#1
are bolt on necks that bad? im either ganna buy the jackson rr3 or rr5 and im ganna put an OFR on which ever i get and diff pickups, and its like $1000 diff for the rr5 (with neck thru design) is it really worth it?
#2
The RR5 is higher quality, it's not the bolt on that is the price difference.

Yes, bolt ons are very good, there's a reason Ibanez and Fender are top sellers, and it's not because they have crappy bolt on necks.

Also, if you're looking into an RR model with an OFR, why not look into a RR1?

Or, the RR5FR?
Like podcasts? Listen to these!
BEER!
VIDEO GAMES!
MOVIES/GEEKY SHIT!

_______________________________________________
Last edited by zappp : Today at 4:20 PM. Reason: Suck on my balls, UG
#3
Quote by Colgate Total
The RR5 is higher quality, it's not the bolt on that is the price difference.

Yes, bolt ons are very good, there's a reason Ibanez and Fender are top sellers, and it's not because they have crappy bolt on necks.

Also, if you're looking into an RR model with an OFR, why not look into a RR1?

Or, the RR5FR?



how is the RR5 higher quality??

i would buy an RR1 if i had the money lol

i was going to buy the RR5FR but as i said its $1000 diff then the RR3, and if there both made from the same wood. the onli difference i can see in the RR5FR is that it comes with better pickups and trem but im ganna change that anyways so dosent just come down to neck thru guitar vs bolt on ?
#4
Quote by nathan549
how is the RR5 higher quality??

i would buy an RR1 if i had the money lol

i was going to buy the RR5FR but as i said its $1000 diff then the RR3, and if there both made from the same wood. the onli difference i can see in the RR5FR is that it comes with better pickups and trem but im ganna change that anyways so dosent just come down to neck thru guitar vs bolt on ?

Better pickups? Don't they both have Duncans?

The RR3 is made in Korea, I think. RR5 is made in India. That's a difference. Dunno how that affects the quality.

I don't think the RR5 is worth it, though. The RR3 and 1 are the only ones that really matter.
#5
Bolt-on necks are a cheaper manufacturing technique. The idea behind a glued on/neck through is a) the neck is glued on permanently and alignment is better, and b) the string vibrations are greater because of the better contact. Generally, this is the reason why Les Pauls cost more than Strats. I would also say that from just a workworking standpoint this does equate to higher quality. That being said in the real world and spiritual plane of music it doesn't necessarily equate to a higher quality sound, because that has a lot more to do with the type/age/weight/seasoning of the wood; pickup type, quality, and placement; and scale length. Strats are not good guitars because they have bolt on necks, but because they sound good, an even more primitive instrument is a Tele, also a bolt on, and lower quality from a woodworking standpoint, which is basically a slab a wood with a primitive pickup, BUT it sounds great. Here the workmanship has less to do with sound than ease of playing. For example a Tom Anderson Strat is better made than a Fender, but a blind sound test wouldn't reveal much different sound. Also when CBS bought Fender they used three bolts instead of four and were somewhat unstable and considered cheap crap at the time. HOWEVER, that's what Hendrix played.
#7
http://liutaiomottola.com/myth/neckJointSustain.htm

Conventional wisdom has it that the construction of neck joint of the instrument influences the sustain of the instrument. Neck through construction (for electric guitars and basses) is considered to offer the best sustain, followed by set neck (i.e. glued on) construction. Bolt-on necks are considered to offer the worst sustain. A recent experiment in this area suggests that this order may be backwards and that folks can't hear the difference in sustain based on neck joint type anyway.

Although the connection between neck joint type and instrument sustain is usually mentioned in the context of solid body electric guitars, it is often mentioned when speaking of acoustic guitars as well. I could find no formal research on this subject at all - no instrumentation and measurement studies, no formal listening evaluations. A recent study performed power analysis, spectrographic analysis, and listening evaluation on a series of purpose-built instruments. The study was based on only a small population of instruments but it was reasonably well controlled. The power analysis results suggest that the relationship between sustain and neck joint type is the reverse of the conventional wisdom on the subject. Longest sustain was associated with bolt-on necks and shortest sustain with neck through construction. The study also included listening evaluations of recordings of single notes. Subjects could not detect differences in sustain among neck through, set neck and bolt-on neck configurations.

Although limited in scope, this study does suggest that correlation between sustain and neck joint type may not be of practical significance.
#8
Quote by sashki
Better pickups? Don't they both have Duncans?

The RR3 is made in Korea, I think. RR5 is made in India. That's a difference. Dunno how that affects the quality.

I don't think the RR5 is worth it, though. The RR3 and 1 are the only ones that really matter.


RR5 is made in Japan. I think. RR5>RR3 in quality.
#9
Quote by LP_CL



i wouldnt buy a guitar on the net never know wat to expect with it (perfomace wise) and in billyhyde in aus the RR1 is $4000 and something but it says its the USA RR1 or something. is there just a normal RR1?
#10
Quote by nathan549
i wouldnt buy a guitar on the net never know wat to expect with it (perfomace wise) and in billyhyde in aus the RR1 is $4000 and something but it says its the USA RR1 or something. is there just a normal RR1?

The normal RR1 is built in the USA, so it's probably the same thing.
#11
Quote by sashki
The normal RR1 is built in the USA, so it's probably the same thing.



true lol. thats out of the question then so either RR3 or RR5
#12
Quote by sashki
Better pickups? Don't they both have Duncans?

The RR3 is made in Korea, I think. RR5 is made in India. That's a difference. Dunno how that affects the quality.

I don't think the RR5 is worth it, though. The RR3 and 1 are the only ones that really matter.


i think there both made in japan
#13
^^+1 they're both MIJ... only the JS series are made in india (they used to be MIK)...
if you want a FR then get either RR3 or RR5FR, buying RR5 and then routing it for FR seems like a bad idea...
and there's nothing wrong with a bolt on neck...
Member of the Jackson/Charvel Owners Group
Last edited by 666_Belial at Aug 11, 2008,
#14
Quote by 666_Belial
^^+1 they're both MIJ... only the JS series are made in india (they used to be MIK)...
if you want a FR then get either RR3 or RR5FR, buying RR5 and then routing it for FR seems like a bad idea...
and there's nothing wrong with a bolt on neck...


+1
#15
I'm going to say RR3. When the trem wears out (it will after 5-7 years, from what I've heard) you can replace it with an OFR. The RR5FR is just as good as (probably better than) the RR3. The trem is similar to the OFR made by schaller, but is made in Korea to keep costs down. It's still a good trem.
Current Gear:
LTD MH-400
PRS SE Custom 24 (Suhr SSH+/SSV)
Ibanez RG3120 Prestige (Dimarzio Titans)
Squier Vintage Modified 70s Jazz V
Audient iD22 interface
Peavey Revalver 4, UAD Friedman BE100/DS40
Adam S3A monitors
Quote by Anonden
You CAN play anything with anything....but some guitars sound right for some things, and not for others. Single coils sound retarded for metal, though those who are apeshit about harpsichord probably beg to differ.