Announcement

**Sunbane** · 05-11-2003, 07:47 PM

Re: RR3

Originally posted by deftoned:
Anybody tried this guitar..?

Yes. But I own an early revision of it, that is a bit different from most RR3s.

is it good?

I like mine. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] This is just my second Jackson and I haven't owned any neck-thrus so far, so I can't compare it very well to the rest of the Jackson line. It's made in Japan, which is generally considered better than getting a guitar built in India.

Where can i get more pictures of it than that one at the jackson site, id like to see it in black.

I'd try a google search, like this:
Google pic search for Jackson RR3
EDIT: Hmmm...didn't turn up very many results, did it? [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

How chromed is the control plate? at the pic on jackson.com it doesnt look very chrome.... is it like "mirror chrome" ?

I wouldn't know. My '97 came with all black hardware/pickguard and non-reversed sharkfin inlays. Apparently this hardware option was changed in later revisions. From what I've seen though, it seems the pickguard has a brushed aluminium look to it, along with the rest of the "matte chrome" hardware. I've seen one RR3 with shiny chrome hardware and a mirror pickguard, but that could've been custom made(?).

and what is the difference between alder and poplar?

Two different woods. Poplar is supposedly sounds very similar to alder, but is uglier, so it's not commonly used for transparent finishes (the trans finish RR3's have a top with flame maple veneer).

is the pickups good?

Again, my guitar came with different pickups than those sold today. The general verdict on the "Duncan Designed" pickups is "decent" I think. People say they're a bit muddy in the lower register, so if you play a lot of tightly muted riffs, you will probably want to replace them sooner or later.

And the whammy bar is it good? whats the difference beetwen the whammy bar on the rr3 and a real floyd rose?

The trem on the RR3 is the JT580LP, a cheaper licenced version of the Floyd Rose Lo-Pro. It holds the tuning better than most other licenced Floyd copies, but the quality is clearly inferior to that of an original Floyd. Screws are easier to accidentally strip if you're using too much force, the trem bar tends to come loose easier, etc. I haven't had much problems with mine, except that since I went from .009 strings to .010, it will go out of tune a little faster.

'bane

[ May 12, 2003, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Sunbane ]

**Steve** · 05-12-2003, 09:17 AM

Re: RR3

Originally posted by deftoned:
Anybody tried this guitar..?
is it good?
Where can i get more pictures of it than that one at the jackson site, id like to see it in black.
How chromed is the control plate? at the pic on jackson.com it doesnt look very chrome.... is it like "mirror chrome" ? and what is the difference between alder and poplar? is the pickups good? And the whammy bar is it good? whats the difference beetwen the whammy bar on the rr3 and a real floyd rose?

the rr3 will play great for ya ! the floyd is pretty good it just won't last as long as the real deal , and the chrome looks best on the trans finishes , it comes with blk mounting rings I'd go with the real chrome rings looks nicer [the wd products ones fit perfect on Jackson import guitars] , the stock pu's sound pretty good , great guitar ! //Steve

**Svart** · 05-12-2003, 10:27 AM

Re: RR3

how's the neck feel compared to a ps-3 or a rhoads ex? been thinking of getting a rr3 lately...

**Sunbane** · 05-12-2003, 05:24 PM

Re: RR3

Svart, I had the opportunity to compare the neck of my Rhoads with a Rhoads EX, and my RR3 neck definately felt a bit thinner than that of the EX (disclaimer: I don't know if the neck on my RR might have been replaced at some point).

In the overall feel, the EX felt more "solid" for some reason though.

'bane

**Svart** · 05-13-2003, 04:12 AM

Re: RR3

been thinking about it for some time now, with my backhernia and stuff, the kellyis a heavy critter to play for hours and hours...

and since I was missing and regretting me selling them Rhoads I had in the past... the RR3 seems a good option. even more since they're cheaper than a used neck thru professional...

**Sephiroth** · 05-17-2003, 03:30 PM

Re: RR3

I have an RR-3, so I'll throw in my $0.02:

1. The chrome hardware SUCKS on just about every finish except for eerie dess and maybe black. The chrome plate is nice and mirror-polished. This is the only part you'll have a hard time replacing if you decide to switch out the hardware for black or gold.

2. The P'ups don't have the teeth in them that I'd like, so X2N's are mandatory for me.

3. The neck is decent play-wise (USA necks are better of course), but it p*sses me off that cheaper DK2's get binding while RR-3's or even RR-5's don't. It's a kick in the nuts if you like binding.

4. Don't know what kind of rosewood they're using, but it's the lightest-colored rosewood I've ever had on a guitar.

**Sunbane** · 05-17-2003, 05:45 PM

Re: RR3

Originally posted by Sephiroth:
4. Don't know what kind of rosewood they're using, but it's the lightest-colored rosewood I've ever had on a guitar.

Interesting. The rosewood board on mine is nice and dark. I've seen a few newer Jacksons with some really awful rosewood on them though.

**777SteveVai777** · 05-17-2003, 07:50 PM

Re: RR3

My RR3, which is already packed and ready for Jon(Sarj/Jon Villalobos), is a SWEET player.. and with the DiMarzio pups I put in it.. it's a GREAT sounding guitar.

Get one, upgrade it with some DiMarzios or SDs, and you'll have one hell of a guitar.

**Sephiroth** · 05-17-2003, 08:26 PM

Re: RR3

Originally posted by Sunbane:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sephiroth:
4. Don't know what kind of rosewood they're using, but it's the lightest-colored rosewood I've ever had on a guitar.

Interesting. The rosewood board on mine is nice and dark. I've seen a few newer Jacksons with some really awful rosewood on them though. <hr /></blockquote>Here's the exact one I bought. You can kind of see in the pic that it has really light spots all over the fretbaord. It's even more noticable up close:

http://www.victorlitz.com/Rr3eds.jpg

**Sunbane** · 05-17-2003, 10:07 PM

Re: RR3

Wow, the RR3 looks really nice with that swirl graphic! [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] It's too bad that they didn't use darker rosewood, but if I owned that guitar, I'd just put on a wide grin and play it. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

**deftoned** · 05-18-2003, 11:41 AM

Re: RR3

hmm the RR on that pic does not have reverse sharkfin inlays´, is it an older version than the RR3 jackson makes now? I think it looks nicer with the standard sharkfin inlays...=/ to bad the RR3 now has reverse...

**Svart** · 05-18-2003, 02:01 PM

Re: RR3

I thought it was just the other way around, that they now have standard fins instead of reversed lik ein the past. I know my kelly does.

**deftoned** · 05-18-2003, 04:27 PM

Re: RR3

well at www.jacksonguitars.com the RR3 has reversed.

**Steve** · 05-18-2003, 06:52 PM

Re: RR3

Originally posted by deftoned:
well at www.jacksonguitars.com the RR3 has reversed.

Jackson is useing a old pic there . //Steve

Announcement

RR3

RR3

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment