Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Opinions on JT580 and JT6 please!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Opinions on JT580 and JT6 please!

    I recently acquired a Japanese made Charvel, as detailed in this thread:

    http://www.jcfonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53339

    The guitar came with what appears to be a Japanese market version of the Takeuchi JT580 (with Charvel logo).



    I have a spare JT6 lying around, and was thinking of swapping trems (for consistency... I have two other guitars with JT6's).

    However, if the JT580 is considered to be a higher quality trem than the JT6, I will not do the swap.

    Please post your opinions/reviews.

    Thanks in advance!

    -QR
    Until you get weaned off the boobie, you are going to have to do what the wife wants too. -Rsmacker

  • #2
    I swapped out the JT-6 on the model 6 i sold to Delano, and I liked it WAYYYY better than the JT-6 that was on there. Stayed in tune better for me and looked a hell of a lot nicer too. I think it's probably hit and miss with those trems...

    Comment


    • #3
      Judging by the length of the pull-up rout, it looks like the JT-6 would probably overhang. I'd stick with what's on there, and if it turns out that you don't like it, a Schaller or JT-590 may be the way to go as an upgrade.

      Comment


      • #4
        The trem doesn't quite match the route, so I bet the trem isn't original. There was probably a JT-590 in there originally. A Schaller Floyd should be a direct replacement.

        It's also unusual to see a model series logo on a dinky size body with the pull-up route, but stranger things have happened in Charvel land. I wouldn't be able to tell what it is though.
        Last edited by Sunbane; 04-19-2006, 08:42 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          If it's the original trem (I'm on a fence Sunbane - it looks correct to me), don't fuck with it. You know the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
          Last edited by DonP; 04-19-2006, 12:53 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            This is where it looks off to me:



            I don't see why they would make a square route if they were going to put a Takeuchi with the slanted baseplate on it. But there could be a handful of viable explanations to that.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks for all the helpful responses, guys!!!

              I put my JT-6 on the guitar for a heartbeat tonight. The fine tuners didn't overhang the route, but the surface of the body interfered with the baseplate, so that I wasn't able to pull up as far as the route allowed.

              I swapped the trem back to the Takeuchi for now. Will consider replacing it with a Schaller at some point, as I've got one on another guitar and I like it

              Thanks again, you guys rock!

              -QR
              Until you get weaned off the boobie, you are going to have to do what the wife wants too. -Rsmacker

              Comment


              • #8
                Looks like a 590 route.
                Really? well screw Mark Twain.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah, a Schaller would probably fit like a glove. Go for it!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sunbane
                    This is where it looks off to me:



                    I don't see why they would make a square route if they were going to put a Takeuchi with the slanted baseplate on it. But there could be a handful of viable explanations to that.
                    I see what you are saying now. Here's one explaination (of many I'm sure) - They "switched" to the Tak bridge but already had bodies routed for 590's, and since it was close enough, they just slapped them in. It seems to weird that it's a "Charvel" bridge in a Charvel guitar to make me think someone swapped it. Why would they go through the trouble to replace a good 590 with this?

                    I only have one Tak bridge - a low pro model, but since I don't have an arm, it doesn't float. It's in a KE3 body (was a JT580LP). I never check to see if it didn't fit right - without a trem arm, it's not a big deal anyway - I'm just going to block it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I was just looking at my Japan Japan Charvel. It had a Takeuchi Floyd like your picture on it but the route is square. Maybe it was a standard route and the Floyd Licensed guys just made the backplate a little different I'll bet it was done so corners wouldn't hit the route on when Floyding.. Just my 2 Yen!!!!!!!
                      Last edited by fett; 04-19-2006, 01:58 PM.
                      I am a true ass set to this board.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Looks like a Tekauchi TRS-101, but, yeah, the route doesn't match it. Shame. I kinda like the TRS-101. Had one on my old Ibanez. Stayed in tune, rather well, for me. For my current project, I wanted one of these, but went with a Schaller copy, for availabilities sake.
                        I'm not Ron!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DonP
                          Why would they go through the trouble to replace a good 590 with this?
                          I share your sentiments exactly, but you'd be amazed at what people will do to their guitars in order to save a few bucks.

                          But yeah, I think it could very well be like you're suggesting - that they switched the trem type and hadn't yet had time to alter the trem routes. It wasn't long after the "pull-up route guitars" appeared that they went to fully recessed trems either anyway, so it's possible that this was a transitional piece.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            THe trem is original.... if you´ll all look closer, that´s not a Recessed floyd but a top-mounted one. The rout was standard issue on many guitars at the time, especially the Euro or Jap only ones.

                            A JT-590 /Schaller rout would be fully recessed, including the space where the bridge posts are. The distance towards the back is also way more than a 590 would need... That´s how to tell the original JT-580 routs and the Schaller routs apart.

                            Why the original 580 routs aren´t angled: No idea
                            I would assume either
                            a: to facilitate an upgrade to a better trem
                            B: because the Takeuchi Templates possibly weren´t available
                            or C: simple mistake that somehow became standard.

                            A 590 would fit (but the 1/16" shorter mounting distance/ longer knife edge-saddle distance may cause intonation issues), and OFR likely would as Well... the Fine Tuners and baseplate on the JT-6 may cause clearance issues, and I´d not really rate the JT-6 as a significant upgrade to a 580 either

                            BTW, RX2K: the Original JT-580 is Identical to a TRS-101/ SFT-70 in all respects, just like the JT-580LP is identical to a Lo-Pro TRS
                            Last edited by Zerberus; 04-20-2006, 06:57 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Zerberus
                              A JT-590 /Schaller rout would be fully recessed, including the space where the bridge posts are.
                              Err...no. The Charvel 650XL came with a non-recessed JT-590 and a pull-up route (and so did the early 750XLs), so your argument is not accurate. Later 750XLs still had a non-recessed 590, but lacked the pull-up route.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X