software

IS it bad to have bolt on necks?Are they lower quality or what, i heard some guy say a bolt on neck is bad.
I have no clue what hes talking about or anything.

Dear god, use the search function.

No, they are not bad.

With enough wood on wood contact, and a tight neck joint (you should be able to pick it up by the neck without screws in it), it will have plenty of sustain and tone.

Bolt-on's have a more snappy and responsive tone than set necks or neck thru's, as well.

Definitely not worse. To me, bolt on have the most mojo

1 to what dss3 said.

in addition, the main reason leo fender created a bolt-on joint is cost. it is much cheaper a manufacturing method than both set neck and neck-thru.

on the other hand, i personally find that bolt-ons are the 'hardiest' joint among the three. look at a strat or tele. they are a working man's guitar. they can take as much abuse you can dish out and maybe more.

why others have the opinion of it being bad is probably the price. on the average, a bolt-on tend to cost lesser than set neck and neck-thru. higher price = better guitar syndrome.


Originally Posted by DeadSkinSlayer3Bolt-on's have a more snappy and responsive tone than set necks or neck thru's, as well.

Although it doesn't seem to make sense, this is correct. Although it may be a product of different woods (most bolt on necks are made of maple), a Strat or a Tele are going to generally be brighter and quot;snappierquot; than a Les Paul or a Firebird.

bolt ons are col.. but only on strat type guitars.. on others i really dont like em

and it needs a scalloped heel. i abhor the fende neck heel its so damn bulky

Bolt-ons are definitely cheaper, but I wouldn't call them worse. They don't have the access that a neck through or some set-necks, but on the other hand, they have better access than some set necks with the quot;heel from hell.quot; Tonally, I don't see any problems if you have a good, strong, tight joint with plenty of wood-to-wood contact.

Plus, they're a lot easier to make adjustments on and easily replaceable if it gets broken (or if you decide you don't like the neck or don't like the body).


Originally Posted by Children of BodomIS it bad to have bolt on necks?Are they lower quality or what, i heard some guy say a bolt on neck is bad.
I have no clue what hes talking about or anything.

He has no clue what he's talking about.

Bolt-ons are fine. If they were so bad, the Strat wouldn't have lasted 50 years and the Tele a little longer than that.

It's obvious that the guy that told you that is very biased to set-neck or neck-thru.


Originally Posted by ErikHIt's obvious that the guy that told you that is very biased to set-neck or neck-thru.

probably a gibson fanboy

Your friend is an idiot. lol

I prefer bolt on necks. And most of the best guitarists in the world use bolt on necks. Satch, Vai, Yngwie, Petrucci, Gilbert, etc. etc. etc. etc.

nothing bad about bolt-ons at all. Nearly all of my guitars are bolt-on and sound great(only one neck-thru and not a single set neck in my collection).

Sorry, but your acoustics are set-neck.


Originally Posted by Xeromus

And most of the best guitarists in the world use bolt on necks. Satch, Vai, Yngwie, Petrucci, Gilbert, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Those names mean nothing to me...


Originally Posted by XeromusAnd most of the best guitarists in the world use bolt on necks. Satch, Vai, Yngwie, Petrucci, Gilbert, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Sorry X, but that's a pretty weak argument. There are plenty of set neck and neck through players that are just as good, and many of the great guitarists played both (Clapton, Page, EVH - to an extent, etc.).


Originally Posted by JacksonMIASorry X, but that's a pretty weak argument. There are plenty of set neck and neck through players that are just as good, and many of the great guitarists played both (Clapton, Page, EVH - to an extent, etc.).

I KNEW someone was going to say that! ha! Set necks and bolt on necks are equal, just give different sound qualities.


Originally Posted by ErikHSorry, but your acoustics are set-neck.

ok,forgot about those. Maybe i should have stated that i was talking about electrics. Doesn't matter anyway


Originally Posted by Loserchiefok,forgot about those. Maybe i should have stated that i was talking about electrics. Doesn't matter anyway

I figured you did but wanted to point that out anyway.


Originally Posted by XeromusI KNEW someone was going to say that! ha! Set necks and bolt on necks are equal, just give different sound qualities.

It's all good. I knew where you were trying to go with it.


Originally Posted by The Golden BoyAlthough it doesn't seem to make sense, this is correct. Although it may be a product of different woods (most bolt on necks are made of maple), a Strat or a Tele are going to generally be brighter and quot;snappierquot; than a Les Paul or a Firebird.

It has to do mainly with the lack of glue in the neck joint.

comparing bolt on and set neck is like comparing hamburgers and hotdogs.are hotdogs bad? there's always good hotdogs and good burgers.