Parker guitars (Fly)

[Lunch Money]

Very subjective-- many people herald Stainless Steel as a tone enhancer rather than detractor. To be honest, I didn't realize either of those 2 things, though-- (the stainless and the gluing).

Regardless, I'd be very surprised if you took 2 identical guitars (except the frets) and did an A/B if you'd notice a real difference in tone. Of course, there MUST be some difference, scientifically speaking-- but I'd be quite surprised if any of us could pick it out just by listening. I fear it's another case of the psychosematic association-- well, it's a harder material, so the sound MUST be harder and sharper. Plus, don't overlook a tone control-- if it's that sharp-sounding, attenuate some frequencies! Easier to take frequencies away than to add them.

DT-- I've yet to see a full-on widdler rave about the Fly. The Fly isn't really targeted at that market, with its non-locking trem and piezo pickup options. I think of the Fly as more for the texture guitarist, though I'm sure that's not really its audience either. If you buy the company's literature, it's marketed as the all-arounder, but the all-arounder that can actually do it all without falling short in any categories the way most all-arounders do.

Now, don't get me wrong-- I'm not a Parker shill and don't even own one. For strange guitars I'd rather have a Steinberger or a KTL Magnum that I saw on ProjectGuitar once. But I have always admired the Parker aesthetic, willingness to break the mold and create a new one, attention to player-oriented details, and vision. Love them or hate them, they're the only company in recent memory to become successful without pandering to conservative guitar archetypes.

Having played and enjoyed them, though, they make my short-list and ARE currently sitting at the top-- the KTL is pretty much unobtainable, and Steinberger doesn't make the GL anymore-- Gibson acquired them if I'm not mistaken and only recently have considered going back to the old high standards instead of making cheap knock-offs.

Greg

[Robert Randolph]

Another thing to consider when buying a Parker is that the frets are made of stainless steel instead of traditional nickel. I think, the sound rather harsh and steril compared to nickel freds. While this may be a matter of taste they are furthermore only glued to the board! They can fall of! Sounds stupid but ut can happen.

eerrrr... uhhh... Aren't frets supposed to be fairly easily removable? (within reason of course) Id hate to have a guitar with frets you absolutely could never remove. Given a year or two of playing (assuming you're an avid guitarist)... that guitar would be utterly useless!

[Hink]

Another thing to consider when buying a Parker is that the frets are made of stainless steel instead of traditional nickel. I think, the sound rather harsh and steril compared to nickel freds. While this may be a matter of taste they are furthermore only glued to the board! They can fall of! Sounds stupid but ut can happen.

eerrrr... uhhh... Aren't frets supposed to be fairly easily removable? (within reason of course) Id hate to have a guitar with frets you absolutely could never remove. Given a year or two of playing (assuming you're an avid guitarist)... that guitar would be utterly useless!

First off stainless is very hard so it will last (not defending parker, I like strats I like tele's, hate Les Pauls and think SG's are just great canoe paddles), second I have had to change frets once (on my Kramer Ritchie Sombora) but a year or two?...what do you do to those poor frets? I mean I play a lot, a fret file might be a good investment for you. BTW fret jobs suck...especially with a floyd rose. But I designed a clip that you wedge in behind the guitar to stabilize and lock the whammy. Then leveling the frets was much easier. This clip also makes changing strings with a Floyd Rose a snap...

[Robert Randolph]

I said avid guitarist Ive seen people wear down frets in MONTHS rather than years... remember there are people who play guitar 12-16 hours a day non-stop.

I hate leveling frets. bleh. Fretless rocks.

[Hink]

I said avid guitarist Ive seen people wear down frets in MONTHS rather than years... remember there are people who play guitar 12-16 hours a day non-stop.

I hate leveling frets. bleh. Fretless rocks.

I doubt there's too many people who play 16 hours a day but I get your point. BTW, if you were ask people who know me to describe me, avid guitarist or the similar would be mentioned by most. I'm retired so I have a lot of time to play, growing up and in my 20's and 30's most of my friends considered me quite odd. Except for concerts I didn't go out much, just played. But I am more a finesse player, though I'm fairly fast (you can click my link to hear some stuff) and I use handmade brass guitar picks I rarely break strings. Almost never change strings, I love em dirty (maybe all that grease protects the frets) but I do gotta have my EMG's...BTW last year I sold my fretless bass (not a fake with the lines) it had so much dust on it.. I loved it but could never get the sound I wanted. It was big old Dean. But I still haven't found exactly the sound I want for bass....well I have but my bass player says he's done...

[Sascha Franck]

Greg, as I said, the major impact of a changed headstock (apart from the changes in balance, ventually sustain and eventually harmonics) comes when bending. For "plain" playing it might not matter too much, but when you bend a string, the shorter it is, the easier it comes - just bend on a short mensure guitar (such as a Les paul) and then on a long mensured one (is the string length called mensure in english?).
OK, you may now argue that the length of the "swinging string" is longer/shorter, but obviously, when bending string on non-locking-nut guitars, you have to bend everything, that includes the part of the string that is behind the nut.

Also a reason why Floyd Rose equipped guitars usually make bending rather easy.

Seriously, once you played some high-e-string bends on a 4:2 headstock guitar and go back to a plain strat-style one, you'll notice a greatly notifyable difference.

[Hink]

I'm not disagreeing with you but I have two guitars both strat styles one an ESP with reverse jackson type headstock, Kramer Ritchie Sambora and then my Hardtail Warmoth. All three have the same strings on them and when I'm done playing either the Kramer or ESP and pick up the Warmoth it's like butter in my hands. But the neck is so thin, and the action is so low (something that's tougher to achieve with good results with a rose)so that could have a lot to do with it. But also the different tunings make a difference as well, like Open G with a D on each end now you're bending a string that's has less tension. In my favorite tuning the G string is tuned up to an A, so if you go back to standard again it feels so slinky...

[Lunch Money]

Regarding the glued-on frets-- Robert, even regular slotted frets are usually glued. Many luthiers actually remove the barbs from the fretwire (so that it's just a thin strip of metal that fits into the slot) and glue'er in. In many ways, the plain glued frets of the Parker could be EASIER to remove. I doubt that, though, so I'll just say that it's about the same.

Greg, as I said, the major impact of a changed headstock (apart from the changes in balance, ventually sustain and eventually harmonics) comes when bending. For "plain" playing it might not matter too much, but when you bend a string, the shorter it is, the easier it comes - just bend on a short mensure guitar (such as a Les paul) and then on a long mensured one (is the string length called mensure in english?).
OK, you may now argue that the length of the "swinging string" is longer/shorter, but obviously, when bending string on non-locking-nut guitars, you have to bend everything, that includes the part of the string that is behind the nut.

Also a reason why Floyd Rose equipped guitars usually make bending rather easy.

Seriously, once you played some high-e-string bends on a 4:2 headstock guitar and go back to a plain strat-style one, you'll notice a greatly notifyable difference.

Sascha, much of your argument is based on assumption. For what it's worth, I DO have a 24.75" scale guitar, AND a 25.5" scale guitar. Of course the shorter scale is easier to bend, but I already covered that in my post-- it's the scale length that affects the tension, not the overall length of the string. I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm afraid that the logic is wrong. Now, I don't know the actual figures, so I'm going to make one up: Let's assume that in a 25.5" scale guitar, the G string needs 5 "pounds" (whatever) of tension to be in tune. It doesn't matter one little bit how much string is beyond the nut, it will still have 5 pounds of tension on it. It can be 100 metres long (AFTER the nut), and it will still need 5 pounds of tension to be in tune.

The reason non-locking makes it a bit trickier to bend is that you do, indeed, need to pull the string through the groove in the nut. That introduces friction to the equation.

My style is bending. I do not play "plain" or whatever that means. If I'm not bending, I feel alien and weird.

In all the time that I've been a member of Project Guitar, and in all the research I've done in the building of the guitar I'm constructing (which is extensive, including the two best known books on guitar building (by Hiscock and Koch), and in all my 13 years of reading every piece of guitar literature that has ever come my way (yes, I realize you have more years than that playing), COUPLED with basic principles of physics, I have never ever heard of nor imagined that the string length beyond the nut has an effect on the string's tone. [edit: I mean, that the string length beyond the nut affects the string tension before the nut]

Just visualize it. Imagine pulling the string taut with your fingers, BEHIND the nut... connect yourself to it. Now, for the string to stay in tune, you have to pull against it at exactly that pressure. Now imagine sliding your fingers further back, but letting the string slide through them (ie., you're not changing the strength of the pull, just the finger position). The string will not go out of tune. The ONLY way to increase string tension will be to actually PULL the string without just letting it slide through. The net result: your string will become sharp. All I know for sure is that I've spent too much time and made myself look too fervent when it's very basic and simple.

The thing to remember is that scale length is determined from the bridge to the nut, and a string is in tune at an exact tension. Nothing interferes with the sanctity of that.

The G is a wonky string. On many strats and similar guitars, they only use a string tree for the high E and high B. This means that there is not enough downward pressure on the G string to give it firm contact with the nut. THAT's what makes many non-angled headstock guitars (tele, strat) sound funny on the G string, coupled with the fact that since its tension is out of wack with the other strings and is tricky to intonate properly.

Sorry for the zeal, and nothing's meant personally, but I tend to "fight the good fight" when on the opposite side of an argument.

Greg

[Lunch Money]

Now I'm really looking zealous-- 2 posts in a row.

Take a rope and attach a 5 pound weight to it. No matter WHERE on the rope you hold it, it will still take the same amount of work (ie. the rope's tension is the same) to hold it aloft.

It's really that simple. Sorry I took so long to try to explain it.

Greg

[Ian B]

Eurgh, it's a widdlers guitar!

Do I take it they're not your cup of tea then dt?

The one this geezer was using was a Classic Fly in Transparent Cherry and just sounded amazing. It looked like he was just putting it through a 'small' amp of some kind (couldn't really see it) and then the PA. The different sounds he coaxed from it.....
I got talking to him later and he loved the weight and neck, he wouldn't let me try it for some reason (about £1500+ reasons I reckon ) so I don't know whether I'd still be so keen, tho' I prefer a skinny neck. I'm more than satisfied with my sub £400 Cort M-600, but I would have liked to have tried his setup.

[Sascha Franck]

Sascha, much of your argument is based on assumption.

?!?!?!?
I have TESTED all the things by my OWN - there's not a SINGLE word that makes up for anything like "assumption" and I just know that I'm 100% correct on what I'm saying as it's physically proveable!
I have even modified a lovely looking strat-style birdseye headstock to some ugly looking piece of shit just to have that 4:2 thing going - would you REALLY think I'd dop such a thing if it was only pure speculations/assumptions?

it's the scale length that affects the tension, not the overall length of the string.

Nonsense.

Seriously Greg, I don't give a damn about what you heard or didn't hear in all the years of modifying guitars, being a member of whatever forums and what not.

It's simply that I am correct.

You admit that a short scale guitar equipped with the same set of strings is bending easier than a long scale guitar, right?
OK, think about the reason for one minute: This is because the length of the stringh is shorter and therefor it requires LESS tension to bring it up your usual wholetone or whatever.
Then, think further: As a string is glidng through the nut in case of a bending you need to take the
FULL length into account. That's not some weird logic but a physical fact.

You can try things easily for yourself in case you have a guitar with a FR. Unlock the nuts, do a bend (preferably on the high E string).
Now lock the nut and do the same bend again.
It WILL go easier now!

All your comparisons with ropes and such don't hold much water.
A) Shorter stings of the same gauge and tuning bend easier than longer ones. It hasn't got that much to do with scale length (well, it has, but only a bit). If you set up a capo it's not that bending becomes much easier just because you lowered the scale length.
B) In case of a bending the amount of string length BEHIND the nut plays a role as well - that should be obvious.

I don't think I should continue this for now as it's just all too obvious...
Greg, seriously, no offense meant, but before replying again and calling my statements illogical, go try for yourself. You'll just see.
Maybe, if the FR example given above isn't drastically enough (for me it is - becomes even more drastically if you somehow lock the trem for this test, by using some woodblock or so), you should try to construct a guitar with a 50cm long headstock...
Or, alternatively, get yourself a bass, put some high e string on it... (don't forget a capo to get to the same scale length, as this seems to be so important for you). You may need a special brand being long enough though...

Sorry, but in this case I just KNOW that I'm right because I EXPERIENCED things, rather than coming up with assumptions.

[Kim Olesen]

I've been playing on a parker fly ever since they came out (about ten years ago) and i have to say that it is the most friggin amazing thing to play. I wore the frets on my fender strat down in only one year. The frets on my parker have lasted for more than 10 and it's bearely noticable that they have ever been played on. Some people complain about the light weight. But when i play a gig where i have to stand up for long periods of time (like a 7 hour wedding etc.) it's very nice that it doesn't weigh one hell of a lot. It's so easy to play that a set of 0.10 strings feels lighter than a set og 0.9 did on my strat. After buying my parker 10 years ago i never play any other instrument (in the guitar department that is) live. In the studio ofcourse i tend to use a wide variety of guitars. Actually in 3 hours time i'll be playing my parker again.....There's nothing like it. For me at least the parker is guitar-perfection.
Kim

[Sascha Franck]

Greg, here's another thing:
Take VERY short piece of a string, tighten it somewhere (just use your bridge). Take a claw or whatever (just don't break it, use some pieces of wood to buffer it). Let's say you grab it 5cm after it comes out of the nut. Pull as hard as to bring it up to, say, high E pitch or so. You should be able to do so with not that much pulling tension.
Now grab the string at full length and do the same... I'm almost sure you won't be able to bring the pitch up to the same pitch...

This is because longer strings of the same gauge require more tension to be brought up to the same pitch.
So, your statement that it only takes the same XYZ pounds of tension to bring a string of any length into tune isn't even physically correct - as you can prove easily by yourself (just do the test mentioned above, it will prove my words in less than 1 minute).

It can be 100 metres long (AFTER the nut), and it will still need 5 pounds of tension to be in tune.

I'm sorry to say so, but in case you are trying to teach me physical facts, you should just learn the facts by yourself first instead of getting them so fundamentally wrong!
(Apart from my above mentioned test, it just doesn't matter if you try behind the nut or not. We're not talking about locking nuts here, so all the nut does is to divide the string - it does nothing to the tension at all)
It's just so easy to prove your above quoted statement wrong that it would make me laugh if it wasn't for you usually being a polite guy.

[Kim Olesen]

And one thing......Even though i'm a conservatoire educated electric guitarplayer i have no idea of all the tech talk about guitars. (It was only recently that i noticed what pickups are on my parker....can't even remember it now....) But i can tell you this about the of stringtension on the parker. I used to use 0.9 strings on my strat but had to put 0.10 on the parker because otherwise it was TOO EASY TO PLAY. So the tension of strings on the parker is REALLY FRIENDLY on ones fingers!!! It's by far the easiest guitar to play i've ever laid fingers on. Tension wise and feeling wise.
Kim

[Lunch Money]

I kind of thougt you'd respond like that.

The assumptions I was referring to are that you always figure your experiences qualify you more than the next person, and that they must be some sort of untrained and undisciplined hack who's just fooling around on the guitar.

The thing is, that you firmly believe that you are correct, and you think that I'm blindly ignoring the obvious. From my perspective, you're doing the same thing, so it's equally as frustrating for me to see that you haven't noticed the truth yet; however, I'll contain my frustration and disbelief that you can't see the truth that's right in front of your eyes. I'll try to explain:

What you are missing is the importance of the nut as a fulcrum. It is ONLY the distance from the bridge to the nut that makes tension important.

If you make a scale length longer by moving the nut further away from the bridge, but WITHOUT changing the tension, what happens? The note becomes flat because the length that's vibrating is longer. To compensate, you must increase the string's tension; that's why a Fender-scale guitar has tighter tension than a Gibson scale. This much I've agreed with since the beginning, and you just didn't notice.

Now, just to make things simpler, I'm going to modify my rope analogy:

You're in a barn. You have a weight dangling from a guitar/piano string. A REALLY long string, in fact, but it's hanging over a beam of some sort. Hell, it's dangling from a guitar nut that's attached to a beam. It's dangling 3 feet down, and is secure enough that you can "pluck" it and get a nice even A-sharp. Now, on the other side of the beam (ie, the slack of the string), it doesn't matter where you hold it, because it will still be sitting on the beam, and the weight will still be dangling 3 feet down, with the same amount of weight (ie. the string tension). I could walk to my house for a beer, holding the extra slack, and as long as I don't let it slide at all, my friend who's in the barn can pluck it and still get the A-sharp.

What you keep referring to is scale length, which is unrelated. If I increase the scale length by dangling it 3.5 feet, suddenly when I pluck it, I get an even "A". Well, I don't want any of that, so I have to increase the weight (ie. put tighter string tension) in order to get my A-sharp back. However, having done that, I can walk all the way back to my house holding the slack (this time for a nice slice of pizza), and my friend in the barn can pluck the string and as long as I haven't let it move along its fulcrum, he will STILL get that A-sharp that I love so dearly.

My argument is that what's BEHIND the nut is irrelevant. You may have experienced that bending with a Floyd is easier... I've given you the benefit of the doubt for that, though I haven't had the same experience... but the reasons are NOT because of what happens behind the nut; rather they're because of what happens AT the nut. If I took my beam in the barn and stapled that damn string in place, I can let go of the slack and walk to my house for a beer without worrying about whether I let it slip or not. When I go back tomorrow, the A-sharp had better be there, or I'm getting me a new staple gun.

I know it's frustrating because you believe with all the fervor of the faithful that you're right. But you're not. You are not imagining the differences you feel, I'm sure of that; however, they come from other areas. Perhaps the downward pressure generated by a greater angle by having the machine head closer to the nut is the culprit.

Greg