more acoustic tone with a 175

gianluca · #1 10-13-2010, 04:58 AM

how can I setup the pickup height (and strings action) to obtain the most acoustic tone from a 1980's gibson es 175d.

my amp is a polytone.

posting on another thread, I recently listen again one of my recording experiments with the 175 played unpluged (I was then trying to achieve the joe pass's tone in the first virtuoso album).
And i realized that the 175 has a nice unpluged tone.
but I loose it when put into the amp: i get a warm, "liquid", not acoustic, pat metheny like tone. Which is nice, but I'm a little bored of it and I'm switching to a little more acoustic tone.

I use thomastik or chromes flat strings.

Bill C · #2 10-13-2010, 05:06 AM

maybe try some half-round or roundwound strings and/or a wooden bridge if you have a tuneomatic?

NSJ · #3 10-13-2010, 06:51 AM

Try the Thomastik bebop strings--round wound

gianluca · #4 10-13-2010, 07:21 AM

so you suggest it is only a string matter?
anything which involves pickup height?

NSJ · #5 10-13-2010, 08:02 AM

You know, I don't know about pickup height, but if you can adjust it, why not try it? short of screwing around with the truss rod, I'm happy to adjust anything. I imagine that closer proximity to the strings makes it louder. Usually, pole pieces are adjusted to achieve balance, so certain strings are not "hotter" than others. Can't hurt the guitar none to adjust pickup height.

How does having 2 pickups effect the acoustic tone on a plywood guitar? Certainly, on a carved solid tone wood, the less cut into the wood, the nore acoustic resonance of the top--that's why some people like floaters.

Jim Hall often turned his amp OFF when comping, but his 175 was a 1950s model, with only one pickup.

kamlapati · #6 10-13-2010, 10:29 AM

First, I applaud you for trying to get that Joe Pass Virtuoso tone. It's always been my favorite and I what I aspire to also. Long ago I heard that he had mic'd his 175, and that recorded tone was a mic and amp mix. Can anyone confirm?

I would add that the EQ on the amp can make a big difference to making your 175 sound more acoustic. Forget everything you know about "jazz tone" settings: lower the volume on your guitar to 5, tone at 10, middle PU setting, boost the amp treble and the bass. Play around. There are a lot of good and non-traditional tones in there.

derek · #7 10-13-2010, 11:30 AM

In addition to ditching flats for rounds, and micing, I would question the polytone. The polytone has a well earned rep for producing a traditional jazz tone, but I wouldn't say it accentuates the acoustic properties of a guitar. Perhaps someone knows better, but that has been my experience.

Joe often went direct on his recordings from what I have read.

BigDaddyLoveHandles · #8 10-13-2010, 11:38 AM

Yea, if you want an amp sound at all, maybe you want an "acoustic guitar" type amp sound.

SamBooka · #9 10-13-2010, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill C

maybe try some half-round or roundwound strings and/or a wooden bridge if you have a tuneomatic?

+1
I have a 165 and an ebony bridge and rounds made a big difference in getting closer to the "Virtuoso" tone.

I bought a stewmac bridge for about 18$. Decent quality. If you dont know how to change it you might want to get a luthier to do it. Shouldnt be expensive. The base should be fitted to match the top and I had to take bout 1/8in from the bottom of the saddle to get the action in the right ballpark.

I dont know what a luthier would charge but I would imaging 50$ parts inc.

kenbennett · #10 10-13-2010, 04:01 PM

Good advice so far.

I second the wooden bridge suggestion, and add that if you can stand the higher action from a taller bridge, that would drive the top with more force which should get more of the acoustic sound out of the guitar.

Heavier gauge strings would have a similar effect as increasing the height of the bridge without raising the action. Do both if your left hand can take it.

Raising the pickups closer to the strings makes the electronic sound fatter and louder. However, if they are too close, the pull of the magnets can actually inhibit the free vibration of the strings. Lowering the pickups would favor the acoustic quality of the guitar.

virtuoso · #11 10-13-2010, 10:08 PM

Why not trying with piezo bridge?

woyvel · #12 10-14-2010, 06:03 AM

Someone here may have the answer to this question, and it seems relevant to the discussion: Did Joe Pass use flats or round wound strings on the "Virtuoso" recordings? I'd think flatwound, given the genre, time frame, and the lack of squeak; but then again there's such a nice acoustic tone from that un-amplified ES175.

Meggy · #13 10-14-2010, 08:37 AM

Ted Greene advocated lowering the pickup height quite a lot (on his telecasters it was about the top surface level with the scratchplate) and then raising the adjustable pole-pieces to compensate, as a way of getting more "air" into the sound. You can see this on some of the photos and video clips of him playing. Might be worth a bit of experimenting maybe, but just one idea for you!

StevieB · #14 10-16-2010, 08:52 AM

I think everyone has their own idea of what an "acoustic" tone is when it comes to hearing and describing electrified guitar tone.

I have an '01 ES-175 Reissue that I play through one of three amps; Henriksen Jazz Amp Convertible, AER Compact 60, Mesa Boogie Mark II.

To my ears, the AER Compact 60 enables my ES-175 to produce a tone that sounds the most "acoustic."

fep · #15 10-16-2010, 09:48 AM

I think the way to go is to mic the guitar running two lines, the pu thru a guitar amp and the mic thru a pa.

As an alternative you could get a mic installed in the guitar.

fep · #16 10-16-2010, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamlapati

First, I applaud you for trying to get that Joe Pass Virtuoso tone. It's always been my favorite and I what I aspire to also. Long ago I heard that he had mic'd his 175, and that recorded tone was a mic and amp mix. Can anyone confirm?.

The story I've heard goes that the producer wanted only one take on a song to get that 'fresh' improvised approach. And if you didn't like the take you'd just choose a different song to add to the album. All the songs were done in one take.

The second part of the story is the engineer screwed up. On all but one song, he didn't record the channel with the amp mic, he only recorded the channel with the mic on the guitar. So the tone on all but one of those songs was not the tone Joe Pass was after. The only song recorded correctly blending both mics was 'Here's that Rainy Day'.

Compare the sound of 'Here's that Rainy Day' to the rest of the tracks, the difference is dramatic.

Virtuoso by Joe Pass

gianluca · #17 11-02-2010, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenbennett

Good advice so far.

I second the wooden bridge suggestion, and add that if you can stand the higher action from a taller bridge, that would drive the top with more force which should get more of the acoustic sound out of the guitar.

Heavier gauge strings would have a similar effect as increasing the height of the bridge without raising the action. Do both if your left hand can take it.

Raising the pickups closer to the strings makes the electronic sound fatter and louder. However, if they are too close, the pull of the magnets can actually inhibit the free vibration of the strings. Lowering the pickups would favor the acoustic quality of the guitar.

hi
about acoustic plugged tone,
yesterday i tryied to down the neck pickupon my 175 till raising the top but the acoustic effect improvement wasn't noticeable.
but a great lost of volume.
the guitar was strung with some fenders 012-050 (012 016 022 030 040 050) pure nickel round wound.
I'm new to the round wound on the 175.
not bad at all. even if I'm going to change the first 3 strings with 013 017 024.
my personal taste...
I

docbop · #18 11-02-2010, 11:58 AM

It's a laminate top so only so much can be done and some are more resonate than others. Wood bridge, round wound, drop PUP down. Getting out there could try bronze acoustic strings, but electric sound will be weaker. You could try an microphone there are small mic's that clamp onto the body.

I was never fond of Pass sound on the virtuoso album too brittle for my taste. I liked his more electric sound and that is how he sounded the times I saw him live including Pass playing solo.

cosmic gumbo · #19 11-02-2010, 04:51 PM

The best way to get the miked sound of Pass' guitar on Virtuoso is to mike the guitar. Don't expect that sound with pick ups.

mattymel · #20 11-02-2010, 05:33 PM

i heard a slightly different story...
i heard that the sound coming form the amp was so bad they ditched it for the acoustic mic. when listening to his tone on a few other albums, its not hard to believe. at least more believable than an engineer at Fantasy (world class place if you have ever been) wouldnt make sure a amp mic was working until the last song on a session...joe pass is one of the best ever...but def not for his tone. "live at montreux"? THE worst...

Fidelcaster · #21 11-03-2010, 02:00 AM

Ciao Gianluca,

maybe you could consider swapping the bridge with a piezo bridge. I have a Yamaha AEX1500, which has a floating minihumbucker and a piezo bridge: by mixing together the outputs of the two pickups I get a faithful reproduction of the acoustic sound of the guitar. The Yamaha has an "onboard" mixer; you should use either an external mixer to amplify both signals with the same amplifier, or a second amplifier (or a D.I. box running into a P.A.) to amplify the piezo separately from the magnetic pickup.

kenbennett · #22 11-03-2010, 06:23 AM

Maybe a whole different approach would be worth considering. In my experience, it's more rewarding to hear someone say, "Man, you sound good", instead of, "Man, you sound like Larry Carlton".

Inevitably, your sound will be influenced by the players that you listen to. But should that be your goal? In the long run, as an artist, it will be more rewarding to develop your own style, your own sound, to be yourself.

If you are not really happy with the sound of your instrument, then consider getting a different guitar. Just because two players have the same model of guitar, that does not mean they will sound alike. Maybe you will not be able to get Joe Pass's sound with Joe Pass's guitar.

A couple of years ago in my shop I was playing a cheap solid body electric through a cheap solid-state amp when my dad walked in and said, "Hey, that sounds like ole Hank Garland". It was a Hank Garland arrangement, but it probably would not have sounded more like Garland if I had been playing a Byrdland through a Fender tube amp.

I know this is a total cop-out of an answer, but it's true. I used to host an open jam once a week. One guy who was there every week went out and bought a guitar and amp that looked exactly like mine. Yet his rig sounded totally different. Even I didn't sound like me when I played his guitar through his amp.

I'll bet Joe Pass wasn't going for any particular sound--just going for a good sound and playing the music.

gianluca · #23 11-03-2010, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenbennett

I'll bet Joe Pass wasn't going for any particular sound--just going for a good sound and playing the music.

I totally agree.
but I'm not a Joe pass fan.
I'm just looking for the sound I have in my mind.
and it is similar to that one.
I think that a guitar, and its tone, must inspire you.
you have to love each note or chord coming from your guitar.
now, i believe that I could love a little more my 175 if only it could play a little more acoustic.

I haven't too much possibility to try different archtop guitars. so I try to do what I can with what I have.

maybe joe pass in 1973 wasn't too happy of his 175 and his amp, so he decided to mike and blend and, later, to don't blend.

but you are right: someday I may happen in a place with 10 different arch top on sale. and I could find a better guitar for me...

kenbennett · #24 11-03-2010, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gianluca

I totally agree.
but I'm not a Joe pass fan.
I'm just looking for the sound I have in my mind.
and it is similar to that one.
I think that a guitar, and its tone, must inspire you.
you have to love each note or chord coming from your guitar.
now, i believe that I could love a little more my 175 if only it could play a little more acoustic.

I haven't too much possibility to try different archtop guitars. so I try to do what I can with what I have.

maybe joe pass in 1973 wasn't too happy of his 175 and his amp, so he decided to mike and blend and, later, to don't blend.

but you are right: someday I may happen in a place with 10 different arch top on sale. and I could find a better guitar for me...

I'll bet you can get good sound with the guitar you have. Just don't try to copy other people. Get YOUR sound!

hurricanebob · #25 11-03-2010, 10:44 PM

It's easy to sit from afar and offer advice (why not buy this? Or that?), but, with that admission--if you want a more acoustic sound, then you should probably consider an archtop with a solid top rather than a laminated top.

The 175, a wonderful guitar, has a laminated top. It has its own virtues, but sounding more acoustic is not one of them. It is designed to be played amped.

A solid-top archtop would get you much closer and much more quickly toward the sound I think you seek.

Mic'ing your guitar will help, but doing the same with a solid top will be dramatically different (and, one hopes, better).

gianluca · #26 11-04-2010, 02:42 AM

[quote=hurricanebob;104685]...A solid-top archtop would get you much closer and much more quickly toward the sound I think you seek.
...[quote]

thank you hurricane.
actually, when I bought the 175 six years ago, I wasn't aware about this difference: I had a 347 and I trade it with the 175 because it looked more wes/pat/ronnyjordan style.
so, maybe I need a second guitar, a solid top archtop.
coul you suggest some?
how can I realize that a guitar is solid top and not laminated?

oldane · #27 11-04-2010, 06:41 AM

The 175 is made of thick plywood and was never meant to be an acoustic guitar, though you can practice with it without an amp - if you can stand the sound (I can't). I have a 1964 175D which to my ears sounds awful acoustically. Frankly, I also think Joe Pass' sound on "Virtuoso" is bad. It's interesting to note that as his acoustic playing caught on, he had Jimmy D'Aquisto make him an acoustic archtop.

If you can afford it, I'd recommend getting a true acoustic archtop for acoustic playing and keep the 175 for electric playing. That way you can set up both optimally for their specialized uses (for example the acoustic with phosphor bronze and a higher action and the 175 with nickel roundwound or flatwound and a lower action).

As for pickups, I prefer single coils to humbuckers due to their clearer sound. I know the hype about PAF/Pat.no. pickups, but nevertheless I have swapped the neck pat.no. pickup on my 175 with a P90 (in humbucker disguise) from Brian Gunsher, and the guitar now has a clearer tone, especially in the bass, where the PAF tended to be muddy. The individual notes of chords stand out more well defined, and the sound quality is more uniform across all the six strings. The sound is also a bit more woody - much like Jim Halls old 175, before he replaced its native P90 with with a humbucker in the late 1950s (check out for example the Sonny Rollins album "The Bridge" with Jim Hall and his by then typical P90 sound). Of course, my PAF is well kept in the box the P90 came in, so it can be put back in the guitar if a future owner should want that.

Only my 5 cents, and others may beg to differ.

hurricanebob · #28 11-04-2010, 05:49 PM

So, Gianluca: how to tell if an archtop has a solid top: in many cases, you can't, it's not self-evident (as it can be on a flat-top acoustic), and so you have to do a little research. That said, you'll find a) it's not difficult to find out, and b) most of the archtops you'll be looking at have solid tops.

On a flat topped acoustic, you can look at the grain of the wood at the soundhole. It's generally easy to see whether it's solid wood or not--on solid tops, you can see the grain of the wood for the entire width of the soundhole.

This is more difficult with archtops--the f holes are smaller, and often bound, so you can't see the grain cross-section.

Eastman has all solid wood guitars, and I think Heritage does as well--a quick trip to their websites will tell you that. If you get a handmade archtop (usually a fairly expensive proposition, beyond $2K), it will have a solid top (and back, and sides).

If you have $2K in hand already, and were willing to sell your 175, you could end up with some serious change for an archtop. But be darn sure before you do it, because 175s are not cheap these days.

hurricanebob · #29 11-04-2010, 05:58 PM

As for guitars to try: certainly the two previously mentioned: Eastman and Heritage.

Eastman guitars are solid wood throughout, made in China. I have one, and thoroughly enjoy it. I *never* thought I would spend over $1,000 on a Chinese guitar, but well, there you are. I play it through a Polytone Mini Brute II, and it sounds nice and warm. Putting on a tone control (I think they come with one, now) greatly improved the range of tone.

Heritage is the company started by former Gibson employees who stayed in Kalamazoo when Gibson moved to Nashville. Those employees bought the factory, the jigs, and began making guitars in 1985. Gibson promptly sued for copyright infringement. The judge ruled in favor of Heritage, noting that when Gibson sold the jigs, there was an implied use.

Steve Hoffman · #30 11-04-2010, 06:09 PM

Hey, but a carved archtop that is only 16" is still going to give you the bare midrange of tones. The 17" and 18" acoustic archtops will give you more body and dynamics. A 16" archtop either carved or pressed is only going to do so much for you. My Heritage Sweet 16 is a wonderful fully carved guitar but playing it acoustically is just not really something that is satisfying IMO... It's nice, but not powerful. It's tuneful but not awe-inspiring.. Get a big ol' box for that...