(Log in to disable ads.)

  • Gear

  • Another Ibanez vs. Jackson thread...*sigh*

Greetings, GFSA boarders!

After doing loads of research online I still find myself unable to make a solid decision. There are literally hundreds of Ibanez vs. Jackson debates all over the net, some even on dedicated Ibby or Jackson forums (surely the OP's shoud expect biased opinions on these??). I know that it all comes down to personal preference and that both have there gems (Jems?) and cheaper, crappier models, so in this case I'm going to ask your opinions on particular models from each brand.

I play a cheap, MIC Epiphine LP Standard which I've set up perfectly myself and thrown a Duncan Invader in the bridge and this baby plays like a US Gibson LP Custom, I shit you not (this may cause some controversy but I've A/B'ed this guitar with a number of high-end models and it holds it's ground every time)! So I know for a fact that while lower-end axes may not look quite as pretty or be quite as solid as their 12 grand-plus aunties, a cheaper guitar often has the potential to be an amazing instrument when setup and modded just right.

Soooo, after that long intro (sorry about that), let me get to the gist of it. I desperately want a good bang for the buck superstrat "shredder" and have pretty much narrowed it down to 2 potential winners (in all honesty I cannot really afford these either but I lie awake at night thinking about 24 jumbo fret, thin-necked shredding machines):
- Ibanez RG321
-- fixed bridge, so no headaches regarding cheap, unstable trems
-- the mahogany body is another plus since I am used to Les Pauls
-- they're decently priced and I haven't found a single bad review

- Jackson PS 2 or 4 (Japan-made from the mid 90's
-- I've read that the necks on these things are some of the thinnest, most comfortable Jackson necks (and I played a MIJ SL3 at my local music shop yesterday, most comfortable neck I have ever laid hands on, this would be me #1 choice but it costs 14k so it's out of the question)
-- the PS-2 has Seymour Duncans in it already (upgraded from the stock pups by the original owner)
-- has a trem, which I may or may not use much anyway, although I've read good and bad reviews about the stock trems, as with all low-mid range ones
-- I got one of their catalogues back in '95 and I used to drool over it when I was a kid, especially the PS-4!

Apologies for the long-winded post, I would appreciate some opinions from those of you who've played both. I've played neither, they are all being sold out of town or on ebay so I can't test them out...
    Hey Clint

    I have an Ibanez RG 321 MH and have been playing it for just under 2 years. For me it is a great beginers guitar and I managed to pick it up for 2k on Gumtree with a guitar case, strap and a bunch of picks and cables. I've seen them going even cheaper so second hand is quite affordable.

    What I can say is that I had to have mine professionally setup and the frets recrowned as well, the frets towards the bottom of the neck were quite jagged/sharp. It plays very nicely now. While I'm no shredder I think it's a very decent guitar for the price, my only gripe is the tone I am getting out of it, again it might be because I am a begginer and I haven't quite setup my amp (Cube 20x) and pedals (Boss MT 2, Boss Flanger) properly. So I will be upgrading the bridge pickup soon, the stock pickups on Ibanez's are normally quite crap.

    I have some clips floating around the forum if you want to hear the tone I'm getting out of it.

    Cheers
      Thanks for the reply, G-man!

      I would always upgrade the stock pickups unless it's a really high-end guitar that comes stock with Duncans or DiMarzios (never had the pleasure of owning one of those though, I've been playing for 17 years now and have never been able to afford a really kickass axe, sadly).

      I have seen a few reviews praising the Ibanez stock INFs, although I believe that pickups really boil down to personal preference more than anything else. A lot of players hate Duncan Invaders (passive pickups)but I would pick them over EMG active pups for playing heavier stuff, anyday!
        I also own the RG 321MH. I like the way it plays and I don't mind the tone too much either but I have read that many people dislike the stock pickups so if you change them, probably sorted. I also don't rate myself at having that great of an ear tone-wise, can only distinguish "listenable" and "god awful"
          Very few guitars in the lower ranges have great pickups - "Great" is subjective anyway (e.g. I don't think Invaders even make decent paperweights).

          Of the two guitars under consideration, the Ibanez has the fixed bridge you seem to prefer, which is a major consideration. I also don't like the Jackson headstocks because of the way the strings run through the nut (not a huge issue with locking nuts, but I still don't like it).

          On the other hand, the Japanese Jacksons had Gotoh Hardware and their Floyd Roses have always been good, and the pickups have already been upgraded, so if their is no major wear on the bridge or frets, it's probably the better guitar of the two if you can live with the trem.
            Hey Clint,

            First off welcome..

            A few things about these fiddles..

            With the Ibanez RG321 please be aware that there are 2 models..

            The 321 and the 321MH. ONLY the 321MH has a mahogany body, the straight up RG321 has a basswood body. THe stock pups on these tend to get muddy. When I had my 321 back in the day, i had a set of Seymour duncan 59's in there.
            Tuners werent great but largely did there job. Neck was awesome.

            Then, Performer series Jacksons were the budget version of the ranges. There are the Japanese versions and Korean versions. They are largely the same guitars with the Japanese versions being the 1st off, or prototypes before manufacturing being sent to Korea.

            While they are the budget line, their quality is every bit as good as any entry level and some intermediate guitar quality.

            Similarly, the Ibanez RG321 also has Korean and Indonesian made guitars.
            Dont know about the Indonesian ones, the model I had was a Korean one from 2004.

            The trems on the jacksons are pretty decent and I agree with Alan that with the pointy Headstock on the Jackson, tuning can be an issue IF, there is no locknut. With a trem and locknut, there is no problem.

            I have 3 pointy headstocks with trems and they do not have tuning issues.

            These are very similar guitars in many respects but my money would be on the Jackson, It already has Seymour Duncan pups, if the tuners are good etc, you may have a decent axe to hotrod.

              Thanks for the feedback, guys, very much appreciated!

              I've spent hours and hours researching various Jackson, Ibanez and Cort models so I pretty much know the specs on most of them off by heart already (I'm a geek when it comes to stuff like this..lol)

              My main concern, really, is the playability; I'm well aware of the pros and cons of the different designs, bridge setups, etc.

              Sorry, I should have mentioned that it is the 321MH that I was leaning toward and not the straight-up 321 with basswood body. Although I really, really like the look of the RGR321EX with the reverse headstock, neck binding and sharkfin inlays, these seem to be pretty rare in SA and I haven't seen too many on the net either, plus they would also have the basswood body.

              It feels a bit crappy being a rather seasoned player and still looking at what are considered entry-level axes, but money always seems to be tight as a whale's butt ☹

              What I'm hoping for is a really decent axe that plays great (comfortable, fast neck, decent resonance, something that I can easily get stupidly low action on without too much buzz) for a good price that I can hotrod.

              I'm really getting into shred and fusion stuff like Shawn Lane, Rusty Cooley and Vinnie Moore and although I love my LP, it doesn't really cut it when it comes to playing high up on the neck (limited fret access, fret spacing due to the shorter scale length as opposed to superstrat types, only 22 frets, thicker neck than what I'd like for that style of playing...) Again, playability is my main priority.
                Guido, I wish I had cash for an early to mid-90s Jackson Pro Series dinky, from what I've read they're on par with the US Soloists and some say with better trems too.

                RG321 owners, do you guys play with super low action? I've seen a few people complaining of excessive fret buzz on the Indo versions (as far as Ibbys go, the general consensus seems to be Japanese > Korean > Indonesian). This could just mean a fret level or new nut but I'd obviously prefer not to have to do that...
                  my old 321 had great action, as low as any guitar I have owned. The neck was really superb.
                  I must add, it was my beater guit and i loved it to bits, paint was stuffed, dings, that fiddle was really roadworn but it did well.

                  I also prefer the hardtail bridge on the 321 to the newer hardtail on the newer models and higher end models.

                  It was a proper hardtailin the old Fender style.
                    The higher end models (RGA121) have Gibraltar bridges, don't they?

                    Just to add, Alan, I know what you mean regarding the Jackson headstocks; I had a bright neon orange Aria Pro II (don't know the model, I had it when I was about 14) with a Jackson styled headstock, a locking nut but a non-locking trem - very cheap floyd rose copy, and I do recall having the exact same issue.
                      Write a Reply...