Original Floyd Rose Pro
- Thread starter Ironjose
- Start date
jmh151
Active member
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
The Floyd Rose Pro is the low profile version of the Original Floyd, meanst strictly for guitars with recesses trem cavities- it's very similar to the Ibanez Lo Pro Edge.
Construction wise, it's made of the same exact materials as the Original Floyd, same quality, it's just a bit more streamlined.
Stays in tune excellent.
Having both Ibanez trems and Floyds, I wouldn't upgrade to an Original Floyd or Floyd Pro from and Ibanez Edge or Lo Pro Edge. Those units are just as good if not better. If you have any other cheaper licensed Floyd on another guitar it would be worth a shot.
The Floyd Rose Pro is the low profile version of the Original Floyd, meanst strictly for guitars with recesses trem cavities- it's very similar to the Ibanez Lo Pro Edge.
Construction wise, it's made of the same exact materials as the Original Floyd, same quality, it's just a bit more streamlined.
Stays in tune excellent.
Having both Ibanez trems and Floyds, I wouldn't upgrade to an Original Floyd or Floyd Pro from and Ibanez Edge or Lo Pro Edge. Those units are just as good if not better. If you have any other cheaper licensed Floyd on another guitar it would be worth a shot.
Zerberus
Baron Von Shred
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
I agree with everything except this part:
Both low profile units and "standard units" can be mounted in either fashion, the actual idea behind a lo-pro design is to get the fine tuners out of the way of players with more "amplitude" in their picking, as they would commonly hit the fine tuners and knock everything out of whack with teh original design. Essentially a rethinking of the whale tail in the wake of Jackson´s not so top notch but still ingenious JT-6 design which placed the fine tuners UNDER the whale tail, and this was in late ´86. That of course presented other issues, but the seed of the Lo Pro style floyds was sown, and Ibanez caught on first with the Lo Pro Edge in IIRC ´90, soon after the Schaller Lo Profile design came to be (not too well known but a truly great unit that´s still in production today).
And a few years ago someone must have called Floyd Rose and told him about the ingenious designs people have just started using to improve on his trem :laugh2:
I agree that it is rare to see a lo-pro above the top of a guitar, though. But IMO the move to recessing trems more or less across the board by all manufacturers (Jackson actually being one of the last ones to follow suit) in the late 80s /early 90s had more to do with reducing production costs, because it takes significantly less effort and equipment to build a guitar where the neck (or neck pocket) isn´t angled back. Not really a result of trem design or even "mass player preference", just cheaper.
I agree with everything except this part:
Both low profile units and "standard units" can be mounted in either fashion, the actual idea behind a lo-pro design is to get the fine tuners out of the way of players with more "amplitude" in their picking, as they would commonly hit the fine tuners and knock everything out of whack with teh original design. Essentially a rethinking of the whale tail in the wake of Jackson´s not so top notch but still ingenious JT-6 design which placed the fine tuners UNDER the whale tail, and this was in late ´86. That of course presented other issues, but the seed of the Lo Pro style floyds was sown, and Ibanez caught on first with the Lo Pro Edge in IIRC ´90, soon after the Schaller Lo Profile design came to be (not too well known but a truly great unit that´s still in production today).
And a few years ago someone must have called Floyd Rose and told him about the ingenious designs people have just started using to improve on his trem :laugh2:
I agree that it is rare to see a lo-pro above the top of a guitar, though. But IMO the move to recessing trems more or less across the board by all manufacturers (Jackson actually being one of the last ones to follow suit) in the late 80s /early 90s had more to do with reducing production costs, because it takes significantly less effort and equipment to build a guitar where the neck (or neck pocket) isn´t angled back. Not really a result of trem design or even "mass player preference", just cheaper.
Mr 9finger
Digitally Challenged
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
Also keep in mind that Floyd Rose Lo Pro's have a shorter string spread than the original or Ibanez Edge, Lo Pro Edge.
Also keep in mind that Floyd Rose Lo Pro's have a shorter string spread than the original or Ibanez Edge, Lo Pro Edge.
Ironjose
New member
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
that means that the space between the strings is smaller ? than most trems? so i´m going to have a smaller gap on the fretboard from E to e ?
JJ
that means that the space between the strings is smaller ? than most trems? so i´m going to have a smaller gap on the fretboard from E to e ?
JJ
pinto79
New member
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
I have to correct you on your Info here, as I have both in my posession ATM... the Floyd Rose Pro must be installed in a recessed route, or at least one that is recessed enough to clear the fine-tuner springs under the trem, they prevent the unit from sitting flat on the body like on the Charvel EVH Art sereis as an example.
Also, the "Whale Tail" is off-set toward the high strings so the route needs to be differnt at that point.
Other tha that, it's a nice trem but I think it's different enough that people shy away. The biggest difference that threw me at first is that the string lock screws use a 9/64" allen key instead of the 3mm like everything else...
I can post a pic of one out of a guitar if anyone wants.
Trevor
I have to correct you on your Info here, as I have both in my posession ATM... the Floyd Rose Pro must be installed in a recessed route, or at least one that is recessed enough to clear the fine-tuner springs under the trem, they prevent the unit from sitting flat on the body like on the Charvel EVH Art sereis as an example.
Also, the "Whale Tail" is off-set toward the high strings so the route needs to be differnt at that point.
Other tha that, it's a nice trem but I think it's different enough that people shy away. The biggest difference that threw me at first is that the string lock screws use a 9/64" allen key instead of the 3mm like everything else...
I can post a pic of one out of a guitar if anyone wants.
Trevor
jmh151
Active member
Zerberus
Baron Von Shred
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
AH, the issue with the fine tuner springs is one that I hadn´t noticed so far (because as stated most trems are recessed), I stand corrected :bowdown:
And yeah, that allen wrench is a crappy idea, esp. for gaining a foothold outside the US market
And of course we want guitar and trem porn :laugh2:
AH, the issue with the fine tuner springs is one that I hadn´t noticed so far (because as stated most trems are recessed), I stand corrected :bowdown:
And yeah, that allen wrench is a crappy idea, esp. for gaining a foothold outside the US market
And of course we want guitar and trem porn :laugh2:
pinto79
New member
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
Alright. I don't have an OFR out of a guitar right now, but here is the Floyd Rose Pro. THis one is going into an older Ibanez RG270 to replace the non-locking TRS variant. I am in the process of filling and re-routing te body to fit the FRP...
So without further adoo... Notice the springs under the base in the second pic...
Alright. I don't have an OFR out of a guitar right now, but here is the Floyd Rose Pro. THis one is going into an older Ibanez RG270 to replace the non-locking TRS variant. I am in the process of filling and re-routing te body to fit the FRP...
So without further adoo... Notice the springs under the base in the second pic...
Zerberus
Baron Von Shred
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
WOW!!! How the blazes did I never notice that?? That´s almost as awkwardly in the way as those stupid ball holders on the Edge Pro.
I think this is the first trem I´ve ever seen (knowingly, as I´ve handled OFR Pros before just never looked that closely it seems) where the leaf springs are that bulky...
Hey Floyd: WHY?? :eek13:
WOW!!! How the blazes did I never notice that?? That´s almost as awkwardly in the way as those stupid ball holders on the Edge Pro.
I think this is the first trem I´ve ever seen (knowingly, as I´ve handled OFR Pros before just never looked that closely it seems) where the leaf springs are that bulky...
Hey Floyd: WHY?? :eek13:
pinto79
New member
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
I can't say why they used this design. I guess we know now why they are not all that popular. The string lock blocks in the saddles are different too as are the fine tuner screws. Other than the arm and socket, there are no 2 parts the same in the OFR and FRP. Even the trem blocks are supposed to be different, but they sent me the OFR one for this so I don't really know... I think these are the redheaded stepchild of the FR Clan. I'm looking forward to trying this one out once it is installed...
I can't say why they used this design. I guess we know now why they are not all that popular. The string lock blocks in the saddles are different too as are the fine tuner screws. Other than the arm and socket, there are no 2 parts the same in the OFR and FRP. Even the trem blocks are supposed to be different, but they sent me the OFR one for this so I don't really know... I think these are the redheaded stepchild of the FR Clan. I'm looking forward to trying this one out once it is installed...
Zerberus
Baron Von Shred
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
They work fine IME, just as well as an OFR, but I don´t like lo-pro trems in general. I don´t have issues with hitting the fine tuners, so for me the redesigns make the system unnecessarily complicated with no significant benefit to my playing
They work fine IME, just as well as an OFR, but I don´t like lo-pro trems in general. I don´t have issues with hitting the fine tuners, so for me the redesigns make the system unnecessarily complicated with no significant benefit to my playing
Mr 9finger
Digitally Challenged
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
The reason for the 9/64" SAE lockbolts is this. The Floyd Pro was introduced on the Kramer Proaxe. Which Kramer touted as being the "all american guitar".
So they changed some things around. Which I found kind of funny since the Pro Axe bodies and necks were made in Japan and shipped over here and the Floyds were made in Germany.
But on a good side note, the Pro Axe also introduced the Seymour Duncan Parallel Axis trembuckers to us.
The reason for the 9/64" SAE lockbolts is this. The Floyd Pro was introduced on the Kramer Proaxe. Which Kramer touted as being the "all american guitar".
So they changed some things around. Which I found kind of funny since the Pro Axe bodies and necks were made in Japan and shipped over here and the Floyds were made in Germany.
But on a good side note, the Pro Axe also introduced the Seymour Duncan Parallel Axis trembuckers to us.
Mr 9finger
Digitally Challenged
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
Yes, but it's not that much of a gap. According to the Floyd website, the original has a string spacing of .420 and the pro has a spacing of .400. IIRC 53mm for the Original and around 51.5mm for the Pro.
Yes, but it's not that much of a gap. According to the Floyd website, the original has a string spacing of .420 and the pro has a spacing of .400. IIRC 53mm for the Original and around 51.5mm for the Pro.
pinto79
New member
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
Schaller's Low Profile one is similar on the underside. Kind of an odd design...
They work fine IME, just as well as an OFR, but I don´t like lo-pro trems in general. I don´t have issues with hitting the fine tuners, so for me the redesigns make the system unnecessarily complicated with no significant benefit to my playing
Schaller's Low Profile one is similar on the underside. Kind of an odd design...
Zerberus
Baron Von Shred
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
They probably are
I can´t believe Schaller would do that. I can´t remember ever seeing or hearing of issues with the leaf springs.... It´s kind of understandable with most people using recessed trems anyway, but why would you remove that kind of versatility from your product? :eek13:
Then again, it´s also possible that Floyd and Schaller have been working on this idea as a pair for some time, and that the Schaller was just a long-term testbed....or it could have been that the saddle design was reworked slightly to save costs in light of the OFRP production (why make 6 different saddles when 3 will do fine ) ...
They probably are
I can´t believe Schaller would do that. I can´t remember ever seeing or hearing of issues with the leaf springs.... It´s kind of understandable with most people using recessed trems anyway, but why would you remove that kind of versatility from your product? :eek13:
Then again, it´s also possible that Floyd and Schaller have been working on this idea as a pair for some time, and that the Schaller was just a long-term testbed....or it could have been that the saddle design was reworked slightly to save costs in light of the OFRP production (why make 6 different saddles when 3 will do fine
) ...
pinto79
New member
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
I guess that they've sold enough of them for it to still exist almost 20 years later... (The FRP was released in 1987)
But I'm with you on the limited versatility. I'm still a fan of the OFR, those tuners never get in my way either...
They probably are
I can´t believe Schaller would do that. I can´t remember ever seeing or hearing of issues with the leaf springs.... It´s kind of understandable with most people using recessed trems anyway, but why would you remove that kind of versatility from your product? :eek13:
Then again, it´s also possible that Floyd and Schaller have been working on this idea as a pair for some time, and that the Schaller was just a long-term testbed....or it could have been that the saddle design was reworked slightly to save costs in light of the OFRP production (why make 6 different saddles when 3 will do fine
I guess that they've sold enough of them for it to still exist almost 20 years later... (The FRP was released in 1987)
But I'm with you on the limited versatility. I'm still a fan of the OFR, those tuners never get in my way either...
pinto79
New member
Re: Original Floyd Rose Pro
Sorry to wake an old thread like this, but for those who are interested, the body cavity for the Floyd Rose Pro, if cut to the exact dimensions as provided by Floyd Rose, only provides room for the bridge to fit in. There is minimal room for the trem to be pulled back, so you lose a whole lot of wood for no real reason.
I'll stick to the OFR for the guitars I'm building...
Sorry to wake an old thread like this, but for those who are interested, the body cavity for the Floyd Rose Pro, if cut to the exact dimensions as provided by Floyd Rose, only provides room for the bridge to fit in. There is minimal room for the trem to be pulled back, so you lose a whole lot of wood for no real reason.
I'll stick to the OFR for the guitars I'm building...
