Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

How many models of Ric guitars have there been with bolt-on necks? I know the 230s are bolt-on as are some of the 400 series - anything else?

Those are the only two that I can think of.

Oddly enough, I don't think bolt necks would make a huge difference in a Ric's sound (though they do look cheesy, IMO.....it is a cost cutting move), as Rickenbacker's don't seem to rely on the kind of long sustain you benefit from with a set neck, Gibson etc...

The ones I can think of off the top of my head:

Model 430
Model 480
Model 481
Model 4080 doubleneck (although IIRC one or both necks are also glued)
Model 2030 bass
Model 3000 bass
Model 3001 bass

The 4080 had set necks the first year, which were a disaster, so thhey started adding the bolts, iirc.

Don't forget the 220, 2020, 230, 250, 2050, 260, & 2060.

collin wrote:...Rickenbacker's don't seem to rely on the kind of long sustain you benefit from with a set neck, Gibson etc...

Huh?

This is my 430. It has the best sustain of all my ricks.

The 430 that I once had also had an incredible amount of sustain. But so do my 450v63 JG and my 460 BG!

collin wrote:Those are the only two that I can think of.

Oddly enough, I don't think bolt necks would make a huge difference in a Ric's sound (though they do look cheesy, IMO.....it is a cost cutting move), as Rickenbacker's don't seem to rely on the kind of long sustain you benefit from with a set neck, Gibson etc...

My 480 has has excellent sustain and it definitely has the Ric sound. Also consider that if any damage to the neck occurs, it may be easier to repair once removed, or if too severe, have a luthier make a new one.

I don't think there has ever been a single credible study anywhere to confirm that differences in neck attachment method have anything to do with sustain.

There are simply too many other variables at play in guitar construction to come to any definitive conclusions.

This silly debate goes on in acoustic guitar circles all the time between the dovetail vs. bolt-on camps, and it's about as meaningless there as it is here.

There've been more than one credible study indicating that, in fact, bolt-on necks sustain better than set necks, measurably but not audibly.

Luthier and scientist R.M. Mottola decided to test the received wisdom that set necks sustain better, and he published his surprising results in the American Lutherie journal. He made three instruments that differed only in their neck joint construction (through, set or bolt-on). He then carried out power analysis, spectrographic analysis, and listening evaluation on these instruments.The power analysis results suggest that the relationship between sustain and neck joint type was the opposite of the received wisdom on neck joints. Bolt-on necks had the longest sustain and neck through designs had the shortest sustain.

The study also included listening evaluations, where people listened to recordings of single notes and tried to pick out the longest sustaining note. They could not detect any difference in sustain between the different neck designs.

People may have played a set-neck Les Paul and found it to sustain better than a Fender Strat and then jumped to the conclusion that set necks sustain better. What they should have done is compared a set neck Les Paul with a bolt-on Les Paul before reaching their conclusion. (How about a set-neck Strat?)

Reference Mottola, R.M. “Sustain and Electric Guitar Neck Joint Type” American Lutherie #91, 2007, p. 52.

jingle_jangle wrote:
People may have played a set-neck Les Paul and found it to sustain better than a Fender Strat and then jumped to the conclusion that set necks sustain better. What they should have done is compared a set neck Les Paul with a bolt-on Les Paul before reaching their conclusion. (How about a set-neck Strat?)

Yup.

That's pretty much what I've done. My LP sustains far longer than my Fenders (same with ES-335), so I guess I "bought-in" to the set-neck conclusion. I just trust my ears.


Interesting.....

I stand corrected re the studies. That will teach me to post sweeping statements late at night when I really should be in bed.

The quoted study does serve to stand the conventional wisdom somewhat on its head - at least for the three instruments that the author constructed. Whether it would be the same for another set of three instruments using a different basic construction method (for example 'Les Paul' style vs 'Strat' style) is debatable. Interesting also that the listening tests revealed no differences.

eatswodo wrote: There are simply too many other variables at play in guitar construction

I definitely agree there-----The break angle, nut, and especially bridge (and what type of material it's made of) have a LOT to do with a guitar's sustain. Methinks the Gibson ToM bridge is responsible for a great deal of it, too....but I'm no scientist.

There is a substantial difference, speaking from the psychoacoustic perspective, between playing two (even identical) instruments yourself and noting your impressions, and playing them for listeners in a blind test under controlled circumstances. I think it is exactly this difference that lies at the foundation of "received wisdom" and actuality, in cases such as this.

Still, it gets more comforting as more independent studies concur in their conclusions.