-
I promised this a couple of weeks ago when I received an early 70's Gibson L-5CN from archtop.com. I have a love/hate relationship with YouTube videos. They are fun to make and fun to watch, but I swear that they never sound nearly as good as the instrument actually does in real life. So keep that in mind!
.
, comparing the sound of the DeArmond 1100 Rhythm Chief with the Johnny Smith (both floating). I think the DeArmond got recorded a little hotter, so keep that in mind. Both guitars have phosphor bronze strings - which is possible thanks to the adjustable polepieces on both of these pickups.
Thanks for watching.
-
08-11-2012 12:22 PM
-
the 70's one sounds very good, but to my ears the '47 is fuller and bigger sounding. not surprising though, the late 40's ones typically are the loudest/fullest sounding of the 17" L-5's.
-
phosphor bronze strings?
do you mean the normal ph-bronze for acoustic guitars?
I didn't know they could work even on electric guitars.
I'll give them a try.
great tone.
-
Thanks for posting those, Roger!
-
I do mean regular phosphor bronze strings for acoustic guitars. Because these are acoustic guitars! And that's why I love to have adjustable pole pieces, so I can use these strings and get the best of both worlds.
The '47 is a tiny bit louder and fuller, but - and it's a big but - the '72 is punchier and more responsive. I find it smoother to play overall, and very sweet sounding. I wish I could show everyone in person and let you try 'em.
-
Phosphor bronze strings is a good idea, result is very interesting.
Thank you.
-
Agreed! The '47 sounds bigger, fuller and more articulate as well. Both pups sound great. I think the main difference is in the acoustical tone.
Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
I wish I could try 'em out too. To me, they both sound fantastic both acoustically and electrically. The difference may be subtle but I'd have a hard time picking which one I liked better. Thanks for posting these. I really enjoyed hearing both instruments. Originally Posted by rpguitar
-
RP, How do the weights compare?
-
I have not weighed them, but my gut says that they are very similar. While the guitars obviously have numerous small differences, they feel like they were made by the same maker - despite being 25 yrs apart in age. It's not like some other Gibson specimens I've had, like a '78 Les Paul with a maple neck and flat frets that weighed 10 lbs, being compared to an old gold top (or even to a modern one). Originally Posted by kamlapati
The top on the '72 has aged with a beautiful amber color, and it matches the '47. Heck, even the "youngster" is forty years old! That's some good old wood. I'm impressed that both guitars have so much in common in terms of feel and overall vibe. I wonder if any Gibson people were involved with both of them (possible, I would think).
-
That was really lovely. Thanks for taking the time to put that together.
Makes me think there is no particular reason to swap out the Johnny Smith for the DeArmond RC 1100. Both sound wonderful!
-
I too, would love to try these out in person...I hear things in both that I love.
-
Thanks! Originally Posted by NSJ
One of the factors in my decision to make this L-5C the one I forked over cash for was the clean pickup and pickguard setup. The other L-5CN that Joe V. had simultaneously was a gorgeous, unaltered acoustic guitar. But I know I would spend all that dough and then still have to equip it for electric play, which is an expense, hassle, and risk (installation is always tricky).
I should know - I bought the '47 with no pickup or pickguard. The cost of putting all that stuff on her in a proper way was as much as a nice Asian-made factory archtop. It pained me greatly, but like most things done right, it was worth it in the end - there are no "woulda shoulda coulda" moments to be tormented by.
-
Congrats Roger ! Both got an awesome tone. I have a blonde 1947/48 L7 but still trying to find a short neck rod to mount my DeArmond 1100 pup ...
-
They both sound beautiful, acoustic and electric. Thanks for taking the time to do the video comparisons for us.
And now you have the fun job of optimizing strings and setup to emphasize the strengths of each. What's your plan?
-
Yes, good luck, because that is a piece of unobtainium! I followed all leads to a dead end. The one store that used to offer them online is no longer in business after the owner's demise. And they never show up used, even as an accessory with other pickups. I finally was able to track down one guy who used to make them, but he now has medical issues that prevent him from using his hands in the manner necessary to fashion the thin, delicate metal into the correct shape. Originally Posted by henkkicken
After a few emails, wherein I shared photos of my L-5, we got on the phone and he turned out to be quite the talker. He agreed to make me one - it wasn't even for money, as the effort exceeded what he could reasonably charge. So I ended up trading a Guitar Mike FHC model, complete with monkey stick, for one single short gold neck rod. I even had to drill the teeny screw holes in it myself, which was harrowing because I was not going to get another one if I butchered it.
The result is exactly what I hoped it would be, and was worth the whole headache. Good luck to you!
-
Thanks Kam for the nice compliment! And I think I'm already there: D'Addario PBs, 12-53, either regular or EXP variety, are doing it for me. I buy them in bulk so I'm set. It took a long time to find the right strings for my '47 L-5, but both guitars enjoy those - and D'Addario XL nickel 12s for a change of pace. Originally Posted by kamlapati
What do you use on your L-5s?
-
I agree with NSJ about the pup . . and with you about the other L5C. For me, there's something to be said about the karma of a guitar. I've mentioned that here before. Originally Posted by rpguitar
Thanks! One of the factors in my decision to make this L-5C the one I forked over cash for was the clean pickup and pickguard setup. The other L-5CN that Joe V. had simultaneously was a gorgeous, unaltered acoustic guitar. But I know I would spend all that dough and then still have to equip it for electric play, which is an expense, hassle, and risk (installation is always tricky).
I should know - I bought the '47 with no pickup or pickguard. The cost of putting all that stuff on her in a proper way was as much as a nice Asian-made factory archtop. It pained me greatly, but like most things done right, it was worth it in the end - there are no "woulda shoulda coulda" moments to be tormented by.
While I would have had no problem taking the other L5C to Kalamazoo to have a pup installed and a new pick guard made to hold it . . . . I wouldn't mess with the JS pup on the L5C you chose. It's not exactly like the Dearmond . . . but, it's not a Dearmond . . . it's not supposed to. It's got it's own personality and it's a great one . . . every bit as good as the Dearmond . . just a little different. That L5C has been set up like that for 40 years. Why mess with the harmony the guitar has developed with itself and its karma? I know that probably sounds goofy . . . but, that's truly how I feel.Last edited by Patrick2; 08-12-2012 at 06:48 PM.
-
Thanks Roger ! A couple of months ago Mitch agreed to make me one too. I didn't want to rush him, so I waited patiently. About 1 month ago I got in touch with him again: seemed he changed his mind. Too bad ... But your demo sure motivated me to keep on trying to find the missing link.
Btw, over the years I heard several 70ties L5C's, but yours got what it takes !
Enjoy !
-
Great demos Roger, Good choice in the Benson song. The phosphors sound great. But no one has complimented your playing. Takes some touch to make phosphors sound warm. Nice guitars,pick-ups, and playing
-
Thank you... I never play my best in these videos, though - they always feel rushed and contrived, like I'm desperately trying to force the mojo out of the particular guitar. But yes, I will acknowledge that it does take some finesse to get "the tone" out of acoustic strings. I have been working on that for many months and I consider this type of string to be my standard now as a result. Also it proves that, with the right pickup, one can have the best of both worlds (acoustic & electric). Thanks again.
-
RP,
I could be crazy, but on the '72 I thought I heard a tone that I associate with the top not being driven hard enough, like it wanted bigger strings or it wanted to be hit harder or something. That's why I asked about the weight. To me it sounded like the heavier of the two.
Both my L-5s are pretty heavy and they like to be hit hard, they are not delicate guitars. I use .013s on both. For best acoustic sounds I prefer GHS Vintage Bronze, which are a 85/15 alloy, quite a bit warmer and "middier" than either 80/20s or PA. My '46, no PU, no cutaway, gets only those. On the '77 CN with the Johnny Smith PU I used the 85/15s for years and just adjusted to the string balance problems, but lately I've been using GHS White Bronze, which is an acoustic / electric hybrid string. I really like the electric tone, but the acoustic tone is definitely degraded. All of this is strongly a function of your music and your touch of course.
Enjoy the journey! (Or, see signature!)
-
Cool. I have experimented a lot with strings on my acoustic archtops, of which I've had quite a few. I don't have formulas, but I do use 80/20 strings on my modern guitars (Solomon and Forshage), which tend to be X-braced and more lightly built. I have found that they sound horrible on my L-5, however. It likes mellower strings like PBs or even nickel rounds.
I'm also not really a "drive the top hard" type of player. It's not so much the instrument's setup or configuration as it is my own tonal and dynamic preference. I could certainly do some heavy chunking on both and you'd hear that they both satisfy in that department. But the newer L-5 is a bit more delicate/sensitive than the old one, requiring less precision and effort to elicit a sweet sound. I really like that about it. It also makes it more intuitive to play plugged in, where a lighter touch is required. The technique translates better between the acoustic and electric modes, if that makes sense.
-
[quote=kamlapati;247800]RP,
No, I don't think you're crazy at all . . . well, maybe you are . . . but, not as it relates to this issue. I hear the same thing. That could be attributrable to several different things, either individually or combined. These two guitars were built 25 years apart. Different tone woods, different wood used in the tone bars, different carve contours (the '47 sounds like it might have been tuned) and/or thicknesses, different kerfing wood, different bridge and bridge base wood, different aging conditions ie exposure to temp and RH over the years of their existence. I would agree with your initial observation that the top is probably not as thin on the '70-ish guitar,as it is on the '47 . . . or the tone bars are shaped differently or are more robust.I could be crazy, but on the '72 I thought I heard a tone that I associate with the top not being driven hard enough, like it wanted bigger strings or it wanted to be hit harder or something. That's why I asked about the weight. To me it sounded like the heavier of the two.
I think it's a real plus that these two guitars each have their own characteristics and personalities . . and will need different finessing and touch. I can see Roger choosing different L5s (he's certainly got a variety) for different moods in different tunes.
-
There's a 76 Blonde L5C on ebay: GIBSON L-5 CUSTOM SHOP 1976 FLAMED MAPLE NECK | eBay .
No kickbacks from seller. Just in case someone is salivating for one and missed those 2 at JoeV's. Looks like it has the neck volute though.
Sorry, Roger. Don't mean to hijack your thread. Thought that it was somehow related.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos