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.
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.
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 ..... :^)
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.
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.
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?
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?
I have a few older guitars with original Floyds on them and tightening the nut under the base plate is a bitch.
I know whay you mean by flimsy. Looks like Ibanez really cut corners on construction. The sustain block feels like an aluminum can. I have no beef with the baseplate saddles and such but my biggest complaint with the TRS are the trem posts. They aren't solid and "locked" they wobble a lot and are usually pulled toward the neck by the string/spring tension. Also the post are painted. As you break it in you will see that the paint is coming off the post causing irregularities. I started this thread to see first which TRS is which and to see the one Ibanez claims is more like the Original Floyd Rose really is like the original.