New Strat..

  • Great that you seem to be making progress, Nikos. 8o


    I have a suhr modern, of course not a strat really. It's an amazing guitar but really lacks mojo. Quite sterile and precise.

    Yeah, I've been saying this for quite a while now, assuming you mean the Modern Pro. I blame the use of similar-sounding (thin) woods, the unnecessary top (the extra high-mid / treble isn't needed in this case IMHO), and the thick finish which I feel stifles the natural sympathetic vibration of the body.


    The Modern Satin, OTOH, is a different story entirely.

  • Depending on what country you live in, try a Tokai...worlds best kept secret (to some). :)


    1957 chunky satin finish D shaped maple neck, 9.5" radius medium jumbo frets.


    [Blocked Image: http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/gg494/Tokai_Guitars/three%20strats%20v_zpsyormwtgh.jpg]

  • It has the US serial number on the back of the head stock, and has the Corona CA, neck plate. There might be some markers under the pick guard too.


    What is really nice too about the Pro's, is that they come with the Elite case, which is stackable.

  • I had to upgrade from my older Fender strat I left back in my country when I moved and I got one of these Suhr classic. When I tried it at the store the first time, it took about 7 seconds to make up my mind. It's just objectively better in every way than a Fender in the same price range (or probably above, I'll never care enough to know); it's got all the good stuff ("Plek'd" SS frets, satin neck, locking tuners, compound radius, special shielding) without the Fender BS. Sounds killing of course and I find myself digging the bridge HB a lot but it comes SSS too.


    I feel a lot of the big guitar makers are coasting on their brand name these days and really have to up their game to compete with some of the other smaller builders. I guess it depends where you are located but brand like G&L, LSL, Folreden, even Warmoth all offer good (IMO often better) alternatives.

  • Thanks to all for your help..


    The order is made any only a few "technical issues" have to be set (ie "capital controls") and I will get for sure a fine guitar as soon as possible.


    Again thanks to all for your kindness...

  • I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, and if it really matters if the quality is up to par, but I can't be the only one that finds it odd that a completely handbuilt guitar can be delivered in 4-10 weeks time.

  • What a strange day..normal things (like paying for a guitar) has become a hard thing in todays times..even if you have the money..


    Anyway..Things got sorted out,Bas is indeed a nice and supercool guy..


    My order:


    lightwight alder(two tone sunburst,slightly reliced),aged white pickguard,somewhat "medium sized" maple neck,mapple fingerboard(12" radius),medium jumbo frets,58s overwound PUs and big headstock..


    I guess I owe you guys here some pictures as soon as this baby arrives.

  • She's gonna sound bright with the alder body, maple neck and maple fretboard, but if that's what you want, mate, well done!

    Standard strat specs, no? All but two of my guitars have rosewood fretboards, mostly down to feel and aesthetic preference, but I've always wondered if I'm missing out somewhere tonally. Does the 'board make that much difference? The two guitars that have maple necks and 'boards aren't exactly standard fare, so I can't really use them as a reference (my Charvel GG sig that is "caramelised" maple and my Legator Opus Tradition 350 custom, which has Lace Deathbuckers in it).

  • Check 90s build levinson blade R4 or rh4, those come with fendershape headstocks.
    Best strats i know..on par with any of the toplines...and they go between 800 and 1200.


    Thin neck, ebony fb, jumbo frets, great trem, passive but also an active circuit.
    Very consistent builds, all play like butter, order unseen if you have to :)

  • Dont know..I always had the impression that alder has less "sharp brightness" than ash..maple neck is a must anyway and fretboard..well all my Strats have maple maple fretboard and sound definity "more dark" (like two Strats I had) or "bright" (as my' 77 Strat) ..I never "got it right" to predict the Sound of a guitat according to its woods alone.


    I leave this to the luthier.He knows..

  • Ahh... it must've been ash I was thinking of, Nikos. Well done, mate, and thank you.


    Standard strat specs, no? All but two of my guitars have rosewood fretboards, mostly down to feel and aesthetic preference, but I've always wondered if I'm missing out somewhere tonally. Does the 'board make that much difference? The two guitars that have maple necks and 'boards aren't exactly standard fare, so I can't really use them as a reference (my Charvel GG sig that is "caramelised" maple and my Legator Opus Tradition 350 custom, which has Lace Deathbuckers in it).

    I do feel that the board can take things OTT sometimes if the guitar in question is already sufficiently-bright and rich-enough in high mids, Sam, hence my post, but Nikos pointed out that he thought that alder sounds duller than ash, so I figure I must've been confusing the two. Just for me 'though, using one of the brightest-sounding body woods, along with similary-spec'd neck and fretboard ones, well, one had better be certain that one in fact desires the likely outcome of a super-bright guitar. Obviously much depends on playing style, PU selection and personal taste, but I'd personally not want to paint myself too far into a corner, especially if it were my only guitar.


    I have the same tendency as you to go for rosewood or something darker, but in my case it's because I don't see the value in accentuating the raspier end of a guitar's spectral output any more than necessary. Just taste I s'pose.


    Hope you're well, bud.

  • To get the most "twang" out of the Stratocaster you need for sure wood which can deliver these characteristics as explicit as possible..I would say..but ofcourse I am not a luthier.


    My 70s Strat is all maple neck/fretboard but her tone is so warm & silky..the twang is overpresent with an unbelieveable sustain and this is why I have a Stratocaster..as absolute contrast to the LesPaul..


    I always thought it is much better and more musically to turn back the volume poti if the highs become to present on the Strat..only to give full volume when I go "retard" with a gainy sound where I also love the shrill and hysteric sound only a Strat can deliever on her bridge PU (well..and the Tele ofcourse but this is to much for me)..


    It is all about feel and personal taste.


    If I want "hybrid" I will go for a custom superstrat with floyd,HSH with switching configuration of the humbuckers with a combination of woods which in the end "says not much" or at least is neither "really Stratocaster" nor "really Les Paul" but something which (if you are very lucky) sounds good(even great) but again only in a whole chain together with a very good multichannel amp with FX and so on..and again since years I use something like this only for music which contains some sort of shred..something I try to avoid during the last years.


    My custom built superstrats (actually only one survived in my arsenal which I got from the old ESP custom shop in duesseldorf on the late 80s from a crazy japanese) sound great with a rectifier,some fx for leads..but not good enough with a pure marshall rig or my peavey classic or some nice matchless on my KPA..this is all for LesPaul and my Stratocaster.


    And while we at it..IMO (could be so wrong about this) the finish plays some role on the electric guitar which most players underestimate;I always had the impression that companies which put a ton of "modern beautifull finish" on their guitars kill tone..like PRS..


    But again,this is only my very personal thought on woods etc

  • Does the 'board make that much difference?

    Maple finger board will almost always have more snap/crispness sharper attack than rosewood. Rosewood board will have more mids and softer attack, I enjoy both and found that to be true by swapping necks on the same body with equally the same electronics.

  • Ahh... it must've been ash I was thinking of, Nikos. Well done, mate, and thank you.


    I do feel that the board can take things OTT sometimes if the guitar in question is already sufficiently-bright and rich-enough in high mids, Sam, hence my post, but Nikos pointed out that he thought that alder sounds duller than ash, so I figure I must've been confusing the two. Just for me 'though, using one of the brightest-sounding body woods, along with similary-spec'd neck and fretboard ones, well, one had better be certain that one in fact desires the likely outcome of a super-bright guitar. Obviously much depends on playing style, PU selection and personal taste, but I'd personally not want to paint myself too far into a corner, especially if it were my only guitar.
    I have the same tendency as you to go for rosewood or something darker, but in my case it's because I don't see the value in accentuating the raspier end of a guitar's spectral output any more than necessary. Just taste I s'pose.


    Hope you're well, bud.

    Yeah, back when I was going to order a custom Suhr, I had a good few long chats with their sales rep about woods. I was most interested in their 2015 collection guitars, specifically this one : [Blocked Image: https://www.station-musicshop.de/WebRoot/Store8/Shops/64398533/54DB/656B/482A/778A/8543/C0A8/2BB9/7FC8/suhr_2015cstd7223fm.jpg]
    I totally fell in love with the look, though the rep told me that they weren't very suited to serious playing, as they were way too bright, being made exclusively out of maple, hence us trying to find a custom compromise. In the end I bought a Tyler, as the import duty made it a third cheaper than the Suhr (plus I wouldn't have to wait 9+ months for the build to be completed).

  • Interestingly most "serious luthiers" I met never seemed so sure about how wood really sounds before they personally checked it through their various (very personal) testing before they used it as tone wood.


    Take a minute watching this:


    This is no rant about the wood..not even the bridge or the PUs..but only the nut!


    Mr Smith does not hide how "unsecure" he is about what he is claiming..he makes no secret that he is still searching..after how many decades of buiding guitars; :whistling:

  • @Nikos, yeah mate, I meant to add that on top of a 3-wood (all-bright) combination, a thick, rigid finish would be the icing on the cake / proverbial straw that would see my running a mile. Of course, that's just me.

    Yeah, back when I was going to order a custom Suhr, I had a good few long chats with their sales rep about woods. I was most interested in their 2015 collection guitars, specifically this one : [Blocked Image: https://www.station-musicshop.de/WebRoot/Store8/Shops/64398533/54DB/656B/482A/778A/8543/C0A8/2BB9/7FC8/suhr_2015cstd7223fm.jpg]I totally fell in love with the look, though the rep told me that they weren't very suited to serious playing, as they were way too bright, being made exclusively out of maple, hence us trying to find a custom compromise. In the end I bought a Tyler, as the import duty made it a third cheaper than the Suhr (plus I wouldn't have to wait 9+ months for the build to be completed).

    Wow, what a dilemma that beauty represents, Sam - do I caress her for her looks or run a mile in case she opens her mouth. :D


    Gorgeous.