PRSfanboy46
Don't lick doorknobs and stay in school
I personally think they use the S2 as a line they can experiment with and make new body shapes but not put it on the main core line. The SE line kind of does that but I don't know. Thoughts?
What do you think PRS uses as an "experimental line" for guitars?
- Thread starter PRSfanboy46
- Start date
Wakester
Re Member
R & D is most likely done within the core line. If it works and can translate to the other lines, then they keep it. If not, it is shredded and used to stoke the boilers.
Of course i am usually wrong about these things and will be quickly corrected.
Of course i am usually wrong about these things and will be quickly corrected.
Tony M.
New Member
If I had to guess...
(which I do because I know nothing)
I would say they try stuff out with the core line.
From a sales standpoint, selling something that filtered
down from the core lineup would go much better
than trying to sell something that filtered up
from the S2 or SE lineups.
The Mira comes to mind immediately.
Core Mira >>--> S2 Mira >>--> SE Mira.
Not the other way around.
(which I do because I know nothing)
I would say they try stuff out with the core line.
From a sales standpoint, selling something that filtered
down from the core lineup would go much better
than trying to sell something that filtered up
from the S2 or SE lineups.
The Mira comes to mind immediately.
Core Mira >>--> S2 Mira >>--> SE Mira.
Not the other way around.
CandidPicker
Tone Matters. Use It Well.
Yup. The only exception would be the Starla with its non-proprietary pickups and body carve.
And if Serg were writing, he'd say "View a Santana" in a heartbeat.
Perhaps PRS began as an experiment with the Santana shape, and grew towards the double-cut we know today after some R&D, then followed by the Singlecut, Mira, Starla, Vela, and perhaps the one-off designs.
Last edited:
bodia
Authorities said.....best leave it.....unsolved
This
Wakester
Re Member
I would even go so far as to say they have 2 or 3 of each body style that they pop parts in and out of to test pickups and electrical components. They probably only make a new body if Paul has an idea for routing or making bodies lighter. Those prototypes rarely see the outside world. Some get gifted to loyal artist and such, but most either get shredded or locked in the vault.
I think I’ve heard that Paul will randomly go and change small things wherever he think he can make an improvement with the US lines. Doesn’t pay himself much homage or nostalgia to the past. This was according the Lee Anderton I think this was in a shootout between PRS and Gibson if memory serves. He experiments with he US lines mostly because he can walk out of his office and get his hands on them at a moments notices and is a chronic tinkerer ( again according to several videos I’ve seen). In contrast F and G are trying to recreate the past in every detail with their upper tier lines; PRS is going for flawlessness and attention to detail.
Tony M.
New Member
I have never understood the whole "recreate the past" thing.
"Things were better when people rode horses and fought with swords."
Nope.
"Things were better when people rode horses and fought with swords."
Nope.
It’s funny to me too. Leo Fender’s goal was to create a guitar with exchangeable pieces that was an inexpensive professional instrument, now to recreate his inexpensive design exactly as it was produced in the 50s, it will cost you 4 to 5K. He’s probably laughing his butt off somewhere.
Tony M.
New Member
Leo Fender....
The Leo Fender amplifier design manifesto is as follows:
"Let's make a wooden box just large enough to cram the speaker(s) into and cram a bunch of electronics into a metal box that we will put at the top. Now lets hang vacuum tubes upside down on the bottom of the metal box so they can do 2 things at once. They can roast the electronics trapped in the metal box above them and cook the speaker cones at the same time. By hanging the glass tubes as close as we can to the speakers we can also make sure that every time someone plays a note the glass tubes will be subjected to a tremendous amount of vibration so we can push their tolerances for physical damage. Lets also hang 2 heavy transformers upside down on the bottom of the metal box right next to all the scorching hot vacuum tubes and instead of properly enclosing and porting the speaker cabinet lets just leave the back wide open. While we're at it let's cram a spring reverb tank into the bottom of the box right under the speaker(s) so it can get slammed around by all the vibration and sound really splashy in case someone ever invents something called "surf music."
...and yet, they somehow sound good and last forever.
How can this be?
The Leo Fender amplifier design manifesto is as follows:
"Let's make a wooden box just large enough to cram the speaker(s) into and cram a bunch of electronics into a metal box that we will put at the top. Now lets hang vacuum tubes upside down on the bottom of the metal box so they can do 2 things at once. They can roast the electronics trapped in the metal box above them and cook the speaker cones at the same time. By hanging the glass tubes as close as we can to the speakers we can also make sure that every time someone plays a note the glass tubes will be subjected to a tremendous amount of vibration so we can push their tolerances for physical damage. Lets also hang 2 heavy transformers upside down on the bottom of the metal box right next to all the scorching hot vacuum tubes and instead of properly enclosing and porting the speaker cabinet lets just leave the back wide open. While we're at it let's cram a spring reverb tank into the bottom of the box right under the speaker(s) so it can get slammed around by all the vibration and sound really splashy in case someone ever invents something called "surf music."
...and yet, they somehow sound good and last forever.
How can this be?
Similar threads
