Jackson Bolt on Guitars

[kmanick]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

I like both, but I tend to agree my bolt ons sound better, but my SL2H is easier to play once I get past the 12th fret, plus it's the only 24 fret guitar I have.

[The Eristic]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

[ QUOTE ]

I much prefer their bolt on guitars to their neck throughs. I know many will vehemently disagree but talk to guitar builders and pick up manufacturers and they will tell you bolt ons have more resonance which translates to tone.

The neck through connection to the body dampens some of the sound because the neck is held so tightly by the body that it dampens the resonance of the neck compared to a bolt on.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's almost the dumbest thing I've ever heard. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] The tighter any joints, the better. The goal is to get the entire guitar to resonate as if it were one piece. Talk to any really good luthier, and they'll tell you that no neck construction is tonally superior to another, as long as whichever method utilized is done well.

Now, different methods can and often do sound different, but bolt-ons resonate more? Nope. Vibrations have to travel around and/or through three, four, or five metal bolts in a bolt-on. Doesn't exactly sound like the perfect energy transfer to me. If it's done well, if the joint is extremely tight, minimizing the "fracture" between body and neck, though, it sounds great. Those bolts and the "break" in vibration actually account for a change in tone, perhaps the more noticeable attack some hear (bolt-ons tend to amplify high overtones and transients). With a neck-thru, the neck and the body are one in the same. It gets us closer to that "one piece of wood" idea, and, in theory, closer to the "pure tone" of a guitar, providing a basic fundamental around which to sculpt the sound through use of different woods, hardware, etc... Set-neck usually falls somewhere between the two. There are several other things that affect sound and resonance, though, so it can't all be boiled down to neck attachment. However, the statement that bolt-ons are sonically superior to neck-thrus is absurd. [img]/images/graemlins/eviltongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Newc]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

Of course you have to remember that the resonance of the body/wood itself is irrelevant to the pickups - they only care about the vibration of the strings, which in turn rely on the nut and bridge.

See Steinberger and Danelectro - little to no BODY wood involved, but they sound great.

Newc

[The Eristic]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

[ QUOTE ]
Of course you have to remember that the resonance of the body/wood itself is irrelevant to the pickups - they only care about the vibration of the strings, which in turn rely on the nut and bridge.

See Steinberger and Danelectro - little to no BODY wood involved, but they sound great.

Newc

[/ QUOTE ]

Aha, but they sound different. To what would you attribute that difference, excepting pickups? EVERYTHING resonates in some way. Body and neck materials affect how the strings vibrate, as the things that allow the strings to vibrate are anchored by the woods, which transmit received vibrations in different ways (velocity of sound), and those received vibrations are often caused by striking the strings. It's cyclical. Tones can be shaped by using materials with different velocities. Higher velocities of sound will seem more acoustically lively (usually bright or sparkly), and a lively acoustic sound typcially makes for a lively electric sound. That doesn't always mean you may want a really lively electric sound, though. Steinbergers are very rigid, typically made of stiff materials with high velocity of sound, which translates to a fairly bright tone. The majority of Danos are made of made of masonite and pine or poplar frames (fairly slow velocity of sound), and they're mostly hollow. They sound quite warm most of the time, if a little dull. Many guitars, such as the Les Paul, use combinations of woods with different velocities. A solid chunk of mahogany has a somewhat slow velocity, which explains its famous warm tones. When combined with a dense wood like maple (high velocity), you get a great combination of warmth and articulation.

[Newc]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

The main difference is in their ACOUSTIC tone. Bridge/nut materials and pickups also affect tone. Danos, having lipsticks and a metal nut, and Steinbergers having EMGs (mostly) will sound different than a Soloist with Duncans through the same amp. There's also scale length.
While the density of the material to which the bridge and nut are anchored does affect the rigity of said bridge mounting hardware (and thus how much string vibration is dissipated), the pickups and their height affect the tone more.

If you are in an environment where you can crank your amp so loud that you can't hear the acoustic properties of your guitars, I suggest a comparison test between various models. You'll probably find that each one has a very similar sound through the amp, yet very different acoustic properties.

Newc

[The Eristic]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

[ QUOTE ]

If you are in an environment where you can crank your amp so loud that you can't hear the acoustic properties of your guitars, I suggest a comparison test between various models. You'll probably find that each one has a very similar sound through the amp, yet very different acoustic properties.

Newc

[/ QUOTE ]

I never play queitly enough to hear my guitars acoustically. However, I play clean almost exclusively. My guitars sound VERY different, 'cept the two equipped with Livewires (which I'm trying to get ditch for low output passives).

[pedalGEEK]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

I don't know about the sonic differences but I do like bolt-ons better. I like unfinished necks, and I like the ability to shim the neck to allow for variations in setup.

[shredmonster]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars



[/ QUOTE ]The tighter any joints, the better. The goal is to get the entire guitar to resonate as if it were one piece. Talk to any really good luthier, and they'll tell you that no neck construction is tonally superior to another

[/ QUOTE ]

I have spoken with luthiers and pick up manufacturers and they told me bolt on guitars have more resonance for the very reasons I described above.
I use to think the tighter the joint the better also because it vibrates as one piece of wood.
But I have changed my mind due to what these people have communicated to me and comparing actual Jackson guitars on the same amps.
The resonance of a bolt on is due to the very fact that it is more loosely (for lack of a better term) fitted to the body. This allows the neck to vibrate more as opposed to it being CONSTRICTED by a tight connection to the body.

There is more of a separate vibration of the neck and of the body - yet they are hooked together.

Let me quote you from Guitar Player Online archives:
Regarding Neck Through construction...

"The small body wings of the neck-through never get to develop the lower frequencies that a separate body produces...This creates a bright. thin sounding guitar."

Let me quote you what they say about a bolt on:

"The way a neck attaches to the body colors a guitar's voice.....This joint contributes to bolt-on's IDENTIFIABLE TONE by emphasizing certain frequencies over others. The twang of a bolt on has to do with the mechanics of the neck joint" - quote by Mace Baily of the Ibanez custom shop (when there use to be one).
"Pulling the neck into the pocket with screws sets up a different series of stresses than filling in the joint with glue."

And by the way, no need to call things dumb or get nasty.
I knew people would get defensive over this subject.

hehehehehehheheheh

[RacerX]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

This thread reminds me of the "which oil / which tires" threads on the motorcycle boards. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[shredmonster]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

Yeah figured I'd get people going on this one.

Sort of like the issue of technique versus feel.

[Jim Shine]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

"Pulling the neck into the pocket with screws sets up a different series of stresses than filling in the joint with glue."

Oh, I see, you are comparing it to set necks, not neckthroughs. Now I understand.

[shredmonster]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I see, you are comparing it to set necks, not neckthroughs. Now I understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I am comparing them to neck throughs.

It is a general point from the examples quoted is that there are differences in sound due to various neck constructions and that these translate to tonal properties and differences.

And frankly, I like bolt ons. I feel they are more resonant and have more of a grind in their tone.

[shredmonster]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I see, you are comparing it to set necks, not neckthroughs. Now I understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I am comparing them to neck throughs.

I am making a general point from the examples quoted that there are differences in sound due to various neck constructions and that these translate to tonal properties and differences.

And frankly, I like bolt ons. I feel they are more resonant and have more of a grind in their tone.

[Jim Shine]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

Yes, there are differences, to my ears for the better. If I want broght I grab a Telecaster, if I want tight midrange, I grab a Soloist. Neckthroughs have "tone" and they have "resonance". Sure, some sound dark and dull, but so do some bolt ons. There are plenty of very resonant neckthroughs out there. I know, I have had and still have many. In the end there is a difference acoustically that gets almost completely wiped out once you drench the signal with gain.

[The Eristic]

Re: Jackson Bolt on Guitars

[ QUOTE ]

There is more of a separate vibration of the neck and of the body - yet they are hooked together.

Let me quote you from Guitar Player Online archives:
Regarding Neck Through construction...

"The small body wings of the neck-through never get to develop the lower frequencies that a separate body produces...This creates a bright. thin sounding guitar."

Let me quote you what they say about a bolt on:



[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the whole article:

"NECK JOINT

The way a neck attaches to the body colors a guitar's voice. String vibration transfers to the body through the neck/body joint (as well as through the bridge). Screws or bolts connect a separate neck and body to produce a bolt-on guitar, such as a Strat or Tele. A good fit is critical, as Mike McGuire of Valley Arts explains: "For a bolt-on to have the best possible tone, the neck must fit tightly in the pocket and make good contact on all sides of the joint. Any gap will result in lost sound."

This joint contributes to the bolt-on's identifiable tone by emphasizing certain frequencies over others. "The Œtwang' of a bolt-on has to do with the mechanics of the neck joint," notes Mace Bailey of the Ibanez Custom Shop. "Pulling the neck into the pocket with screws sets up a different series of stresses than filing the joint with glue."

Neck-through-body construction means the neck section continues all the way from the headstock to the strap button; small "wings" glued to the sides form the body. Neck-through sections are frequently maple, with a softer wood for the body wings. Since the majority of the instrument is maple, the tone is often bright, with quick attack and tight bottom end.

"The small body wings of a neck-through never get to develop the lower frequencies that a separate body produces," relates Jol Dantzig. "This creates a bright, thin-sounding guitar." Neck-through instruments work well in high-volume playing situations that call for definition and clear low end. Some neck-through guitars -- Gibson's Firebird, for example -- use a mahogany neck section. This softer wood provides a warmer, rounder tone more characteristic of a set-in, or set-neck, guitar.

Set-in construction refers to gluing the neck to the body, as with a Les Paul. Some builders feel a set-in joint gives the guitar a "singing" quality -- notes seem to swell after the pick attack until they reach their final amplitude. Smooth, warm sustain with moderate attack are characteristics often attributed to set-in guitars."

You used the neck-through quote out of context. The whole "bright, thin-sounding" thing is referring to maple neck-thru sections, which just proves my "velocity of sound" point (more rigid woods = brighter). The article is a little bit unclear on the resonance issue, since it then points out that a different material produces very different results. It does not say, however, that they are always less resonant than bolt-ons, but perhaps less resonant in the lower frequencies, depending on size of the wings and materials used. It says nothing about "squeezing the neck" too tightly. If you had a guitar with the neck blank and wings milled from the same piece of wood (or woods of similar resonant frequencies), and the glue joints were tight enough, it would be indistinguishable from a "one-piece" body. (Btw, single piece bodies don't really exist. They're almost all at least two pieces glued together, because it's rare to find a single piece of wood stable enough to use as one piece.) Bolt-ons often wind up being nothing more than two separate lengths of wood vibrating independently (which sounds like what you're supporting - that's fine, but don't tell me they're "better" and more resonant than anything else). That's why the joint has to be as tight as possible.

Here's a couple interesting takes on neck-joints:

http://mcnaughtguitars.com/index15.htm
http://mcnaughtguitars.com/index40.htm

Note that the second one, the bolt-on, mentions that string energy needs to be kept strong throughout the length of the instrument, not that two separate pieces need to resonate by themselves. Having played Dave McNaught's guitars, I'm not arguing with him. Also, Robert Godin will tell you the same thing.

About the "dumb" comment, I was half-joking. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]