Jemsite - Reply to Topic
Ibanez JEM, UV, JS & Other Signature Models For discussion of Ibanez JEM, Universe and JS (Satriani) guitars only.

Thread: Why did Satch choose 6105? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Jemsite forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address

IMPORTANT: You will be required to activate your account so please ensure that your email address is correct.

If you do not receive your activation check your spam folder before using the CONTACT US form (at the bottom right of each page).



Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
08-10-2006 01:32 AM
Heat Miser
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

I have a 1992 JS-1, H/S/H model. I love the neck shape and feel of the frets. Just seems a smoother slide and transition when going lengthwise along the neck with Joe's fret size. When I switch back to my 1996 RG model, those 24 RG frets seem twice as big, but I get used to it after a song or two.

Most of the stuff I do on the RG is peghead side of the 12th fret anyway, and those big ol' frets seem to give a nice solid feel as I lay into some death metal thrashin', or the stacatto notes from the "South of Heaven" intro.

-= H / M =-
08-08-2006 02:38 AM
The Extremist
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MehYam View Post
I think this 'wood' feel has a lot to do with it. It lends itself to a more strat style, bluesy playing for me. Touching the actual board under the string lends itself to more control when bending and vibrato'ing, esp. on the first string.
i definitely hear that. im not sure exactly why i prefer why i like it, it just feels more comfortable i guess
08-07-2006 07:49 PM
Dee
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonataGuitarist View Post
RG Prestiges have jumbos.
6105 comes on JS 1000, 1200, and the Jems.
Are you sure about that? My Prestige 3120 definately doesn't have jumbo wire, in fact I made a thread on it earlier today. Mine has different frets to what I'm used to, and I miss the jumbo's on my RG750. The 3120 has narrower frets. It's an early 2002 model with a 2001 serial, btw. My preference is jumbo. I guess after 16 years of playing the same RG750 it's what I'm used to, but to me it feels faster and smoother overall.
08-07-2006 05:41 PM
MehYam
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Extremist View Post
i love the vintage feel of the 6105 frets on my js1000. i like being able to feel the wood of the fretboard on my fingers when fretting notes and doing vibrato etc.
I think this 'wood' feel has a lot to do with it. It lends itself to a more strat style, bluesy playing for me. Touching the actual board under the string lends itself to more control when bending and vibrato'ing, esp. on the first string.
07-12-2006 06:29 PM
chemicalmagical
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

I read a quote where Joe said that he prefers smaller frets because they sound less homogenous and allow more of his personality to come through.
07-02-2006 04:41 PM
sniperfrommars1
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

For me smaller fretwire provides more accurate intonation, two handed tapping and legato phrasing than say with an extra jumbo fret. Larger frets make it easier for me to be sloppy essentially, they dont actually improve any aspect of my playing although they do make it easier to bend notes and create different vibrato styles. I have a mix of fret sizes on my different guitars.
05-26-2006 01:19 PM
The Extremist
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

i love the vintage feel of the 6105 frets on my js1000. i like being able to feel the wood of the fretboard on my fingers when fretting notes and doing vibrato etc.

its all personal preference of course. i learned on a mim strat so that may play a major roll in my preference.
05-26-2006 12:50 PM
Rodney James
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

Yeah, definitely important info, I like how detailed and technical you think, great stuff to know about frets, now if I can keep a Guitar long enough to need a refret, I will get to apply what I learned from your post.
05-26-2006 10:31 AM
frankfalbo
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

You're right. When you said the "6105's were tall like the 6100's" I took it to mean the same height, which is a common misconception, since many people think the Dunlop 6105 is the same as Warmoths. It becomes relevant when people go for refrets, because Dunlops 6105 feels totally different than Warmoths. Important info if the "JS feel" factors into their choice of frets.
05-25-2006 04:51 PM
Rodney James
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

Nice detail on the fret specs, however, 6105's on Jemís are considered tall frets, and so are 6100's on Jem's. Nothing I said was untrue. Didn't say they were as tall as each other. Think your reading a little to much into an irrelevant point.

Can reach over and Play the PMC or the VWH and the frets both feel tall, both are fast and feel great! Most of the difference in the feel & tone is due to the width, however my main point of my post was the over all main benefit of the 6105's according to the much better intonation.
05-25-2006 10:37 AM
frankfalbo
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

"Not true in this case" means exactly that. 6105's on Jems are NOT as tall as 6100's on Jems.

Dunlop's 6100 fretwire is .055 tall x .110 wide. Warmoth's 6100 is also .055 tall, but .112 wide. That's within tolerances, so they might as well be the same wire. But more importantly, they are both .055 tall.

Dunlop's 6105 is ALSO .055 tall, but that is totally irrelevant in this case because Ibanez is not using Dunlop's 6105. That's where the confusion comes from.

Warmoth's (and Ibanez') "6105" is only .047 tall, that's much shorter than the 6100's. That's why I'm saying in Ibanez' case, it is NOT the same height with different widths.
05-25-2006 09:54 AM
Rodney James
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

Interesting point, how ever not sure what you mean by "Not true in this case?" 6105 on Jems are tall like the 6100 on Jem's, yet not as wide.

I make reference to Ibanez Jem/JS's only. There is no other guitar Not of this this earth.
05-25-2006 01:56 AM
frankfalbo
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney James
6105's are tall like the 6100's, however not as wide
Not true in this case. You are right, that Dunlop's 6105's are as tall as Dunlop's 6100's. The Satrianis (& Jems) use Warmoth's 6105 fretwire, which is only .047" high, not .055" like Dunlop's 6100 AND 6105. Basically anywhere you see Ibanez use the designation 6105 it's Warmoths. A refret with Dunlop wire would feel entirely different.
05-25-2006 01:18 AM
SonataGuitarist
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

Quote:
Originally Posted by King Nothing
Do all rg prestiges have 6105s? Ibanez.com says they are jumbo
RG Prestiges have jumbos.
6105 comes on JS 1000, 1200, and the Jems.
05-25-2006 01:11 AM
King Nothing
Re: Why did Satch choose 6105?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreamJem7
The 6105 frets are very close in height to the jumbos found on Ibanez RGs. They're just more narrow.

I prefer the 6105s on my Jem and RG Prestige necks when compared to the jumbos on my RG550 and RG321MH.
Do all rg prestiges have 6105s? Ibanez.com says they are jumbo
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome