# Suhr Carved Top - GAS, very dangerous. You go first.



## sakeido (Jul 2, 2008)

Building gorgeous guitars appears to be second nature to the boys at Suhr.. the tops are always so, so good, and this is one of the nicest carves on a top I've seen.


----------



## Seedawakener (Jul 2, 2008)

So..... beautiful... can't breathe... dies.... *dead*


----------



## dream-thief (Jul 2, 2008)

I'm not a big fan to be honest. Sure it looks nice and finish is gorgeous, but 6 strings, strat style trem and lack of frets... 

I'm an elitist


----------



## djpharoah (Jul 2, 2008)

omm nom nom

:yummy:


----------



## darren (Jul 2, 2008)

Hawt.


----------



## Seedawakener (Jul 2, 2008)

dream-thief said:


> I'm not a big fan to be honest. Sure it looks nice and finish is gorgeous, but 6 strings, strat style trem and lack of frets...
> 
> I'm an elitist



If you were an elitist this would be the guitar for you!  Guthrie Govan's Suhr is so damn beautiful. I wish I had a Suhr...


----------



## sakeido (Jul 2, 2008)

dream-thief said:


> I'm not a big fan to be honest. Sure it looks nice and finish is gorgeous, but 6 strings, strat style trem and lack of frets...
> 
> I'm an elitist



Its because it doesn't have a double locking trem, 22 frets, and 6 strings that I really do love it. Although I am still super pissed that Suhr decided to make a Les Paul rip off before a 7 string. I would KILL for a 7 string Suhr - KILL.


----------



## Desecrated (Jul 2, 2008)

dream-thief said:


> I'm not a big fan to be honest. Sure it looks nice and finish is gorgeous, but 6 strings, strat style trem and lack of frets...
> 
> I'm an elitist



Agree, it should have come with set neck and a 5 piece neck as well. The top is very nice, but if I can't use it for my music it's pretty waisted on such a simple guitar. IMO


----------



## Scali (Jul 2, 2008)

Yea, I never really got this whole Suhr-thing either.
Okay, so they're glammed-up Strats... and?
Maybe it's because I'm more of a Les Paul-guy, and Strats don't really do anything for me... but yea, I agree with the above... If you're going to make an 'elitist' guitar with expensive top-grade wood and all, why not use a set-neck or neck-through? And what's with those Strat trems? It's 2008 for crying out loud, we have so much better trem technology these days. In my opinion, you either put a decent trem on there, or you use a fixed bridge. I don't like half-arsed attempts at a tremolo, because they adversely affect your tone anyway, and you can't use them properly, because they'll go out of tune.


----------



## TheIllustratedLuthier (Jul 2, 2008)

Pretty, well built, probably plays wonderfully, but.....


----------



## sakeido (Jul 2, 2008)

ninja edit: For Scali. 

Alright, set neck? Are you kidding me? You are a Les Paul guy for sure then. Personally, I hate set necks. I prefer the sound of a bolt-on over even a neck through. I never have any problems with access because I apparently I just play guitar differently then the guys who "need" a set neck/neck through for upper register access. A boutique guitar should definitely NOT be a set neck and they don't need to be neck throughs, either. 

And what better trem technology? A Floyd? Those were invented in the 80s and double locking trems, in my experience, kill tone. The tone you end up with is different, sure, and has its place, but not on a guitar like this. This also isn't a vintage trem (for a real vintage trem, go look at the Charvel reissues). It has locking tuners, so it won't go out of tune with light use, and it doesn't have a locking nut, so that clearly shows it is not intended for heavy use which IMO sounds stupid anyways. The JP7 and JP6 also get by just fine using a similar trem, tuner & nut setup. 

I still don't like trems because even the vintage ones have a different tone and don't sound as good as hardtails, but at least they don't sound as bad as double locking ones do. I like the ZR on my S7320 sure but I still prefer the feel and sound of my COW and I wish all the time my S didn't have such a bad sounding bridge. 

You don't "get" the guitar or the purpose of it, so next time, don't say anything and leave the thread for the people who can appreciate it.


----------



## Jagw (Jul 2, 2008)

That looks amazing, I think i'd have rather risked the asps.


----------



## Scali (Jul 2, 2008)

sakeido said:


> Alright, set neck? Are you kidding me? You are a Les Paul guy for sure then. Personally, I hate set necks. I prefer the sound of a bolt-on over even a neck through. I never have any problems with access because I apparently I just play guitar differently then the guys who "need" a set neck/neck through for upper register access. A boutique guitar should definitely NOT be a set neck and they don't need to be neck throughs, either.


 
Well, my point wasn't really that every boutique guitar should be set-neck or anything, but rather that Suhr doesn't seem to offer anything but bolt-on (and then only the classic block style, not AANJ-style or something like that). I never understood that.

I'm not too bothered with bolt-on, but if I'm going to spend this much money on a custom boutique guitar, then yes, I do want it *exactly* to my specifications, and my specifications would include a set-neck.


----------



## Drew (Jul 2, 2008)

Scali said:


> If you're going to make an 'elitist' guitar with expensive top-grade wood and all, why not use a set-neck or neck-through? And what's with those Strat trems? It's 2008 for crying out loud, we have so much better trem technology these days. In my opinion, you either put a decent trem on there, or you use a fixed bridge.



[rant]
Since when is a guitar auutomatically better because it has a set neck or neck through construction? Some people, myself included, actually prefer bolt-ons. They sound different, true, more focused in the fundamental and upper harmonics than the mid harmonics, but for some of us that's a GOOD thing. If I ever were to go custom I'd go bolt-on. 

And don't judge all "strat style" nonlocking trems by the Mexican Standard strat trem - a two point knife edge design, properly executed, will float smoothly and with a good nut and locking tuners will provide almost as much range and tuning stability as a Floyd. The Wilkinson on my strat is probably my favorite six string trem I've ever played. It works with a "normal" nut, it holds tune VERY well, the arm feel is quite smooth, and it's less invasive than a Floyd. I like Floyds, don't get me wrong, but I don't miss the Floyd on my UV every time I pick up my Strat either. 
[/rant]


----------



## ibznorange (Jul 2, 2008)

just really dont like suhrs headstock 

nice guitar, just not what id grab. 24 frets and a different finish and id be all the fuck over that, but thats why customs exist 

id tap it very much though


----------



## Desecrated (Jul 2, 2008)

sakeido said:


> You don't "get" the guitar or the purpose of it, so next time, don't say anything and leave the thread for the people who can appreciate it.



O come on dude, don't be so harsh, of course we are allowed to post if we don't like the guitar, nobody is arguing anything here, we are just expressing our feeling about the guitar.


----------



## canuck brian (Jul 2, 2008)

Being Suhr the price tag is what.... 4g's ? Could they have at least properly matched the maple top instead of making it look like a blind epileptic glued it up?


----------



## HighGain510 (Jul 2, 2008)

sakeido said:


> You don't "get" the guitar or the purpose of it, so next time, don't say anything and leave the thread for the people who can appreciate it.



To be fair, you do the exact same thing for a lot of gear on here your don't like too, but you get all defensive when someone bashes gear you *really* love.  It's a two-way street, he can have his opinion too even if it seems like he is approaching things with a closed mind.  


I like a lot of the more vintage-styled Suhr stuff and played a killer strat made by John but the price tags on their guitars baffles me since it's an assembly-line deal. Awesome quality instruments but the price kills their guitars for me unfortunately. 

Slightly OT but piggy-backing on what Drew said, I've played several instruments that had stellar tone and playability that were created using bolt-on construction and also played several dogs that were neck-thru/set neck, and vice-versa. A properly executed guitar is a properly executed guitar, regardless of neck construction.


----------



## Scali (Jul 2, 2008)

HighGain510 said:


> he can have his opinion too even if it seems like he is approaching things with a closed mind.


 
I have nothing against bolt-ons...
My main squeeze since 1997:


----------



## HighGain510 (Jul 2, 2008)

I wasn't talking about just the neck construction comment, you also said the following:



Scali said:


> I don't like half-arsed attempts at a tremolo, because they adversely affect your tone anyway, and you can't use them properly, because they'll go out of tune.



Some of the vintage-styled trems are actually really nice and don't affect your tone as much as other units out there.  The EBMM trem design immediately springs to mind.  I've seen Petrucci do divebombs on that thing or a little horsey whinney from time to time live and still have his guitar stay in tune, not to mention the fact that his tone rocks too. It's all subjective anyways, but making a few blanket comments like that would put you into "closed-minded" territory to me.


----------



## sakeido (Jul 2, 2008)

Scali said:


> Well, my point wasn't really that every boutique guitar should be set-neck or anything, but rather that Suhr doesn't seem to offer anything but bolt-on (and then only the classic block style, not AANJ-style or something like that). I never understood that.
> 
> I'm not too bothered with bolt-on, but if I'm going to spend this much money on a custom boutique guitar, then yes, I do want it *exactly* to my specifications, and my specifications would include a set-neck.



Suhr Modern 24 fret guitars have Suhr's take on a AANJ heel, its bigger, but that comes with a tone benefit while it still is a little less obtrusive. I also think the big Fender block heels sound better too. I remember hearing awhile back that one of Ibanez's big endorsees (Paul Gilbert?) switched back to the block heel from AANJ because it sounds better.


----------



## stuz719 (Jul 2, 2008)

This is rather nice, from the Suhr website:


----------



## sakeido (Jul 2, 2008)

HighGain510 said:


> To be fair, you do the exact same thing for a lot of gear on here your don't like too, but you get all defensive when someone bashes gear you *really* love.  It's a two-way street, he can have his opinion too even if it seems like he is approaching things with a closed mind.



I can't recall bashing much gear, aside from Bulb's tone (and that's only because he has all the tools to have a tone I like more, and chooses not to use them) and Peavey XXXs (because they really are the worst amp I have ever played). When it comes to defending gear, I just don't understand why people don't have as good of taste as I do  I'm trying, I'm trying ahaha


----------



## canuck brian (Jul 2, 2008)

HighGain510 said:


> I wasn't talking about just the neck construction comment, you also said the following:
> Some of the vintage-styled trems are actually really nice and don't affect your tone as much as other units out there.  The EBMM trem design immediately springs to mind.  I've seen Petrucci do divebombs on that thing or a little horsey whinney from time to time live and still have his guitar stay in tune, not to mention the fact that his tone rocks too. It's all subjective anyways, but making a few blanket comments like that would put you into "closed-minded" territory to me.



That bridge actually looks very similar to the Hipshot non-rounded edge tremolo, which if it's anything like the ones that I already use from them, it's built on par or better than an OFR.

Sakiedo - I'll say that you become extremely defensive of gear you're more partial too. You are getting better though!  I'm a monster fan of the XXX but to each their own!


----------



## Wiz (Jul 2, 2008)

Too bad that even if I bought all the Suhr stock I still wouldn't be anywhere as good as Guthrie


----------



## Scali (Jul 2, 2008)

HighGain510 said:


> Some of the vintage-styled trems are actually really nice and don't affect your tone as much as other units out there.  The EBMM trem design immediately springs to mind.  I've seen Petrucci do divebombs on that thing or a little horsey whinney from time to time live and still have his guitar stay in tune, not to mention the fact that his tone rocks too. It's all subjective anyways, but making a few blanket comments like that would put you into "closed-minded" territory to me.


 
Yea well, if a tremolo works fine, I don't care what it is. It just has to work fine, which this Suhr doesn't seem to.
By the looks of it, the strings will just jump off the nut if you dive too far. I'm also not sure how far you can pull it up... One of the gripes I have with the Gibson M3 is that it doesn't pull up anywhere near as far as my RG does.
You see, I'm not Petrucci, I'm me.
This is what I do with a tremolo:


Any tremolo that can do that (not once, but all night long), is fine with me. But somehow that Suhr tremolo looks an awful lot like many of the tremolo's I've tried over the years, which could not.
If anyone wants to prove me wrong, I can give you my address, so you can send a Suhr over for me to try out.
If Suhr's tremolo can really do everything a Floyd can, more power to them.


----------



## budda (Jul 2, 2008)

do want! man that's sexy.


----------



## sakeido (Jul 2, 2008)

I've seen JP do all that on his guitar and this one has basically the same setup. It will certainly do the pull ups. The dive it should be fine, but I wouldn't go any lower than what you do.


----------



## ilyti (Jul 2, 2008)

Scali said:


> Yea, I never really got this whole Suhr-thing either.
> Okay, so they're glammed-up Strats... and?
> Maybe it's because I'm more of a Les Paul-guy, and Strats don't really do anything for me...


 
Agreed. Suhr has some nice finishes but I think they kind of blow it with the bulky neck-joint, huge scratch plates, single coil pickups, dot inlays etc. One think I do like though is the style of the trem. I hate big bulky bridges and I never use the trem for more than subtle bends so vintage style + locking tuners is more than enough for most applications. I don't have any trem equipped guitars at the moment, so that probably devaluates my opinion quite a bit, but vintage trems certainly have their place.


----------



## Jerich (Jul 2, 2008)

i thunk the Suhr boys make some sweet guitars and i mean sweet! but to be honest I would Buy a Tom Anderson first even knowing he doesn't like to do Maple fretboards.. Tom's "switch a roo system" is awesome.

Reb Beaches suhr is solid KOA and it is Beautiful...

I to do not like suhr headstocks very much either but, they play great! and Hold a good value over time.


----------



## Scali (Jul 2, 2008)

I agree that vintage trems have their place, and I can work with them if I have to, to a certain point...

But for me there's a difference between playing on a guitar that happens to have a certain tremolo, neck joint, pickups etc (eg an actual vintage Strat or something), or buying a brand-new super-expensive custom guitar.
In the former case I can make do with what I'm given and accept that a guitar has certain limitations that you'll have to work around.
In the latter case, well... I would like a guitar that combines the best points of all the guitars I like. I'd probably end up with a Les Paul with a LoPro Edge on it  (Yes I know, Ibanez has Artists with ProRocker and Edge trems on them, and yes I know there's a near-mint red one on Ebay... do you know how hard it is to control GAS?)


----------



## hairychris (Jul 2, 2008)

Never been my thing, Suhrs, but there are some very pretty ones out there & this is one of them.

Nobody knock bolt-ons either...


----------



## kmanick (Jul 2, 2008)

Matts music always has a couple in stock ,and I always make it a point to play them when I go down there.
they're really gorgeous guitars in person, the headstock looks better when 
it's right there in your hands, but there is something about the neck shape 
or the fret size that always turns me off when I play one.
anyone that is gassing for one of these needs to play one first, they are similar that way to Brian Moore's USA guitars,....... absolutely beautiful, and I can't stand the way they feel in my hands, I would never buy one.


----------



## Uber Mega (Jul 2, 2008)

Sweet guitar, looks exactly like Guthrie's...

On the topic of the bridge...it might not look too sturby, but neither does the trem on the JP6, and being a JP6 owner (in the past) I can safely say it's one of the best trems i've ever used, it's incredible, floyd what?


----------



## Shawn (Jul 2, 2008)

That is beautiful.


----------



## Yoshi (Jul 3, 2008)

That headstock always ruins suhr guitars for me. And i mean always. I hate the headstock. So till i see a better looking head stock


----------



## Apophis (Jul 3, 2008)

AWESOME


----------



## Thr33 (Sep 25, 2008)

Scali said:


> Yea, I never really got this whole Suhr-thing either.
> Okay, so they're glammed-up Strats... and?
> Maybe it's because I'm more of a Les Paul-guy, and Strats don't really do anything for me... but yea, I agree with the above... If you're going to make an 'elitist' guitar with expensive top-grade wood and all, why not use a set-neck or neck-through? And what's with those Strat trems? It's 2008 for crying out loud, we have so much better trem technology these days. In my opinion, you either put a decent trem on there, or you use a fixed bridge. I don't like half-arsed attempts at a tremolo, because they adversely affect your tone anyway, and you can't use them properly, because they'll go out of tune.


Honestly i think you are mistaking when you say half-arsed attempts.
Suhr is a custom shop, whatever bridge pleases to you, you can get, you are not limited to this bridge. If you want a floyd with 24 frets then order one, just because its not in this one guitar, doesn't mean you should demean the company's quality.



Yoshi said:


> That headstock always ruins suhr guitars for me. And i mean always. I hate the headstock. So till i see a better looking head stock


And also, i don't know what you consider is the best headstock, but IMO suhr's headstocks are one of my favorites. I love the shape, its not to square, or too jagged, or too round, and the detailing of the headstock is well done.





Maybe this is more to peoples taste. A floyd for Scali :]


----------



## Scali (Sep 26, 2008)

Thr33 said:


> Maybe this is more to peoples taste. A floyd for Scali :]


 
Yay!
Still I'd probably never buy one 
Especially not with the Les Paul Axcess on the market now. If I'm going to spend an insane amount on a high-grade guitar built in a custom-shop, I might aswell go for what I really want


----------



## jacksonplayer (Sep 26, 2008)

The Hipshot non-locking trem on my parts strat stays in tune frightfully well. It doesn't have enough travel to totally dump the strings the way a Floyd does, but it also has a lot more subtle movement and is better for legato-type effects than a Floyd. Really a different beast.

I've not played a Suhr, but the Tom Andersons I've played are kind of the same deal--they don't look like they should cost as much as they do, but when you actually play one, you instantly have the tone of the gods at your fingertips. You suddenly understand why cheaper guitars are, well, cheap.


----------



## Thr33 (Sep 26, 2008)

Definitely..


----------

