Thoughts on the SL2H-V?

[Axewielder]

The Music Zoo has been listing a bunch of these old-school SL2H-V soloists. I haven't seen a thread about them. They appear to have some nice 80's specs plus a repositioned volume knob. The only negative I see is they don't have the Shannon soloist fret nibs. Thoughts?

[Richard W]

It's pretty much perfect, if it just had a recessed floyd I'd be all over it.

[Axewielder]

Diff'rent strokes I guess, the non-recessed trem is what got me stoked about it!

[Hellbat]

I was thinking the non-recessed floyd would be what was making it pretty much perfect. I'm okay with Jackson's normal volume knob placement myself.

[Wizard of Ozz]

I hate:
-the small headstock
-the logo


...and I'm kinda meh on the non-recessed trem. No pull-ups...

I pretty much like the current SL2H as-is. :dunno:

[Axewielder]

...and I'm kinda meh on the non-recessed trem. No pull-ups...

I think that is a misconception. I can usually get a step and a half pull-up on my non-recessed trems.

[ulijdavid]

I think that is a misconception. I can usually get a step and a half pull-up on my non-recessed trems.

Yeah...I think most people think the recess is for pull ups. In reality, it positions the bridge closer to the body (traditional Strat trem). It also makes manufacturing much easier since you don't have to involve the precision of a correct neck angle.

[neilli]

I really wanted to like them (partly at least because I have a $1500 credit to use at TMZ!), but they're just too much of a clash of features / eras for me.

I can live with the script/hand-drawn logo, but I can't stand those crownheads (which can't even be swapped neatly) - neither of those were used regularly on Soloists even in the early days. Then you add modern features like the heel and the lack of binding nibs and the overall effect seems like a mess to me. Basically, I love the non-recessed Floyd, but that's about it. When I first heard of these a year or so ago I was really excited, but the end result leaves me wanting...

[GuerillaPete]

The new TMZ SL2H-Vs feature the "Shannon Soloist" specs, no? From the limited run Jackson did in 1998(?) IIRC.

Would love it more if it was just a 1-hum.

[RobRR]

The only thing Im not 100% sold on is the hand drawn logo. I love everything else about it, including that it doesnt have binding nibs... never was a fan of binding-over-frets ala gibson.

[vector]

Pics, links?

[neilli]

The new TMZ SL2H-Vs feature the "Shannon Soloist" specs, no? From the limited run Jackson did in 1998(?)

Sort of, in that they are both selling on the 'retro' thing. The SL2HV has the 'hand drawn' (i.e. Concorde) logo, shorter headstock, 2 hums, crownhead tuners, non recessed floyd, modern neck heel, re-positioned controls and no binding nibs. The Shannons had an 80% silkscreen logo, normal head, h/s/s, normal tuners, non-recessed Floyd, SD neck heel, normal control position and binding nibs.

So really other than being Soloists, the main similarity with the Shannons is the non recessed Floyd.

[vector]

LINK

FWIW- like the knob placement, prefer a recessed trem as well, and am not jazzed by the hand drawn logo.
I'd also respectfully disagree with ulijdavid in that some manufacturers rout but still have high set trems- ala Hamer Diablos, Centurians and Californians. I certainly agree that the rout does allow for a lower trem height as was the concept behind Vai's design which eventually became the JEM. But it also allows for a greater range of pull up.

[neilli]

Well that's two different things - trem routs vs recessed trems. Once there's a route, it can be as deep as you reasonably want, so the up-bend should/could be the same. To clarify, a recessed trem is the current way Jackson do it, where the top of the baseplate is flush with the face of the body.

A non recessed trem is anything higher than that, but obviously there are some options: it can sit on the face with no rout a-la EVH. It can sit as if it was on the face, but then have a rout cut underneath for up-bend. Or it can sit up above the body with no route, with just the clearance to the face for the up-bend. And if there's a rout, it can be just as deep as on a recessed floyd. Obviously, if there's no rout there's only so much travel, but for the most part, how much do we really need anyway?...

[vector]

Well that's two different things - trem routs vs recessed trems. Once there's a route, it can be as deep as you reasonably want, so the up-bend should/could be the same. To clarify, a recessed trem is the current way Jackson do it, where the top of the baseplate is flush with the face of the body.

A non recessed trem is anything higher than that, but obviously there are some options: it can sit on the face with no rout a-la EVH. It can sit as if it was on the face, but then have a rout cut underneath for up-bend. Or it can sit up above the body with no route, with just the clearance to the face for the up-bend. And if there's a rout, it can be just as deep as on a recessed floyd. Obviously, if there's no rout there's only so much travel, but for the most part, how much do we really need anyway?...

I stand corrected. I got "recessed" mixed up with "routed" as, to the best of my knowledge, most, if not all recessed trems have to have some rout under them. As for how much trem travel one needs? Only you can answer that but I'd rather have it there and NOT need it than to need it and NOT have it there. YMMV.