Page 1 of 1
Cyclone VS Kurt Cobain Mustang
Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:43 pm
by Golden_Sonic
What's the best choice? The Cyclone is almost impossible to find here in Italy; beside KC'stang looks similar to the Cyclone, with a single coil and a Seymur Duncan JB (it says it sounds like the Fender Atomic H). If you were in my shoes, what would you choose?
Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 4:10 pm
by kypdurron
Cyclone would be cheaper, Mustang plays better and has better trem
Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 5:14 pm
by Thomas
The mustang is a much better guitar. I had my cyclone for about 2 weeks before I got rid of it.
Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
by robert(original)
i would go for the mustang, but not the kc model, i don't like the TOM bridge, and i use the trem of the mustang ALOT so that is my reasoning.
i would tell just about anyone else to go for the cyclone over the mustang becuz 90 percent of the world is too fucking retarded to be able to set up the mustang unit tho its far more simple.
Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:42 pm
by gusman2x
KC mustang is a great guitar. I really love mine, one of my favourite players.
Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:07 pm
by DasBeef
My KC sounds and plays great. Never had a cyclone to compare it with though.
Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:45 pm
by Pens
The Squier Cyclone that's currently out?
The Mustang has a much, much better neck on it, and the pickup is also far better. The Atomic is not even close to it. I've played the both.
Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 11:31 pm
by gofive
I own both the Fender Cyclone and Cobain Mustang. No idea about the Squier version.
Truthfully I don't find that much of a difference between the Atomic and JB. I love the Atomic and it seems to be a pickup people either love or hate. Generally I like the Cyclone single coil better than the Mustang (gasp) but I barely use single coil so my opinion is worthless. The biggest difference is size. The Cyclone is bigger, heavier and has a larger neck than the Mustang. The Cobain Mustang is a lot lighter and the neck feels better. If you're going to use the trem get the Cyclone as the Cobain Mustang trem is worthless. If you like the lighter guitar, better neck, get the Cobain Mustang.
I like the Mustang better but the Cyclone is very underrated. But I've only played the Fender version (I own 2!).
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:22 pm
by weeping_moon
robert(original) wrote:i would go for the mustang, but not the kc model, i don't like the TOM bridge, and i use the trem of the mustang ALOT so that is my reasoning.
i would tell just about anyone else to go for the cyclone over the mustang becuz 90 percent of the world is too fucking retarded to be able to set up the mustang unit tho its far more simple.
Robert original!!!
Do you have other reasons for hating the TOM ? Because its pretty stable tuning. Maybe somtimes people wants like a Gibson bridge but on a mustang? Dont get me wrong i have mustang with regular mustang bridge and the KC TOM. No tuning problems with them both but i choose the KC which i think is a more rock guitar. Can be of the SD humbucker because its screams, and other is that its alder.
So to the original poster.
I would say go for the KC mustang if you want many sound options and dont use a whammy bar.
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:41 pm
by jagsonic
If you can get a used FENDER cyclone - go for it. It's a really good guitar for 300-400 €. I think even a used KC mustang will be much pricier.
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:47 pm
by laterallateral
Is the KC Mustang neck, just regular Mustang spec?
Because if that's the case, those two guitars, although tonally similar will not feel ANYTHING alike.
If you're looking for something that plays like a Mustang, don't even think of going for a Cyclone.
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:14 pm
by taylornutt
laterallateral wrote:Is the KC Mustang neck, just regular Mustang spec?
Because if that's the case, those two guitars, although tonally similar will not feel ANYTHING alike.
If you're looking for something that plays like a Mustang, don't even think of going for a Cyclone.
The KC Mustang neck is flatter and wider than your typical Mustang Reissue. Definitely wider nut width than my Compstang RI. Not vintage spec.
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:52 pm
by speedfish
I have a Squier Cyclone and it's a great bang for the buck. My only complaint is that the Chinese don't set up the tremolo properly before attaching the tremolo cover on the back of the guitar. What I mean is they don't set the tremolo to float 1/8th of an inch off the deck of the guitar, instead they allow the trem springs to pull the tremolo down flat on the body of the guitar, then they place the tremolo cover onto the back of the guitar to match where you feed the strings through the plate and through the tremolo block, so when you do set the tremolo up properly and float the back of the tremolo an 1/8th of an inch off the body your tremolo cover string through holes no longer match the location of the tremolo block. This means that you will have to remove the tremolo cover each time that you change or break a string. You can leave the tremolo cover off or reposition to match the new location of the tremolo block, but moving the cover will mean drilling new holes and leaving two old holes exposed. Maybe the Chinese are setting up the tremolos properly before shipping now, but they didn't on the early issues.
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:19 pm
by Pens
taylornutt wrote:laterallateral wrote:Is the KC Mustang neck, just regular Mustang spec?
Because if that's the case, those two guitars, although tonally similar will not feel ANYTHING alike.
If you're looking for something that plays like a Mustang, don't even think of going for a Cyclone.
The KC Mustang neck is flatter and wider than your typical Mustang Reissue. Definitely wider nut width than my Compstang RI. Not vintage spec.
It feels pretty much the same as a Jap Jaguar neck like my MIJ Jag. I didn't do any measurements since it was at a Guitar Center but it feels like my Jag.
So yeah, it's flatter than the Squier Cyclone for certain, but I dunno about a normal Mustang as I have never played a real lefty one.
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:49 pm
by gofive
speedfish wrote:I have a Squier Cyclone and it's a great bang for the buck. My only complaint is that the Chinese don't set up the tremolo properly before attaching the tremolo cover on the back of the guitar. What I mean is they don't set the tremolo to float 1/8th of an inch off the deck of the guitar, instead they allow the trem springs to pull the tremolo down flat on the body of the guitar, then they place the tremolo cover onto the back of the guitar to match where you feed the strings through the plate and through the tremolo block, so when you do set the tremolo up properly and float the back of the tremolo an 1/8th of an inch off the body your tremolo cover string through holes no longer match the location of the tremolo block. This means that you will have to remove the tremolo cover each time that you change or break a string. You can leave the tremolo cover off or reposition to match the new location of the tremolo block, but moving the cover will mean drilling new holes and leaving two old holes exposed. Maybe the Chinese are setting up the tremolos properly before shipping now, but they didn't on the early issues.
The back cover doesn't line up correctly with the original Fender version. That is why most used Cyclones do not have the back cover.
Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 8:15 pm
by Dillon
I think the "best choice" is something only you can decide. Cyclone looks similar but it plays nothing like a Mustang; the necks are completely different. Do you want 24 3/4" scale and 9.5" radius or 24" scale and 7.25" radius? Also, Cyclones typically have bigger frets. Squier Cyclones aren't terrible but it's still a $200 guitar. And keep in mind you'll likely want to invest in some good pickups for a Cyclone...even the Fender ones aren't great. Plus it'll probably need a setup. Every Squier Cyclone I've played has had pokey fret ends and felt pretty much like trash. IMO any MIJ Fender is going to be better out of the box than an MIM Fender, but you pay the price for it.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:03 am
by Golden_Sonic
Thanks to everyone for thee advices; I don't have so much money for the KC'stang and the Cyclone (both Fender and Squier) is very rare to find here in Italy; if I have enough money, I'll get a KC'stang or a Squier Mustang and put in a pair of SD Quarter Pound single coils.
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:12 pm
by speedfish
gofive wrote:speedfish wrote:I have a Squier Cyclone and it's a great bang for the buck. My only complaint is that the Chinese don't set up the tremolo properly before attaching the tremolo cover on the back of the guitar. What I mean is they don't set the tremolo to float 1/8th of an inch off the deck of the guitar, instead they allow the trem springs to pull the tremolo down flat on the body of the guitar, then they place the tremolo cover onto the back of the guitar to match where you feed the strings through the plate and through the tremolo block, so when you do set the tremolo up properly and float the back of the tremolo an 1/8th of an inch off the body your tremolo cover string through holes no longer match the location of the tremolo block. This means that you will have to remove the tremolo cover each time that you change or break a string. You can leave the tremolo cover off or reposition to match the new location of the tremolo block, but moving the cover will mean drilling new holes and leaving two old holes exposed. Maybe the Chinese are setting up the tremolos properly before shipping now, but they didn't on the early issues.
The back cover doesn't line up correctly with the original Fender version. That is why most used Cyclones do not have the back cover.
Man, that's weird. All of the Strats in my household (one 1999 and all the rest 2006 or newer) have the rear tremolo cover line up properly with the tremolo block. I wonder what year the Mexicans started setting up tremolos properly before shipping them?
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 4:52 pm
by weeping_moon
Okay Robert, other reasons?
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 5:06 pm
by Noirie.
weeping_moon wrote:Okay Robert, other reasons?