Specs: must/must not haves

  • Thread starter Thread starter ClintN667
  • Start date Start date
honestly I have kinda become a don't judge it till you play it kind of guy. If it did not say fender or gibson it was garbage as far as I was concerned. if it had a floyd it was garbage. Now-if the homies on here say it's good....that's good enough for me.
 
For me, baseball bat necks. Or V-shaped necks. Or even worse, V-shaped fat necks.

Not my preference, but I can play the Gibson USA 50's necks or PRS Wide Fat. Those are moderately fat. I'd rather have a 60's or a Wide Thin, but 50's or Wide Fat won't stop me from enjoying an otherwise good guitar. But those 1" necks... ugh.
 
I don't care, as long as it stays in tune, has good action and intonation and has a decent humbucker in the bridge. Well, I care sometimes... like I prefer locking tuners, but I don't need them, binding? don't care. Stainless steel frets? I prefer them but don't need them.
 
braintheory said:
My spec preferences are for tonal purposes rather than functional or aesthetic bs, so big no-no's for me are poly or oil finishes. The former seems to always make the guitar sound choked, homogenous and stripped of lots of good tonal nuances and responsiveness in expressive in playing, while the latter seems to typically sound dry and lacking in harmonics and good connection between notes on leadwork. Ideally I seem to like shellac finish guitars, but since most vintage guitars use nitro I go with that as the next best finish option for tone. IMO it shouldn't be acceptable for guitars that are considered high quality to be using poly finish, but sadly most of them still use it

Other must not-have/tone sucker specs to me are Floyd or Kahlar bridges vs bridges that allow the strings to go through the body

Also I never heard a basswood guitar yet with remotely good tone nor an ash guitar I liked other than on teles and maybe a few Strats here and there. The best overall body tone wood imo for humbucker guitars is good Honduran mahogany (just hard to rival) and others I still have are alder, Spruce (most tonally complex wood ime), rosewood (yes whole body), Paduak, Poplar and would like some in the future in limba and port Orford cedar or Mediterranean cypress

Other than that not too many strong preferences. I like tall, fat frets. I like scalloped ones too. I like stainless steel frets also, but not a must have for me
Click to expand...
You honestly think the finish makes a difference?
 
I like guitar necks to be on the bodies

sometimes I just haven’t gotten there yet ?
 

Attachments

  • 312CCDDE-13EC-4EB3-B148-9C3C4B494A03.jpeg
    312CCDDE-13EC-4EB3-B148-9C3C4B494A03.jpeg
    2.3 MB · Views: 23
anomaly said:
You honestly think the finish makes a difference?
Click to expand...
110% yes. I know some may think it’s crazy, but try for yourself comparing lots of other guitars with otherwise fairly similar specs other than finish type and you get a feel for it like with anything else. IME it’s very apparent. The biggest differences tends to be on lead work with lots of milky/expressive vibrato’s. On a good shellac finish guitar or nitro (but a bit less so than shellac) you hear on the vibratos much more complexity in tone where all these nuances and extra overtones come out, while on poly guitars (even the best vintage ones I’ve had) it comes off in comparison choked sounding without much extra to squeeze outta the notes with vibrato or even when letting powerchords ring out (less detail), so it just comes off bland and uninspiring comparatively. Oil finish also doesn’t sound as good imo (too dry, lacking harmonics and note connection). I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the fact that most high end guitars (that most guys on here are really into) use poly is imo unacceptable and comedic to me that many of them will be so meticulous everywhere but in tone related details on a musical instrument of all things LOL

I’ve mentioned before also how last time I visited a friend of mine to try his many guitars we both nerded out and I gave myself a test to try and guess what finish type each of his guitars have when played acoustically. I guessed correctly on all but one that I thought was nitro, but was actually very thin poly. The differences were very obvious to me. I don’t have great ears or anything, but just critical listening and I think experience listening for details and over time these little details aren’t as little to me anymore

There was also this great guitar I tried by Tao not too long ago that had a unique sound and a finish type I’d not seen before that he doesn’t wanna disclose what it is. Unique sound and unique finish. Coincidence? I think jot
 
Generally -

  • 1 11/16 nut
  • Prefer 12 inch radius
  • Thicker neck, something with some meat. Not baseball but not paper thin. I'm cramping up just thinking about thin necks.
  • Prefer Ebony boards but can live with Rosewood on my PRS's and Gibsons.
  • Prefer Jumbo frets but can and do live with PRS and Gibson frets.
  • Prefer set or neck through but can and do live with bolt on.
 
jabps said:
Generally -

  • 1 11/16 nut
  • Prefer 12 inch radius
  • Thicker neck, something with some meat. Not baseball but not paper thin. I'm cramping up just thinking about thin necks.
  • Prefer Ebony boards but can live with Rosewood on my PRS's and Gibsons.
  • Prefer Jumbo frets but can and do live with PRS and Gibson frets.
  • Prefer set or neck through but can and do live with bolt on.
Click to expand...
You and I would get along just fine ?

paulyc said:
Hate big baseball bat '59 LP necks.

Hate recessed Floyd Roses.

Not a fan of compound radius fingerboards.

Finally learned I prefer rosewood fingerboards.
Click to expand...
You would hate every guitar I own ?
 
I prefer rosewood boards as well.

I've never owned a truly high-end guitar with an ebony board, but my best-sounding guitars have always had rosewood boards and the ebony ones have usually been thinner-sounding compared to rosewood ones.

I also hate how they sometimes crack for no reason even if I oil them every odd string change.
 
Rex Rocker said:
I prefer rosewood boards as well.

I've never owned a truly high-end guitar with an ebony board, but my best-sounding guitars have always had rosewood boards and the ebony ones have usually been thinner-sounding compared to rosewood ones.

I also hate how they sometimes crack for no reason even if I oil them every odd string change.
Click to expand...
Oil doesn't help with moisture content.
 
I've always gravitated toward mahogany body, maple neck, and some form of TOM bridge as the basis of guitars that really speak to me. To this day, they tend to be the ones I never want to sell.

But in the past few years I've bought a few guitars with floating trems, alder bodies, ash bodies, etc. which I'd always hated previously, but I can't make myself dislike them.
 
Must haves: properly cut nut, thick neck, les Paul nut width at a minimum, jumbo frets, smooth as possible fretboard (typically maple or ebony), 12 inch or flatter radius (within reason), independent volume and tones, HH pickup configuration, easily sweepable pickup selector… so basically a les Paul.

Must not haves: floating Floyd’s as they annoy the shit out of me, single volume knob, most everything on a tele spec sheet, and super light guitars (they feel like they want to get away when playing standing up).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top