Set neck vs. bolt-on: preference?

[Radioboy950]

Hey guys. We've done threads on fretboard preference (maple vs. rosewood), but I didn't see anything about Set neck vs. Bolt-on.

Here are my thoughts. Please share yours.

For me, it's just personal preference and feel; my choice really isn't influenced so much by style or type of music I'm playing.

Generally, I like a chunkier neck, and bolt-ons can sometimes get almost too thin for me. Although, I find the Telecaster neck just right in a bolt-on style. I was blown away by the shape and satin-smooth finish on that neck. My Tele and LP get equal use, I love both necks!

What say you?

[ted s]

I'm not fussy, I have 3 bolt on and 1 set, all different makes and models. I don't even know what the characteristic dimensions of them are.

[Brian Krashpad]

I have batches of both. For Gibson-style guitars I prefer them to have setnecks, for Fender-style guitars I prefer them to have bolt-ons. But that's mainly based on the fact that a lot of bolt-on copies of setnecks were lower-end guitars with crappy quality.

A well-made guitar of either type is a bit different than one of the other type, but both are good.

[marnold]

My Fender is a set-neck actually. I like it a lot because the improvement in sustain is very noticeable. Of course if the neck goes bad then I'm basically SOL, but that's not a big issue. There usually isn't any correlation between neck joint and neck thickness. My set neck is quite thin--especially for a Fender.It's in Ibanez territory with a 15.75" radius.

In general, neck joint construction is a very minor point to me. If I like the way it plays and the neck joint doesn't impede access to any frets, it's all good.

[hubberjub]

I use both. I tend to go through stages where I'll enjoy playing one guitar for a few months and then switch to another.

[just strum]

With the exception of my Squier, all of mine are set neck guitars. I don't know if I would choose a guitar to buy or play a guitar based on set or bolt on - if it feels good, I play it.

I've heard sustain is better on a set neck, but I cannot support that one way or the other. I do feel that my Ibanez has too much sustain, if there is such a thing.

[stingx]

I don't buy into the "more sustain" properties of set-neck, neck-thru, etc. I pick up a guitar, I look it over, plug it in and it either plays well or it doesn't. If it's the latter then I simply move on.

[LowEndWonder]

For sound purposes it don't matter to me.
For durability I'd say a bolt. :pancake:

[pes_laul]

For me It depends on the guitar like shecter C-1's or gibsons with their set ncks seem to have good sustain but my squire and ibanez's they play alot easier and faster.

(Sweet my 400th post!:rockon: )

[kerc]

Bolt-on for me. I live in constant fear of breaking a set-neck!

[just strum]

Bolt-on for me. I live in constant fear of breaking a set-neck!

That's one advantage (one big advantage) that the bolt on has. Are there any others?

[duhvoodooman]

I don't buy into the "more sustain" properties of set-neck, neck-thru, etc. I pick up a guitar, I look it over, plug it in and it either plays well or it doesn't. If it's the latter then I simply move on.
+1!! :AOK:

[Plank_Spanker]

No special preference either way.

[Spudman]

I have batches of both. For Gibson-style guitars I prefer them to have setnecks, for Fender-style guitars I prefer them to have bolt-ons. But that's mainly based on the fact that a lot of bolt-on copies of setnecks were lower-end guitars with crappy quality.

A well-made guitar of either type is a bit different than one of the other type, but both are good.

What da man said.:master: