I know, right away you're gonna say "there is no comparison". And to a large extent you're right! But humor me for a moment anyway.
The reason I'm making the comparison is because, believe it or not, getting the 408 inspired me to pick up the Ibanez. Both were me not seeking them at all, both were me just happening to stumble on incredible deals on near-perfect guitars, and both have their charms. So they both found their way in to my studio.
The Ibanez has a long history. Though mine is a recently made item, its predecessor dates back to the 1980s. And its layout, with the micro-switches performing their magic, might easily have helped inspire Paul in his journey with the 408.
Anyway, here's the good news on the Ibanez. It looks great, and the fit and finish are terrific. The frets are perfect, no dead spots or wolf notes, no protrusions from the sides of the fingerboard (why can Gibson still not accomplish this?). The hardware is solid, it stays in tune, and the pickups sound full and articulate. The micro switches lend a serious tonal variety to the instrument.
All the same can be said of the 408, with the exception that the micro-switches lend a little less tonal variety than on the Ibanez (a consequence of the 408's "extra windings when tapped" configuration I guess).
So why am I comparing?
Because of one of Paul's fundamentals: you want to get out of the guitar what you put in.
The issue with the Ibanez, by comparison, is that the guitar itself does not ring out like the PRS. So the decay on the AR325's sound is much more 'hollow', while the 408's decay remains thick and full and luscious. Likewise, chords played in clean modes on the 408 ring out beautifullly, while on the Ibanez they start nicely enough but kinda fall apart quickly. A huge difference, it turns out. One that will likely find me eventually selling the Ibanez.
Is it fair to compare a guitar that starts at $600 new to one that starts at so much more? Probably not. But I'm doing it anyway, just because playing both makes the comparisons inevitable. Hope you found this interesting.
The reason I'm making the comparison is because, believe it or not, getting the 408 inspired me to pick up the Ibanez. Both were me not seeking them at all, both were me just happening to stumble on incredible deals on near-perfect guitars, and both have their charms. So they both found their way in to my studio.
The Ibanez has a long history. Though mine is a recently made item, its predecessor dates back to the 1980s. And its layout, with the micro-switches performing their magic, might easily have helped inspire Paul in his journey with the 408.
Anyway, here's the good news on the Ibanez. It looks great, and the fit and finish are terrific. The frets are perfect, no dead spots or wolf notes, no protrusions from the sides of the fingerboard (why can Gibson still not accomplish this?). The hardware is solid, it stays in tune, and the pickups sound full and articulate. The micro switches lend a serious tonal variety to the instrument.
All the same can be said of the 408, with the exception that the micro-switches lend a little less tonal variety than on the Ibanez (a consequence of the 408's "extra windings when tapped" configuration I guess).
So why am I comparing?
Because of one of Paul's fundamentals: you want to get out of the guitar what you put in.
The issue with the Ibanez, by comparison, is that the guitar itself does not ring out like the PRS. So the decay on the AR325's sound is much more 'hollow', while the 408's decay remains thick and full and luscious. Likewise, chords played in clean modes on the 408 ring out beautifullly, while on the Ibanez they start nicely enough but kinda fall apart quickly. A huge difference, it turns out. One that will likely find me eventually selling the Ibanez.
Is it fair to compare a guitar that starts at $600 new to one that starts at so much more? Probably not. But I'm doing it anyway, just because playing both makes the comparisons inevitable. Hope you found this interesting.
