If YOU will not learn metal guitar, then perhaps there is another who will... A Sister?

My sister is the uber-christian type, so her learning to shred some metal riffs is a pretty hilarious image.

:nods: :isay: Thank ye.

I tried the song on my Talman tuned to B, but the strings are deadish and that combined with it being semi-hollow make the tone a little woofy. Sadly that is my only 'bucker equipped guitar so obviously something must be done about this.

Which means I:

A.) Assemble that project guitar I have been holding onto, and screw refinishing it until a later date

B.) Buy something like this http://www.guitarfetish.com/XV-890HSS-S ... _4494.html



I actually just chose the GFS because it basically encapsulates the pure obnoxiousness I am going for, but looking at the specs that is actually a lot of guitar for the price. I imagine they came out with these in response to the Rasmus line ...

A lot of guitar, and purple, but i am not into it.

If you opt for the case, it brings it right up to $300, which really, is ballpark what you can find used Charvels/Jacksons for. I would probably be inclined to go for something like this instead:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Jackson-Reverse ... 25745e7316

I have mixed feelings on the Jacksons I have played so far. Mainly because almost their entire mid-range has EMGs or other active pickups which I have not really dug too much.

What aboot Kramers?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Guitar-electric ... 3cc96b0801

As for the Jackson thing, the lower end usually is passives. The thing they were doing for a while in the upper end with the passive pickups with an active midboost circuit built into the controls is actually pretty sweet. A lot of the cheapest guitars they made(like the Charvette series, of which i own one) actually used the same (passive) pickups as the midboost ones, and they sound pretty swell all by themselves too, like hot PAFs.

Also, pickups swaps are easy, EMGs are iconic for metal tonez, and the charvel/jacksons consistently have the best necks of just about anything IMO. Ibanez tends to swing a bit too thin for my tastes; the Jackson/Charvel profiles are awesome, while still like half the size of a 'normal' guitar like a fender or gibson.

OH. Also, if you are not already aware of it, just because a lot of the Jackson/Charvels have black plastic covers on the pickups, does not necessarily mean that they are active. My Charvette has those covers on bofe pickups and they are the regular old passive style. This will be particularly true of the ones from the 90s i think.

Ah well that is good to know. I will look around then.

That cherry red kramer is pretty fucking tits though.

I think I might slap a single-sized bucker in the bridge of my tele, and a couple of strat pups ala nashville style and call it a day. One less guitar to sell, I can put the random strat parts into storage for another rainy day project and I get an unconventional shredder to match my hipster motif :D

I might pull the ol' sand'n'oil on the back of the tele neck too.

Yarr, if you go the SCSHB route, for metal, i might be inclined to go with a slightly warmer bridge. Forinstance, i have the vintage cool rail whatever GFS railbucker in my tele, and i like it, but for metal, i do find it slightly less than easy to work with. Mainly, higher gain with lower output can mean a lot more squealing and a more single-coily brightness that doesn't always work well with chugsounds.

The one i have is like 6.5k or something i think. If i were to do it again, i think i might go for the 10k or even the 15k that they do, and maybe with a coil split for the 15k if i went that way. Thus, lots of output and darker sounds for metal, but the split on the thing would give something close-ish to a standard SC sort of bridge vibe.

This. It is convincingly metallic.

You may now return to the previous discussion of guitars with skinny necks.

Srsly..? I could have sworn it was HM-2s on SotS? Fuckin' weird.

I can't listen to your clip, Devin.. SADFACE.

Wasn't it both in series, HM-2 for gain and MT-2 for the EQ, into a Peavey Transtube and a homemade cab?

I figured you were just having a larf, but a quick search seems to support this as the properandcorrect guitar rig. Though it would appear to be a Supreme 160, not the Transtube, which i don't think even came out until like 1996-7. Which i only know because i fucking bought one when it was brandy new because i was a dipshit.

I wonder how the circuits differ between those maps. The transtube did sound okay honestly. It has been sitting unused in a corner of my basement for the last seven or eight years, but it isn't awful at all. The boost/distortion channel, i think i might not use today, but i sure liked it back in 1997.

Yeah, it does sorta sound like I'm, y'know, totally making that up, especially since the record doesn't sound like the guitar rig should be quite that ghetto. And you're right on the map. I remembered it was an older SS Peavey of some sort, and Supreme 160 sounds right now that you mention it. 'S been forever since I bothered to find out what was actually on that record. Which I actually really liked the sound of back in the '90s.

That makes me wonder how much of a difference there is between all the SS Peavey stuff going back for... A good lot of years.

Mother of fuck. What a ridiculous/genius combo.

That tone mixed with something more conventional (schfifty vun schfifty) would probably be the ultimate metal tone for my tastes. Oh, wait...

I forget exactly re: if the cab was a 1x12 + 1x10 or 2x12 + 2x10. I remember there being a 10 and a 12 in there though? Not sure what, but I can't imagine the speakers being anything too swanky. Or what ol' Fred recorded it with/to.

I think In Flames' Whoracle, a couple years later, was Marshall Valvestates and a Metal Zone, too, and that was not exactly a bad sounding record. The fairly dry natural drums are probably not much by 2012 standards, but I remember thinking it sounded badass when it came out too.