594 Hardware/Electronics Configuration Aesthetic - Opinions

[c340]

First and foremost: I'm not here to throw shade on anything or anyone, or anyones preferences. Clearly lots of people like the 594 styling. And all that matters is that YOU like YOUR guitar.

Having said that, this is an online forum designed for discussion, and what is more fun than stirring the pot with a strong personal opinion of aesthetics? And I invite yours! There is no right or wrong opinion here. Here is mine:

I can't stand the 594 style. It works fine on a Gibson Les Paul, but PRS had it right on their guitars with the wraparound/one-piece bridges and the non-594 electronic control configurations.

A pickup selector switch on the carved upper horn of a double cut guitar...I can't think of a more incongruous design decision on a guitar. It is an assault on the aesthetic of an otherwise beautifully crafted and designed body. I remember seeing this kind of design on the EBMM Petrucci models (though I believe that switch is a piezo selector) and thought to myself..."what are they thinking? That looks horrible." But at least theirs was on a very modern guitar, with other modern control configuration elements. The 594 McCarty though...that is a different story. The switch on the horn is hideous, and its way overboard in their attempt to turn a double cut into a Les Paul. It is entirely out of place, like thats the best you can do? A straight 1:1 transplant of controls from an entirely different body style, and it just doesn't fit AT ALL. The other two elements of the 594 that I will discuss next could be excusable, but the switch on the horn is not. I will never own one of these 594-styled guitars primarily for this reason.

The 2-knob layout of the non-594 McCarty or the 4-knob layout of the non-594 Singlecut seems to fill the space so evenly. But the 594 4-knob layout has them placed slightly towards the horns, bunched up, leaving an awkward area towards the bottom of the guitar that doesn't seem to use the space effectively. It looks...off, unsettled. They appear to want to spread out and fill in the space more evenly, but they can't. The Les Paul suffers from this slightly, but to a MUCH lesser extent. Particularly when a pickguard is installed, the knobs appear to fit the space well. But on the 594? No way.

Finally, the 2-piece bridge - the least offensive of the 3 elements - looks so clunky, especially compared to the one-piece bridges PRS offers. It just looks like an ugly, blocky, unfinished version of the Tune-O-Matic bridge.

Does anyone else share my opinion? I want to note I am not doubting the functionality of the 594 configuration (which is obviously more important). There is a reason the Les Paul control configuration has never changed and is copied everywhere. My strong opinion here on the 594 is strictly over aesthetics.

 

[garrett]

It looked weird at first, but now I don't think about it at all. The functionality and ergonomics of the double cut 594 are pretty much perfect to me and that's what matters.

I also used to think the two-piece bridge looked a bit rough. If I had any remaining complaint, it would be that the corners are too squared. But again the functionality and ergonomics beat the Tune-O-Matic hands down, so I don't care. That slotted tailpiece + locking tuners = fastest string changes ever.

 

[Warmart]

I thought the same, at first - but I have found I prefer the selector up there. I have a bunch of guitars and it's always a struggle when I pick one up and each has the selector in a different place! Three of them are on the upper horn and I never stumble to switch on them.

I also think the 594 2-piece bridge/tailpiece is pretty damn comfy, definitely feels better than your run-o'-the-mill ToM. I know on my Paul's with the wraparound it seems like my hand is floating way up in the air vs the 594. Everyone's different of course!

 

[Broseph]

Sounds like a singlecut is what’s needed! 245, 250, or tremonti !

 

[sergiodeblanc]

I refuse to say anything disparaging about someone else’s guitar.



But it’s trash.

 

[RickP]

I was exactly the opposite. I was certain I’d have tuning issues with a non-adjustable bridge, and couldn’t imagine why an expensive modern guitar would come with a throwback to the wrap-stopbar Les Paul days. The switch location was never a factor, plus or minus, to me. The rotary switch, though, seemed the worst of all options combined. I much preferred mini switches for those options, if you just had to have them.

Accordingly, all my first PRSi were trem guitars. The first 4 had blade switches. I eventually did get a wrap tail version, and admit I was quite mistaken about the tuning… It works fine. I‘ve got three of them now! I’ve had 4 of the 594 variants, with two still here, and they’re both great LP-ish guitars. As I started my gigging days on a Gibson SG and played LPs and SGs for years, the 594s feel and look pretty traditionally normal to me.

 

[markd21]

I hated the DC594 until I got one. After using it, I found it to be awesome. I also owned an SC245 at the same time. Both are killer.

 

[bodia]

I refuse to say anything disparaging about someone else’s guitar.



But it’s trash.

Statement of fact. I have two 594s that I love. I JW Ltd and a HBII. But, they're trash compared to this shape.

 

[László]

This was a hot topic here when the 594 first came out years ago. This was before all the great reviews in Guitarist, etc., and before people got used to the look.

It's been an issue in the rear-view mirror here for a long time.

I got used to PRS' two piece bridge with the SC58 series. It sounded so much better than my old SCs with the wrap bridge that I immediately fell in love, and the design of the tailpiece is pure genius. I like the look, and the tailpiece offers the fastest string changes I've ever experienced.

Folks who buy a guitar for the look of the bridge or a switch have other options.

Props to PRS for not worrying about the people who might object to the look. They offer other models.

I've had a LOT of PRS guitars, going back to 1991, including limited run models and Private Stocks. The Core 594 is one of the best guitars PRS has ever made - YMMV, obviously. Everyone's different, as you point out, and everyone's entitled to their opinion!

 

[Fats]

Clearly, cutting into someone else‘s established market niche is always a consideration when making design decisions. It‘s a quirky market with history, nostalgia and all that in the mix. I like my 594 HBII as is. Of my 3 PRS’s, none have the perfect mix of layout, neck, and hardware, but all of them are superb players. I keep eyeballing a Paul’s Guitar, and that may come about as close to best of all worlds. Always room on the rack for another .

 

[Ovibos]

I just really dislike the look of old kluson tuners. The plastic booger green keys, the skinny stems.

Phase 2 or 3 tuners are so much better.

 

[frankencat]

One man’s trash…
Personally I didn’t get the 594 when it first came out but it grew on me over time. Now after having played them I really like the ergonomics of it and the look has grown on me as well.

Now these newer models with the 5-way switch located between the controls, that is definitely trash lol. Give me the good old toggle switch behind the bridge all day every day over this silly blade switch setup.

 

[frankencat]

My only problem it’s the two piece bridge is that they used a different stud spacing for the tailpiece so there is no way to experiment with different materials etc.

 

[88prs]

I just don't like the 2 piece bridge brass saddles, better since they are no longer long and flat but still. My E string on the 22nd fret decays immediately and if I bend to an E it dies instantly. Mark was great and sent me new saddles, unfortunately it did not change things. The saddles, I think, should be even narrower and maybe even plated. That said,, I prefer the single wrap around look and feel, and my intonation is spot on.

 

[Huggy Love]

Not gonna lie, I'm with OP on both aspects of this.

The PU selector position is a little fugly to me, although functionally, if you switch between PUPs a lot having it up near your face is probably a blessing. I don't and for the most part live in the neck position, even when playing overdriven fusion solos.

The knob configuration is something I've never gelled with even in the pre-PRS days (yea I'm that old) when I loved the thicker tone of an LP over strats, I mostly played home built part-o-casters like EVH and for the convenience of a 3-way or 5-way switch. I've seen some cats do some really cool things switching between PUs with this config, I'm just not one of them and never had that skill.

 

[László]

The knob configuration is something I've never gelled with even in the pre-PRS days (yea I'm that old) when I loved the thicker tone of an LP over strats, I mostly played home built part-o-casters like EVH and for the convenience of a 3-way or 5-way switch. I've seen some cats do some really cool things switching between PUs with this config, I'm just not one of them and never had that skill.

I got used to the four knobs on my old SG as a kid (before PRS of course, since I'm old, too). I was a Gibson player for a long time, so it seems natural to me. Blending the pickups and dialing in a tone became intuitive, just part of my playing style.

On the other hand, it is nice to use a single volume control sometimes. I guess either way works for me.

We get used to certain looks because we've seen them so many times, but there's really no great place to put switches, knobs, and pickups that doesn't interfere in some way with the sculptural lines of a guitar. Everything's a compromise of one kind or another.

That being the case, it makes good sense to me to have an emphasis on functionality. If some of that comes at the expense of the guitar-as-sculpture, I'm fine with it.

In the case of the 594, if it's functional, I'm down with it, and honestly, it's a wonderful guitar to play and sounds the business. But you can come awfully close with a McCarty if you want a wrap tailpiece, fewer knobs, and lower bout switch placement.

I do find that the two piece bridges seem to resonate the guitar a little differently, in a good way.

So there's a very good alternative for those who object to the other stuff. But the other stuff, for me, is pretty damn nice.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

This is kind of a dig.. but not really (but really, it is, I guess…)

The present PRS lineup looks like a late 70’s early 80’s Ibanez product line.

There’s Blazers (Silver Sky’s), Performers (SC 594’s), Artists (DC 594’s), Musicians/Studios (S2 Thinline and DC594), brass bits everywhere, modified blocky TOM bridges with string slots in the tail piece, non-standard sized hifi pickups (408/Paul’s) with mini toggles, hippie sandwich construction on PS’s and vine inlays… sh!t, maybe they should release that Tremonti one-off (Iceman) to seal the deal.

PRS wasn’t a mix of Fender and Gibson like we thought. No, they’re
Ibanez, and have been this whole time. I just didn’t see it until now.

https://imgur.com/a/lJPtp5q

 

[DISTORT6]

This is kind of a dig.. but not really (but really, it is, I guess…)

The present PRS lineup looks like a late 70’s early 80’s Ibanez product line.

There’s Blazers (Silver Sky’s), Performers (SC 594’s), Artists (DC 594’s), Musicians/Studios (S2 Thinline and DC594), brass bits everywhere, modified blocky TOM bridges with string slots in the tail piece, non-standard sized hifi pickups (408/Paul’s) with mini toggles, hippie sandwich construction on PS’s and vine inlays… sh!t, maybe they should release that Tremonti one-off (Iceman) to seal the deal.

PRS wasn’t a mix of Fender and Gibson like we thought. No, they’re
Ibanez, and have been this whole time. I just didn’t see it until now.

https://imgur.com/a/lJPtp5q

Can’t argue with that.
Hopefully the ”if you don’t buy ‘em, we won’t make ‘em” company mantra will continue.

 

[Solteroblues]

I personally love the 4 knob layout with selector switch, so the 594 is ALMOST my perfect guitar... my only complaint with it is that I wished it was the same thinner thickness of the Customs. I tried to order a Private Stock as a CU24 with the 594 controls, they said no, so I asked about a 594 with a CU24 body thickness, again, they said no. I ended up ordering a CU24-08, but one day I will own what I desire, even if I have to make it myself LOL.

 

[c340]

I personally love the 4 knob layout with selector switch, so the 594 is ALMOST my perfect guitar... my only complaint with it is that I wished it was the same thinner thickness of the Customs. I tried to order a Private Stock as a CU24 with the 594 controls, they said no, so I asked about a 594 with a CU24 body thickness, again, they said no. I ended up ordering a CU24-08, but one day I will own what I desire, even if I have to make it myself LOL.

I inquired about a private stock build myself and I was surprised at what they were and were not willing to do. I had always believed it was kind of like Burger King - have it your way (as long as you’re ok paying for it). I wanted an SC trem (thinner body than the tremonti) with p245 switching/piezo, Koa bird inlays, with an opal eagle on the headstock. But I was told they won’t build the SC trem bodies anymore, and I couldn’t have multiple inlay materials. This seemed odd to me, because it didn’t seem like too big of an ask (especially since I’m happy to pay for all of it) but I guess they’re more limited than I used to believe.