PRS goes Strat

[Jimi75]

Well, now PRS comes even closer to the Strat body design. Definitely worth checking when this beast enters the stores.

http://www.prsguitars.com/dc3/specs.php

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Hmm, I guess they thing Leo got it right the first time. Now they just need to fix that head stock. :thumbsup

 

[hubberjub]

I'm not a huge PRS fan but I do like some of their newer models. The 305, 513, and the Starla are pretty cool. That one you posted looks interesting too.

 

[markb]

They look like a rehash of the EG models PRS made in the 90s which were stratty bolt-ons with a scratchplate. They came with 3 or 4 coils and I think there was an SE model too.

From the PRS model history page:

EG BOLT-ON SERIES I: 1990 – 1991. New squarer shape. Alder body, maple neck, 22-fret rosewood fretboard. EG3 s/s/s and EG4 s/s/h, scratchplate mounted pickups. Volume, twin tones, 5-way selector, PRS tremolo, Schaller non-locking tuners.

EG BOLT-ON SERIES II: 1992 - 1995. Rounder shape. Alder body, wide thin maple neck, 22-fret rosewood fretboard. Scratchplate mounted pickups in three formats, h/s/h, s/s/h, s/s/s, volume, tone, 5-way selector, coil taps, PRS tremolo, locking machines. EG bolt-on maple top adds three piece maple, ‘10’ option.

Source

 

[Commodore 64]

If it's like any of the PRS I've tried, it will look great, feel great, stay in tune well, and sound utterly mundane.

 

[Tig]

If it's like any of the PRS I've tried, it will look great, feel great, stay in tune well, and sound utterly mundane.

I've heard similar observations about PRS guitars. Sure, you can drop in your favorite pickups and maybe change the pots or caps, but you shouldn't have to after paying this kind of price.

Personally, I'd rather go with a G&L USA Legacy Rustic or an Eric Clapton Signature for this price range.

 

[oldguy]

No stores near me carry PRS, so I've never played one.
A few people I've ran across playing them in bands swore by them, though.
And they sounded quite good, also.

 

[DeanEVO_Dude]

Hmm, I guess they thing Leo got it right the first time. Now they just need to fix that head stock. :thumbsup

Looks asside on the headstock, it is a very functional design. Angled back to remove the need for string trees, and each strings is (almost) exactly in line with each tuner - straight string pull helps keep the friction down in the nut so the trem stays in tune.

 

[Katastrophe]

I like it! It looks much better than the old, discontinued SE version they had out a few years ago... As usual, the necks were fantastic, but the look was, well, confused. It played well, but I wasn't much of a fan of the pups.

I like the sound of PRS pups... To be sure, they aren't the hottest, and you really have to work the amph to get the tones you want, but when you get 'em... it's good stuff.

 

[hubberjub]

They look like a rehash of the EG models PRS made in the 90s which were stratty bolt-ons with a scratchplate. They came with 3 or 4 coils and I think there was an SE model too.

From the PRS model history page:



Source

The series I and II PRS EGs are some of the best guitars that PRS has ever put out. The Lindy Fralin Domino pickups are phenomenal. Other than that, I have never been overly impressed by PRS.

 

[deeaa]

I also think that's pretty much what many or most players think of PRS. They are sort of between Fenders and Gibsons, and in that they do seem quite uninspiring sonically. Can't get the Fender spank, but neither the full Les Paul experience. Even the scale is just in between the two opposites.

Some people prefer it that way, though...they are steady performers and quality tools I'm sure.

 

[marnold]

The only PRS I've ever played is one of the low-end ones. Was nice enough, except I couldn't get past the heavy, glossy finish on the back of the neck. I'm afraid to play a real PRS, for fear that I'll like it. Saw a denim transparent finish that they had that looked stunning. The guitar was beyond expensive, though.

 

[DeanEVO_Dude]

I know what you are talking about, marnold, with the PRS finishes... Very thick and the US models have glorious, deep, deep, deep, (did I mention deep) finishes that are just stunning to behold. Come to think of it, I don't think that I have ever seen a bad looking finish on any PRS guitar.

 

[mykewright]

The finish always looked thicker than it was. It was always fairly thin, but the new (in the last year) V12 finish on many of the USA models is super-thin, but very hard and has a resulting benfit on the resonance. Also the latest pickups (the 5x/xx models) sound as good as ANYTHING out there.

 

[Glacies]

Tim Mahoney from 311 has always been a PRS fan and has peaked my interest in some of his interviews talking about them. However, I guess feel is more important than tone for him because he's so heavy into effects.

That looks cool though - I wish PRS would give bigger pics of the guitars on their websites.

 

[progrmr]

I had a PRS SE for a while and to me it was a fine instrument, but not very inspiring - playing it just kinda felt "meh". I guess I don't "get" them, but the worship leader for the church band I used to play with LOVED them - that was his brand and it was the only thing that worked for him.

I kinda dig their headstock - but that neck looks mighty tall for some reason! Maybe it's just the maple. Wonder what the width is at the nut?

 

[NWBasser]

I've heard similar observations about PRS guitars. Sure, you can drop in your favorite pickups and maybe change the pots or caps, but you shouldn't have to after paying this kind of price.

Personally, I'd rather go with a G&L USA Legacy Rustic or an Eric Clapton Signature for this price range.

Oh sweet heavens yeah!

This PRS reminds me of all the boutique jazz basses on the market. One design that hundreds of builders try to improve upon with varying degrees of success.

 

[cebreez]

I've always been confused about what makes one guitar worth $1000 more than another guitar of equal quality. And don't say fit and finish. I don't buy guitars to hang on the wall. I play every guitar I have. I have always like the looks of the higher end PRS guitars. Then again I like the Carvin guitars for the same reason and I never hear anybody talking much about them.

 

[Katastrophe]

I've always been confused about what makes one guitar worth $1000 more than another guitar of equal quality. And don't say fit and finish. I don't buy guitars to hang on the wall. I play every guitar I have. I have always like the looks of the higher end PRS guitars. Then again I like the Carvin guitars for the same reason and I never hear anybody talking much about them.

A big chunk of it is name on the headstock, along with the amount of time and dollars it takes to create a particular guitar. A guitar like an American PRS takes a whole lot more time and hand fitting than an American Strat, which was originally designed to be put together on an assembly line, as opposed to highly skilled luthiers.

Having said that, though, I think the American PRSs cost too much. I think the same about some Gibbys, too.

 

[cebreez]

I understand the time element Kat... but the PRS's I've seen were not of significantly better quality if any better at all than that of an American Strat, Carvin, or even a MM for that matter. Of course I'm just splitting hairs. It does come down to personal choice and what looks good and feels good to the player. But too many times we buy to appease our emotions. The stigma of owning a mighty Gibby LP or having a guitar just like Eric Clapton played.

Sorry... Am I getting off topic?

 

[deeaa]

Cebreez, maybe OT for this thread but it's a topic much discussed these days...my view is that it used to so that there was a small number of manufacturers in the past, and their stuff was indeed of superior quality, but these days, even the smallest manufacturer can use CNC machines etc. so...

I'd rather say, in many cases, what's there between a $400 guitar and a $1000 guitar really that makes one better than another...nothing, really, in many cases.

Handmade/desired brand will always cost much more. Handmade will cost much more. It is not a question of whether any of them is superior quality; that's what the guitars must cost to make a profit. To the buyer it is just a matter of preference.
This does not apply to multi-thousand dollar guitars however.

I always say, for $400 you can get an electric guitar that plays and sounds just as well as ANY guitar out there no matter the price. If you pay more than that, you should be just getting more beautiful woods, maybe super-long lasting frets, fine cases, the complete experience. Well past $1000, now that's just branding and has nothing to do with quality or such; they just ask those prices because they can. Is a faster processor more expensive to make, as a PC analogy? Not really, actually in some cases slower ones have been more expensive to make because they are MADE slower by disabling circuits off already faster CPU's. It is just marketing, supply and demand.

Loads of analogies in the car world, too.

Now, with respect to guitars, pretty soon the lack of any reasonable quality woods will change the playingfield some...

 

[bcdon]

Well past $1000, now that's just branding and has nothing to do with quality or such; they just ask those prices because they can. Is a faster processor more expensive to make, as a PC analogy? Not really, actually in some cases slower ones have been more expensive to make because they are MADE slower by disabling circuits off already faster CPU's. It is just marketing, supply and demand.

Partially true. Chips that run at the fastest speeds are generally more expensive because of wafer yields; that is, only a certain number of chips on the wafer are capable of running (or passing the tests) at certain speeds, so they "cost more." Chips that fail X Ghz, might pass Y-speeds and are branded as Y-Ghz, and ones that fail Y, are sold as Z-Ghz. That said, some chips are in fact 'fused' as lower functional chips because it is cheaper to make a single die and charge more for the fully-functional chip and disable some features for the less-functionally chip.

 

[deeaa]

Yep indeed...also, I recall some instances with some GPUs for instance that there was so much demand for cheaper versions of the same chip the maker disabled functions off perfectly working higher class chips to meet the demand for lower-bracket ones.

 

[cebreez]

Thanks deeaa... that was well put. And thank you bcdon. I feel so much better about my off topic comments. :socool