Guitar Player's Thread

What kind of Explorer is it? I've been an RR obsessor but have recently become interested in purchasing an Explorer of some sort. Right now it's looking like one of the EMG-equipped LTD EX/FX guitars will be most likely. Ideally if I had the cash I'd go for an Edwards or something.

Gibson :>
I was thinking about the LTDs first, but I don't personally like EMGs.
And I also find the original shape more sex. Am I wrong or does Edwards still make explorers in the original shape?
 
Ok, real guitar question.

Anyone here have any input they would like to give me on a Dimarzio Tone Zone and Paf Pro?

I already am putting the Paf Pro in the neck position, but I can't decide which I want to get for the bridge position.

If it matters it is going into an Ibanez RG3EXFM1

Specs:
Basswood Body w/ Flammed Maple Top
Maple neck w/ rosewood fretboard
Fixed Bridge
The rest of the specs really should matter as far as tone.

So any info or input would be much appreciated as to what is the difference tonally for each in the bridge position.
 
Gibson :>
I was thinking about the LTDs first, but I don't personally like EMGs.

Boooooooo!!!

And I also find the original shape more sex.

I do too actually. I like the LTD shape -- it's cool in it's own way, but the original is definitely where it's at.

Am I wrong or does Edwards still make explorers in the original shape?

It seems that way. Freakin' Edwards gets away with everything! :loco:

I'm thinking I'll try out the LTD's, and if I don't like them I'll save up for an Edwards Crying Star or Explorer.
 
I've been thinking about getting the Edwards Les Paul replicas. But I think it's better but if I save up more money and get the real deal (as in a real Gibson Les Paul).
 
Ok, real guitar question.

Anyone here have any input they would like to give me on a Dimarzio Tone Zone and Paf Pro?

I already am putting the Paf Pro in the neck position, but I can't decide which I want to get for the bridge position.

If it matters it is going into an Ibanez RG3EXFM1

Specs:
Basswood Body w/ Flammed Maple Top
Maple neck w/ rosewood fretboard
Fixed Bridge
The rest of the specs really should matter as far as tone.

So any info or input would be much appreciated as to what is the difference tonally for each in the bridge position.

I have a paf pro in the neck and love it.
Had a tone zone in the bridge of a few of my guitars and it sounded pretty different

the tone zone as a bridge pickup is very lush and has a really rich bottom end to it.

Some people find it too flubby/undefined for technical metal stuff.
I am kind of undecided about the technical metal side of it.

It would be an awesome lead pickup and paul gilbertish stuff, but if you plan on doing a ton of heavy fast muted tight stuff I would choose something else





comparing the youtube audio to my experiences with the pickup, i'd say this is an accurate representation of how a tone zone sounds in the bridge.
Skip to 0:30 for distorted tones.

You can hear it's a very full sounding pickup but a little cloudy (in a good way for some stuff) on the low end
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your input Lowberg. I appreciate it.

Yea, the Ibanez is more my normal everyday kind of stuff lead guitar, so not too much metal gets played on it. I use my Jackson for that.

Of course some Gilbert, Vai, and Satch type stuff would be played primarilly on this guitar.

I had a set of Evo's in an older RG I had and they were great and all, but I want to try something else this time.

I think I give the ToneZone a shot and see how I feel about it. If I don't like it I will just return it and get a Paf Pro for the Bridge.

Thanks again.
 
And I also find the original shape more sex. Am I wrong or does Edwards still make explorers in the original shape?

I do too actually. I like the LTD shape -- it's cool in it's own way, but the original is definitely where it's at.

Really? Really? I don't think there's one Gibson shape I like, they just seem so bulky and fat and retarded to me :ill: I don't like huge guitars.
 
Have you guys checked out the Ibanez Destroyers? They look very similar to an Explorer, but more bad ass IMO.
 
but I don't personally like EMGs.

How the fuck would you know faggot?

Also Ibanez Destroyer for those too lazy to google it:

1-034-034981-Ibanez-DT420-Destroyer.jpg
 
Really? Really? I don't think there's one Gibson shape I like, they just seem so bulky and fat and retarded to me :ill: I don't like huge guitars.

I used to feel the same way, but lately my standards for guitar beauty have been broadening to accept more shapes and sizes. And plus, more body = different tone, so I think it'd be a nice variety to have :cool:

Have you guys checked out the Ibanez Destroyers? They look very similar to an Explorer, but more bad ass IMO.

I've tried one of those. I don't like the feel of them as much (and just all Ibanez in general TBH). They look alright to me. I still like Gibson/LTD shape more *shrug*

--edit: ^ It looks like the bottom (under the control knobs) of the body got cut out too much or something :p Looks unnatural to me.
 
I like the feel/sound of Gibson for rocking teh fuck out, but not for precision METAL RIFFAGE.

Like.. to put it in perspective, ESP/Jackson is like a scalpel while Gibson is a blunt meat cleaver.
 
I like the feel/sound of Gibson for rocking teh fuck out, but not for precision METAL RIFFAGE.

Like.. to put it in perspective, ESP/Jackson is like a scalpel while Gibson is a blunt meat cleaver.

How the fuck would you know faggot?

I think that is some fucking bullshit:mad: A Gibson can be used to what ever the fuck you want imho :) It's just like saying that a Telecaster is like a spoon, but still Jari from Wintersun kick some serious ass with that guitar :) Don't be a bitch and a brand whore, it's just what feels the best that is the best for you :headbang:
 
Well, I can understand Ensi's point. ESP/Jackson have XJumbo/Jumbo frets (as compared to Gibson's medium) and flatter radius fretboards for an emphasis on low action, light touch, and juicy bends. Whereas the more curved radius provides for easier chording and IMO easier arpeggios (among a few other things). However, people do have their preferences. For example I actually do like the more curved radius of Gibsons/Strats, but it's not that big of a deal to me as I will adapt to whatever guitar I am playing on and eventually come to be really comfortable with it.

Also, the bigger more full body of most Gibsons (not all) in many cases contributes to a more chunky sound, however that's not to say they can't sound bright either (bolt-on neck joints add to that factor as well).
 
THIS IS SENSIBLE DISCUSSION

NO THIS IS COBOOOOOOOOT AUREHHHHHHHHHHHH

Derpsicle fuck your mother i'm not a brand whore, I'm just sayan that I (Me, myself) think that Gibson is better suited for chunky low-end PWRFL RIFN while ESP and Jackson is more precise bright metal shredz0r.
 
^ Are you calling my low end chunky? :cry:
But srsly, you're right about the esp and jackson being brighter, but that is the wood :) Personally, i love my huge mahogny baddeh!
 
The wood, the construction, the feel of the neck. Gibson necks are NOT shred necks.

Yes I bet you do you fat piece of lard, go be fat somewhere else