Opinions on JT580 and JT6 please!

[QuantumRider]

I recently acquired a Japanese made Charvel, as detailed in this thread:

http://www.jcfonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53339

The guitar came with what appears to be a Japanese market version of the Takeuchi JT580 (with Charvel logo).



I have a spare JT6 lying around, and was thinking of swapping trems (for consistency... I have two other guitars with JT6's).

However, if the JT580 is considered to be a higher quality trem than the JT6, I will not do the swap.

Please post your opinions/reviews.

Thanks in advance!

-QR

[FLuX]

I swapped out the JT-6 on the model 6 i sold to Delano, and I liked it WAYYYY better than the JT-6 that was on there. Stayed in tune better for me and looked a hell of a lot nicer too. I think it's probably hit and miss with those trems...

[dg]

Judging by the length of the pull-up rout, it looks like the JT-6 would probably overhang. I'd stick with what's on there, and if it turns out that you don't like it, a Schaller or JT-590 may be the way to go as an upgrade.

[Sunbane]

The trem doesn't quite match the route, so I bet the trem isn't original. There was probably a JT-590 in there originally. A Schaller Floyd should be a direct replacement.

It's also unusual to see a model series logo on a dinky size body with the pull-up route, but stranger things have happened in Charvel land. I wouldn't be able to tell what it is though.

[DonP]

If it's the original trem (I'm on a fence Sunbane - it looks correct to me), don't fuck with it. You know the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[Sunbane]

This is where it looks off to me:



I don't see why they would make a square route if they were going to put a Takeuchi with the slanted baseplate on it. But there could be a handful of viable explanations to that.

[QuantumRider]

Thanks for all the helpful responses, guys!!!

I put my JT-6 on the guitar for a heartbeat tonight. The fine tuners didn't overhang the route, but the surface of the body interfered with the baseplate, so that I wasn't able to pull up as far as the route allowed.

I swapped the trem back to the Takeuchi for now. Will consider replacing it with a Schaller at some point, as I've got one on another guitar and I like it

Thanks again, you guys rock!

-QR

[straycat]

Looks like a 590 route.

[Dave L]

Yeah, a Schaller would probably fit like a glove. Go for it!

[DonP]

This is where it looks off to me:



I don't see why they would make a square route if they were going to put a Takeuchi with the slanted baseplate on it. But there could be a handful of viable explanations to that.

I see what you are saying now. Here's one explaination (of many I'm sure) - They "switched" to the Tak bridge but already had bodies routed for 590's, and since it was close enough, they just slapped them in. It seems to weird that it's a "Charvel" bridge in a Charvel guitar to make me think someone swapped it. Why would they go through the trouble to replace a good 590 with this?

I only have one Tak bridge - a low pro model, but since I don't have an arm, it doesn't float. It's in a KE3 body (was a JT580LP). I never check to see if it didn't fit right - without a trem arm, it's not a big deal anyway - I'm just going to block it.

[fett]

I was just looking at my Japan Japan Charvel. It had a Takeuchi Floyd like your picture on it but the route is square. Maybe it was a standard route and the Floyd Licensed guys just made the backplate a little different I'll bet it was done so corners wouldn't hit the route on when Floyding.. Just my 2 Yen!!!!!!!

[Racerx2k]

Looks like a Tekauchi TRS-101, but, yeah, the route doesn't match it. Shame. I kinda like the TRS-101. Had one on my old Ibanez. Stayed in tune, rather well, for me. For my current project, I wanted one of these, but went with a Schaller copy, for availabilities sake.

[Sunbane]

Why would they go through the trouble to replace a good 590 with this?

I share your sentiments exactly, but you'd be amazed at what people will do to their guitars in order to save a few bucks.

But yeah, I think it could very well be like you're suggesting - that they switched the trem type and hadn't yet had time to alter the trem routes. It wasn't long after the "pull-up route guitars" appeared that they went to fully recessed trems either anyway, so it's possible that this was a transitional piece.

[Zerberus]

THe trem is original.... if you´ll all look closer, that´s not a Recessed floyd but a top-mounted one. The rout was standard issue on many guitars at the time, especially the Euro or Jap only ones.

A JT-590 /Schaller rout would be fully recessed, including the space where the bridge posts are. The distance towards the back is also way more than a 590 would need... That´s how to tell the original JT-580 routs and the Schaller routs apart.

Why the original 580 routs aren´t angled: No idea
I would assume either
a: to facilitate an upgrade to a better trem
B: because the Takeuchi Templates possibly weren´t available
or C: simple mistake that somehow became standard.

A 590 would fit (but the 1/16" shorter mounting distance/ longer knife edge-saddle distance may cause intonation issues), and OFR likely would as Well... the Fine Tuners and baseplate on the JT-6 may cause clearance issues, and I´d not really rate the JT-6 as a significant upgrade to a 580 either

BTW, RX2K: the Original JT-580 is Identical to a TRS-101/ SFT-70 in all respects, just like the JT-580LP is identical to a Lo-Pro TRS

[Sunbane]

A JT-590 /Schaller rout would be fully recessed, including the space where the bridge posts are.

Err...no. The Charvel 650XL came with a non-recessed JT-590 and a pull-up route (and so did the early 750XLs), so your argument is not accurate. Later 750XLs still had a non-recessed 590, but lacked the pull-up route.