How different does a bolt-on neck LP/SG sound to a set neck

[Loobs]

all other things being equal? Does it make much difference?

 

[dmraco]

This is a real can of worms here.  In theory, set necks are have more contact and better sustain.  Neck thru bodies are even better.

That being said, I have both.  I always feel that pickups and amps make 90% of your tone.  The other 10% is determined  by wood choice and design.  The only exception to this is a hollow body vs a solid body.

Let the games begin.

 

[Patrick from Davis]

Not really.  The four screws that hold the neck on vs the glue that holds the neck on.  Which is stronger.  Which makes more contact for vibrations.  It is probably a factor somewhere in the equation, but I doubt it is huge, perhaps it isn't even noticeable.  Very hard to compare in an apples to apples test.  However, that being said, my Warmoth Les Paul sustains very nice.
Patrick

 

[simple]

I have Warmoth LPs, SG, Strats of all various woods and scale lengths. I've owned Gibson LPs, SGs, Vs and the like as well has many Fenders. Never had sustain issues over a bolt on design. Bridge choice, string nut and setup does have a very distinct impact though.

 

[Justinginn]

Not that it matters...
but to turn the argument against Gibson hype, I imagine that wood to wood gives better contact than wood to glue to wood. Besides, a good bolt job gets plenty tight and it's a very secure joint. More than adequate.

 

[Cagey]

Not that it matters...
but to turn the argument against Gibson hype, I imagine that wood to wood gives better contact than wood to glue to wood. Besides, a good bolt job gets plenty tight and it's a very secure joint. More than adequate.

That's true. The glue acts as a shock absorber, or vibration absorber, if you will. Plus, you get interactions due to grain orientation, etc. Take a solid piece of nearly any wood and knock on it, and you'll get a particular sound. Slice it in two and glue it back together, using whatever joining scheme you'd like, and do the same thing. It'll sound dead. That's one of the reasons why one-piece bodies and necks sell at a premium. It's getting tough to get a single piece of good wood in dimensions you can machine an entire part out of. Almost everything is a glue-up anymore, which is a compromise.

 

[Strat Avenger]

I agree with Cagey. Glue acts as an insulator between the two pieces of wood. Of course the glue dries very hard, so there is still plenty of tone transfer, but if a neck is bolted (screwed) on really well, the tone transfer and sustain can actually be better than set-neck construction.

Of course the opposite is true in the case of a poorly attached screwed-on neck.

Nothing beats neck-thru construction in terms of sustain.

 

[drewfx]

Seems to me physics tells us that if you want the maximum sustain out of a string, it means you don't want anything unnecessarily taking energy out of the string.

Therefore, the most important factors are a rigid neck and a tight, stable neck joint - so that the neck is neither vibrating much itself or flexing at the neck joint.

The idea that small amounts of glue "absorbs" vibrations is ridiculous. We aren't talking about gobs of gooey Elmer's glue here. Where exactly is the string energy supposed to go? You have a comparatively huge body and neck made of porous wood, and the .05% of hardened glue is supposed to steal the vibration?

And as far as transmitting vs. reflecting vibration, are we really sure we want to transfer as much vibration as possible? If you're transmitting the vibrations from the string, doesn't it mean you're taking energy out of the string and sending it somewhere else?

If you have a rigid neck, that doesn't use up the string's energy from it's own motion, and doesn't send the energy somewhere else, doesn't that mean that the string's energy is maximized? If you don't lose vibrational energy through the neck or body, it means the only things opposing the string's vibration are things like the internal friction of the string, friction at the end points, air resistance (which results in the audible sound waves), the magnetic field of the pickup (which creates the electrical signal) and gravity.

So I would say, a rigid neck and a stable neck joint are what allows for maximum sustain. And I would expect the neck's length, mass, construction, and wood types to affect it's resonant properties as much as the joint type, unless the joint is not very stable and allows the neck to flex at that point.

 

[Cagey]

If you have a rigid neck, that doesn't use up the string's energy from it's own motion, and doesn't send the energy somewhere else, doesn't that mean that the string's energy is maximized? If you don't lose vibrational energy through the neck or body, it means the only things opposing the string's vibration are things like the internal friction of the string, friction at the end points, air resistance (which results in the audible sound waves), the magnetic field of the pickup (which creates the electrical signal) and gravity.

So I would say, a rigid neck and a stable neck joint are what allows for maximum sustain. And I would expect the neck's length, mass, construction, and wood types to affect it's resonant properties as much as the joint type, unless the joint is not very stable and allows the neck to flex at that point.

I don't think anybody's arguing that point. And what you say is true, which is why Les Pauls are so famous for their sustain. There's not much neck to them - it's a short scale, a good part of which is buried in the body and so is rigidly supported. Makes for a very stiff mount for the strings.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Cagey, I think one piece bodies sell for a premium because it's a larger piece of wood, and therefore harder to come by.  2 piece bodies with the seam in the middle, I would argue are stronger from neck to bridge.  But to bring it back around, Ed Roman (I went there) prefers bolt on to set neck not because bolt on is superior but because modern set necks have a sloppy joint that has very little wood to wood contact and the difference is made up with glue.  Steaming the joint for disassembly on an older one was faster than the newer ones because there's less glue in the joint on the older ones.  Like the conclusion ya'll have already reached, neck joint and what scale length?

 

[hannaugh]

I personally don't think there is any difference between a set neck and a bolt on, other than the annoying neck tenon that makes playing the higher frets a pain in the butt.  In my opinion, the humbuckers and bridge type are what give an LP it's sustain.  A through-neck is a different animal, but as far as glue vs. bolt-on, I don't see any difference in sound or performance. 

I personally really like bolt-ons because being able to take the neck off and work on it is super convenient.  Plus I can replace the neck if I want to. 

 

[riverbluff]

I have a Gibson LP with EMG pickups and I built a Warmoth LP with EMG pickups for my son that is almost identical.  The only difference is a bolt on maple neck rather then a set mohogany neck.  Absolutly no difference in sustain or tone between the two guitars.

I also have a Warmoth LP with Passive pickups that has killer tone and sustain.  I don't hesitate to play either.

 

[Strat Avenger]

I have a Gibson LP with EMG pickups and I built a Warmoth LP with EMG pickups for my son that is almost identical.  The only difference is a bolt on maple neck rather then a set mohogany neck.  Absolutly no difference in sustain or tone between the two guitars.

I also have a Warmoth LP with Passive pickups that has killer tone and sustain.  I don't hesitate to play either.

That's because EMGs sound like EMGs no matter what guitar you put them in.

 

[elgravos]

I think a lot of the views are pretty valid.  I think Cagey makes a good point on the LP issue on the basis that the neck joint has a lot more surface and the next is embedded much deeper in the body which provides for a more rigid joint - provided of course that it's not sloppy.  

I will even go deeper into controversy and say that I think Ed Roman's preferred neck joint (as used on his quicksilver range), which looks to be based on a long tenon set neck design that is then bolted on definitely has my vote - though you won't see me buying one of his guitars any time soon.  I believe the old PRS CE range may have had something similar.

My additional 2 cents is that I have a 2006 Gibson LP Standard and a warmoth "telepaul" of my own devising... the telepaul is a one piece mahogany body with a rosewood neck and a 24.75 scale / TOM / 2 PAF based HBs etc. - fairly close to standard Gibson specs.   You can find it on the site if you go looking.  It plays and sounds magnificent and is by far my favorite guitar.  However, it does not have as much sustain as the LP.  Don't get me wrong, it sustains plenty and I am not complaining about the sound it puts out, in fact I'm very happy with it.  I'm just saying that you can notice the difference.  Now I went a long way towards recreating an LP in a tele format but one thing that you can't do is add the LP body mass to a tele.  It just doesn't have the same bulk.  Therefore, my completely arbitrary view on the matter, based only on the materials I have at hand to compare, is that the overall mass of the guitar (provided the materials are good) has a pretty big impact, bigger than the neck joint in any case.  I would therefore guess that if I had built my Warmoth in LP format, rather than masquerading as a tele, the sustain would be a lot closer if not equal to the Gibson and the neck joint probably wouldn't have much impact at all - on the assumption that warmoth would have done their usual great job building the body.