I'M NOT CRAZY! Problem with Tripleshot Rings! (See Pic)

[frankfalbo]

Re: I'M NOT CRAZY! Problem with Tripleshot Rings! (See Pic)

Well, I see I was wrong about Seymour Duncan not giving dimensions...So I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion and getting pissy in this thread, now I know better.

Notwithstanding that, I still stand by the criticism re: (1) weakness of the ribbon-wiring which many others have commented on, (2) lack of customer service when they don't respond to an inquiry made through their own online inquiry form (why even have it, really?).

Excellent reply, thank you for your honesty. You are correct that the strain relief goop and the thin ribbon cable is fragile, and it requires being gentle during installation. It's not so much as a design "flaw" as it is the limitations of what you can do within those size constraints. I'm sure there are better ways. It seems every day some new kind of small push connector or terminal, or ultra-flexible wire or flex PCB is invented. I can't answer for whether redesigns are in the works, nor the customer service as I haven't been there for about 3 years. But I do know about the dimensional decisions.

That goes for the pots as well. Like the mounting rings, there's an assumption that if you're going to make a replacement part, you're safest going with the "original" or standard, in many cases, American version of the part in question. You can always open a potentiometer hole in a guitar for the fatter, Gibson/Fender thread size, you can't close the hole for the smaller Asian sized pots. Plus there's just an expectation that the part look like the one in the Gibson or Fender, even if thread size had no value. That's my philosophy. For a company that is deeply rooted in vintage products, it made the most sense to use vintage specs for replacement parts as well. For example, if the Triple Shot had been a Planet Waves product, or some other brand without vintage roots, perhaps it would have looked different.

 

[krm27]

Re: I'M NOT CRAZY! Problem with Tripleshot Rings! (See Pic)

I still don't get why you started this thread. In your other thread, all of your complaints/misconceptions/lack of knowledge/questions were addressed/answered. You've brought nothing new to the table in this thread except additional whining.

I noted the size issue as an afterthought in the prior thread, which (to my recollection / intention) was about the tearing of the ribbon. I did not want to make an issue out of the size issue till I satisfied (to myself) that it was not the existing holes that were too large. I thought, when I bought a new pickup ring and it fit my guitar, that I had now satisfied myself that this was a problem, so I created this thread with the picture (worth a thousand words). I don't see how that's redundant with the prior thread.

And being wrong is not the same as whining. I was wrong that this sizing thing was "wrong" but, if my understanding was correct, then I was calling something important to light with visual evidence. Whining would just be rehashing complaints with nothing new. But I see your agenda is simply to insult me, so whatever, if that's what your ego needs.

Ken

 

[Inflames626]

Re: I'M NOT CRAZY! Problem with Tripleshot Rings! (See Pic)

Well, to save this thread from total chaos, I'm glad someone brought up the TS anyway, as I was considering purchasing some TS rings. My guitars are pretty thin bodied as well, so I'll know to watch out for the wires.

I'm fairly decent at soldering, save doing multiple installations on push pull pots. The ends of the fine wires get burned off or covered in solder, and the pot eyelets eventually fill or become saturated with solder from multiple installations and removals.

It isn't fair to jump all over SD, though. I bought some EMTY Blackouts new a few years ago (probably my first pickup installation job). I clipped the leads too short as I practiced. I showed SD the sales slip and they promptly sent me replacement stuff. I was grateful because they didn't have to do that simply because I was incompetent.

Also, relative to EMG and DiMarzio, SD's product development and social networking are top notch. They're always posting, always trying to help people, and always innovating. They'll even make you whatever you want. They deserve props for that. One gets the feeling that they genuinely care about their customers (and they do), whereas other manufacturers might just be interested in seeing how many import guitars they can put their hardware on OEM.

To make a bit of a digression, my only beef is I don't feel people's preferences for certain popular, traditional SD designs/voicings are warranted (for example, the JB). And, I've tried a lot of the Duncan PAFs and I oddly prefer the Gibsons even though the perception seems to be that the Duncans sound better. But that's just personal taste. But, maybe if I grew up with classic rock like millions of other people did from 1950-1975 or so, I'd feel differently about traditional designs. Instead, I prefer things from the 80s and 90s.

I think a lot of it is SDs are just so ubiquitous and people are content with the usual stock models (JB/Distortion/Jazz/59) because they don't want to invest the time and money into experimenting with so many models.

At the same time, for those of us into more modern and extreme music, there has been a slew of new designs the past 10-15 years--maybe even too many, and this makes it hard to choose (I'm not sure the newer 7-8 string lines were necessary when 7-8 string Blackouts and Distortions were already solid choices).

For example, IMO, DiMarzio has too many models. EMG has too few. For the most part, Duncan is pretty much right down the middle.

So I'm a bit of a contradiction--I don't like sticking with tradition simply to be traditional, but there's no need to reinvent the wheel every 5 minutes either. And I guess I'm stuck on my own traditions. For example, I'd gladly use something like a Full Shred for extreme metal instead of something newer even though it was designed for hair metal 30 years ago.