2005 'Bad Horsie' and fixed-bridge model (confirmed by Vai)

[Two hands31]

Originally Posted by RCB

The DBK has a cheap look overall. The screw heads are also in the BSB and nobody thinks it looks cheap.

Yes, but the Mirror JEM wouldn't look cheap, so why is it a bad thing that it's replacing the DBK?

[RCB]

Its not bad, its great if thats true, and the mirror jems retail for under 1900 I will buy it.

I would prefer ANY other inlay though: vine, piramids, sharkfin, splitted blocks..... anything!

[Two hands31]

Originally Posted by RCB

Its not bad, its great if thats true, and the mirror jems retail for under 1900 I will buy it.

I would prefer ANY other inlay though: vine, piramids, sharkfin, splitted blocks..... anything!

I'm kinda hoping for something new on this one. If we got the LEDs it'd be cool, but I'd settle for anything new and different at this point.

[the.godfather]

I dunno though, I reckon the LED's will be a very long shot, and the laser in the headstock too. I dont think it will be as cheap as the others either, if they are planning on doing that silver finish well, surely it will cost. I can see it costing quite a bit more than your usual JEM.

I dont think its a good thing replacing the DBK necessarily, I think for the price of them you cant go far wrong, especially compared to the other models. Yeah it may have the scewhead inlays, but it is the "industrial" model.

But I suppose the mirror jem will have to replace something. I dunno though, I just cant see it being as good as everyone makes out, especially for the money. But we shall see, I hope it is, and only time will tell.

[The_Grindfiend]

Originally Posted by RCB

Well, let me correct you. A set neck is very similar to a neckthough. When you glue 2 pieces of wood toghether (as in a set neck) it acts as one piece of wood. A neck through or a set neck has MUCH better sustain than a bolt on. There is something to have in mind though. If the guitars is heavily routed and with a floating trem, then much of that improved sustain will be lost. Thats why i said I liked to see a fixed bridge neckthrough.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Originally Posted by RCB

Its OK if you dont know much abouth luthiery, but dont be closed minded to learn something.

I believe it's you that needs to do some research, mein freund. You obviously adhere to the same errors that have been passed around the guitar community for years and years.

[bpd111]

Originally Posted by The_Grindfiend

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Educate me... I'm not sure which point(s) you disagree on, but I'm particularly interested in the set neck/neck-thru comparison as well as the amount of lost sustain on such guitars with a floating bridge.

[Andelusion]

I don't know but when i look at the DBK i think it's crying out for an inlay-less ebony fingerboard

Speaking of the DBk i agree it's over priced, it was the first *real* Jem i played and to me if felt like a quality guitar, i value tone way more than looks and the screw inlays wouldn't bother me one bit.

I think the Bad Horsie should have offset dots ~RG3120

Different inlay options really do transform the look of guitars.

We really don't have any official official word on these models yet though don't we? lol

[RCB]

I believe it's you that needs to do some research, mein freund. You obviously adhere to the same errors that have been passed around the guitar community for years and years.

Well, I think, and it seems only logical to me, that a set neck or a necktrhough has a better transmission of the string vibration, and thats why it has better sustain. About the glued woods working as one piece of wood.... well the scarf joint is another good example.

about the effect of a floating trem and heavy routing..... well its seem natural that a stringed trhough instrument will have a better transmission of the string vibration than a floating bridge that only makes contact with "the guitar" where the knifes pivotate.

Since my english is certainly not the best and Im not a Luthier, IM sure there are other people here that can make a better explanation, or correct me if I m wrong. We have the luck to have very fine luthiers and tech expert in this forum that can explain this. Rich (who certainly know very much about guitars) already has, but you seem to think what he said and I said is just a bunch of b***it. May be we can have LGM, soloway or another luthier to share knowledge with us.

[The_Grindfiend]

It is true that a bolt-on will have more harmonic overtones and will sound "tighter" and less muddy. This is because neck-through guitars contain more fundamental. Some people like this increased bass, but I feel that it only contributes mud to the sound. You can get all the bass you need with a bolt-on. At any rate, there was nothing wrong about this part.

Sustain, however, is where you are incorrect. A bolt-on, at worst, will sustain as well as a neck-through, and at best, will sustain more.

http://www.globalbass.com/archives/m...ter_basses.htm

I encourage you to read that article, as it contains some good information. Notice how he says:

"We built these three instruments, the bolt on, the neck through and the glued, with exactly the same woods. With no electronics and no hardware, just the minimum of stuff. The first one we did was glued and it ended up in the garbage can! The thing is if you are a player that likes the old muffled sound, the bolt-on construction will not really do the job. So for that old muffled sound you need a lot of bad quality (he breaks into laughter here and has trouble composing himself for a few moments) But this is not a bad thing, if you like this sound. The most common kind of bass being sold here are for solo bassists. You need a transparent, dynamic and clear sound. I build these basses. If somebody wants that traditionally muffled cool sound then buy the Fender."

Mike Tobias is another bass luthier who no longer makes neck-through instruments.

[The_Grindfiend]

Originally Posted by bpd111

Educate me... I'm not sure which point(s) you disagree on, but I'm particularly interested in the set neck/neck-thru comparison as well as the amount of lost sustain on such guitars with a floating bridge.

Just how much sustain is lost due to the addition of a floating bridge is debatable. Certainly there's some, but I don't feel like it's nearly as bad as Les Paul advocates would have you believe.

[RCB]

I see no references to the sustain issue. Then again he is referrin to basses. May be, I don t really know, when you make a bass the added bass frecuencies of a neckthrough construction is something undesireable. Bass guitars and guitars work with different frecuencies.

Im surprised that you take the word of one bass luthier against the word of countless guitar luthiers.

Still, my arguments on why a neckthough has better sustain stand. Your reference, while interesting, do not adress this issue, and the incresed bass frecuencies dont seem to be a problem on a guitar. At best, you can say that you dont like the better bottom end you get on a neckthrough.

[The_Grindfiend]

OK, I'll have to point it out to you.

"Even more so than having a neck through body? Did you work with neck-throughs as well?"

"I built them, but I don’t build them now. The thing is, you take the oscillation energy (between the nut and the bridge) and you divide it in the middle. That’s the job of the bolt-on construction. It divides that oscillation energy so you end up with faster attack and you have longer sustain."

"So you are saying in summary that the strength of the bolt-on versus the neck through is that the bolts divide that oscillation energy in half, affecting the sound the string produces."

This is right around the middle of the page.

Originally Posted by RCB

Im surprised that you take the word of one bass luthier against the word of countless guitar luthiers.

Originally Posted by The_Grindfiend

Mike Tobias is another bass luthier who no longer makes neck-through instruments.

There are more that elude me at the moment, as well.

The reason is, the vast majority of guitar makers are extremely set in their ways. People have to come to believe that a certain set of information is true, and they are not easily convinced otherwise. Bass makers, however, have always been more adventurous and sophisticated than guitar maker. Boutique bass companies are where you'll go if you want to know what's new in the guitar business.

Originally Posted by RCB

Still, my arguments on why a neckthough has better sustain stand.

Once again, I'm sorry, but no it doesn't.

[jemsite]

please take the neck-thru debate to another (or new) thread... glen

[RCB]

OK, so back to the topic (I will start a new thread so we can gather other luthiers opinion, since you posted interesting information here).

Why is everybody talking about a mirrored jem instead of a chrome jem? What should we be expecting? A Jem that has a pseudo chrome in the face and is black in the back? Another kind of mirrored finish?

I woulnt like the dots as inlays (off set dots wouldn be that bad though)..... but leds would suck even more than plain dots; i know they may be cool for a show at night, but I d rather leave that kind of stuff for big shows and celebrties that can affor that kind of aesthethical transgression. Imagine if Gibson released a Les Paul with fireworks ala Ace Frehley back in the 70s...... horrendous idea! Anyway it is SO unlikely that Im not really worried.

I would like to see an ebony or maple freatboard on any of these.

[The_Grindfiend]

I already started a new one.

But anyway, I like the LEDs. Offset dots aren't what Steve has on his, and they're boring anyway.