Gibson Archtop Guitars Blindfold Test

[Dutchbopper]

Just for fun. Can you identify the 7 Gibson models you are hearing?

1976 Gibson Johnny Smith
1998 Gibson Tal Farlow
1995 Gibson L5
1987 Gibson ES 335
1951 Gibson ES 125
1982 Gibson ES 175
1992 Gibson ES 350t

Dutchbopper: The Gibson Blindfold Test

Regards,

Dick

[kris]

Just for fun. Can you identify the 7 Gibson models you are hearing?

Dutchbopper: The Gibson Blindfold Test

Regards,

Dick

no...too difficult
but few of them I really like.

[Dutchbopper]

Yeah, I know. I couldn't do it myself probably. I did the same thing with 3 models earlier and there was one guy only that could do it.

If somebody could identify only a few I'd be impressed.

It's amazing to me how much I sound the same on all these instruments.

Regards,

Dick

[stevedenver]

wow that was amazing
what an eye opener

i could hear very subtle differences, very few in fact among the first three at all-more importantly , every guitar performed nicely -all wihtin what i think are appropriate 'colors'

granted through my computer speakers, im sure theres a difference in hand

clearly its your technique
clearly, the things i thought were somewhat important arent

as they say, shaddap and play yer guitar

wish you had a Les Paul in there too-that would have been the clincher-i could not clearly id the 335 , not even close-if i had to guess , i think it might have been 4

[Dutchbopper]

Glad you dig the test Steve. Yes, it puts things into perspective. In the end it is probably your own fingers that are an important variable in what you sound like. I do tend to think there is a "Gibson" sound and this test probably adds to that opinion. All the guitars sound very, eh, Gibsonesque.

Regards,

Dick

wow that was amazing
what an eye opener

i could hear very subtle differences, very few in fact among the first three at all-more importantly , every guitar performed nicely -all wihtin what i think are appropriate 'colors'

granted through my computer speakers, im sure theres a difference in hand

clearly its your technique
clearly, the things i thought were somewhat important arent

as they say, shaddap and play yer guitar

wish you had a Les Paul in there too-that would have been the clincher-i could not clearly id the 335 , not even close-if i had to guess , i think it might have been 4

[ChrisDowning]

Ok I'll give it a go
1 335
2 125
3 350t
4 Johnny Smith
5 Tal Farlowe
6 175
7 the L5

Blimey - you'd be hacked off if you spent $8000 for a guitar and it sounds just like a stock dot 335 wouldn't you? They all sound very similar to me and I'd be happy playing any on them - which isn't really what Gibson want the hear is it?

[Klatu]

I couldn't tell the differences. You're playing was terrific on all of them, though.

[ESCC]

Interesting, as always, nice playing and tone Dutchbopper! So, is the typical "jazz guitar" sound 70% hands/technique 20% strings (flat vs rndwnd) and 10% guitar???

I will agree with ChrisDowning's list except switch 1 & 2,

1 125
2 335
3 350t
4 Johnny Smith
5 Tal Farlowe
6 175
7 the L5

[jasonc]

Here are my guestimations:

1: ES-175
2: L-5
3: ES-350
4: Johnny Smith
5: ES-125
6: ES-350T
7: Tal Farlow

[jasonc]

oops 3 should be ES-335

[helios]

Great playing! Very hard for me (I'll be happy if two are correct).

1 1982 Gibson ES 175
2 1998 Gibson Tal Farlow
3 1987 Gibson ES 335
4 1992 Gibson ES 350t
5 1951 Gibson ES 125
6 1995 Gibson L5
7 1976 Gibson Johnny Smith

[Patrick2]

1. Tal
2. 335
3. 350
4. 125
5. 175
6. L5
7 JS

[GNAPPI]

Just for fun. Can you identify the 7 Gibson models you are hearing?

1976 Gibson Johnny Smith
1998 Gibson Tal Farlow
1995 Gibson L5
1987 Gibson ES 335
1951 Gibson ES 125
1982 Gibson ES 175
1992 Gibson ES 350t

Dutchbopper: The Gibson Blindfold Test

Regards,

Dick

ABSOLUTELY!! They were:

1976 Gibson Johnny Smith
1998 Gibson Tal Farlow
1995 Gibson L5
1987 Gibson ES 335
1951 Gibson ES 125
1982 Gibson ES 175
1992 Gibson ES 350t

Not necessarily in that order :-)

If it's a strat, tele, and Gibson, heck yes, otherwise there's that Gibson "family" thing going... Makes you want to trade in the 350, Tal or JS in on a 125? I'll bet not!

[PTChristopher]

Great post and really fun to listen to your playing.

I have no idea at all which is which, and I'd happily join an audience in listening to the sound and not caring at all what guitar it came from.

I'm from the "one PAF is pretty much like another" school, so maybe I lack the focus to worry about these small differences.

And of course here we have non full-size HB PU's as well, all sounding great.

What I can hear is that a player and the pick (or fingers) can easily overwhelm the differences between these guitars. And there are some notable differences here in terms of the guitar wood and the PU's.

Thanks for the great post.

Chris

[hot ford coupe]

The only thing I noticed was that #2,3 and 4 sounded the most treble with the #1 and 7 the darkest. I would assume that the last one was the Johnny Smith but to be honest, I couldn't even tell you whether or not they were all Gibsons. Any darkness or treble can always be adjusted out and equalized. I did something similar many years ago where I played 4 very different guitars of different brands with different pickups. After I recorded the tracks, I threw away the order and listened to the tracks months later so I wouldn't remember the order I played them. Even at that point, I couldn't tell one from another. It's what you play and how you play it rather than what you play it on.

[Gertrude Moser]

My favorites were #4, #7 and #1 (in that order). # 7 sounded the like the biggest body.

[Encinitastubes]

1. 175
2. 125
3. 335
4. L5
5. Tal
6. Johnny
7. 350

[FrankyNoTone]

I could definitely tell there was a difference but don't have experience with those Gibsons (not particularly fond of Gibson to tell you the truth).

FWIW, I liked 3 the best and 4,7 the least. 1 was okay with a vintage wool sock tone.

[Encinitastubes]

This thread is making me feel that with a Gibson hollow body, or maybe any hollow body, the most important consideration should be feel. Seems like the sound can be tweaked to be pretty close.

I would be interested to hear the same clips with the guitars unamplified; I've long doubted the significance of an archtop's acoustic tone when you plug in. For some players, though, it seems to be the be all-end all. I've never had the opportunity to test my doubts so I could be completely off.

[rpguitar]

This thread is making me feel that with a Gibson hollow body, or maybe any hollow body, the most important consideration should be feel.

+1
Now we're getting somewhere. Shh... don't let the secret out.

[PTChristopher]

>>> Now we're getting somewhere. Shh... don't let the secret out.

Indeed. What a terrific example from the OP.

I'll take a great setup anytime over the genuine, but not so important, differences between one remotely competent guitar and another.

Chris

[RonD]

>>> Now we're getting somewhere. Shh... don't let the secret out.

Indeed. What a terrific example from the OP.

I'll take a great setup anytime over the genuine, but not so important, differences between one remotely competent guitar and another.

Chris

Absolutely!!

[docbop]

+1
Now we're getting somewhere. Shh... don't let the secret out.

What's the old quote "it's the singer not the song". This proves its the player not the instrument.

[Keira Witherkay]

I agree re the comment over the unplugged acoustic tone of an archtop , most players in todays time will plug into an amp even at home or on small stages so a good acoustic tone is great to have but not essential if the plugged tone is what you want

but yes each to their own ,

when choosing / favouring an archtop amongst other similar archtops quality wise, then i think the players needs are whats important , like prefered feel of the instrument, or weight , size and that dictates what he or she plays on stage and buys and yes most hollow bodied gibsons can sound quite close tonally if tweaked with good eq , despite differences in price and construction ,

great post

[ChrisDowning]

I really wonder if a telecaster with a Gibson HB installed in the neck - whether it would have been detected? Or really how much useable difference there would have been?