Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Got another Soloist XL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Got another Soloist XL

    I have a black one, and now have a pearly white one, with a nice matching white headstock. It makes me regret even less the fact that I sold my Charvel 650 Custom. It rocks man, but the trems are different on the two. One has a Schaller trem that says Charvel and is regular profile, the other has one that just says Jackson, and is low profile. Routing looks the same. Anyone know why the trems are different? Is one better than the other? The Jackson one actually stays in tune better.

    I'm really amazed at how awesome the necks are on these guitars. I prefer the profile to USA soloists. Pics soon!!!

  • #2
    Would You post any pics of these tremolos?

    P.S. Gratz. I want to own Soloist. Maybe sometime...
    Dinky XL '96 - always stay in tune

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by kudogg View Post
      Anyone know why the trems are different?
      Because someone swapped them out. Should be obvious.
      Originally posted by kudogg View Post
      Is one better than the other? The Jackson one actually stays in tune better.
      Hmmm. Maybe the Jackson one?

      Seriously, the seller might have had many axes and many trems. If he is selling an axe, he might have taken off any good hardware to keep for his remaining axes, and put on crappy old stuff he was selling to you. There is no way to confirm this (the seller might have bought it already swapped from a prior seller).

      Pictures would help.
      Last edited by DonP; 03-05-2008, 06:37 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Congrats kudogg!
        Soloist XL's rock... and I agree on the neck profile... but I like thin necks.
        I don't think you could get any thinner and still mount frets on it.
        hehehe
        Just nice solid guitars... and sweet to look at as well, with that matching headstock action going on.
        I'm running a Dimarzio Evolution in mine right now, and it absolutely ska-reams.
        "Wow,... that was some of the hardest rockin ever. Hardest to listen too."
        --floydkramer

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DonP View Post
          Because someone swapped them out. Should be obvious.

          Hmmm. Maybe the Jackson one?

          Seriously, the seller might have had many axes and many trems. If he is selling an axe, he might have taken off any good hardware to keep for his remaining axes, and put on crappy old stuff he was selling to you. There is no way to confirm this (the seller might have bought it already swapped from a prior seller).

          Pictures would help.

          The only reason I ask is because many people feel the made by Schaller imitations are in fact superior to the Jackson branded trems. Schaller actually made the early original Floyd Roses for FR. Thanks anyway for your unhelpful smartass answers. Jerk.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by nhspike View Post
            Congrats kudogg!
            Soloist XL's rock... and I agree on the neck profile... but I like thin necks.
            I don't think you could get any thinner and still mount frets on it.
            hehehe
            Just nice solid guitars... and sweet to look at as well, with that matching headstock action going on.
            I'm running a Dimarzio Evolution in mine right now, and it absolutely ska-reams.







            Comment


            • #7
              Nice wood-choppers kudogg, and nice pics too!
              Mine's blue...
              DonP was just joshin' methinks
              We get silly like that around here.

              Don't take offense... join in the fun.

              "Wow,... that was some of the hardest rockin ever. Hardest to listen too."
              --floydkramer

              Comment


              • #8
                THey are suppose to come with a JT 590 Trem, which is the Schaller one (and a very good Trem according to others on this forum). I had the schaller trem on a 94 Soloist USA that I use to own.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kudogg View Post
                  Thanks anyway for your unhelpful smartass answers. Jerk.
                  DonP actually turned out to be correct; and now you owe him an apology for being a jerk.

                  It's obvious in that 2nd pic that trem doesn't belong there.
                  "Quiet, numbskulls, I'm broadcasting!" -Moe Howard, "Micro-Phonies" (1945)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RacerX View Post
                    DonP actually turned out to be correct; and now you owe him an apology for being a jerk.

                    It's obvious in that 2nd pic that trem doesn't belong there.
                    Just because you're right about something doesn't entitle you to be a jerk about it. Anyways, why is it "obvious" ?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RacerX View Post
                      DonP actually turned out to be correct; and now you owe him an apology for being a jerk.

                      It's obvious in that 2nd pic that trem doesn't belong there.
                      So the one that says Charvel should be there? I guess so.
                      Last edited by kudogg; 03-05-2008, 08:53 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Actually, in that second pic, the trem DOES belong there. Without seeing the serial number, Im guessing the guitar is approx 1994?

                        That trem is a JT580LP, but with a squared off baseplate. It was only used for a very short time. How do I know? Well, my Rhoads Pro Std. came with the very same. Its not a bad trem, but its not the best. A Schaller will fit just fine and will look good too, but there will be some extra space behind where the string lock screws are... the JT580LP is longer than the Schaller, almost the length of an OFR. But an OFR really wont fit in that rout.
                        Imagine, being able to be magically whisked away to... Delaware. Hi... Im in... Delaware...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by kudogg View Post
                          Just because you're right about something doesn't entitle you to be a jerk about it. Anyways, why is it "obvious" ?
                          I didn't see any "jerk-y" behavior in Don's post. I did in yours.
                          "Quiet, numbskulls, I'm broadcasting!" -Moe Howard, "Micro-Phonies" (1945)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hey soloist XL owners, are the neck profiles thin like the PS4 or Dinky Reverses from the same vintage????

                            I really dug the sound of a USA soloist I tried but I love the thin necks like my MIJ PS4.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              yes, if not more so.
                              that's comparing mine, and my buddy's against my two PS-4's
                              outstandingly thin
                              like, an Olsen twin locked in a closet for a month thin (or somefin)
                              "Wow,... that was some of the hardest rockin ever. Hardest to listen too."
                              --floydkramer

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X