ESP Eclipse

[Ole]

Hi!

From what I`ve read the ESP Standard models are what people recommends from the Eclipse series.

Compared to a Gibson Les Paul Custom, how does the Eclipse differ in feel (besides the weight) when playing it standing up ?

I`m thinking about getting the Eclipse II VB or the Eclipse II FR.

Are there any differences of the two besides the floyd rose ?

About the FR version;does it sound good and stay in tune perfect ?

Can`t decide which one to get..

 

Thanks

[Crunchtime]

I believe the ESP has a belly cut, thinner neck and larger frets.

[Ole]

Thanks!

What about the difference between the ESP II vb and ESP II fr ?

Any suggestions ? Is it worth spending the extra cash on the standard model ?

[Ole]

Bump

[w00dsy]

Doc Jeffrey will be able to help you out, he loves his Eclipse.

[docjeffrey]

Indeed! I just had my Eclipse out about an hour ago. Mine has EMG 81/60 active 'buckers. They make one with more traditional Seymour Duncan pickups too.

 

It's the most perfect guitar that I've ever owned in terms of fit, finish, setup, fretwork, and general attention to detail.

 

I own four Les Pauls, two of them are from the Custom Shop (1954 Plaintop and 1958 Figuretop reissue). The other two are Les Paul Classics from 2000.

 

The Eclipse is much lighter. I have not weighed it, but it's in the range of my ash bodied Strat which is around 7 to 7.5 pounds. I don't know if they are all this light, but both the mahogany and the maple body pieces are thinner than a Les Paul. It also has a belly cut and a thin U-shaped neck with the same width as a Les Paul. It has just enough heft to sound full, but not too much to be uncomfortable.

 

The mahogany is from South America, and the quilted top is from Western Canada IIRC. It's a true maple top--solid, no veneers or anything dodgy like that--so it does impact the tone. Through a clean amp, the EMG 60 neck pickup sounds absolutely gorgeous. It's a tad brighter and punchier than my Les Pauls' and there is no mud to be found anywhere. It will do pretty decent jazz fusion tones, and it sounds terrific for Chile Peppers' style rhythms. But when you crank up the drive or kick in a good distortion pedal (I use a Jekyll/Hyde and Tonebone Hot British), it sings. It thrives on Petrucci approved high gain leads. The EMG 81 in the bridge is darker than the 60, but this is where you can go from classic rock to classic metal--think Judas Priest Painkiller and Turbo Lover. I don't play modern metal, but I'm sure this guitar is fit for the job.

 

I am going to buy the Duncan-equipped version this summer. To be honest, it doesn't "beat" my best Les Paul in terms of tone; it just provides a different voice and it will light up even the most anemic amp. My Les Paul with 57 Classics has more complex harmonic overtones and beautiful transients that are absent on the ESP, so I won't be replacing my Les Pauls with ESP's, but the ESP will get you into serious metal in a flash.

 

The Korean made LTD EC1000's are very, very close to the Japanese Standards. They have some cool features that are missing on the more expensive model (seems odd, doesn't it) like Earvana nuts and Tone Pros bridge/tailpiece. But the ESP has better, lighter woods and is made at the same factory by the same people who make those expensive signature models. You will find solid tops with no veneers on the ESP versions too.

 

If you don't play metal, no worries. Even with the EMG's you get a great variety of tones that will do pop, country, classic rock, fusion, etc. If your playing leans toward the clean end of the spectrum, I've tried the Duncan equipped Eclipse and it's more like a Les Paul, but the bass is tighter and the top end is really sweet, but like I said, it's not going to beat a really good Les Paul for complex overtones that can really add character to your playing, especially with a nice amp. A lot of that stuff comes from a beefy 50's neck on a LP, and the neck on the Eclipse is slim and fast.

 

[Les-Zombie]

I like my eclipse but they sound nothing like a Les Paul and they don't feel the same either. I currently have 7 Les pauls and I will take any of them over my 4 eclipse. One of the eclipse I have is full thickness and it is the only one that sounds close to a lp. I also have a custom shop eclipse and it's heavier and more solidfeeling than the standard series, the maple used on the custom shop is thicker also and has a quilted headstock and natural binding look. My standard series eclipse doesn't sound as thick as the ft or cs versions and doesn't feel as nice either.

[smorgdonkey]

I have Les Pauls and EC series guitars too. They are different animals but great guitars nonetheless.

 

I even have a Vietnamese EC-256 which is a very nice guitar aside from:

 

-lack of attention to fretwork (mostly sharp edges/ends even in 50% humidity-maybe Vietnam is 90% humidity?)

-it has a push/pull pot to split the humbuckers but comes stock with tapered knobs that are almost impossible to hold tight enough to pull enough to actuate the split (bizarre that this element got past even the primary R&D stage or didn't get red flagged upon the first couple of set-ups)

[Ole]

Thanks for replying folks

Maybe I`ll check out the ec-1000 vb - lots of good reviews on that one.

I`m not a fan of abalone so I don`t fancy those models.

Btw has anyone tried the eclipse floyd rose versions ?

I`ve owned a couple Gibson les paul custom`s over the years.. Great guitars for what they do. But they don`t do aggressive metal with lots of attack.

Also I`m not a fan of emg`s. I`ll probably swap them out for duncan jb/59, best combo ever in my opinion!

[zenbu]

I have one too, the MA semi hollow body with a trapeze tail piece...of course it sounds nothing like a Les Paul, I have other guitars for that...but it is a real nice ESP, made for a very short time...mine is from 1998. Interestingly it has a bolt on neck, and retailed for about $1600.00 at the time...listed at $2000.00 minus the 20% off shops give so not a cheap model at all...some people seem to think MIJ Les Paul bolt ons were all low end models, they weren`t.