Leaderboard

Bolt on Les Paul

Marco78

Junior Member
Messages
117
I haven't listen a Bolt on Les Paul. Is the sound dramatically different in comparison to classic Les Paul style guitar?
 
depends if more sustain, more harmonics (and better playability) is considered to be a bad thing...

a warmoth has generally speaking more clarity yet retains that chunk a gibson LP has.


edit: depending on your choice of woods, ofcourse. a walnut/koa LP will sound brighter with more 'crunch' to it than a koa/mahogany LP.
 
Orpheo said:
depends if more sustain, more harmonics (and better playability) is considered to be a bad thing...

a warmoth has generally speaking more clarity yet retains that chunk a gibson LP has.


edit: depending on your choice of woods, ofcourse. a walnut/koa LP will sound brighter with more 'crunch' to it than a koa/mahogany LP.

Generally bolt-on guitar have less sustain, not more.
 
smileyvault-popcorn.gif
 
Marco78 said:
Orpheo said:
depends if more sustain, more harmonics (and better playability) is considered to be a bad thing...

a warmoth has generally speaking more clarity yet retains that chunk a gibson LP has.


edit: depending on your choice of woods, ofcourse. a walnut/koa LP will sound brighter with more 'crunch' to it than a koa/mahogany LP.

Generally bolt-on guitar have less sustain, not more.

dud(e), don't argue with me. any idea how much warmoth les pauls I have? SEVENTEEN!

if I go to ANY store with ANY kind of Gibson LP customshop, my warmoths, even the cheapest versions I own, will blow any gibson out of the water, sky, whatever, in terms of sustain and tone.

Let's put it another way; if gibson were to be better, even if it were just marginallly (looks not withstanding), why would I buy an instrument thats worse?

if I'm saying that my warmoth les pauls have a better sustain, tone, playability than 90% of the gibsons out there, I'm not exaggerating.
 
I suppose you think currently owning 17 Les Pauls and who knows how many in the past, plus having sampled several hundred others over time is a big enough sample set to develop an opinion? Such hubris! And from a guitar player with long building and playing experience, no less! <grin>

I suspect the myth about bolt-ons being tone- or sustain-eaters has its basis in the old poorly-made plywood/MDF/pine guitars from the Pacific Rim in the '70s and '80s. Those things were pitiful at best, regardless of body design or neck attachment scheme.
 
Orpheo said:
dud(e), don't argue with me. any idea how much warmoth les pauls I have? SEVENTEEN!

:o :o :o :o

Orpheo I don't want argue with you. I know that set-in and bolt on are different. Each have pro and cons. Generally bolt on have more attack while set in more sustain.

do you have some videos/samples of your guitar?

 
Cagey said:
I suppose you think currently owning 17 Les Pauls and who knows how many in the past, plus having sampled several hundred others over time is a big enough sample set to develop an opinion? Such hubris! And from a guitar player with long building and playing experience, no less! <grin>

I suspect the myth about bolt-ons being tone- or sustain-eaters has its basis in the old poorly-made plywood/MDF/pine guitars from the Pacific Rim in the '70s and '80s. Those things were pitiful at best, regardless of body design or neck attachment scheme.

plywood/mdf comparing with singlepiece honduras mahogany body and singlepiece flamed maple top or brazilian RW neck...  :doh:

it's all a matter of tolerances. If the neckjoint is TIGHT. and I mean REALLY tight, like, you can barely slide in the neck, and barely take it out, without glue, but the body can hang on the neck without screws; then you've got yourself a tight joint. and warmoth's neckjoints are TIGHT. gibson's aren't. they're sloppy. they have to fix the neck with lots of glue, which dampens the tone.

also, using no glue between the body and neck, just lots of pressure, makes the oils in the woods squeeze out a bit. the pressure itself will create a light adhesive out of those oils. sounds strange, but I've noticed a little oily residue when I took out a neck recently. I only noticed this with exotic woods, not maple or mahogany.

 
I'm not sure you caught it, but that first sentence in my post was meant to be sarcastic.

I know you know what you're talking about, so I worded it in such a way as to make it obvious that you should be paid attention to.
 
Scale length, magnetic strength (or weakness), and number of pickups have more to do with sustain IMO than neck joint construction.  A 24 3/4" scale length Gibson LP Custom with 3 PAFs usually loses the sustain battle to a 25.5" bolt-on Tele.  The gain knob on an amp is also a great equalizer/sustain maker. Supposedly neck thru is the best, so why is there even any other construction type?  Well, I'm guessing because bolt-ons sustain well enough.  The 17 guitars arguement isn't valid with me simply because you're a mortal that has a job, girlfriend and sleeps atleast 6 hours a day.  When we see walls of guitars owned by Tom Petty, Slash, Clapton, Paul Gilbert, C.C. DeVille, John 5, et al, for those to merely be playable, they've got to have a guy in there 2 to 3 times a week just to keep them playable and ready.  I know all of those guys can do maintenance and strings changes, but they don't because they don't have to.  They'd rather play them.

And....details are cool and great fodder for forums, but these guitars made out of wood are constantly proving us wrong all the time.  Electric guitars with great acoustic qualities that sound dead amplified, bright mahogany?, warm maple?, heavy basswood?
 
Marco78 said:
Orpheo said:
depends if more sustain, more harmonics (and better playability) is considered to be a bad thing...

a warmoth has generally speaking more clarity yet retains that chunk a gibson LP has.


edit: depending on your choice of woods, ofcourse. a walnut/koa LP will sound brighter with more 'crunch' to it than a koa/mahogany LP.

Generally bolt-on guitar have less sustain, not more.

Not true.
 
Well, In MY opinion, I hate Gibson.  Why?

Well, I work in a music store, and have held a bit more than 17 Les Pauls (which is quite an astounding number, so I'm mailing you a trophy)
:occasion14:

and the quality is just not in Gibson anymore, at least not that I can tell past early 1980's.  Weight relieving and chambering DO NOT help a guitars tone, I don't care WHO makes that claim.  Just be honest that its for whiners who can't take the weight.  Both the chambered and swiss cheese LP's always feel like crap and do not resonate better than a solid chunk of mahogany.  I've seen so many huge Quality Assurance issues with Gibson's that I've had to send back because of poor craftsmanship, especially the es335's.  Not to mention Gibson has a reputation so far as not really knowing which woods are ok to use and which ones get you raided.

Someone in here mentioned it already, depending on how tight the pocket is on a bolt on, I've seen them get just as great sustain, if not better than other forms of neck joints. 
 
Marco78 said:
I know that set-in and bolt on are different. Each have pro and cons. Generally bolt on have more attack while set in more sustain.

This is a common myth that is seriously untrue.  I could go into the details about a solid bolt-on neck joint vs a poor set neck joint, but there are umpteen threads on these boards and others that clearly outline it.  The world is not flat because it somewhat appears flat.  I also own a guitar collection that would boggle your mind, and a proper bolt on neck joint is in NO WAY inferior (especially in regards to sustain) to a set neck joint. 

These threads come up every so often, and people never fail to pound their fists on reality, hoping it will break. (Apologies to Ani)

-Mark
 
My reality can kick your reality's ass.

http://tela.sugarmegs.org/_asxtela/JohnMcLaughlinCarlosSantana2011-07-01MontreuxJazzSwitzerland.asx
 
In one of these recurring Les Paul bolt-on threads from the past, another forum member nailed it.  That is, the Les Paul is so iconic, some can't get past it.  Even with a 24 3/4" conversion neck, a Warmoth still isn't a Les Paul and never will be for some.  The set neck vs. bolt-on will always linger in the subconscious on what makes a Les Paul a Les Paul and may taint some's enjoyment.  "It'd be better if it was a real one......."
 
Back a million years ago, I was the proud owner of a 1979 Gibson Les Paul Goldtop.  My buddy had a 'lawsuit' Ibanez Les Paul copy with a bolt on neck.

I could not admit it to myself at the time, but the Ibanez was the better instrument.

These days I have 5 warmoth telecasters - which are uniformly the best instruments I've ever played.  and yea, sustain is no problem  :headbang:
 
Back
Top