ShortScale.org

honeyiscool wrote:We're all in the minority here. The market has decided against short scales. What's your point?

My personal tastes don't have to be coherent. Regardless, what's hard to understand? I think this is beyond ugly:



Meanwhile, I think this is beautiful:



How are the two particularly similar looking? Unless you knew of the common heritage, you wouldn't think these were related guitars.

I'm more interested in a double humbucker Mustang as a cheap modding platform (if it indeed turns out to be one) than something I would enjoy stock. I thought I made that clear.

In any case, Mustangs don't have any major flaws IMO because the switching is something that works very well and because you can actually set one up with 9s, whereas you can't really do that with Jags with the stock bridge. It has quirks, and therefore you can have legitimate gripes with it, but they're not flaws. I have said many times before that I find Strats to be crappy, but I don't think that the Strat has flaws, it's just not something I like. I know the difference.

I'd suggest that anyone unfamiliar with guitars would think that the only difference between these two was colour. They have near identical body shapes and the layout is very very similar.

I think they look pretty different. the pre-64 shortscales look more like a melted strat. the post-64 ones come into their own a bit more with a more unique body and pickguard shape. the offset body and double slanted pickups makes it a fair amount sleeker and "fast" looking.

Yeah, there are definitely a lot of differences. My point was that to the untrained eye they probably look exactly the same. My girlfriend can barely even tell the difference between a Mustang and a Jazzmaster, for example.

ah, but can she tell the difference between a pre-cbs shortscale and a jazzmaster?

yeah, I know what you mean, I even know guitarists who aren't very much into fenders and all the offset fenders tend to blur together in their mind. and before I played guitar I never payed attention to guitars at all really. all I knew was that "pointy is not coool maannn".

I'm not saying being in the minority is a bad thing. I think you're reading my post as argumentative when they're intended to be like that.

There is nothing wrong with being in the minority, especially with something like guitar taste. But you have to understand that you are and you have to understand that Fender is out to make money. We all want guitars exactly how we want them and we all want them cheap. The problem with mass producing something like a Mustang is that they're isn't huge demand for them and with the Duo already produced, most people who want the Mustang and want one cheap, are going to settle with the Duo. I wish they had different paint. That duo is fucking ugly but it's not because it isn't offset. It is because it looks like a middle schooler washes out a picture of a duo in photoshop.

and I see the mustang switching as a flaw because it has so many redundant positions. If it had a 4 way or even a 5 way, so one position was an off position, I would understand but it doesn't. I think that is a flaw. I hate the volume knob placement on a strat and jazzmaster but I can see why someone would want it there. I see no advantage to the the switching on a Mustang. It could be done better.

but the question is not, "can most people tell the difference between a CV duo and a mustang?" but more like, "can a person who wants a mustang tell the difference between a CV duo and a mustang?" I think yes, they can. if someone really wants a mustang they're gonna know what one looks like. they may settle for a CV duo but that doesn't mean they wouldn't like to buy a mustang more if there was an affordable option.

Freddy V-C wrote:Yeah, there are definitely a lot of differences. My point was that to the untrained eye they probably look exactly the same. My girlfriend can barely even tell the difference between a Mustang and a Jazzmaster, for example.

Yeah but people can understand the difference between a guitar they like to look at and a guitar that's meh. I showed a female friend of mine (who doesn't play but is interested) a few guitars and out of the lineup of a black (three-pickup) Strat, a Candy Apple Jaguar, and a Daphne Blue Mustang, she singled out the Mustang as the prettiest guitar, even though she admitted she couldn't exactly put a finger on why she liked it the most. I always thought my Jaguar was my prettiest guitar but I can't fault her for picking the Mustang, still shows good taste.

portugalwillie wrote:That duo is fucking ugly but it's not because it isn't offset. It is because it looks like a middle schooler washes out a picture of a duo in photoshop.

I somewhat agree. If it was Olympic White with a simple white pickguard, it wouldn't be as bad. But it wouldn't be as beautiful as a Mustang either. Least not to me.

portugalwillie wrote:I see the mustang switching as a flaw because it has so many redundant positions.

So if it used two-way switches, it wouldn't be a flaw because there'd be no redundancy despite the fact that it offers fewer options? I think the three-way switch is a nice touch. It adds character, and as I have pointed out and at least one other person has agreed with me on this, yes, it's possible to get 8 different sounds out of the three switches, but then you need a chart to learn them all, while the standard Mustang switching is easy to remember and use in the heat of battle.

I think the switch placement is sensible. Each switch is on top of the pickup it controls, makes sense to me. It offers a visual representation of what out-of-phase wiring represents, two pickups at odds with each other, whereas in-phase wiring has two pickups in harmony.

Freddy V-C wrote:Yeah, there are definitely a lot of differences. My point was that to the untrained eye they probably look exactly the same. My girlfriend can barely even tell the difference between a Mustang and a Jazzmaster, for example.

TREWTH

Lets get things straight. Outside of our short scale/offset bubble that i happen to have lived in for the last 10 years... NO ONE GIVES A FUCK. A guitar is a guitar. The only difference is whether its red or white. No one gives a shit about parralelz/series, mint guards, period correct wiring, radius, witch hat knobs, scatter wound pups, what Fuzz pedal you use, comp stripes, 65 vs 69, matching headstocks.....

I have no problems with the switch placement. And if it had two way switches, it would be stupid. If I was going to own another Mustang, I would have a normal three way in the back that is a normal three way switch with a two way on the neck that is a switch that does in phase/out phase. fast and easy to understand, you can't knock the switches into an off position. it would be logical.

Mages wrote:but the question is not, "can most people tell the difference between a CV duo and a mustang?" but more like, "can a person who wants a mustang tell the difference between a CV duo and a mustang?" I think yes, they can. if someone really wants a mustang they're gonna know what one looks like. they may settle for a CV duo but that doesn't mean they wouldn't like to buy a mustang more if there was an affordable option.

This is a good thread for me. Makin me think about my own playing, preferences, and awareness. I own an all-original 1965 Mustang, a reissue 1959 Duo-Sonic, and love em both. Can I tell the difference? As in playin blindfolded, guitar controls on similar settings, same amp on the same settings? Goood question.

Maybe I couldn't tell without feelin around for the different bridge, pickguard & controls. Both my guitars have great feeling necks; similarly low action up & down the neck with no buzz; similar neck width; so I wonder if I'd hear a different tone if I used the same attack?

I'm honestly not sure if my ear's that good to pick up a difference, and I seriously doubt I could say, "That tone's definitley the Mustang!" But I can say that I love both these guitars, the way they play, the way they feel, their tones, and the aesthetics of each one. And I'm a visual-design oriented guy. I think they're both beautiful, and in similar ways.

Sometimes I do wish the Mustang had ergonomic contours, but more for the visual interest...it's so small & light, it really doesn't make much practical difference to me.

Tangentailly, I read the documentation for Honey's post about all the albums on which John McLaughlan played his Mustang. Very impressive list. These little axes are giant killers if we just let em do their stuff.

portugalwillie wrote:That duo is fucking ugly but it's not because it isn't offset. It is because it looks like a middle schooler washes out a picture of a duo in photoshop.

I see the mustang switching as a flaw because it has so many redundant positions.

Willie, you ain't got no sense of history. I've collected and played both Duos and Mustangs for decades and each has its own charm. A good deal of the original gold-guard Duo Sonic's charm and beauty lie in its simplicity and subtle elegance, and these play like a dream, regardless of scale length. "Fucking ugly" sounds pretty closed-minded to me.

Without the early Duo, there wouldn't be any Mustangs--that's the history, and each is a reflection of the marketing savvy and attitudes of its own age.

The switching--on, off, out of phase. What's redundant about that? I think they did it that way deliberately to differentiate the Mustang from the DS. Gotta admit that for its price, the Mustang sure looked deluxe!

the vintage duos look fine. Not really my cup o' tea but the classic vibe duo needs a tinted neck to break up the tan. I usually prefer a more plane neck over the vintage tint but not on those things.

the mustang switch is redundant because there are several positions that give you the same sound. out of the 9 possible positions you can get 4 different sounds. how is that not redundant?

so use the positions you like and don't worry about the others?

I have heard some people say the two out-of-phase positions sounds different from each other, but it would be minimal at best.

It's not like they're ridiculously redundant. There are two ways of getting the same sound and it's aesthetically pleasing because there's symmetry.

taylornutt wrote:I have heard some people say the two out-of-phase positions sounds different from each other, but it would be minimal at best.

I wonder if you can use the phase switches to play out of phase with yourself with a looper.

"wait, I switch it this way and get this sound, and then I switch it this way and get the same sound? what the crap!? this guitar is such a rip off."

all I'm saying is the switching could be better.

honeyiscool wrote:It's not like they're ridiculously redundant. There are two ways of getting the same sound and it's aesthetically pleasing because there's symmetry.

OFFEST IS BETTER. SYMMETRY IS BETTER.

some really clever switching for two-coils is that seymour duncan pickup ring thing. no redundant postions there and it has parallel and series. it's kind of engineering genius, I don't know how they did it.