ShortScale.org

Dinosauria wrote:

B-Side Alex wrote:
No I' cool with the faffing, to get what you want it usually takes time and work - if you're serious about your music, why should the sound of your guitar be any different IMO.

other than pups, is there anything else you'd recommend doing?

and as for the pups, like I've said I' going to just change the bridge initially for an SD quarter pounder and eave the stock one in the neck and if needed change the neck one later for the Antiquity II. What do you think of the Quarter Pounder, Antiquity combo?

I have a set of QPs in a Jag but not a mixed set. As far as I know the bridge pup is normally higher output than the neck anyway but you might have to be carefull that you don't totally overpower the neck PU if you swith during a song. Check their output. If you're going for a totally different kind of sound in each position then you're probably heading down the right track. There's bound to be someone on here thats tried it at some point who can give you a proper answer.

As you can see from everyone's replies Jags are a very individial thing. I keep the parts regular Jag (US upgrades and different PU sets) I haven't done any "mods" as such, though my 66 ri came with a mustang bridge but I might change it back to a regular one.

MMPicker wrote:It seems to me that if there's one version that you can actually play and see if you like it or not before you buy it, and there's another one that you'd actually have to buy sight unseen before you even see it, there ought to be a srong inclination to just decide about the first one before you go take a risk. But maybe that's just me.

I've got an MIM Jaguar with a TOM bridge, and an old Musicmaster II with a different bridge. I just play the things, I never think about, or think to care about, the bridge, it never enters my mind. To me, based on all the posts I've read, that must make my TOM superior to some other Jaguar bridges people have. Because quite a number of these other guys seem to be obessessed with the bridge, and fixing problems with it, and that's something IMO nobody should have to think or care about. It should just be there, and do it's job quietly. That's what mine have done on every other guitar I've owned, and same on my Jaguar. So when people say they don't "like" the TOM, frankly I'm just scratching my head. It seems like it works better.

As for the sound, sustain, etc. as I suggested just play the darned thing, it's in the shop right, and decide for yourself. Bearing in mind that pickups can be changed, if necessary, very personal decision. But then the CIJ isn't in the shop, is it? Advantage #2, MIM.

Someone else mentioned the neck features, radius, frets, and this was in fact what attracted me to the MIM Jaguar in the first place. I haven't played a CIJ Jaguar, but my other guitar has vintage specs with the same scale length, and to me there's a noticeable difference in playability, with strong advantage MIM Jaguar. You can change the pickups, but you probably will not be making the changes to the necks that would be required to make these the same between the models. I'm disposed to disagree with the notion that the MIM would be best as Rhythm guitar, as compared to a similar guitar with vintage neck specs. Because both the flatter radius and the bigger frets noticably improve my ease of playing lead on the guitar, particularly with noting up the neck, vs. my other vintage-spec'd guitar.

This is my first guitar with a tremelo arm, so I can't compare to others. But it seems usable to me. I'm actually having a blast with it. My one complaint would be the arm seems to flop down a lot , but my tech said other variants he's had over the years have had the same issue.

The tech who worked on my MIM said he thought the workmanship was just fine. He thought it was fully comparable to AVRI. I haven't read anyone suggesting that CIJ was better than that.

So again, it seems to me that you've read all this lore, or theoretical bogeymen- much of it which you might find in fact to be completely 100% wrong, or largely irrelevant - but nevertheless they seem to be somewhat impeding you from what to me is the commonsense first step of just going down and playing the guitar that's there. Once you do that, you can proceed accordingly.

Mike wrote:I don't understand the hate for the TOM either, it's pretty much one of the best bridge designs ever.

B-Side Alex wrote: To break it down, I want my Jag to have plenty of tone (especially clean), I want a Jag that sound like a Jag, I want it to have some real kick when it's needed and not sound too thin and I want to have a little more sustain than the CIJ Jag apparently has.

aphasiac wrote:Plus you need to upgrade the bridge immediately.

Zaphod wrote:

aphasiac wrote:Plus you need to upgrade the bridge immediately.

Wrong.

lamp wrote:

Zaphod wrote:

aphasiac wrote:Plus you need to upgrade the bridge immediately.

Wrong.

robroe wrote:

lamp wrote:

Zaphod wrote: Wrong.

BobArsecake wrote:

robroe wrote:

lamp wrote:

othomas2 wrote:

Fran wrote:

BobArsecake wrote:

aphasiac wrote:You guys ALL use the original jaguar bridge and have no string slippage problems??

really??!