Quick question about jan3 fitment

S

seungkoo

Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
204
Reaction score
2
Will it be a direct replacement for the original jan? Or would I need to make modifications. I took off the original jan and it looks smaller than the jan3 but it may just be my thinking. I don't have one on hand to compare.
 
and this :
[video=youtube;wjCuHGLB-1I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjCuHGLB-1I[/video]
 
I replaced a jan with jan3 brass on a dolphin. The trussrod cover will end up a bit further on the headstock so you will need to drill new holes for its screws.
 
Out of curiosity, why would one want to convert from a JAN1 to a JAN3? I thought the consensus was that the JAN1 is the holy grail.

I'd rank them
1) JAN 1
2) JAN 3 Brass
3) JAN 3
4) Bone Nut
5) Home Made Plastic Nut
6) No Nut
7) Broken Headstock
8) JAN 2
 
Like your JAN rank, Fitz.

As far as I know, many Original JAN has one little rattle issue that some people dislike. And in my book that may be a good reason to change it.
 
Ah I see. Maybe this is a little specific, but JAN1 4-string versions allowed for BEAD tuning (which I did at one point, I love it), whereas the others don't.

A BEAD strung 4-string Thumb/Vampyre/Dolphin has the same amount of notes on the fingerboard as a 21-fret American Deluxe Fender Jazz V, and 1 more note than an American Standard!! :P

If anyone thinks those basses sound a little too aggressive and want to fatten them up, string 'em BEAD and play 5-frets higher!
 
I prefer the JAN3 brass to the original JAN. Imo if the instrument is built properly there is no need for changing individual string heights at the headstock side. The original JAN is therefor overkill.
 
I change from flatwounds to rounds often and need to tweak the but here and there. I just think the jan3 is better and easier at it.
 
I think JAN 3 brass is the best so far. And yes, as others said, it is larger, so you need new holes for the tr cover, or to shorten the tr cover a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top