Never heard much about the SL3

[atilla]

Hey, everybody. I'm a longtime Charvel guy, never owned a Jackson. Now, the SL3 seems like a nice instrument, but I haven't noticed much talk about them in the years I've been lurking around here. Any of you own them? Does it spank the Dk, or is it a fairly close race?

[ewright]

Its theoretically better than the DK2, since its a neck-through with a real Floyd Rose, rather than a bolt-on with licensed copy trem. However, since it has no binding on the neck and headstock (which is ridiculous), its not as popular. Its also not available in as wide a range of finishes.

There are some people on here that own them, and they seem to love them; the only one I've ever played personally was a beautiful instrument...but I need binding, so I didn't buy it.

[Sunbane]

I'd personally rather try to find a used Charvel 650XL, but that's me.

[sakeido]

I've played a lot of SL3s and they really are a brilliant instrument. They play fantastic, its a real Floyd Rose, the pickups are great, you can get them in neato transparent finishes, but above all they play like a dream. I still like my SLSMG better, but the SL3 is definitely a very, very nice guitar.

[kmanick]

I used to own a trans red one.
I think they 're real nice neck thru guitars but jackson sends a lot of them out with alighment problems. the e string is too close to the end of the fret board and it pulls right off. I've seen several with this issue (mine had it and I had to get a locking nut with narrower spacing to compensate)
other than that I have only good to say about them, a friend of mine has 2 of them and he plays his amber burst SL3 more than his USA SL1 (go figure)
Once set up they are very 'shred friendly" and they sound great.
I like binding on my neck thru's as well, so I traded mine in towards my SL2H
if you can score one for under $400.00 grab it, other wise I'd hold out for a model 6 or a 650 xl (or a jackson Pro neck thru from the early 90's)

[GryphonGuitar]

I think it's reidiculous not to have binding on an instrument which is supposed to cost more and be better than one which is offered with binding. Ibanez has this same problem.

But mechanicswise they're very good guitars.

[VitaminG]

I think it's reidiculous not to have binding on an instrument which is supposed to cost more and be better than one which is offered with binding. Ibanez has this same problem.

But mechanicswise they're very good guitars.

I think that's a moot argument. My first superstrat was a Korean made Onyx, with sharkfin inlays & binding on the neck & headstock. This thing cost me $400 brand new, and was made of plywood with a charcoal to purple burst. I thought it was cool when I was 15, but I didn't know shit then either. That guitar wasn't a bump on a frog's ass compared to ANY of the Japanese Charvels I own know, and all of them would have cost a hell of a lot more new, and none of them have binding.

Binding does NOT equal a better built instrument. For all the "craftmanship" that went into putting binding on my Onyx, it was still a plywood guitar that only cost $400 new.

[GryphonGuitar]

No, and I didn't say that it did. But it looks better ANd so I'd like it on expensive instruments - kind of the equivalent of "color matched door handles" or "chrome grill" on a car - it's doubtful if it costs more to manufacture, or to assemble, but it does add an air of premium.

[atilla]

Hmm. I'm a stripped-down instrument kind of guy. I mean, my ideal instrument is a single humbucker, a real Floyd, no finish and no binding. But just try finding someone to build one of those for you at a decent price! That makes the SL3 look pretty good, even if I get stuck with more pickups than I'd prefer.

[Super_shredder]

i prefer my dinky to the sl3 just because the sl3s neck gets sticky

[AdRock]

I mesed around with the SL3 when i was looking for a guitar but I ended up liking the DK2 a lot more. I haven't figured out why, but I seem to gravitate towards bolt ons rather than neck thru's.

[thetroy]

I really loved and miss my SL3. It played just as well as any of the USA Jacksons I've owned/played after putting on a new nut that was the correct size (for some reason Jackson had been building them with a nut that was too wide and E strings would be a little too close to the ends of the frets). Since the new models have different hardware that may no longer be an issue.

Most people don't buy them because they don't have binding and cost the same new as a used USA.

[Noobster]

I love my SL3 too... but after I hated it at first, almost sold it but decided to set it up once more and give it a last short as the guitar sounds good unplug. Now it is starting to be my most played axe.

Pros:
It has a good strat like tone with higher mids, which I kind of appreciate.
Versatile with H-S-S configuration.
Seymour duncan humbucker.
Great neck feel
Great upper access that beats other famous guitar

Cons:
Floyd is not original and may pose a problem for beginners
Single coil pickups are real muddy (can be rectified by adjusting height and also amp settings)

I won't list the aesthetic cons as it won't affect the tone or feel of the guitar. Bottom line is that it can be a superb guitar if setup and maintained properly.

[sakeido]

I am pretty sure the new SL3s have original floyd roses on them. Almost 100% sure.

[Sunbane]

They do come with OFRs now. 100% dead sure. It's been all over these forums for 6+ months.