Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I saw a photo of Billy Sheehan with a twin neck Fender custom bass the other day and on the thread "New concepts" I was going to suggest a 4001 bass with a bolt on neck.
It could give Rickenbacker another line of 4000 series basses with interchangeable features and necks or even fretted and fretless twin necks (which I would love).
What do you think?

Well I thought that you get better sustain with a straight thru neck than a bolt on. Yet now that I have the 3000 and the 3001, they match right up there with the 4001. I really don't find a diference, yet maybe I am not an afficianado to the degree others are And my Fender jazz doesn't give me a prob at all, very solid bass.

Given all that, I like the looks of a straight thru neck over a bolt on. It wouldn't stop me from buying one (bolt-on) or (straight thru) as long as it gives me the Vibes I am looking for.

I've noted this before on other threads, Andrew: Scientific tests have proved that bolt-on necks sustain better than neck-throughs.

Don't ask me why, and, no, I wouldn't try to differentiate them myself.

Weird, huh?

jingle_jangle wrote:I've noted this before on other threads, Andrew: Scientific tests have proved that bolt-on necks sustain better than neck-throughs.

Don't ask me why, and, no, I wouldn't try to differentiate them myself.

Weird, huh?

Yep, doesn't surprise me! I think the perceived difference is due to "typical" bolt-on pickups vs. "typical" set neck/neck-through pickups, where there is certainly a difference in sustain.

To clarify, JB:

You think that the (mis)perception that set necks sustain better is due to the typical pickup (humbucker?) affixed to set-neck guitars like LPs, whereas the most typical bolt-neck guitars (Strats and Teles) are typically fitted with thinner-sounding single-coil pickups.

Correct?

Based on what i've heard, bolt-on necks sustain better because the neck and body have direct wood-on-wood contact, as opposed to a set-neck which is wood-on-glue-on-wood. The glue acting as a "buffer" that reduces the overall transfer of vibrations.

jingle_jangle wrote:To clarify, JB:

You think that the (mis)perception that set necks sustain better is due to the typical pickup (humbucker?) affixed to set-neck guitars like LPs, whereas the most typical bolt-neck guitars (Strats and Teles) are typically fitted with thinner-sounding single-coil pickups.

Correct?

Yes, exactly right. I would love to hear an A/B comparison of a Les Paul and a Strat with the same exact pickups.

Grey wrote:Based on what i've heard, bolt-on necks sustain better because the neck and body have direct wood-on-wood contact, as opposed to a set-neck which is wood-on-glue-on-wood. The glue acting as a "buffer" that reduces the overall transfer of vibrations.

We'd then be getting into discussions of glue hardness and softness, and the thickness of the glue layer itself. This makes statements like this highly suspect. I would say that this would be true for softer glues and very loose joints. Formaldehyde or CA glues, however, would disprove this statement.

Besides, going by those standards, aren't bolt-on necks really wood-to-air-to-wood?

Thanks for the added insight into this. Not sure where I ever heard that bolt weren't good for sustain. I appreciate your knowledge on the matter

My bolt on's are great!!! I LOVE my 3001!!! Shakes the room real nice....heeheee

Yet I like the look of a straight thru neck's appearance. How about this though I read that John Paul Jones first bass was something called a Dallas Tuxedo and was made completely out of one block of wood????? How about that on sustain? He said it had a single cut away so it probably looked like this photo of one

Depends upon what kind of wood, but who knows? In and of itself, that building method has little to recommend it.

The Martin Keith basses I have have some amazing sustain, too, they are bolt-on.

Grey wrote:Based on what i've heard, bolt-on necks sustain better because the neck and body have direct wood-on-wood contact, as opposed to a set-neck which is wood-on-glue-on-wood. The glue acting as a "buffer" that reduces the overall transfer of vibrations.

I don't know what it is but my 4080 has loads of depth and sustain, could be down to the amount of wood and the extra cavity, but certainly the bolts and glue have no detrimental effect, in fact I would say it's the opposite.

jingle_jangle wrote:

Grey wrote:Based on what i've heard, bolt-on necks sustain better because the neck and body have direct wood-on-wood contact, as opposed to a set-neck which is wood-on-glue-on-wood. The glue acting as a "buffer" that reduces the overall transfer of vibrations.

We'd then be getting into discussions of glue hardness and softness, and the thickness of the glue layer itself. This makes statements like this highly suspect. I would say that this would be true for softer glues and very loose joints. Formaldehyde or CA glues, however, would disprove this statement.

Besides, going by those standards, aren't bolt-on necks really wood-to-air-to-wood?

Good point.... think about a multi-piece laminated neck; there's glue in that equasion too, but obviously of little significance, if at all. Taken to it's extreme, there's a difference... a plywood body versus a solid piece of wood. But, it would seem that set neck would take your bolt-on neck and up it one level to a more-significant joint... I think that's kind of the point of a set neck.

I'd never heard that bolt-on's resonate better... it surprises me on face value, but I'd think wood selection and craftsmanship (tightness of neck/pocket mate) would trump construction technique. Most old Fenders are resonant as heck, and I'm a huge Music Man Sting Ray fan, all of which are bolt-on necks. Interesting topic.