TRS models - What's the difference?

RG Guy · #1 07-28-2001, 04:55 PM

What's the difference between the TRS, TRS2 and the respective low profile variants (Lo-TRS, Lo-TRS2)? I'm just wondering since the Ibanez website seems to contradict itself with the Lo-TRS and Lo-TRS2.

kirk · #2 07-28-2001, 08:17 PM

I have no idea, so I probably shouldn't even say a thing, but I think the difference between a TRS & a TRS2 is whether or not you cut the ball end off of the string. *

I've never heard of a Lo-Trs2.

I may be wrong....

RG Guy · #3 07-28-2001, 08:31 PM

That can't be it. The single locking model (don't have to cut the ball end of the strings off) is the TRS-505. I know that the TRS (TRS-101 according to Ibanez) is more like the original Floyd Rose and the Lo-TRS is a low profile variant of the TRS-101. I don't know what exactly makes those two different from the TRS2 and Lo-TRS2. I hear lots of bashing of the TRS (a generalization since in reality there are 4 different TRS trems). I've heard that the original TRS is better than the TRS2 models but I may be wrong. I just want to ge the facts straight.

kirk · #4 07-28-2001, 10:24 PM

Quote:

kirk Posted on 7:17 pm on July 28, 2001
I have no idea, so I probably shouldn't even say a thing

*

BloodySwirl · #5 07-29-2001, 10:17 PM

For the record, here's the "LO-TRS TREM II"

God that's ugly..........

rickboot · #6 07-30-2001, 06:29 AM

The concensus seems to be that one of the TRS trems sucks less than the other one. Which is which though.

LGMT · #7 07-31-2001, 10:06 AM

In the LO TRS2 you need to cut the ball, but the most incredible that appear when i got an RG 450 DXWH with Lo TRS 2, the thing stay in tune when well setup. Sure that i prefer my DBK with LO Pro Edge but the whole thing isn't that sh*t that all say.

You still can do some "little" lights whammy tricks ..... :^)

Doink · #8 07-31-2001, 06:08 PM

I don't even pay attention to the TRS family of trems. I only care about the Edge and it's Lo Pro brother.
All these versions of the TRS are still probly the same basic design, like the Edge and Lo Pro Edge.
Bottom line is why get a TRS equiped guitar when the Edge trem is around.

kirk · #9 07-31-2001, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Doink Posted on 5:08 pm on July 31, 2001
Bottom line is why get a TRS equiped guitar when the Edge trem is around

Cos ya can't afford one? *

This isn't supposed to be an Edge/TRS comparison. *We're comparing TRS/TRS. *Let's stay on topic before I have to get medieval on your buttocks.

RG Guy · #10 07-31-2001, 09:39 PM

Here is another bit of info that I just found out. All current production guitars with TRS trems all have low profiles ones.

butch · #11 08-01-2001, 12:40 AM

All TRS bridges used by Ibanez now are based on the Lo-Pro design. The RG4XX series features the Lo-TRS bridge, RG3XX series have the Lo-TRS 2 bridge.

The original TRS design was used on many of the EX series guitars of years gone by, as well as a few of the low end older (late 80s) RG models. Yamaha also used the original TRS design about the same time.

Rule of thumb, if it's a Korean made guitar, it will have a Lo-TRS 2 bridge on it, the Japanese made guitars (with the exception of the PGM30) have a regular Lo-TRS.

By many, if not all accounts, the TRS stays in tune better than the TRS 2.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Butch

RG Guy · #12 08-01-2001, 01:15 AM

Thanks butch that was what I was looking for. You said the TRS holds tune better than the TRS2. Do you know if that holds true for the respective low profile TRS models? Also according to Ibanez, one has the more traditional (Original Floyd Rose?) feel while the other is stiffer. Which is which?

joe pineapples · #13 08-01-2001, 10:48 AM

Just to add some observations:

Both units setup properly will stay in tune. The low TRS is a better trem.

My biggest complaint with the TRS II is the arm. It has a collar that is screwed over the thread exposed on the baseplate. It never stays tight and is a dreadful design flaw.

The TRS just screws into the unit. Not as elegant as the Edge but it does the job. The curvature of the arm doesn't allow much downward travel though.

Other than that, both units have slight design changes between them.

The edge travels a lot better than either of other two. My fav!

BloodySwirl · #14 08-01-2001, 11:11 AM

I simply don't like the way the TRS trems feel when you rest your palm on them. *The "other system" is beveled at the corners. *I'm spoiled.

Functionally on it's own (and not compared to other products on the market) the TRS is a good product. *It does the job.

The bar screw down solution may not be optimal, but it's much better than the Floyd version which proceded it. *Those who have never used an original Floyd Rose couldn't imagine the pain in the arse it was to tighten up that bar, being that the main nut was UNDERNEATH THE BAR'S PLATE.....

No big name professional musicians are going to settle for the TRS, but how many of us are really professional musicians?

joe pineapples · #15 08-01-2001, 11:40 AM

I agree with most of what you say.

I have a few older guitars with original Floyds on them and tightening the nut under the base plate is a bitch.

But at least the bar doesn't flop around when tightened. The TRS II constantly comes loose and the screw threads will eventually suffer mechanical damage. I've kinda given up using it on my JS100. I much rather have the older unit for this very reason but it's a matter of personal taste. In terms of use and performance, there is nothing really between the original floyd and the TRS. But the bar gets too loose to quick.

My tuppence.