L5 vs. L5CES

[NSJ]

What is the difference in UN-AMPLIFIED, ACOUSTIC tone between the two? Assume that the L5 is a true acoustic arch top, and the the pickup on the L5CES is a floater, so nothing is cut into the wood, and the tone and volume knobs on the L5CES are on the pick guard, not cut into the wood, as well (i.e., a L5CES with a "Johnny Smith" type of pickup). I assume the woods/bracing are the same on both guitars, no?

Anybody A/Bed both of these guitars in terms of acoustic tone?

PS--not talking about a L5CES with a set-in pickup.

[rpguitar]

Your subject is going to confuse people from the get-go:

An L-5CES by definition has a cutaway and 2 set in pickups (Alnico, P90, or humbuckers).

An L-5 is a non-cutaway guitar. An L-5C (or earlier, called an L-5P) has a cutaway. Either can have a single floating pickup, but many don't.

The woods are the same, but the bracing is different on the L-5CES. There are small braces running perpendicular to the main tone bar braces; these are intended to provide extra support for the wood around the pickup routs.

Now if you are talking about L-5 and L-5C guitars, then obviously a floating pickup does not change internal bracing or other construction details. So there is no difference between an L-5 with a floater and one without, other than the normal differences between two similar guitars. If the floater touches the top there might be very slight muting, but I'd argue that it would be barely discernible.

BTW, between 1935 and 1939 L-5s had a different bracing system than either before or after (X-bracing vs. parallel), and this had a significant effect on the tone and response of the guitar. Also, from 1922 to 1934 these guitars had a 16" body size, which increased to 17" thereafter.

[NSJ]

Originally Posted by rpguitar

Now if you are talking about L-5 and L-5C guitars, then obviously a floating pickup does not change internal bracing or other construction details. So there is no difference between an L-5 with a floater and one without, other than the normal differences between two similar guitars. If the floater touches the top there might be very slight muting, but I'd argue that it would be barely discernible.

BTW, between 1935 and 1939 L-5s had a different bracing system than either before or after (X-bracing vs. parallel), and this had a significant effect on the tone and response of the guitar. Also, from 1922 to 1934 these guitars had a 16" body size, which increased to 17" thereafter.

Thanks for your detailed response-- I guess, to clarify, I meant the difference between an L5 and a L5C in terms of non-amplified sound and construction, other than the cutaway.

I surmise from what you're saying, that there really is no reason to get an acoustic L5 (unless one likes it without the cutaway) when one can get a L5C with a proper floating pickup, because the later will give you the SAME unamplifed sound AND also be played through an amp.

[rpguitar]

Remember, you can mount a floater on a cutaway or a non-cut guitar. The cutaway is not what allows you to use a pickup. Typically, a non-cut will be louder and have more bass response due to the larger acoustic chamber. The cutaway allows you access to the higher frets with a bit more ease. So the difference is not about the amplification options, but rather about the cutaway itself.

[Patrick2]

rpguitar's response is totally correct. I will add this though . . . I recently played a friend's Golden Eagle, non cutaway X braced arch top. (thanks Mark). I have owned several cutaway Golden Eagle, acoustic, floating pup X braced models. I was totally amazed at the difference in tone, volume and projection from his non cutaway and any of those I currently own or have previously owned. The tone of his guitar was remarkably better than any of the cutaway acoustic Golden Eagles I have played. I am at a loss to understand why that is.

I would have to assume the same is true with Gibson L5s . . . in that they are basically the same guitar. Maybe some of the builders that participate here could help with an experienced and knowledgable explanation.

[kamlapati]

I have a '46 L-5 and a '77 L-5CN. The '77 has a floater, the '46 has never had a PU.

They sound subtly different, as any two guitars would, but I have never thought that the difference was due to the cutaway. There are numerous small differences between the two, starting with they come from different trees, were made by different people, but also including some significant things like bridge wood and neck profiles. In spite of all that, I am sure that very few folks could tell in a blind test which was which.

BTW, rp, it's a pet peeve of mine that people frequently misidentify L-5s with the wrong name. Unlike my two guitars, an L-5CES is definitely not the same guitar as an L-5 or an L-5C!

[rpguitar]

Agreed! BTW, too bad you live on the other side of the country. Would love to compare '46 and '47 L-5s sometime. I also owned an '80 L-5CN too not long ago (should not have sold it...).

[NSJ]

Originally Posted by kamlapati

I have a '46 L-5 and a '77 L-5CN. The '77 has a floater, the '46 has never had a PU.

They sound subtly different, as any two guitars would, but I have never thought that the difference was due to the cutaway. There are numerous small differences between the two, starting with they come from different trees, were made by different people, but also including some significant things like bridge wood and neck profiles. In spite of all that, I am sure that very few folks could tell in a blind test which was which.

BTW, rp, it's a pet peeve of mine that people frequently misidentify L-5s with the wrong name. Unlike my two guitars, an L-5CES is definitely not the same guitar as an L-5 or an L-5C!

Sorry about the L5CES, I didn't know, I just assumed the C model merged with the "Electric Spanish" old school Gibby branding.

Question for you: if you are playing acoustically -will you automatically reach for your '46 L5, or will there be a reason for you to play your '77L5CN for a purely acoustic setting? Or, for you, are the guitars fairly interchangeable?

[kamlapati]

Good question! But surprisingly, the answer is no. I play both in full acoustic settings. The one I choose depends on the song and the style, or whether I have just gone too long without playing one. The '46 is best for four-to-the-bar chords and aggressive folkie chords. The '77 is best for chord solo or single line stuff. I do change the string type occasionally to emphasize certain characteristics of each. They have each developed their own repertoire over the years.

[Hammertone]

Originally Posted by rpguitar

BTW, between 1935 and 1939 L-5s had a different bracing system than either before or after (X-bracing vs. parallel), and this had a significant effect on the tone and response of the guitar. Also, from 1922 to 1934 these guitars had a 16" body size, which increased to 17" thereafter.

The 35-39 x-braced L-5/L-7/L-10/L12 guitars also had a shorter scale length than the post-war L-5/L-7/L-12 guitars.

[kamlapati]

NSJ, I didn't mean you when I mentioned my pet peeve. Sorry. You didn't know and it's no problem. I was referring only to folks who should know better.

[2bornot2bop]

Originally Posted by Patrick2

rpguitar's response is totally correct. I will add this though . . . I recently played a friend's Golden Eagle, non cutaway X braced arch top. (thanks Mark). I have owned several cutaway Golden Eagle, acoustic, floating pup X braced models. I was totally amazed at the difference in tone, volume and projection from his non cutaway and any of those I currently own or have previously owned. The tone of his guitar was remarkably better than any of the cutaway acoustic Golden Eagles I have played. I am at a loss to understand why that is.

Hi Patrick,

Sorry, I'm late to this thread but have to ask. Was the non cutaway GE you played a black 2004 model with MOP inlays as in this guitar?

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

Hi Patrick,

Sorry, I'm late to this thread but have to ask. Was the non cutaway GE you played a black 2004 model with MOP inlays as in this guitar?

Yeah . . . That's the guitar. But, the inlays are not MOP. They're abalone. That guitar is truly remarkable. I still can't believe the projection of volume and tone from that guitar. It's a canan!! It belongs to Dr. Mark Goetting. He's a memeber here so I don't think he'll mind me metioning his complete name. He too is a collector and lover of Heritage guitars as I am. If he reads this, I'd love to have him post a picture of an outstanding Super Eagle with P90 pups (just to provide some eye candy) that I sold him. . . .

[2bornot2bop]

Originally Posted by Patrick2

Yeah . . . That's the guitar. But, the inlays are not MOP. They're abalone. That guitar is truly remarkable. I still can't believe the projection of volume and tone from that guitar. It's a canan!! It belongs to Dr. Mark Goetting. He's a memeber here so I don't think he'll mind me metioning his complete name. He too is a collector and lover of Heritage guitars as I am. If he reads this, I'd love to have him post a picture of an outstanding Super Eagle with P90 pups (just to provide some eye candy) that I sold him. . . .

Thanks for verifying.

Was it a challenge to play jazz style beyond the 15th fret? The tone you're referring to I take it was playing unplugged? How was it plugged in? Thanks again.

2b

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

Thanks for verifying.

Was it a challenge to play jazz style beyond the 15th fret? The tone you're referring to I take it was playing unplugged? How was it plugged in? Thanks again.

2b

Up past the 15th fret??? A challenge??? No man. . . it's impossible. Who the hell plays jazz style on any arch top, cut away or no cutaway. . from frets 16 through 20?? If you want to play jazz style on frets 16 through 20 . . . you're going to need a semi hollow . . like a Gibson ES335 or a Heritage H535 type guitar.

I did not play the guitar through an amp . . . I only played it acoustically. Trying to judge a guitar's electric tone is subject to way too many variables;; the amp, the amp's settings, the type of pick up, where you strike or pick the strings with you pick and/or your fingers, how far away from the strings the pup is sitting . . etc..

My rule of thumb for determining if a guitar is going to sound good electric ..is judging if it sounds good acoustic. I even judge solid bodies the same way. If a guitar sounds great acoustically and it sounds poor through an amp . . . then usually the problem is not with the guitar.

[2bornot2bop]

Originally Posted by Patrick2

Up past the 15th fret??? A challenge??? No man. . . it's impossible. Who the hell plays jazz style on any arch top, cut away or no cutaway. . from frets 16 through 20?? If you want to play jazz style on frets 16 through 20 . . . you're going to need a semi hollow . . like a Gibson ES335 or a Heritage H535 type guitar.

I did not play the guitar through an amp . . . I only played it acoustically. Trying to judge a guitar's electric tone is subject to way too many variables;; the amp, the amp's settings, the type of pick up, where you strick or pick the strings with you pick and/or your fingers, how far away from the strings the pup is sitting . . etc..

My rule of thumb for determining if a guitar is going to sound good electric ..is judging if it sounds good acoustic. I even judge solid bodies the same way. If a guitar sounds great acoustically and it sounds poor through an amp . . . then usually the problem is not with the guitar.

Excellent logic all around. I'm a thumb picker and as a result don't play acoustically very often. I can't argue with anything you've stated other than to say it's not that uncommon to see players climbing the neck beyond the 15th fret on a cutaway. Which is what prompted my question.

Are you suggesting Charlie Christian and players of his generation who played non cutaway guitars rarely played above the 15th fret? I value your input.

Thank you.
2b

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

Excellent logic all around. I'm a thumb picker and as a result don't play acoustically very often. I can't argue with anything you've stated other than to say it's not that uncommon to see players climbing the neck beyond the 15th fret on a cutaway. Which is what prompted my question.

Are you suggesting Charlie Christian and players of his generation who played non cutaway guitars rarely played above the 15th fret? I value your input.

Thank you.
2b

I am not knowledgable enough on guitar players of Charlie Christian's generation to comment intellegently on them. I will only speculate that I highly doubt that they did. Regarding your comments that it's not uncommon to see jazz players climbing the neck beyond the 15th fret on a cut away arch top .. . . I've been playing guitar for a while now. . . I've listened to and seen MANY MANY jazz guitar players perform. I can only remember Jimmy Bruno spending any notable time beyond the 15th fret . . . but, Jimmy's not really a human being . . . his skills transcend the mere mortal players . . . so, he doesn't count anyway.

[cjm]

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

...Charlie Christian and players of his generation who played non cutaway guitars rarely played above the 15th fret?

They rarely played above the 12th fret. If you've got access to recordings of that era, you can determine this to your satisfaction...finding enough recordings to provide a large enough sample of their playing can be difficult, however.

Not only that, but a few years later, when cutaway archtop bodies started to become common, there wasn't as much being played in those upper positions as the sudden and overwhelming popularity of the cutaway might suggest.

In many ways, the cutaway is as much a visual design element as it is an aid to playing prior to rock/fusion...

[2bornot2bop]

Originally Posted by cjm

They rarely played above the 12th fret. If you've got access to recordings of that era, you can determine this to your satisfaction...finding enough recordings to provide a large enough sample of their playing can be difficult, however.

Not only that, but a few years later, when cutaway archtop bodies started to become common, there wasn't as much being played in those upper positions as the sudden and overwhelming popularity of the cutaway might suggest.

In many ways, the cutaway is as much a visual design element as it is an aid to playing prior to rock/fusion...

So are you suggesting that a cutaway guitar has no real benefit for a jazz guitarist other than aesthetic appearance? This drives home the question I'm struggling with for I'm thinking of acquiring a full bodied guitar for the first time to be used exclusively for jazz.

If what your're saying is accurate then why not go for a full bodied instrument to acquire all the benefits Patrick earlier suggested the guitar in question possesses? Does anyone feel jazz guitarists are by and large playing cutaway archtops because of their appearance. And obviously a cutaway is lighter in weight.

As an observation my Guild X-500 feels like it weighs a ton each time I pick it up. But in all honesty 20 years ago it would have felt like a featherweight.

Thanks all for their input. It's helping me to come to a decision on a full bodied archtop.

2b

[rpguitar]

I have 4 non-cut archtops, and there is simply no disadvantage. They are big, healthy, resonant girls and I love 'em for it. I just don't find the extra access necessary for the repertoire I play on acoustic archtop, anyway. It's not like you're playing the solo from "Eruption" on these guitars.

[cjm]

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

So are you suggesting that a cutaway guitar has no real benefit for a jazz guitarist other than aesthetic appearance? This drives home the question I'm struggling with for I'm thinking of acquiring a full bodied guitar for the first time to be used exclusively for jazz.

Not quite...but no real benefit for many jazz guitarists, and fairly limited benefit to the rest. But before some one gets in a tizzy, let's be clear that I'm talking about what is often called "straight ahead jazz" and swing...stuff performed in the style of most jazz and swing performed between the 1930s and early 1960s.

If what your're saying is accurate then why not go for a full bodied instrument to acquire all the benefits Patrick earlier suggested the guitar in question possesses?

Why not, indeed? You pays your money and you takes your choice. The non cut body is as "authentic" a jazz configuration as the cutaway. It depends on what you want and how much you insist on access to some higher frets.

Does anyone feel jazz guitarists are by and large playing cutaway archtops because of their appearance.

Appearance and/or market availability. There have been more cutaway archtops built over the past 60 years than non cut models.

And obviously a cutaway is lighter in weight.

Not necessarily, even between cutaway and non cutaway examples of the same basic model, as in L5C and L5. Wood is a natural material and varies a lot within species. Besides, there isn't much wood cut away.

[Patrick2]

I believe I am in total agreement with both rpguitar and cjm on their posts above.

For me, the rim of a non cutaway guitar starts to become a nuisance in the 11th position, where the 4th finger is expected to function at the 14th and 15th frets. (for Tal, it would stretch to the 17th and 18th). How often does anyone really need to be above the 11th position when playing jazz, in any form? Regarding appearance, I just like the look of a cutaway arch top more than I do a Non Cutaway. But, if I found a non cutaway that I liked and it had . .. "IT" . . . (we all know when a guitar has "IT") I would not be deterred from buying the non cutaway . .. just because it is a non cutaway. Regarding the weight difference; if you took the total weight of the wood, the binding, the glue and the nitro finish. . . it would be less than 2 ozs.

[NSJ]

Originally Posted by rpguitar

I have 4 non-cut archtops, and there is simply no disadvantage. They are big, healthy, resonant girls and I love 'em for it. I just don't find the extra access necessary for the repertoire I play on acoustic archtop, anyway. It's not like you're playing the solo from "Eruption" on these guitars.

Maybe I'm confusing you for someone else, but didn't you own a Eastman oval hole ((904 maybe)??? If you sold it, how much did it go for, if I may ask?

[kamlapati]

i use the cutaway for higher fret access on guitars that have it. I have some chord solo arrangements that use the 15th fret. I can reach them on non cutaway guitars but it's a bit more problematic. OTOH, I have alternate voiceings available at lower frets and I use those too. I basically agree with all of the above that the cutaway is not critical for an acoustic jazz guitar repertoire.

[2bornot2bop]

I can't thank those of you enough who've shared their invaluable experience on the subject of NC vs. CA. My minds more open to the idea of acquiring a NC than it was prior to hearing different perspectives.

[Marty Grass]

Here's the non-cutaway Patrick is referring to.

http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/y...g?t=1318187670


More pics.
Black Golden Eagle pictures by mgoetting - Photobucket



Here's the Super Eagle mentioned.

http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/y...g?t=1313095894


More pics.
Super Eagle Lollar P90s pictures by mgoetting - Photobucket


If you want more boom, you need a bigger box. Physics.

Of course you could turn up your amp, too.



This guitar allows great access with a sweet amplified tone.




More pics.

Improv pictures by mgoetting - Photobucket



We end up spending 90% of our time on the final 10% of tone determinants. Strings, technique, and picks make more difference than cutaway vs. non-cutaway and floating vs. mounted pickups.

[Marty Grass]

It seems I'm capped at one pic. Hmmm.

[rpguitar]

Originally Posted by Marty Grass

If you want more boom, you need a bigger box.

Sounds like a Spinal Tap lyric. I think I saw a Super 400 in Nigel Tufnel's collection.

The 90/10 phenomenon is probably true. Although I think the percentages are perhaps a bit more even than that. Not so much the cutaway, but definitely the floating vs. mounted pickup is usually a really big difference, both for acoustic and electric sound.

I agree about strings and - picks, absolutely. Very very major difference in sound and feel with different picks. Part of my ritual for a new guitar is assessing how my usual strings and picks work on it, and tweaking accordingly.

[Patrick2]

I've always been able to appreciate tonal qualities of arch top guitars. But, true assessment of tone, while easy to accurately define as great, or terrible . . is more difficult to assess when it's somewhere in the middle. Way too subjective. I try to focus first and foremost on the music being created from a given guitar . . . than on a quest for finite tonal refinement. And, I do understand that to a certain extent, the tone might be considered part of the music being created. If I have an arch top and it's tone is being adversly affected by a poor set up or a structural defect, then I will correct that. Otherwise, I tend to just accept the tonal characteristics of that particular guitar as part of its uniqueness and personality.