JACKSON DINKY DK2 VS IBANEZ RG SERIES
Sure they are in a way but to me it is like the evolution of the Model series of Charvel.
I see the Dinky series not as Fender like. I think they just make 'em to draw in people set on a bolt-on (probably through having only played Fenders), and who don't understand the heritage of Jackson (all IMHO).Įdit: All that being said, for 1000 euro I would go for the ESP MII, as it is the real deal top of the line stuff, whereas the sl3 and dk2 are just imitators. I just couldn't imagine getting a bolt on Jackson. The main point for me is that Jackson was the original neck thru guitar, and it was made that way for playability reasons. The Ibanez necks have a larger flatter area in the back of the neck (hence the D shape), and they're supposed to be (say 1mm) thinner but I don't notice. As for thickness - even the soloists (0.79" 3rd fret, 0.85" 12th fret) feel very thin, being D shaped, especially compared to most ESPs (except for the sig models which the artists have the necks made thinner). The soloists necks are painted and some people find this slightly sticky, others not at all. So if you go for the soloist you get much better fret access. Ibanez and ESP each do something to improve fret access at the join. It's like a Fender, and I just feel what's the point if it's not going to have some playability advantage over a Fender. I tried both and didn't like the bolt on neck joint. I can't stand TOM bridges due to the way I palm mute and anchor my right hand in general. I've never had any problems with Jacksons licensed low-profile trem (JT580LP) and prefer the feel of it to an OFR, but that's purely a comfort issue for me. In any case, I find bolt-on necks to be more comfortable (satin or raw), but a neck-thru guitar feels a bit more solid. I have found Jackson to be pretty consistent. Some pieces of wood are just more resonant than others, and two pickups of the same make and model will sometimes sound different. I've always found sustain to vary greatly from guitar to guitar, even of the same model with the same pickups and bridge. If you've tried out a couple and the necks are comfortable, then everything else is a matter of options: pickups, bridge type, finish, and so on. Some of the bolt-on necks are raw maple, some have a light satin coat, and others have clearcoat.
Neck dimensions have changed over the years on all models, and other details too. I have numerous Jacksons, both Dinky and Soloist types, fixed bridge and Floyds. I feel the difference in sustain would be enough to warrant the choice for me - I play a lot of clean, no-gain stuff plus, the matching headstock is just cooler I don't know what the price difference is though, so that could be a large factor.īolt-on versus neck-thru is a comfort preference for most people. Honestly, if I were buying, I'd pick the S元. They have the same nut width, but the S元 is 0.850" at the 12th fret, instead of 0.810" on the DK2. In fact, there are only really 3 significant differences: pickup choices - single coils vs. The feel between the two is very similar, but the fretboard radi are markedly different.Īfter looking at the specifications for the 2 newest incarnations of the DK2 and the S元 on Jackson's website, I noticed that they've done a LOT to make the two guitars similar. I can't really compare sounds because they're both totally different beasts. The difference in sustain is VERY noticeable between mine, but I think a large portion of that is attributeable to the fact that the Soloist is a string-through fixed-bridge, instead of a Floyd on the Dinky. I have both a Japanese Dinky as well as a Japanese Soloist.
0 kommentar(er)
