Schecter Vs Ibanez, whats more for the price?? |
|
Schecter Vs Ibanez, whats more for the price?? |
|
|
|
|
Jul 17 2008, 08:06 PM |
Well the diamond owns the Ibanez if we talk looks in my opinion But 300 € is ALOT! So if feelings is the same with both, and the tone is the same, go for Ibanez!
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jul 17 2008, 08:07 PM |
schecter...they take a lot of time to make quality guitars
-------------------- |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jul 17 2008, 09:19 PM |
For sure the Schecter has the better pus, but on the other hand it has no tremolo. There's a value in a floating tremolo, materials cost wise, yes. But if that in itself makes a better guitar can be debated. I don't know the C-1 but if it's string through body that will add to the tone while a floating tremolo will cut tone. So from that aspect a string through body could be the better guitar since it has better tonal conditions and less maintenance which comes with a floating tremolo. I think I'd get the Schecter for better pu's, better tone and easy maintenance. And I think they look good too -------------------- My bands homepage
All time favourites: B. Streisand - Woman in Love, M. Hopkin - Those were the days, L. Richie - Hello |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jul 17 2008, 10:07 PM |
I must vote for Schecter here, it is a better guitar.
-------------------- - Ivan's Video Chat Lesson Notes HERE
- Check out my GMC Profile and Lessons - (Please subscribe to my) YouTube Official Channel - Let's be connected through ! Facebook! :) |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jul 18 2008, 04:15 PM
|
|
thanks
-------------------- If you think you understood what I said, you neglect that the things you hear, are different from the thing I thought of. - Got it?
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jul 18 2008, 04:16 PM |
I love shecters they are really good and personally I think they are way underpriced, but Ibanez just owns shecter all the way!
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jul 18 2008, 04:52 PM |
I love shecters they are really good and personally I think they are way underpriced, but Ibanez just owns shecter all the way! schecter schecter shecters are way better in my opinion This post has been edited by bubbalicious: Jul 18 2008, 04:53 PM
Attached image(s)
-------------------- my gear;
guitars:epiphone x-ploror epiphone sg special (hopeing to remake it) caliber strat copie oakman acoustic amps:mega 15 watt(crap) line 6 spider 2 30 watt pedals:zoom pedal board line6 fx switcher recording:line 6 toneport gx check out my practice agenda |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jul 18 2008, 10:09 PM |
The typical mahogany sound is fat, sure... but don't expect something unbalanced... just "the touch". Not SO SO big diference with maple or other woods... the diference is there... but it isn't a huge difference. Cheers! Imo between Mahogany and maple there's a giant leap -------------------- My bands homepage
All time favourites: B. Streisand - Woman in Love, M. Hopkin - Those were the days, L. Richie - Hello |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jul 20 2008, 07:51 PM |
@Xuestor + MickeM: could you explain the difference more detailed please;) ? im not in this kind of stuff as i said, but mahagoni looks me more "noble". * Mahogany gives a very full tone, lots of lows and fat compressed mids and the high frequencies are filtered out. Warm tone and has plenty of sustain. * Maple is bright, very bright infact. Lots of high and mid frequencies and less defined lows. Lots of sharp attack and sustain. Different wood has different qualities. And different Mahogany or Maple wood would be of different quality depending on which tree it comes fron. Or, if it's from the same tree it depends on from where in the tree it comes from and how it's cut. There's an uneconomical way of sawing the planks where as you saw them on the radius towards the core, which is better for the tonal qualities but a waste of wood. Or the simple more common way where the pieces are horizontally sawn from top to botton, where the better tonal quality planks come from the middle of the tree. -------------------- My bands homepage
All time favourites: B. Streisand - Woman in Love, M. Hopkin - Those were the days, L. Richie - Hello |
|
|
||