Neck through vs Bolt on

[groverj3]

First thread here by the way. Proud owner of a DXMG (my first Jackson, now modded with active EMGs) and a 2006ish SL2H (trans blue, beautiful guitar). Anyway, my guitar playing buddies and I have a continual debate about neck through vs bolt ons. I love the feel of my SL2H on the upper frets compared to the DXMG, nothing in the way, lets you put your hand in the correct position. I'm not a big believer in woods having a large impact on tone, but, it seems to me that sustain is increased slightly on the neck throughs I've played.

Pretty much everyone else I know plays Ibanezes or... crap (and overpriced) Fenders and Gibsons. Many have paid the same, if not more, that I did for the soloist. All of these are bolt ons (or set neck for Gibsons). What I don't understand is, if you're going to pay upwards of $1,500 for a guitar, wouldn't you want it to be a neck through? Other than the fear of breaking a neck (not going to happen unless you are negligent or extremely unlucky), are there any other disadvantages?

So, what say you, members of JCF. Whats your preference and why? Bolt, set neck, or neck through?

[sully]

Some folks like the feel of a bolt on neck joint, some prefer a neck through, etc. I'm reading a pretty interesting book about the various guitar constructions and their impact on sustain (marginal, at best). Personal preference, I say. Cool thing is that there's so many different kinds of guitars out there, the choices are pretty limitless.

[dg]

I've owned & like all 3 types of construction, and I've had great sustaining & so-so sustaining examples of each. It hasn't always correlated to the price or supposed "prestige" of the guitar, either. Neckthroughs are great, but good bolt-ons have their own sound & feel going on that I personally wouldn't do without.

[Newc]

You can shave off the shoulders of the bolt-on neck just before it goes into the pocket so the heel area isn't as bulky.

But it all boils down to the Indian, not the arrow. A good player gets whatever they need from either type of construction through skill.

[P I K A]

I prefer bolt ons to neckthrus. You can have the heel scalloped as most Jackson bolt ons are ,not sure about your guitar, and its close as far as playability is concerned. Im not in the area of 19 to 24th fret too much so its a non issue really for me. Also not so much negligence but your axe can get knocked over accidently onstage in between sets ,its happened to me, and if you have a neckthru and it cracks you're in trouble. A bolt on will just be a new neck on ebay. Its an old argument that has supporters in both camps so its a personal preference but I also like oiled necks .

[Nagash02]

I prefer neck-through but let's be a bit more biased :

Neck-through pros and cons :
- From what I've played, MUCH better sustain
- Easier access to the highest frets because ther's no heel at all
- Usually significantly more expensive
- Because of the nature of the neckjoint, the neck becomes thicker on the very last frets

Bolt-on pros and cons :
- Usually cheaper
- Neck keeps the same thickness under the whole fretboard
- Problem of the bulky heel even if scalloped
- Less sustain as far as I have noticed
(- In catastrophic situations, neck can be changed)

[Twitch]

Oh boy, here we go.

[MetalHeadMat]

I've owned a couple neck throughs and more bolt ons, and I prefer the bolties a lot, mainly for how it feels.

My one buddy is devoted to set neck/set-thru because of how maple neck through the body sounds.

[HoddiDarko]

I like both. But I have tried neck thru's that I didn't like and I've tried Bolt-on's that I didn't like. It's all a matter of how it's done.
But I've never been able to really enjoy set-necks...

[Trem]

I'm not a big believer in woods having a large impact on tone

woods do have a major impact on tone there's no doubt about it.

[j2379]

woods do have a major impact on tone there's no doubt about it.

+1 very much so. ive got neckthrus & boltons as long as its built well theres no difference in sustain, setup makes a huge difference in sustain.

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

Neck-through is just totally superior and if you don't agree then it's because you are a horrible guitar player and your ear is made of tin.

Nah, I like both. To me the neck-through is slightly smoother and bassier while the bolt-on has a certain snap to it.

As far as the upper fret access it is definitely much easier/better on a neck through but it's not like a bolt-on isn't playable up there, even without any kind of contoured/scalloped heel.

Especially in the case of the 24-fret Jacksons like the DK1 and PC1 it's essentially a non-issue until you get into the "only dogs can hear it" range.

[Hellbat]

I'm a neck through guy, they just feel better to me. I'll play either without any problems, but in the end the perfectly smooth neck/body joint wins out feel wise for me.

[Axewielder]

I used to be a neck-thru guy, but have jumped ship over to the bolty camp. I really gotta have that oiled neck. Yeah yeah you can get that on a neck-thru, but those are hard to find and pretty much cs-only these days.

[DonP]

I have all three types that I love, but one thing that sticks in my head - all of my favorite players for the most part played bolt ons.

I'll agree I have a very hard time paying large money for a bolt on. $500 seems to be my limit, which excludes ESP George Lynch models and most BC Rich USA Gunslingers or Assassins, two bolt ons I'd love to purchase but cannot see forking over that type of dough.