Popular myths about Charvel and Jackson guitars

[Number Of The Priest]

Re: Popular myths about Charvel and Jackson guitar

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Oh damn, I thought you were alerting the JCF of a noob attack because you said it right after you quoted me. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] My sincere apologies... terrible miscommunication and misunderstanding there!

I probably would have understood it better if you had said something to the effect of, "Hmm, could someone please educate this noob (myself) about what Number Of The Priest is talking about? Thanks." Oh well, we've got it cleared up. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Yeah, there's an edit time... not sure why but I think it might be so that people don't tamper with their original posts and "change history" so to speak. Who knows?

Neckthrough VS set-neck VS bolt-on are just different construction methods with different feels to them when the guitar is completed. Look at the Jackson USA DK1. If it were any worse than the Jackson USA Soloists, then the DK1 would be MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper. But, this is not the case. A well-constructed high-quality bolt-on will sustain more than a cheapo $100 neckthrough. Agreed? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Also, as long as the neck is securely attached to the body to transfer maximum energy, it doesn't really matter to me which has longer sustain.

If neckthrough were scientifically proven to be better in terms of sustain, NOBODY would be playing bolt-ons any more. Yet, they still endure. In fact, Taylor changed construction of their acoustic guitars from set-neck to bolt-on in 1999 to improve playability, stability, and ease of changing the neck if the need ever arose.

[Jim Shine]

Re: Popular myths about Charvel and Jackson guitar

I do believe there is a very real tone difference between the two (not sustain). To my ears neckthroughs are strongest on the midrange of a guitars tonal spectrum, set necks lean towards the bass end and bolt ons towards the treble side. Each style is no better than the other, just a different tool to use to do the same job.

As far as Taylors go, not the same as a bolt on versus a set neck electric. A Taylor neck is still shaped to fit a precise slot and screws replace glue. Electric guitar bolt on necks are not fit in such a way.

[Number Of The Priest]

Re: Popular myths about Charvel and Jackson guitar

Okay, if I could, I'd erase the part I said about tone in my original post in this thread. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Zerberus]

Re: Popular myths about Charvel and Jackson guitar

[ QUOTE ]
I do believe there is a very real tone difference between the two (not sustain). To my ears neckthroughs are strongest on the midrange of a guitars tonal spectrum, set necks lean towards the bass end and bolt ons towards the treble side. Each style is no better than the other, just a different tool to use to do the same job.
....

[/ QUOTE ]

That´s what my ears hear as well.

I also have the impression that Bolt-ons are a bit "faster" and more articulate in their response, wheras Neck-thrus and Set neck seem more "sluggish", kind of like solid-state amps vs Tube amps... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Ace]

Re: Popular myths about Charvel and Jackson guitars

MYTH!!: Grover Jackson strangled the REAL Eva Gabor on June 10th, 1973, and she was replaced by an animtronic creation by Walt Disney, who was in fact working for the CIA.

Man, if I had a dime for every time I heard THAT one. [img]/images/graemlins/eyes.gif[/img]

[atilla]

Re: Popular myths about Charvel and Jackson guitar

[ QUOTE ]
Noob alert hmmm? Okay...

Would somebody here like to educate both myself the NOOB and Final Sacrifice the expert on the neckthrough VS bolt-on sustain/tone/quality issue? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, NOTP...one thing I noticed in this little aside about neck-thru versus bolt-on is that nobody mentioned that neck-thrus allow easier access to the upper frets. That smooth junction between the neck and the body is very comfortable!

To me, that's just as important as any tonal differences.

[Number Of The Priest]

Re: Popular myths about Charvel and Jackson guitar

True, I do like the smooth transition feel of a neckthrough, but I also have no trouble playing bolt-ons. You can sculpt the neck heel on a bolt-on to feel like the heel of a neckthrough, but Fender and Jackson still haven't implemented them yet, to the best of my knowledge. If they followed the Ibanez all-access neck joint, they'd be on to something. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[lerxstcat]

Re: Popular myths about Charvel and Jackson guitar

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking about me being a NOOB, jeez. I never pretend I know what I'm talking aboutAnd why is there a maximum edit time? 1st time I've seen that on a forum. I was going to make it more clear I was talking about myself, oh well.

[/ QUOTE ]There was an ex-memer who'd get in flame wars, sy some nasty stuff to people, then edit it before the admins sawit and banned him for it. Eventually I guess smeone saved some posts before he could edit or an admin saw one right away, so now he's banned and we have a 5-minute limit on edits.I haven't read the whole thread but I'm sure the Ft. Worth plate meaning USA-made myth has been mentioned. I just wanted to say something on-topic though!

[lerxstcat]

Re: Popular myths about Charvel and Jackson guitar

[ QUOTE ]
Myth: Charvel/Jackson imports are/were made in Korea/China/Taiwan/Ashcanistan/EuropeFact (someone please verify?): The only C/J imports that were made in any of those countries were the Korean-made Charvel Star and Bullseye ReIssues from the late-90's. Everything else was made in Japan or India.Newc

[/ QUOTE ]Actually, that's not true. My JDR Pro Reverse and the standard JDR Reverse models made for Musician's Friend in the mid-late 90s WERE made in Taiwan. I just sold mine to a guy in Florida and it still has the Taiwan sticker on it. Build quaility was about the same as the Japan Performers too, but with reverse sharkies. It was also the only Jackson I've seen with a 24th-fret sharkie!

[Final Sacrifice]

Re: Popular myths about Charvel and Jackson guitar

[ QUOTE ]
There was an ex-memer who'd get in flame wars, sy some nasty stuff to people, then edit it before the admins sawit and banned him for it. Eventually I guess smeone saved some posts before he could edit or an admin saw one right away, so now he's banned and we have a 5-minute limit on edits.I haven't read the whole thread but I'm sure the Ft. Worth plate meaning USA-made myth has been mentioned. I just wanted to say something on-topic though!

[/ QUOTE ]
That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up. This board seems very civilized though, I don't think I've seen much controversy or arguments in a couple months of lurking/barely posting.

[Greg Crowe]

Re: Popular myths about Charvel and Jackson guitar

Great info but one wrong thing is being tossed around here. Grover Jackson did not "sell" the Charvel name to overseas(Japanese) investors. Grover "licensed" the name to be used just as he "licensed" the Jackson name to be used on import guitars beginning in 1990. If he had sold the name, the Japanese would own it and AMIC would never have built San Dimas(not) reissues in the mid 90's nor would FMIC be building Charvels today.