New Guitar Incoming: E-II vs Custom Shop M-II

[AkiraSpectrum]

I really want to believe there is something I was did wrong. I may have a more experienced tech look it over before I send it back. The strings were in great condition, though they weren't the strings I typically use. I have a couple of extra sets lying around so I may have the tech change them.


I did check the pickup height and the battery was brand new. Below are my findings.


I also forgot to mention that I also did the obvious and tinkered with the amp's EQ too. The ESP Original M-II has a noticeable amount of low end chunk when palm-muting, but it still sounded thinner overall despite apparently having the same bridge pickup.

I have to credit you with triggering the idea of having it looked over by someone more experienced, so thank you!

Yeah I was going to say E-IIs have thicker necks. It could be the thicker neck that is giving more chunk. Could be the difference in the particular piece of wood used in the m bodies as well

 

[mlp187]

That's awesome! Thank you for sharing. What kind of explorer?

Gibson 70’s:

 

[Robslalaina]

I really want to believe there is something I was did wrong.

Zakk Wylde once said all his Gibson sigs sound different. It's just the way it is with wood. I had an X series Kelly with thru body maple neck and basswood wings that sounded much thicker and bassier than a friend's all mahogany Les Paul Prophecy that obviously had a thicker body and neck. Both guitars had the same EMG 81/85 set, same strings and tuning. The differences were the scale lengths and bridges (TOM vs blocked Floyd Rose Special). Both played on the same day through an EVH OD and Blackstar HT5. We could never EQ the LP to sound as chunky and "metal" as the Kelly.

 

[budda]

OP put your usual strings on and try again?

 

[tomahawkguitarist]

Yeah I was going to say E-IIs have thicker necks. It could be the thicker neck that is giving more chunk. Could be the difference in the particular piece of wood used in the m bodies as well

I wish I knew about the difference in neck thickness! I agree though, it would definitely not be the first time that I've found a bulkier neck resulting in thicker tone. I guess I thought that somehow the higher quality wood in the ESP would make enough of a difference.

 

[tomahawkguitarist]

Zakk Wylde once said all his Gibson sigs sound different. It's just the way it is with wood. I had an X series Kelly with thru body maple neck and basswood wings that sounded much thicker and bassier than a friend's all mahogany Les Paul Prophecy that obviously had a thicker body and neck. Both guitars had the same EMG 81/85 set, same strings and tuning. The differences were the scale lengths and bridges (TOM vs blocked Floyd Rose Special). Both played on the same day through an EVH OD and Blackstar HT5. We could never EQ the LP to sound as chunky and "metal" as the Kelly.

I believe it and thank you for sharing! It may have been foolish of me to expect the same fundametal tonal qualities despite them being the same body style.

I bet that Kelly sounds killer! Surprising to hear it sounded thicker than a Les Paul.

 

[tomahawkguitarist]

OP put your usual strings on and try again?

I'm thinking about it. Both guitars appeared to have the same string gauge though (9-42). Would that really make a difference in the tone thickness?

 

[budda]

I'm thinking about it. Both guitars appeared to have the same string gauge though (9-42). Would that really make a difference in the tone thickness?

Different brands will sound and feel different. Strings are cheap. Get 1:1 as possible because you have both available right now.

 

[CanserDYI]

Think Texas is bad? Try Kali or New York!

Texas has higher property taxes than California and New York.

 

[cardinal]

I've had probably a dozen various ESPs. Neck thicknesses vary widely.

I've been very impressed with E-IIs. Fretwork and build quality have been great. Generally the newest Tokyo-built ESPs are most consistently the nicest, but probably my smoothest playing guitar is an older Kiso-built. I've been less impressed with the USA guitars especially given their poor wood selection and high prices. But I'd be happy with any of them.

 

[tomahawkguitarist]

Different brands will sound and feel different. Strings are cheap. Get 1:1 as possible because you have both available right now.

Fair point. Will try first.

 

[tomahawkguitarist]

I've had probably a dozen various ESPs. Neck thicknesses vary widely.

I've been very impressed with E-IIs. Fretwork and build quality have been great. Generally the newest Tokyo-built ESPs are most consistently the nicest, but probably my smoothest playing guitar is an older Kiso-built. I've been less impressed with the USA guitars especially given their poor wood selection and high prices. But I'd be happy with any of them.

Good to know! My understanding is that the E-II name replaced (and apparently upgraded from) the old ESP Standard name due to ESP Standards finding their way back into the Japanese market despite not being meant for such. E-II is supposed to be the equivalent of Gibson's Standard line, while ESP's name can be compared to Gibson's Custom Shop (and ESP USA is essentially a tier lower than the Japanese ESP Custom Shop).

I know players who preferred their standard guitars over the custom shop equivalents they've played, and players who have found ways to get their standard guitars sounding close enough to custom shop equivalents without forking out the dough for the latter.

My ESP Original M-II CTM is also Kiso-built, and it really does play better than anything I've experienced. But I guess I just wasn't expecting to possibly have to come to terms with the fact that I might really just prefer the tonal characteristics of the E-II over the ESP.

I'm also extremely fortunate to have discovered a local shop who carries both ESP USA and ESP Custom Shop M-II's, so I'm going to try both next time!

 

[cardinal]

Good to know! My understanding is that the E-II name replaced (and apparently upgraded from) the old ESP Standard name due to ESP Standards finding their way back into the Japanese market despite not being meant for such. E-II is supposed to be the equivalent of Gibson's Standard line, while ESP's name can be compared to Gibson's Custom Shop (and ESP USA is essentially a tier lower than the Japanese ESP Custom Shop).

I know players who preferred their standard guitars over the custom shop equivalents they've played, and players who have found ways to get their standard guitars sounding close enough to custom shop equivalents without forking out the dough for the latter.

My ESP Original M-II CTM is also Kiso-built, and it really does play better than anything I've experienced. But I guess I just wasn't expecting to possibly have to come to terms with the fact that I might really just prefer the tonal characteristics of the E-II over the ESP.

I'm also extremely fortunate to have discovered a local shop who carries both ESP USA and ESP Custom Shop M-II's, so I'm going to try both next time!

I get that the headstock logo kinda sucks, but if I had to choose one without playing either first, id go for an EII over an old Standard Series. They seem consistently nicer to me.

 

[tomahawkguitarist]

I get that the headstock logo kinda sucks, but if I had to choose one without playing either first, id go for an EII over an old Standard Series. They seem consistently nicer to me.

Yeah, it was a little annoying because I didn't want to feel like I'm playing a non-ESP ESP, but I overall care more about how a guitar sounds, feels, plays, and looks more than a name on the headstock.

And this experience has only solidified my belief that the name on the headstock does not matter. I'm happier overall with my E-II at this point, and that's all that matters!