Author Topic: Set neck vs through neck?  (Read 1135 times)

basso

  • club
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 71
Set neck vs through neck?
« on: March 23, 2004, 03:47:42 PM »
hi guys,what do you think the difference is in sound/tone between set and through neck?do you think the set neck is closer to a bolt on neck sound?please give me your views,thanks,Julian.

811952

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2507
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2004, 05:47:33 PM »
I think the set neck is closer to a bolt on sound, all else being equal, yes.  A set neck is more mid-rangey in my opinion than a neck-through.

bassman10096

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1309
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2004, 04:10:44 PM »
The set neck should be closer to the bolt-on sound (more mid-rangy) than the neck thru.  However, set necks have always struck me as having greater sustain than bolt-ons, since the set neck brings the neck and body woods in a bit more contact with each other.
 
Bill

mica

  • alembic
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10595
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2004, 04:31:46 PM »
Neck through Alembics give a kind of automatic EQ smile with less mids, and the set neck ones have a good amount of midgrange and a punchier sound. Though I've heard players on each sound like the other, so as with anything Alembic, it's all in the playing.  
 
One set necks the body woods have a slightly greater affect than on the neck throughs, which isolate the influence of the body woods more.

hollis

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 645
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2004, 04:35:26 PM »
It's also my understanding that guitar/basses with set necks sound is influenced by their body wood far more than thru necks.  Yes?

dfung60

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 637
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2004, 07:33:45 PM »
On a through-body, the body wing woods are only peripherally involved in the vibration of the strings, so the body woods have much less effect on the tone.  The only real sonic influence that the wings have on the neck structure is that they add mass to the end.
 
In a set-neck or bolt-on, one end of the string is anchored on the neck, the other on the body.  Even with a good, tight neck joint the vibrations of the string are filtered by both types of wood and you can certainly hear the difference depending on the body wood.  If you had a bolt-on with a (grunt) maple body and maple neck it will probably sound a lot like a thru-body instrument with a maple neck section.  And it will probably sound quite different than an otherwise identical bolt-on which had a maple neck and mahogany body.  
 
The physics behind this are pretty simple.  You can think of the neck and body materials having a particular frequency response and energy response.  On a through-body, the response will pretty much match and you'll probably see more transfer of energy.  If the materials are different, then there's an impedance mismatch and you'll probably see some energy lost, with a different frequency response (tone) and energy response (sustain) as a result.  
 
All that said, flat response may desirable in your home stereo, but might not be what's cherished in a neck/body configuration.  That's part of why you see a lot of maple/alder Fenders.  But different people and situations definitely call for different instruments.
 
I think everybody would agree that sustain with a through-body is longer.  I think that punch is a lot harder to quantify, but to my ears, bolt-ons (or set-neck) are much punchier.  That impedance mismatch at the neck joint acts like a filter and attenuates certain frequencies differentially.  If there's a lot of sustain in the midrange and the fundamental and high freqs drop out quickly, that's probably what most people would perceive as punchy.  
 
A set-neck and bolt-on are basically the same construction (what really matters is that the string ends are sitting on two different pieces of wood).  With the set-neck, you can have a much nicer heel and access to the higher frets.
 
It would be interesting to see if you could characterize wood (either generally or by specific piece) under this sort of impedance model.  That's sort of what an luthier does when picking woods by tap tone- you're kind of doing a really complex analysis of the characteristics of a piece of wood by sending in a big transient and seeing what comes out.  This calls for Ron with a spectrum analyzer up in the secret lab!
 

s_wood

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 439
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2004, 11:21:10 AM »
I've been bugging Susan to consider building an Alembic quality bolt-on bass for years.  Generally, I prefer the sound of a neck-through, but bolt-ons have a certain envelope to their sound which is sometimes perfect for the gig.  
 
Wouldn't a bolt-on Excel be cool?  I think that the combination of the quick attack (and quick release) of a bolt-on with the tone of one of Alembic's wide apeture pickups (like the Fat Boy) would be amazing.  
 
Would anyone other than me be interested in an bolt-on Alembic?  

s_wood

  • club
  • Advanced Member
  • *
  • Posts: 439
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2004, 11:55:16 AM »
I've been bugging Susan to consider building an Alembic quality bolt-on bass for years.  Generally, I prefer the sound of a neck-through, but bolt-ons have a certain envelope to their sound which is sometimes perfect for the gig.  
 
Wouldn't a bolt-on Excel be cool?  I think that the combination of the quick attack (and quick release) of a bolt-on with the tone of one of Alembic's wide apeture pickups (like the Fat Boy) would be amazing.  
 
Would anyone other than me be interested in an bolt-on Alembic?  

keavin

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1657
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2004, 11:57:08 AM »
oh yeah im very curious my self in fact i believe they made a couple in the 70s,im not sure though! but that would be neat,somthing around the 700 dollar range,with jazz bass p/ups or p/bass set up,.

mica

  • alembic
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10595
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2004, 12:26:30 PM »
We haven't made a bolt on neck bass, and I'm afraid there's no way we could make an instrument in the $700 range, Keavin, the electronics alone cost that much.  
 
I'm not opposed to the idea of making a bolt on, it just needs a chunk of time devoted to learning what we'd want to achieve and then figuring out how we would do it. Steve, you're not alone, I've talked to others that have expressed an interest. I'm quite sure no time will be available until some other critial in-house engineering is complete. A project like this would have to be booked to start next year.

alembic76407

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 715
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2004, 01:30:33 PM »
I don't think I would want to see Alembic build a cheap bass ,A cheap Alembic would lower the watermark for the make, if you want a $700 Alembic you should buy a used Epic. when I got my first Alembic there was only one choice (I THINK) and it was a Series.  an Alembic Squier  Please !!!! don't do this
 
David T (TLO)
PS; the last time I checked Rolls Royce or Lamborghini didn't build a cheap car, and Alembic shouldn't build a cheap bass!!!!!

xlrogue6

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 552
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2004, 02:10:53 PM »
Don't worry David--anyone who wanted to do that would have to get it past Susan.  Anyone who knows her knows it ain't gonna happen.  Never.  No way, no how.
 
Kent

hollis

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 645
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2004, 03:29:08 PM »
I agree oh loud one,  there are plenty of (enough)bolt- ons in the marketplace.  
 
Also, I'm not really sure that I agree that a bolt on is the same as a set neck.....  It doesn't take a whole lot of artistry to tighten a bolt.  
 
To set the neck with the skill and forethought exibited by the good folks at Alembic requires an extreme attention to detail. The neck is adhered to the body making virtually one piece out of many.
 
I know that most of the higher end Alembics are thru neck, but allow me to point out that the Tribute has a set neck.  
 
I don't think that is done by accident.....
 
End of sermon....

bob

  • club
  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 808
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2004, 04:23:44 PM »
David - thanks for the excellent discussion. Most of this was pretty clear to me, and consistent with my thinking, though I couldn't have explained it as well.
 
After reading this a couple more times, I still fail to understand the enthusiasm for a bolt-on Alembic. As David said, A set-neck and bolt-on are basically the same construction, so what is it you would hope to achieve with a bolt-on?
 
I don't think I've seen any detailed pictures of how Alembic builds set necks, but essentially in either case you would have some sort of pocket for the end of the neck, and then make the attachment with either glue or screws. My guess is that it would actually be somewhat more difficult - hence expensive - to construct a bolt-on that was in any way close to Alembic standards.
 
It seems that essentially what you're asking for is a sloppier neck joint. Without a nice solid glue bond, you'll have more energy loss, and sure, maybe you'll like that particular tone (sometimes...). But you'll also have more problems over time as the woods shrink in different ways, which may possibly change the tone, and I suspect you'll never get quite the same solid feel that you do with a set neck.
 
Or if I'm wrong about that, then the only other obvious possibility is that they'll do such a great job, it won't sound very much different than a set neck anyway :-) Personally, I'd rather see Alembic stick with what they're great at (and of course, bugging Susan is not exactly a wise move...).
 
However (Steve), there is another approach you might consider: replacing your bridge block. Take out that half pound hunk of brass and replace it with a light piece of wood. You could pretty easily make one yourself, though you'd probably want to use threaded inserts for the adjusting screws.
 
Think about this in the context of David's description. You would now have one end of the strings anchored to a different piece of wood, which is in turn bolted on to the body, and of course it will be much less massive. So certain frequencies are going to attenuate sooner (i.e. sustain less), and give you a different sense of attack and overall tone.
 
I'm about to try this myself, over the course of the next few months - I have several blocks made of different materials sitting on my dining room table.
 
In my case, I'm not looking for a bolt-on sound, but rather a more woody upright tone, and I think that allowing some frequencies to die out more rapidly will at least be educational, and perhaps even good. We'll see. But this is something that is fairly easy to try, and might get you closer to the punchy sound you want, once you find the right block.
-Bob

adriaan

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4318
Set neck vs through neck?
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2004, 04:21:17 AM »
Bob,
 
Sounds like you're about to embark on a great journey into the unknown with those alternative bridge blocks - don't forget to keep us posted! I'm also intrigued by how you could work towards an upright tone - thinking of that huge bass sound on some tracks of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue (can't remember who the bass player was).
 
Mind you, there are plenty of Alembics where the bridge attaches kind of directly to the wood (there's always the threaded inserts).
 
Would love to know the outcome of this!
 
Those who prefer a bolt-on can always buy one they like and install some Activators ... I wonder if anyone has ever done that to a Sadowsky?