Okay, so what is the deal? I noticed in Kabak's thread that he had paid for a 2006 model DKMG but got a 2005 model. I can understand why he would be disappointed on a level of feeling like he was getting cheated but my question is, is the 2006 a better version or a different version. I have the older model that I pieced together with a 1991 neck. It has the 2005 pickups which I notice seem to get a bad rap around here. Anyone want to break down the differences and explain the good and the bad?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
DKMG vs DKMG
Collapse
X
-
2006 models have active EMG's not the HZ's with the afterburner...and the trems were supposedly upgraded. There may be some color changes too. I know the newer cobalt blue swirl is darker than the one that Kabak got. Looks alot better, IMO.
EDIT: I guess I was wrong on the trem...here's a quote from Kabak's thread.
Originally posted by sunbaneAccording to John @ JCMI, the trem upgrade was on the Pro-series only.
-
After hearing that news about trem, there are only 2 differences:
1. hz vs 81-85
2. turbocharger vs no turbocharger
I am also questionning that issue since i bought an old model as if it's new model.
They seem like equal to me, also maybe old is better because the sound of passive pick-ups are less digitalized, more natural (i am not so sure about that but just my opinion).
And old owner have a chance to change pick-ups but new owner cannot get turbocharger unless they carve the body for it. That sounds unreal.Life can be good with right people.
Andi Deris
Comment
-
Okay, how about tonally? Any reason why the HZ's seem to get so little respect vs the 81 -85? Also, sorry for my ignorance but my HZ's required a nine volt to make them work. I thought they were active and not passive. Oh yeah, I actually like the the old CBS better at least in that picture. May change my mind if I saw them both in person. I decided to piece mine together with the body I found off of ebay because I it was such a cool rare color.
Last edited by Acidhouse; 12-06-2006, 06:32 PM.
Comment
-
I was always partial to active EMGs, because I tried a few guitars with HZs in a shop, and they never impressed me at all. To me (at the time) they sounded like EMGs, but weaker and "fartier". However, these days I've gone over to passives, and I don't know how I would compare them now. Maybe the afterburner is the ticket to getting some oomph out of the HZs?
All I really know is that I grew tired of the sound I got from the actives. I have not had a chance to give the HZs another shot. My verdict may be totally different if I compared them today.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Acidhouse View PostOkay, how about tonally? Any reason why the HZ's seem to get so little respect vs the 81 -85? Also, sorry for my ignorance but my HZ's required a nine volt to make them work. I thought they were active and not passive. Oh yeah, I actually like the the old CBS better at least in that picture. May change my mind if I saw them both in person. I decided to piece mine together with the body I found off of ebay because I it was such a cool rare color.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sunbane View PostI was always partial to active EMGs, because I tried a few guitars with HZs in a shop, and they never impressed me at all. To me (at the time) they sounded like EMGs, but weaker and "fartier". However, these days I've gone over to passives, and I don't know how I would compare them now. Maybe the afterburner is the ticket to getting some oomph out of the HZs?
All I really know is that I grew tired of the sound I got from the actives. I have not had a chance to give the HZs another shot. My verdict may be totally different if I compared them today.
Active EMGs still sound better than the HZs in my opinion.
I actually never really liked the EMG sound but at least the actives give you balls and clarity.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Acidhouse View PostOkay, how about tonally? Any reason why the HZ's seem to get so little respect vs the 81 -85? Also, sorry for my ignorance but my HZ's required a nine volt to make them work.
Comment
-
Wow! Thanks for the responses. Tonight I switched out the Jackson for my Fender HM and I have to admit that the HZ's don't really compare well to the HM's p'ups.
Shadowcat: My HZ's actually didn't work without the nine volt. I thought I had been ripped off on ebay and was about to send a scathing email when I got the idea to open up the back and look for loose wires. That's when I found the nine volt battery plug. I plugged in the only nine volt I could find in the house, (what uses those things anymore) and suddenly my p'ups were working again.
Profetaxxi: It was $300 for the body; I then spent $50 on a fake Jackson style neck; I then panicked, convinced the neck wouldn't work, so I found a PS4 locally from a fellow member. The PS4 was missing pickups but came with two Humbuckers that were separte and it came with a case. It was missing the FR. That was $175. After about two hours of cussing, I decided that my second attempt to set up a FR guitar wasn't going to work so I took it in to a local shop to have it set up. That cost $60. End result, $300 plus $175 plus $60 plus $50 for the extra neck was $585 with a Charvel/Jackson case. To boot, I have almost enough parts to build a second one. If I can score an FR for fairly cheap and throw in a single p'up, I will have two for that price (blue flame).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Acidhouse View PostMy HZ's actually didn't work without the nine volt. I thought I had been ripped off on ebay and was about to send a scathing email when I got the idea to open up the back and look for loose wires. That's when I found the nine volt battery plug. I plugged in the only nine volt I could find in the house, (what uses those things anymore) and suddenly my p'ups were working again.
I can't imagine why it would otherwise have a battery?
Comment
Comment