are jacksons and similar guitars supposed to be less resonant?

Re: are jacksons and similar guitars supposed to be less resonant?

Just depends on what you have the ear for. I have no problems with my soloist. Sounds like a solid body electric should sound like unplugged. I mean, it's not going to sound like a hollowbody here.

I'd love a soloist oneday but for some reason i'm more drawn to the Dinky bolt on style... I will own a nice USA made Jackson someday
 
Re: are jacksons and similar guitars supposed to be less resonant?

how do i get to different departments? sorry

well.... currently you are in the guitar shop, particularly in a thread about jacksons. there are rooms, or "departments" for pickups, guitars(this thread) amps, tips and clips, and the off-topic sound room.
 
Re: are jacksons and similar guitars supposed to be less resonant?

Jackson's are true electric guitars to the utmost extent. Jackson's are not strum-around-the-campfire guitars. They are made for high volume, high gain, high clarity, high articulation, and stage presence--pertaining to their sharp looks and outstanding paintjobs.

Think about the era in which Jackson's were made famous. These artist's were all about excess--onstage and offstage. They wanted unreal sustain that came from high voulme and more gain. The high output pickups helped push any amp someone was using back then. They still wanted to maintain clarity of notes at high volume, so they had ebony fretboards that made every note come through in detail and it was applied to a thinner maple neck (not to mention neck-through, though not always) that has a very tight, focused, and fast response--thusly increasing the clarity. Apply that to liquid sustain from both axe constuction and overdriven amplifier and you've got yourself a perfect electic guitar under those circumstances. So you can't blame any lack of tone on the Foyd Rose or the routing. Anything you feel you lose from those to things acoustically will be forgotten once you've blasted through a half stack and the sustain is superior.

Jacksons tend to sound cold as bleep acoustically, but that's because they were designed for any high volume assault--which results in a sound in and of itself.

Jackson's were designed much for the technical aspects that some music requires. It wasn't designed to sound beautiful by itself just to have barre chords played on it at low volume. It was meant to be played all out through a high gain amplifier! I mean, you don't invite the "Macho Man" Randy Savage at his peak to a tea party do ya?

This sums up all you need to know. Excellent post.
 
Re: are jacksons and similar guitars supposed to be less resonant?

I think I know what you mean. I wouldn't say they resonate less, but differently - its not a pronounced acoustic sound. In fact, its a feel and sound that really defines a properly made super strat to me. That type of vibration really shines when amplified, for specific styles and sounds. You made a very good observation.

I agree, they don´t resonate or sustain less by any means, the just aren´t designed to sound like an acoustic as the original designs (at least theoretically) were.

much less contact.

....

Hmm... ABR-1 post: 4mm diameter screw
Nashville post: 6 mm diameter bushing
Floyd post: 8mm diameter bushing.....

:eek13: ;)

While I agree with most of what Jackson Distortion said...

....
Jacksons tend to sound cold as bleep acoustically, but that's because they were designed for any high volume assault--which results in a sound in and of itself. ....

Mine must all be factory rejects, then :laugh2::beerchug:
 
Last edited:
Re: are jacksons and similar guitars supposed to be less resonant?

My SL2H gives all of my Gibson's a run for the money. I love them all, but this SL2H is made out of some great wood or something. It's just got a great tone going on.

In fact, this is a pretty silly post. If Jackson's didn't sound good, who would buy them?

I'm not into forking over $1K for tone turds.
 
Re: are jacksons and similar guitars supposed to be less resonant?

looking around Jacksons website i kind of have my eye on a DK2 that comes with Duncans... since i don't think i'll seriously be able to afford the USA Dinky that may just do it...
 
Re: are jacksons and similar guitars supposed to be less resonant?

looking around Jacksons website i kind of have my eye on a DK2 that comes with Duncans... since i don't think i'll seriously be able to afford the USA Dinky that may just do it...

Shop the used market, a DK1 can be had for the same price as a new DK2 or for just a few dollars more. It is worth the wait....the DK2s are very good guitars, but you will notice a bit of a difference between the Japanese and US guitars when you have them side-by-side.
 
Re: are jacksons and similar guitars supposed to be less resonant?

Shop the used market, a DK1 can be had for the same price as a new DK2 or for just a few dollars more. It is worth the wait....the DK2s are very good guitars, but you will notice a bit of a difference between the Japanese and US guitars when you have them side-by-side.

ya i hear ya.... you don't see many Jackson/Charvels this way... Toronto's music stores don't carry the brand often and when they do it's just a few stuck in the corner... I may bite the bullet oneday and just work some overtime for a while and walk into my local store with a roll of $100's and say order me a USA Dinky!
 
Re: are jacksons and similar guitars supposed to be less resonant?

My Jackson is super light, and the body is resonant --- but the trem bridge is less than incredible --- I think that's the thing with Jacksons --- most have trems or Floyds, which kills energy transfer to the body.

-Hunter
 
Back
Top