-
Yes. I think all the models after the late 60's have 2 11/16 standard nut width. Mine is 74-75, as I said above, it has identical nut width and string spacing as my run-of-the-mill 2013 ES 175.
Originally Posted by pingu
-
08-27-2019 09:44 AM
-
I've never had a chance to play an L-4 and I played an electric L-5 only once. Do Byrdlands sound similar to either of these? Wood specs and appointments are similar, but scale lengths and body depths differ. If only consider the electric sound are they all ball park similar?
Last edited by Tal_175; 08-27-2019 at 02:06 PM.
-
An actual can of actual worms would be less of a ‘can of worms’ compared to this question.
But what the heck:
1. They all sound like thick-ish spruce-topped parallel-braced guitars intended for amplified playing.
2. So even in a solo chord-melody gig, they all sound exactly the same to an audience.
3. Exactly.
4. Anyone with an emotional interest in their guitar (as we all have) will find all three to be staggeringly different.
5. The L-4 packs the big box and spruce sound into a smaller and more affordable package. To my ears and fingers it has slightly less dynamics (variations in volume and the balance of the attack vs. the ringing note) than the L-5. But really, it gets the job done superbly. Add some bling and market it for decades as a top-tier guitar, and the view of the L4-CES would be far different. Get the mahog’ version for a slightly more L5 sound (which is ironic of course).
6. The Byrdland is VERY dependent on the sound variation of one guitar to the next, AND string choice, and playing style. Get one with a wider-grained spruce top, use a thicker or softer pick, and get some TI JS-113 (and maybe just the JS-112 also) and be ready to channel the L5 vibe very well, but with a little extra bite if you dig in.
7. This question makes for an interesting comparison between body depth and body width. The L4 has the depth, and Byrdland has the width, the L5 has both.
8. But to the listening ears at large this will be a silly splitting of hairs. They are all thicker spruce tops, parallel-braced, and loaded up with heavy PU’s on the top.
Yeah, I know they sound different. But not to the couple at table 4 who just started paying attention after you really nailed a chord-melody version of a standard they almost recognize.
100% opinion. (I have owned several Byrdlands and two L-4 CES-es. Worked on dozens of L-5 CES-es but never felt the need to buy one - not becsue they were not fine guitars.)
-
Thanks for the detailed response. Good stuff.
Just curious what difference do you expect to get with wider-grain as opposed to tighter grain in terms of sound? Less bright? I get that this would be a very broad generalization, by no means a rule. Originally Posted by ptchristopher3
Regarding softer pick, I actually already noticed that with my Byrdland. Because body is not very deep, lower frequencies (fundamentals or low overtones) can't keep up with higher overtones if you use a pick that has any crispness to it or if you dig in hard. Bass frequencies reach their head room sooner. Especially when playing acoustically but translates to the electric sound as well. I noticed that if I play with my thumb, it almost sounds like a deep body guitar albeit quieter. This makes sense as thump is keeping overtones more balanced with the fundamentals. I had made this pick which I call "Wes's thumb", that is thick, round, softish and polished, it really gets that deeper sound and avoids plinkiness when you dig in.
-
Well in brief[s]... Originally Posted by Tal_175
Yes less brittle. There are theories regarding the speed of vibrations along the grain vs. across the grain, etc. - but I just like how a “messier” top sounds.
Once we drift into opinion, nothing is a rule. In my opinion.
I sort of stumbled on the experience that every time I worked on a guitar that just jumped out and made me want to play it (vs. just get the #u(&ing tested and finished) it had a coarser grain spruce.
I mean wider, more variation, more “toothy”.
This took me a while to actually notice.
And was most pronounced on Byrdlands.
**********
Now fast forward 35 years to a cold winter visit to Rudy’s SOHO...
(And Rudy could not possibly have been more engaging and pleasant to meet and talk to. He seemed to smell wood dust on me which may have helped. We talked guitars in detail, great visit.)
The D’Angelicos in the mezzanine collection all had wide and varied grain spruce.
Being a Pavlovian dog at heart, I immediately assumed they were full, responsive, forgiving but demanding (pathetically subjective of me here) and would reward you if you were willing to listen and adjust to them.
So yes, my data-free, surely mistaken, subjective to a fault, opinion is that the butter-smooth tight-grained spruce than is so admired is not likely the best for actually making music sounds on a thickly carved archtop with heavy PU’s mounted on it.
I have absolutely no actual information to back this up beyond my subjective reactions to guitars.
Sad, I know.
-
Just to follow up on the question of Byrdland's thickness. I just realized that I did something stupid in my measurement.
Thickness at the rim is not the same thing as the thickness of the rim. I measured the rim with a ruler and got 2 1/8. But that's not the correct way to measure thickness "at the rim". Depth should be measured by a caliper, between the top and bottom right where they meet the rim. That gives a slightly deeper reading as top and bottom woods have their thickness that slightly go over the rim around the binding area. Also the rim is thinner around the neck and gets thicker around the lower bout (where it matters) for comfort. It does get very close to 2 1/4 around the lower bout when measured with caliper.
So the specs on the seller pages linked above that state rim dimensions as 2 1/8 but max thickness as 2 1/4 are correct and not contradictory.
-
not this one. Apologies to anyone who is a fan and certainly to whoever takes the bait. There's no accounting for taste.
1980 Gibson Byrdland Greenburst > Guitars Electric Semi-Hollow Body | Southside Guitars
-
"Greenburst" is a new one on me. Not my color.
-
That looks like a really tough sell at that price.
-
watermelon burst?
-
Wow, Gibson's horrible archtop color ideas go back further than I thought.
-
this is a pic of -al hurricane..the guy who customed ordered that byrdland guitar for sale ^... he was in new mexico!
dude liked green guitars!
cheersLast edited by neatomic; 01-09-2020 at 05:52 PM.
-
It is shocking. I can easily accept a show when guitarist plays on a full green archtop say like rockabilly, in green shoes, but this poor instrument is really a mistake. The green and this yellowish wood color together... Looks like as a victim of a graffiti team with sprays
-
It ain't easy being green
Sorry, couldn't resist!
Not my cuppa tea, nor is any Byrd post '75 or so. After that, Gibson did away with the narrow nut, which (for me) is one of the main reasons to get a Byrd. I happen to like the short scale, which is the other reason :-) The difference at the nut is only something like 1/16" but you CAN feel it, which is somewhat amazing. Consider, too, that you are probably capable of distinguishing .009 from 0.010 and 0.011 strings by feel...
The price is WAY high, even if you consider this piece to be "celebrity owned." This dealer also has a black-finish 1970 Byrd for $12,500, which is astounding when one considers that black finish Gibsons are the ones with knots in the wood... however already-sold Byrds from this same dealer seem to indicate that they are willing to come off their high asking prices to more realistic ones when cash is on the table. Still, a pro who asks way over market in hopes of taking advantage of an uneducated buyer is a warning flag for me.Last edited by starjasmine; 01-09-2020 at 01:46 PM.
-
My Byrdland is '74, it has standard nut. Still short scale of course. I think Byrdlands only had narrow nut when Gibson was making every guitar with narrow nuts during some periods in the 60's,
-
Mine is '74 or '75, with the narrow nut. I thought narrow nut was standard on Byrds into the mid 70s. Maybe it was an option available by request, like being able to order an LP Deluxe with standard sized humbuckers. After that, though, I don't think you could even get a narrow nut by special order. In around 2003, I did inquire about getting a custom shop Byrd with narrow nut, and I was informed that the CS was no longer making that neck at any price. I'm happy I found the vintage one, actually.
-
Yeah according to wikipedia, you are right it was only some models that got the narrow neck in the 70's: Originally Posted by starjasmine
"The model was in production from 1955 through early 1969 with the narrow nut width. In 1969, the nut width was changed to the standard 1 11/16", although some 1970s examples were produced with the narrower width."
Gibson Byrdland - Wikipedia
-
Well, it certainly is a rare color, but then again, but so was the tobacco sunburst finish on the 70s Les Paul Signature that was my main electric guitar, during my college days in the 80s (I found out several years ago that Gibson only made between 60 and 70 Les Paul Signatures in that color) - but that one looked much better than this Byrdland.
Just because you can do it, doesn't mean that you should.
Ellen
-
Ummmm, actually Gibson, suffered a bout of madness, and sold Les Pauls with a similar finish in 2006 - they called it Gecko Burst. Originally Posted by FredH
-
Wonderfully Hideous!
I'm sending a link to Jens Ritter and predict he'll use it on his next run of instruments.Last edited by Hammertone; 03-31-2023 at 07:08 AM.
-
I am willing to pay cash directly or COD for a a Byrdland (preferably 2000s/2010s Crimson era model since they are cheaper) i will offer up to 7000. Let me know
-
I’ve had 4 BL’s. They were all quite different in sound AND construction. The scale length, top thickness and bracing varied on every guitar (even though 2 of the instruments were made within a year or two of one another). The early 70’s guitar that initially sparked my passion for these guitars ended up being the one I liked the best….in fact I didn’t really care for any of the others. They’re all ‘one off’ in my experience so try before you buy is wise…..especially considering how expensive these have become. Still considering expanding the cutaway on my beat up guitar despite this!
-
Old thread, new post. Here's my Gecko. It's a 2004 so the '02 - '08 spec. standard. Originally Posted by EllenGtrGrl
Ummmm, actually Gibson, suffered a bout of madness, and sold Les Pauls with a similar finish in 2006 - they called it Gecko Burst.
-
Those finishes are kinda fun on a solid body IMHO
But then there's this:
Gibson | L-5 CES
I do find it tempting, though. LOL
I already have a traditional L5 CES in a blonde finish. This would be for fun ... but I have better things to do with $10K.
-
Originally Posted by Bluedawg
Those finishes are kinda fun on a solid body IMHO
But then there's this:
Gibson | L-5 CES
I do find it tempting, though. LOL
I already have a traditional L5 CES in a blonde finish. This would be for fun ... but I have better things to do with $10K.
If someone offered that guitar to me for free, I would turn it down. Looks like "clutter" to me. 10k?
Reply With Quote
String gauge and output/tone
Today, 10:40 AM in Guitar Technique