#1
The following is an excerpt from a discussion about Chris Broderick's move from Ibanez to Jackson and the differences between his respective signatures. What I am concerned about is the points made by these two individuals and which one's are factually valid. The reason is I am looking into getting an Ibanez Iceman ICT700 which is a neckthru and the points about neckthrus warping and stuff is got me worried. Also discussing the other pints raised I think would be quite informative (for me and others).

"
- Ibanez wouldn’t give Chris ebony fretboards and only died rosewood ones black (a cheap and bad compromise, one I would find insulting if I was at Chris’ level)
- Neck through guitars are unstable. My flatmate has owned a Carvin seven string neck through and esp horizon neck through, both ended up getting sold because they warp (that is just my flatmate alone). Kiko Louiero did the same and stopped using his ESP neck throughs because with all the travelling they just got messed up with the change in atmospherics. (Chris will find this out in no time I am certain)
- The Jackson signature model uses a regular floyd, the Ibanez’s that Chris was using had ZR trems with ball bearings (an item he professed was his most favourite tremolo EVER and a better technology than knife edges).
- The Jackson has added maple binding all around the body and neck. The more glue and extra pieces on a guitar = bad for resonance and sustain. Personally I think it is tacky on this guitar, they should have just left it to natural binding on the body and no more. (it has me wonder if this sig model has a maple veneer and not a proper cap, hence the binding hides the illusion…..)
- The Jackson has a finished neck. Like with the glue, more paint = less resonance and less sound from the wood of the instrument
- I can see where the shape on the new guitar is supposed to be contemporary, but I just don’t get that classic vibe. I think the Ibanez was much more elegant looking and the paint job looked less plastic, more natural.
- With the sheer amount of maple on this guitar from the neck going through and the top (depending on whether it is a veneer or not) this could be a painfully bright guitar. On a neck through guitar, mahogany wings do not do much at all when contributing to the sound, especially if it has a decent maple top covering the whole thing too…….
- A neck through guitar won’t be able to have a thin wizard profile neck or similar sort of low setup that a bolt on Ibanez would. (we are talking about MEGA low action and ease of playing)

Summary:

Ibanez – Better paint finish, tremolo, neck profile, construction (in regards to a balanced tone) and no unnecessary accoutrements. +5 However they (as a company) didn’t give Chris creative freedom on designing a signature guitar (Wes Borland left for the same reason) and didn’t give him something as simple as an ebony fretboard. -2

Jackson – The exact opposite………..

Reply
Peter Hodgson:
July 7, 2011 at 10:49 am
Great points. I might add that even Vai doesn’t get ebony fretboards with Ibanez now.

Reply
poopstain:
July 30, 2011 at 2:01 am
so you’ve obviously played his Jackson sig and can come to the conclusion that the neck profile is not as good on his CUSTOM SHOP SIGANTURE, as it is on his Ibanez. It’s the custom shop, they can make whatever neck shape they want. Any it’s not glued on binding. It’s called implied binding, they tape around the edge of the guitar then spray the color and then remove the tape. So the Natural binding you see is actually the maple cap on the guitar, not taped on maple binding. It is glued on to the neck, but do you really think that a little sliver of maple on an ebony fretboard on a maple neck is going to make that much difference. Also, just so you know, every guitar has finish on the neck, Gibson, Fender, ESP, Schecter, every company. And I would highly doubt that you or anyone else could tell the difference between a guitar with a finished neck, and an unfinished one. Also, why would a neck through guitar not be able to get really low action? Whether it’s a bolt on, set neck , or neck through has no difference on the ability to get low action and a thin neck. Very few of your point are valid, the one I will agree with is the trem. He liked the ZR better, obviously he thinks he’ll like the new LoPro OFR they are making for him.
Summary:
The amount of finish on a guitar makes very little difference in tone, especially after youre sending through how many effects, and then a high gain amp with reverb and overdrive. It has a full maple cap, not a veneer. It’s a $2,500 USA Jackson. I highly doubt they would skimp on the maple cap, but then create a whole new bridge for the guy. +50000000000

"
TESTAMENT, SCAR SYMMETRY......SELF EXPLANATORY


ALEX SKOLNICK, PER NILSSON........ADULATION MANDATORY


Gear: JACKSON RR3


Member#25 of the IRON MAIDEN ARE GODS CLUB. PM Revelations to Join
#2
Honestly man, it sounds like you're overthinking things a bit.

I'm genuinely suprised Ibanez wouldn't just give broderick what he wanted, but then again, if they had to open up new supply lines with untested vendors/integrate new machinery/techniques for manufacturing just for one guys guitars, as good as he is, it's kind of understandable. Then again, From the looks of the Jackson's broderick is only interested in licensing seriously high end axe's which are hard to move and would thus make a company like ibanez who have thrived on mass production/sales unlikely to want to mass produce them.

I've played both Jackson and Ibanez neck throughs and they both seemed outstanding to me, even on their lower models. At the end of the day on the note of the iceman, there's plenty of guys on here who own them and sware by them. The best thing to do is just to go to a store and try one, if you like the feel/tone of it then buy it! The reality is that it'll have some kind of warranty so if on the odd freak chance it warps (which isn't really common as far as I know), you can just take it back and get a new one.

Also, There's not much point in buying an iceman when you already have an RR3, yet you have a piece of shit 15w marshall. perhaps consider a new amp?
The gear:

* Epiphone Les Paul Custom
* Schecter Jeff Loomis Signature 7 String
* Fender Squier P Bass
* Blackstar Stage HT-60
* Original Crybaby
* EHX Small Clone
* Boss DD-3
#3
Well, I won't cover all the points there. It might be a good idea to condense your questions to a few points rather than a wall of text with dozens of claims.

Anyway:
-A dyed rosewood board is cosmetic only, and is not a good substitute for ebony if that's what you want tonally. That said, rosewood is perfectly fine as a board material. It's cheaper, yes, but not necessarily a bad compromise. It's perhaps not even a compromise at all, especially if you're looking for added warmth but want the ebony look, which could certainly be the case on this guitar.

-I haven't heard of neck-thru guitars being unstable before. Perhaps it's the case, but I really don't think they're going to warp every time like that person claims. If there was a severe and inherent flaw in that design I'd like to think it would be more common knowledge.

-Less resonance and sustain from adding binding? I think I'll put that in the "talking out one's ass" column. Maybe it changes the tone a tiny tiny bit - but probably not. Not enough to be a problem. Plus, as the second post says, it's natural binding, so there's not even any extra material or glue involved.

-The part about "covering up" a maple veneer with binding is pretty silly. Binding is a common way to make a cap or veneer blend with the body properly, so I suppose it's "covering up" in the same way as painting the guitar. Plus, a veneer makes more sense on that guitar anyway, from a construction and tone standpoint.

-A maple neck-thru would be fairly bright.


So, there you go. That first quote seems like a whole bunch of whining about imaginary things. Most of the points are completely bogus. The second post seems like a reasonable reply.
#4
Quote by hendrixftw
Honestly man, it sounds like you're overthinking things a bit.

I'm genuinely suprised Ibanez wouldn't just give broderick what he wanted, but then again, if they had to open up new supply lines with untested vendors/integrate new machinery/techniques for manufacturing just for one guys guitars, as good as he is, it's kind of understandable. Then again, From the looks of the Jackson's broderick is only interested in licensing seriously high end axe's which are hard to move and would thus make a company like ibanez who have thrived on mass production/sales unlikely to want to mass produce them.

I've played both Jackson and Ibanez neck throughs and they both seemed outstanding to me, even on their lower models. At the end of the day on the note of the iceman, there's plenty of guys on here who own them and sware by them. The best thing to do is just to go to a store and try one, if you like the feel/tone of it then buy it! The reality is that it'll have some kind of warranty so if on the odd freak chance it warps (which isn't really common as far as I know), you can just take it back and get a new one.

Also, There's not much point in buying an iceman when you already have an RR3, yet you have a piece of shit 15w marshall. perhaps consider a new amp?


Not looking into amps right now, thanks for the reco though. So you think the selling the RR3 and buying the Iceman (which I haven't played but I'm sold on specs and will make the finally decision after taking it for a run) is a downgrade?
TESTAMENT, SCAR SYMMETRY......SELF EXPLANATORY


ALEX SKOLNICK, PER NILSSON........ADULATION MANDATORY


Gear: JACKSON RR3


Member#25 of the IRON MAIDEN ARE GODS CLUB. PM Revelations to Join
#5
If you try it, and you like it better, it's not a downgrade. Someone on the internet spouting BS about how it's made to all the wrong specs and is going to warp within a year shouldn't factor into the decision.

I agree about the amp, by the way.
#6
Quote by Roc8995

-I haven't heard of neck-thru guitars being unstable before. Perhaps it's the case, but I really don't think they're going to warp every time like that person claims. If there was a severe and inherent flaw in that design I'd like to think it would be more common knowledge.


Well,you'd think if neck through guitars were a problem, Gibson would have never sold so many Les Pauls, SG's, ES-335, I could go on.

One the other hand, since set neck guitars only last a year, next time our OP sees somebody with a '59 Les Paul, he should offer the unfortunate owner maybe 20 bucks tops for it.

After all, according to the original fairy tale, that guitar would be 40 some years past its prime.
Last edited by Captaincranky at Oct 10, 2011,
#7
Quote by Captaincranky
Well,you'd think if neck through guitars were a problem, Gibson would have never sold so many Les Pauls, SG's, ES-335, I could go on.

One the other hand, since set neck guitars only last a year, next time our OP sees somebody with a '59 Les Paul, he should offer the unfortunate owner maybe 20 bucks tops for it.

After all, according to the original fairy tale, that guitar would be 40 some years past its prime.


I just wanted contributors to reflect on the statements, when I read both posts I easily felt the second one made sense as opposed to the other one but getting some extra reflection on here would also be great. So I never stated that I subscribe to the claims made by the first poster.

BTW, do you have a '59 Les Paul for me, I'll gladly give you 20 bucks for it
TESTAMENT, SCAR SYMMETRY......SELF EXPLANATORY


ALEX SKOLNICK, PER NILSSON........ADULATION MANDATORY


Gear: JACKSON RR3


Member#25 of the IRON MAIDEN ARE GODS CLUB. PM Revelations to Join
#8
Think you're kind of overanalyzing this. Chris is a world class player, and if his guitar sucked at all, Mustaine would just take it away from him. lol
#9
Quote by breakstuff
Not looking into amps right now, thanks for the reco though. So you think the selling the RR3 and buying the Iceman (which I haven't played but I'm sold on specs and will make the finally decision after taking it for a run) is a downgrade?


Personally I owned a RR3 and sold it...
Biggest mistake i've ever made.
The thing was ****ing amazing, I just couldn't deal with the floyd as a noob.
The gear:

* Epiphone Les Paul Custom
* Schecter Jeff Loomis Signature 7 String
* Fender Squier P Bass
* Blackstar Stage HT-60
* Original Crybaby
* EHX Small Clone
* Boss DD-3
#10
Quote by Captaincranky
Well,you'd think if neck through guitars were a problem, Gibson would have never sold so many Les Pauls, SG's, ES-335, I could go on.

One the other hand, since set neck guitars only last a year, next time our OP sees somebody with a '59 Les Paul, he should offer the unfortunate owner maybe 20 bucks tops for it.

After all, according to the original fairy tale, that guitar would be 40 some years past its prime.

Not sure if you're trolling or just a noob... set neck =/= neck-through.
#11
You're definitely over-thinking this and you're not giving some elements their due. Neither rosewood nor ebony is better than the other, they're just different. Ball bearings are no more stable than a proper knife edge unit and have the same number of pros and cons, both functionally and tonally. The jackson may have a "finished neck".... but so does the Ibanez. The only unfinished necks you'll ever get on a production guitar are the all-roewood necks that Fender and PRS sometimes make. Neck-through does not warp any easier than other neck designs, it's just a little harder to correct if something really bad goes wrong compared to a bolt-on which you can just replace. Tonally the difference between bolt-on and neck through is very little at the neck pickup and the bolt-on will only be slightly warmer at the bridge, set neck is the design that really changes the tone compared to the other two. Neck-through guitars can have the same thin necks and low action as any other as well, neck thickness only comes down to what wood and truss rod make up the neck and action is entirely dependant on fret style, nut and bridge and nothing more.
#12
My neck-thru guitar is the neck I've had to adjust the least of all my (seven) guitars.
Music Man JPX 6
Ibanez RGT220H
Fender 50th Anniversary Deluxe Strat
93 Jackson Std Professional (Japan)
03 Gibson LP Special
Alvarez AD60SC

Mesa Single Rectifier/Mesa 4x12 cab
Mesa Transatlantic TA-15
Hughes & Kettner Triplex
#13
To be honest, the first person's comment makes him sound like an Ibanez fan who was pissed off that Chris went to Jackson and decided to spout a load of rubbish about the Jackson to make himself feel better. They're both fantastic, high quality guitars.

Also, I'd like to point out that a maple neckthrough is not as painfully bright as the chap claims. Nearly every neckthrough that Jackson have ever made (aside from some mahogany models) has had a maple neck, and many of them have had a maple cap too. I don't think many people would pick up a Soloist and describe it as "painfully bright".
#14
Quote by Pac_man0123
Not sure if you're trolling or just a noob... set neck =/= neck-through.
Neither! They're all the same to me. You flip the guitar over on its face, and look for a bolt plate where the neck joins the body. If it doesn' have on, call it whatever you like. This is trolling: -
Ibanez wouldn’t give Chris ebony fretboards and only died rosewood ones black (a cheap and bad compromise, one I would find insulting if I was at Chris’ level)
- Neck through guitars are unstable. My flatmate has owned a Carvin seven string neck through and esp horizon neck through, both ended up getting sold because they warp (that is just my flatmate alone). Kiko Louiero did the same and stopped using his ESP neck throughs because with all the travelling they just got messed up with the change in atmospherics. (Chris will find this out in no time I am certain)
- The Jackson signature model uses a regular floyd, the Ibanez’s that Chris was using had ZR trems with ball bearings (an item he professed was his most favourite tremolo EVER and a better technology than knife edges).
- The Jackson has added maple binding all around the body and neck. The more glue and extra pieces on a guitar = bad for resonance and sustain. Personally I think it is tacky on this guitar, they should have just left it to natural binding on the body and no more. (it has me wonder if this sig model has a maple veneer and not a proper cap, hence the binding hides the illusion…..)
- The Jackson has a finished neck. Like with the glue, more paint = less resonance and less sound from the wood of the instrument
Last edited by Captaincranky at Oct 11, 2011,
#15
Quote by Captaincranky
Neither! They're all the same to me. You flip the guitar over on its face, and look for a bolt plate where the neck joins the body. If it doesn' have on, call it whatever you like. This is trolling: -



They're different to everyone else, and I don't think guitar neck joints are conditional. Just throwing that out there.

BUT! Give your set neck guitar to Captaincranky and it may become a neck-thru!
#16
...seriously...

OH MY FRIGGIN GOD.

NECK-THROUGH =! SET NECK.

HOW IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND WTF WTF WTF.

GIBSON'S ARE SET NECK.



U PUT GLUE IN TEH HOLE.

FENDER STYLE GUITARS ARE BOLT-ON



U PUT SCREWS THRU TEH HOLE

THIS IS A NECKTHROUGH



GIANT NECK LOLOLOLOL.

omfgwtfbbq. that's the 10th time this week.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#17
Quote by Wisthekiller
They're different to everyone else, and I don't think guitar neck joints are conditional. Just throwing that out there.

BUT! Give your set neck guitar to Captaincranky and it may become a neck-thru!
I do understand the difference. glued in neck joints vary in depth. Neck through, I believe, (feel free to correct me) , the neck continues through the entire body.

The only valid argument against a neck through design, would be if a piece of wood that long were normally prone to warping, as opposed to a shorter bolt on or glued in design.

I don't believe that's normally the case, hence I think the first section of the first post is trolling.

With that said, it certainly would be a least a bit more difficult to find a continuous grain pattern in a piece of stock a foot or so longer. So, the strongest argument to a neck through design, would be to be even more careful in the selection and curing of the blank.

As far as the misadventures go with the 7 string guitar mentioned earlier, I think it would be possible run into the same issues with a 12 string tuned to concert pitch. Save for the fact if it were an acoustic you get cold checking, soundboard cracking and collapse. Too many string just aren't that good for a guitar. Best to enjoy them while they last.

Besides, if you buy something decent, you just send it back under warranty. Then come to UG to bellyache about it, while you're waiting for your replacement
Last edited by Captaincranky at Oct 11, 2011,