Nick wrote:UlricvonCatalyst wrote:....and I always forget that people care about set necks. I guess that makes all my suggestions redundant.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Some people like the heel better on set necks/neck thru. Other than that set neck is rather pointless, some of my favorite guitars are bolt on and have loads more sustain than most set necks I've played. Not like it's the end all magic sustain booster that noobs and cork sniffers alike claim it is.
Agree.
Set necks are usually considered to have better transmission of vibration between body and neck therefore a beefier, fuller tone.
It is usually thought that a bolt on neck will have less sustain, It is also generally thought that a bolt on neck will have a brighter, snappier tone with more note definition, a result of a slower transmission of vibration between body and neck.
This is bullshit of course. People came to these conclusions because because the guitars they were playing were Gibsons or Fenders. Fenders Teles and Strats generally have a brighter, snappier tone with more note definition and Les Pauls do have a beefier, full tone and slightly more sustain. This has next to nothing to do with how the neck joint is made (bolts, screws, body through, or set neck) and a lot more to do with the woods used in the bodies, necks, the bridge design, the number of windings on the pick ups, pretty much everything but the the type of neck joint.
I guess back in the day when you had like only 3 or 4 types of solid body electric guitars to choose from people came to these conclusions about neck joints based on opinion and not any sort of scientific method.
more or less the Gibson screw necks I have owned sound like the set neck ones, the Fender set necks I have owned sound like Fender screw necks.