction.  Since they cost less, they can be sold for less.  
 
I wonder what the difference in tone would be if you could take two identical neck-thru instruments and figure out how to laser cut the neck out of one and then bolt it back on.  How different would they sound?
 
In terms of tone, all the wood and construction methods can do is take things away.  A perfect instrument would involve the strings stretched over a solid piece of something like granite.  A substance so dense and solid that it would not absorb any of the frequencies of the vibrating string.  What you would hear in that case is the pure sound of the string and very long sustain.  The properties of the various woods and the joints created in the construction absorb some amount of the string's energy reducing sustain and altering the tonal properties.

[elwoodblue]

good points bsee...  
    My aluminum strat with a graphite neck leaves alot of overtones in the strings...wood mellows the tone...sometimes having all the overtones present as the string produces them is like having a soup with so many ingredients that the palette is overwhelmed.  
 
 At the G&L website they show at one of the stations someone takes the paint from the neck pocket with a dremel wire brush to increase the vibration transfer and I know all my G&L necks have to be very carefully angled out of the pocket and back in because of the tight tolerance.
 
...Maybe a Neck-thru might be better more often for a second set at a concert after the ear fatigue has set in for the audience to keep things fresh....of course the first few songs while the eardrums are fresh are the times to make sharp impressions in the crowds memory.  
   so many things to consider....thanks for letting me bend your ears.

[white_cloud]

It is an interesting subject and point!
 
I always select my basses simply by liking the tone - I think of that, along with feel, before I even consider the type of construction used! For me the whole point of a bass is to hear to tone of the woods, combined with the other factors, used - A bass that sounds entirely of strings and electrics is a waste of time in my book!
 
Also - I wonder how set neck basses compare with neck through/bolt ons? Are they more of a compromise..something of a middle ground?
 
Interestingly enough most of the very greatest players to ever pick up the instrument played bolt-ons - I believe the the most important factor in any bass is the fingers that are playing it
 
John.

[svlilioukalani]

With all of this talk about increased sustain in set neck basses compare with neck through; has anybody ever put a clock on the 2.  I wonder how much longer the sustain really is on a through neck. I would love to try myself, but only have set neck Alembic basses. Anybody out there equipted for this type of research.

[hieronymous]

Interestingly enough most of the very greatest players to ever pick up the instrument played bolt-ons - I believe the the most important factor in any bass is the fingers that are playing it
 
Although I whole-heartedly agree that the player is the most important part of the equation, I have to disagree that the greatest players played bolt-ons - obviously many important players played Fenders - Donald Duck Dunn, Carol Kaye, Jaco Pastorius, to name a few - but I can think of a bunch of great bassists that didn't:
 
Paul McCartney - set neck Hofner, neck-through Rickenbacker
Jack Bruce - set neck Gibson EB-3
Chris Squire - neck-through Rickenbacker
Geddy Lee - neck-through Rickenbacker
Stanley Clarke - do I even need to say it?
Jack Casady, Phil Lesh - Alembic-modded Guilds (set neck), Alembics
 
So not really disagreeing, just wanted to give props to Rickenbacker, Gibson, and Alembic playing greats!

[lbpesq]

Rick Danko - also a Gibson  
 
Bill, tgo

[bsee]

Hpw many choices existed for the Motown and Stax crews?  Not many high-end neck through instruments sold in the early 60s...  Jaco?  He was probably fortunate to scrape up a beat up Fender with everything that was happening in his life.  
 
I've been watching some VH1 shows on the making of many classic albums.  They often play some of the original solo instrument tracks and, those tracks often sound like total crap before the recording engineers perform their magic.  It definitely doesn't take a top quality bass to make a great record.

[funkyjazzjunky]

I disagree with WhiteCloud.  
 
Please add to the list by Hieronymous above:
Fleetwood Mac?s John McVie Alembic
Victor Wooten Fodera
Anthony Jackson Fodera
Brothers Johnson Louis Johnson Alembic
Freddie Jackson Ken Smith
Listen to the bassist for Lakeside, Brick on Alembics.
 
There are a host to other great bassist playing Tobias (original neck-thrus), BC Rich (original Koa bodied neck-thrus), Specter (original neck-thrus), Pedulla, and other high end basses.  
 
Besides, the fact those great bassists choose bolt-ons does not address my initial Question: are neck-thru basses are inherently superior to bolt-ons?

[eligilam]

to addend post 395 by heironymous (which is, incidentally, my favorite handle name in the club):
 
Geddy Lee has played Fenders almost exclusively since the early nineties...including every album since Counterparts.
 
Although his Ric-work on Hemispheres remains his greatest work, IMO.

[hieronymous]

Thanks for pointing that out Will - I was thinking about that myself but didn't go into detail. A lot of Geddy's classic work (this will differ depending on who you ask) was played on Rickenbackers, but not all - even parts of Moving Pictures were played on the Jazz. Personally,  I think that the peak of his sound is Exit... Stage Left which is exclusively Rickenbacker.

[rami]

The bulk of my Bass collection is about 50/50 Alembic and Fender.  Dramatic differences in sound, quality, woods, electronics, and certainly in price.  There's no denying the superiority of neck through construction for sustain, but what turns me on for sound is purely subjective.  I just like variety.  
What's really Better is in the hands of the beholder.  
There are countless examples of the greatest Bassists playing both bolt-on and neck-thru.

[white_cloud]

Well, for me the peak of Geddy Lee's sound was actually the studio recording of Moving Pictures - on which Geddy mostly used his vintage fender Jazz! Undoubtedly Geddy used his Rickenbacker 4001 to great effect throughout the Rush early/mid years but I have to say I consider the 4001 to have ONE great sound...and thats it! I have owned three of them in my time - it is a one trick pony bass - but it does it superbly well! IMHO Geddys best ever bass sound was his Wal custom - another bolt on - so much better than the sound he favours nowadays!
 
In fact the Wal custom that I owned was an incredible bass - the preamp probably being as close to on a par with an Alembic series as you could hope for at half the actual price of a comparative Alembic!  
 
I never lost any sleep at that stage of my musical life on any loss of sustain because of the bolt on neck - neither did Geddy, Percy Jones, Mick Karn, Justin Chancellor, Jason Newsted or Paul Mccartney to name but some others!
 
I dont really think that having a massive sustain actually aids bass playing very much on a practical level in most musical situations - not unless your name is Nigel Tuffnell and you play for Spinal Tap!
 
I think there is a danger of elitism when you start to say things like a thru-neck is superior to a bolt-on!  As musicians we naturally want the very best tools for our trade but as I previously stated, the very finest tools in the hands of a sloppy craftsman dont make him a master. I could fill page after page of the amount of bassists who have used bolt-on neck instruments but it actually proves little. If you have a neck-thru bass and the neck goes badly wrong..well you are looking at a new bass (believe me - it does happen!)
 
 
More food for thought!
 
John.

[georgie_boy]

Well Said John!!!

[thumbsup]

Yikes!..I dont want to get my head bit off here but in all reality doesn't electric amplification,electronics and PU adjustment (heigth to string) play the biggest part in sustain. I've played bolt ons the majority of my life and could always get good sustain if wanted or when needed by increased volume or balance volume/mst volume (with out overdriveing) or PU adjustment.And new strings are a must. Don't get me wrong,I love my neck thur Alembic but mainly because of its feel and playabillity and sound (love those PUs!) I think Alembic could build identical basses, one bolt,one neck thru. Could you really tell a noticeable difference?  There I've spoken my uneducated but highly experienced thru school of knocks opinion.  
What say the rest of you? Please let me have it