Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

With mine there is loads of punch & plenty of sustain as well.

One of my sources is the chief builder at Lakland. He says the through-neck sustain claims are largely the stuff of myth. He feels there are significant sound differences but he does not think one is better than the other. They are just that - different. In his estimation, bolt-on necks tend to pack greater punch. The notes have stronger attack but decay faster. Where through necks have a more even attack throughout the duration of the note. I have not researched this myself but his findings seem reasonable.

"In his estimation, bolt-on necks tend to pack greater punch. The notes have stronger attack but decay faster. Where through necks have a more even attack throughout the duration of the note. I have not researched this myself but his findings seem reasonable."

Both of those descriptions would be due to neck-thru having more sustain, bolt-on less.....

Not necessarily. If sustain is the audible duration of a played note, two instruments can have very different attack and decay characteristics but have the same sustain.

But faster decay is due to lack of sustain, or damping, which I can;t see someone designing into an instrument.

my silver 2030 with a bolt on neck has more sustain than any other Ric that I have ever played ... but it is also modified with a 5th string and a massive Kahler bridge ... but still the open E on that bass rings for ever ...

Neck through does help sustain ... but a massive body helps more ... the 2030 body is a nice fat chunk of solid maple ...

I see what you are saying. It is possible for the decay to be so fast that there is little or no sustain at all - like when an instrument has a dead spot. I am talking about far more subtle decay differences. My friend at Lakland believes that with through-necks the sound waves flow more or less unimpeded from end to end. The wave propagation is smooth and the neck and body resonate together instantly. A bolt-on or set neck sets up a kind of dam that the waves must overcome before the neck and body resonate together. If his theory is correct, the sharp attack is the instantaneous build-up behind the dam. Granted, the man is not a physicist and there are probably a few things wrong with his theory. Because of his experience, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I do know from experience with copper and fiber data cables that splices break up waves there is energy loss (we call it insertion loss) where a cable has been spliced.

Yeah, during my shower getting ready for work I realized we were talking apples and oranges. I agree with what the Lakland guy is saying, but I'm not sure I'd call the neck/body joint of a bolt-on a dam, but there would be loss and difference to the wave propegation across that mating, besides the usual difference in woods. Then we talk can talk set-necks and 5-7 screw bolt-ons, both addressing those interface characteristics.

I think it's simple: a bolt on has less sustain (quicker decay) because it does not transmit as much sound so the initial attack SEEMS more powerful because it decays quicker. This is the same with old flatwound strings, they sound thumpy because they have less sustain. You can make a Ric sustain just like a Fender with old flats, I did a CD with old Fender flats on a 4001 (with cap bypassed) and everyone who heard the CD thought it was a P bass. I think the dam theory has a few holes in it. I think he is basically saying the same thing: that bolt ons have less sustain but in different words. Many psychologists write books and make big bucks taking old theories and just updating the lingo. I do not believe the dam theory, it's just a weak point in the sound transmission, you cannot slow down sound, just let less through.