How does an SL-2H compares with a PC1 in terms of playability?

[Econ]

Hi folks:

Last moth I had the great opportunity to purchase what I consider now to be the best guitar I've ever played or owned. It is a Jackson PC1 model with a gorgeous rootbeer color and beautiful birdsee maple fingerboard. I'm simply in love with this guitar and have decided to sell my other two guitars (Ibanez and BC Rich) simply because they are not getting any playing time since my PC1 arrived. The thing is that I would like to own a second guitar to alternate with the PC1 and would like the guitar to be a Jackson. I'm really interested in the SL-2H model and would like to know who this guitar compares to the PC1 in terms of playability. I know they are really different in terms of features and options, but I'm interested in knowing how they compare in terms of how comfortable their necks and bodies are. Is the fret access similar on both guitars? How different is the sound of the SL-2H from the PC1 taking into account that these guitars have different pickups? Whatever feedback I get here will allow me to make a decision and probably get another Jackson for Chirstmas.

[toejam]

Re: How does an SL-2H compares with a PC1 in terms of playability?

Access to the higher frets should be a little easier on the SL2H since it's neck-thru and the PC1 is bolt-on. Both are great guitars and you can't go wrong!

[shreddermon]

Re: How does an SL-2H compares with a PC1 in terms of playability?

The Soloist neck is a bit thinner than on PC1s. IMHO, the SLs are a little more comfortable but it's not a big difference. Also, some people have strong opinions on oiled (PC1) vs. finished (SL) necks. I like `em both, but finished necks obviously stand up to abuse over the years better. That's mainly why I prefer them. If you maintain an oiled neck well, though, you shouldn't have many problems.

Soundwise, the PC1 - with a mahogany body - is a bit chunkier. I like the Dimarzios better than the SL's Duncans, but that's a matter of personal preference. Others will think the opposite, I'm sure. Using the neck PU, obviously an SL2H will sound much different than a PC1. i.e., A H vs. stacked SCs. And don't forget the PC1's sustainer.

You can't go wrong with either. They're both great guitars and, IMHO, the differences will compliment each other well. Variety is cool, huh?

BTW, you have a rootbeer PC1 with a birdseye fretboard, and you haven't posted pictures??? That's a [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img] around here. Pics are a must! [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Never seen a PC1 with birdseye before. Almost all are quilted or flamed maple. You may have a fairly rare piece, there.

[toejam]

Re: How does an SL-2H compares with a PC1 in terms of playability?

Originally posted by shreddermon:

BTW, you have a rootbeer PC1 with a birdseye fretboard, and you haven't posted pictures??? That's a [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img] around here. Pics are a must! [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Never seen a PC1 with birdseye before. Almost all are quilted or flamed maple. You may have a fairly rare piece, there.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think it's considered figured maple on the PC1 fretboard (not birdseye), which is different than flamed or quilted. It looks closer to quilted, just not as much texture going on (if that makes any sense).
The body of the PC1 would have a quilted top on it.

[shreddermon]

Re: How does an SL-2H compares with a PC1 in terms of playability?

Originally, they were all quilted maple. Jackson has used some flamed, too, recently. The difference in appearance on something as narrow as a fretboard is negligible, so it can be hard to tell the difference. ("Is that a tight quilt, or flamed?" [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] )

In their specs, Jackson recently started calling it "figured". (...Last year or two?) I suspect they did that just because they now mix up the production, using whatever's on hand in supply. Sometimes it is quilted, sometimes it is flamed. Sometimes the figuring is great, others just so-so. I've never seen birdseye, though, so that may be new. "Figured" maple is just a generic term that can mean any of the above, it's not an actual variety of wood. If you ask for "figured" maple, the response you'll get is "OK, which kind?"

[ December 05, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: shreddermon ]

[toejam]

Re: How does an SL-2H compares with a PC1 in terms of playability?

You're probably right. I just know that Carvin usually uses flamed or quilted on their maple tops. They just recently starting offering another top called "figured" which is kinda plain and not as flowing as quilted. They also offer birds eye maple fingerboards which cost a little more than regular maple. They seem to have a lot more figuring going on, little dots, almost look like eyes, so I guess that's why they call them birds eye.

[shreddermon]

Re: How does an SL-2H compares with a PC1 in terms of playability?

Yep, that's birdseye. With all the manufacturers using quilted / flamed / birdseye on the popular transparent finishes, I wonder if demand exceeding supply is an issue. So they may be left using lower quality pieces somtimes. And rather than calling them 1A quilted or whatever, they try to differentiate it from their "real" good stuf by just calling it "figured".