What's everyones preference that uses them? Wide (6100) or narrow (6150)?? Opinions on advantages between the 2?
0 Kudo
tall frets!
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 mike2nyc |
tall frets! |
Lead | ||
|
Posts: 56 Sun, Mar 30, 2008 02:01:41 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
peterH |
#1 | |||
|
Posts: 7 Sun, Mar 30, 2008 18:57:55 |
I think it depends on what you're wanting out of the guitar and your playing style. For me 6100's are nice for bending and works for the somewhat
heavy touch I have. I've had 6150...good for chording. I've had 6105 and didn't think they were tall enough.
Peter |
|||
|
|
||||
|
javacody |
#2 | |||
|
Posts: 1123 Sun, Mar 30, 2008 18:58:42 FIB Humble Man of Steel |
I too have the 6105s on both USA CG necks I have. I personally like them, but I'm used to smaller frets.
Blah Blah Woof
Woof
-Jimi Hendrix |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Schneidas |
#3 | |||
|
Posts: 271 Mon, Mar 31, 2008 08:54:35 Bronze Member |
So far I've had 6150, 6105, 6100 and 6000 frets on my USACG necks.
The taller the fret, the easier you can bend, short frets make bendings kinda slippery. I'm not sure what role the width of a fret plays, I've never really understood it. For me, the best of these 4 sizes would be the 6100. Tall with not too much width, makes solo-playing with fast runs and lots of bends real easy. The 6150 are similar in width to the 6100 but way too low. Bending is harder than with the 6100's. The 6105 was nice (my second favorite) as it's narrow but still tall, though not as tall as the 6100. Felt nice to play on nevertheless. The 6000 is huge and has just a bit too much "meat" for me. They don't really feel much taller than 6100, just bigger (more width) - feels kinda bulky, but that's all very subjective of course. I only like those 6000 frets if the neck with them is scalloped, which results in a different feel again. On a non-scalloped neck, the 6000 are just bulky - strange, I know, but that's how it feels to me.
Last Edited By: Schneidas Mon, Mar 31, 2008 09:00:26.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
kidmag |
#4 | |||
|
Posts: 36 Tue, Apr 1, 2008 17:04:56 |
I've got 6105's (.090" x .055") on all my necks so far. I really like them, and now I find the small frets on my Fender Jaguar annoying. I am
thinking about trying the 6150's (.104" x .047") on a new project.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Boris Bubbanov |
#5 | |||
|
Posts: 3 Fri, Apr 25, 2008 08:04:20 |
My USACGs are also 6105s.
I find them substantially taller than Fender vintage frets, and I'm surprised there's no narrow fret inbetween those two available in the industry. A narrow fret will wear a lot faster than a wider one, so I suppose I am grateful it is a bit taller so it may last a bit longer. It is almost as if that size wire exists so luthiers can resurface it to the desired height. I have a few 6150 necks, and I like them as well. Still seems strange they would be wider and at the same time shorter. I believe the Highway One Upgrade has 6000s. Hudigeous; I don't like them at all, but that's what a properly fretted meaty USACG replacement neck is good at fixing. |
|||
|
|
||||
Quick Reply
Contact Administrator - Find ez/Yuku-boards
