-
Hi there, I would like to discuss your experience with (original) PAFs in Gibson archtops and Gibson PAF remakes (57 classic, Burstbuckers, Custombuckers).
I just got in an ES175, 1960 all original, with 2 PAFs. Played quite a bit the last days, and my conclusion is that there is a marked difference between the original and the remakes. The ES175 has, quasi automatically, that brown and earthy bop-sound. It comes out without any effort, both when soloing and when playing chords. The other rather astounding aspect is that the bridge pickup is absolutely usable, it has a singing and bluesy sound, rather than the thin and edgy output of various PAF remakes that I have tried. The guitar itself has a reasonable output acoustically, but the real thing is to put it through an amp, thats where it excels.
Please let me know your comments - would be interesting if you have similar experiences or if I am just blindly in love. And if you agree, then what could be the reason for this? Is it the legend that the old magnets are no longer available in their original (rough) form, or could it be the allegedly irregular wiring (etc)? So far, I thought that those are more or less myths to create collector value, but it seems that there is some real thing behind the stories.
-
03-23-2014 06:22 PM
-
While I think it is possible the modern PAF are not sounding the same as the original ones, other factors could make the tone better on that 60s guitar. The fact the guitar has aged, the thinner laminated top, the electronics (500k vs 300k vol ).
Beautiful guitar by the way !!
-
understood and agreed. However, interestingly the guitar does nothing fundamentally special when played acoustically. It has a nice sound, no doubt, but its not that different to other instruments. The amplified sound is quite different though, somehow true vintage, just like from one of the old records... I had the option to send the guitar back to seller, but decided to keep her, simply because of this amplified tone (both through tube and ss). From playing around with it since a week or so, my conclusion is that the pups play a large part in the equation...
-
Vinlander - your point to pots seems a valid one... I have not checked what the resistance is, but what is very clear is that the effect of the tone control goes beyond what can normally be achieved... the guitar produces various quite distinct and equally usable sounds, for both pickups, depending on tone settings... rather than one useable sound and a whole lot of muddy derivatives...
btw - just to clarify, if I sound all too hymnal... I am not selling the piece, so my praise here is not for marketing purposes...
-
You asked:
You are just blindly in love.
I sold my '61 ES-175 w/PAFs and went through a pile of research.
It was a lovely guitar - nicer than most of the more recent ones I have played.
I wanted to be able to talk about the mojo without bursting out laughing - no such luck.
I ended up selling the bits separately - the PAFs went some someone who wanted them for another model of Gibson guitar…take a guess.
Some properly blind taste-tests have established that there are PAF clones that do the same thing - it's just a bunch of magnets, bobbins, wires, etc. Magnets lose their charge over time - that effect has been duplicated. Scatterwinding has been duplicated. All the other stuff has been duplicated.
Enjoy the guitar for what it is.Last edited by Hammertone; 03-23-2014 at 07:41 PM.
-
Hammer,
This will not do at all.
You dare to sully a forum with the mention of simple, actual, tested facts? Where is the indignation? Where is the derived ass-hat drivel?
Where is the smirk-jerk posturing and name-dropping? Where is the implication that you are a jazz near-great who was/is just too wonderful for the real world?
No mention of planing a neck?
This is an outrage.
I protest.
*******************
>>> Scatterwinding has been duplicated.
Har-har. I wound my first dozen or so PU's with a home-made setup with the wire hand-fed to the bobbin while I watched TV. "Scattered" definitely was the situation.
Chris
-
Well, I share your scepticism... in any case, this guitar, as a whole, has something special... she sounds very different to newer ES175s, and comparable siblings... Quite like J.Kreisberg's... thats what a third party without guitar knowledge said spontaneously today when comparing sounds (not that I sound like JK, unfortunately only the guitar does... ;-)
I just put it back into the case - it's got something to do with the pickups...
-
Chris, not sure if you refer to me... in any case, I am not trying to do any of this... Just enjoy a nice piece of gear and interested in its features, thats all...
Originally Posted by PTChristopher2
-
Ha!
It is definitely the old p/ups. Wish I had some.
-
Phil,
I do not at all refer to you. I am first off making a mock complaint about Hammer. Also, mocking (so wasting everyone's time more or less) the sort of guitar-myth-mongering that floats around when simple tested and know explanations have long existed.
If someone simply likes a guitar, it would be asinine of me to suggest they should not.
If they wish to assign a cosmic and unlikely cause for their affection, who am I to criticise?
I only mean to make fun of the ridiculous and persistent guitar myths that come up regularly.
It is my opinion that Hammer accurately describes the PU situation.
It is my opinion that many comments regarding "tone", vintage components, mis-matched coils, etc. are from those who have never really looked into the matter. Or much worse - have looked into the matter extensively using only deeply subjective methods with a staggering 'confirmation bias', and even more staggering need for fragile ego support.
My opinion.
Seems to me that you have a great guitar with a sound you love. Rather a fine thing, that.
Chris
-
understood and thanks. Actually thats the feedback I am looking for. My theoretical understanding of what makes a pup distinct from another is weak and just based on secondary inet 'knowledge'. So now is the first time that I had a longer chance to compare the original and the remakes in practice. What I can defenitely say is that especially the bridge pup is different. Very. compared to 57s and BB (I have no CB to compare here). I never knew what to do with the bridge pup, but with this one, I am using it almost more than the neck pup. For ballads! How does that work (it sure does!)....? Thats what I try to find out. But I am far from wanting to push a gloryfied mojo-myth, rather I am genuoinly puzzled.. :-) Originally Posted by PTChristopher2
-
Phil, you love that guitar!
You are a lucky man to find an instrument that you feel that way about.
In my house we are reading a book called something like "How Much Is Enough".
To me this kind of answers questions about this or that p/u etc etc....I've chased
that stuff since c.1962! ...still read TQR ....given to me by a better off pal of mine.
Follow that stuff with some interest.
But, actually I've found that I really love my setup.
Which is a not specially outstanding example of a Howard Roberts Fusion111 and a well
maintained Fender Concert from the Rivera era. [bit of echo there folks]
I've had 2 HR111's before...and and I can't even begin to think of the outstanding
guitars /amps that have been through my hands [and wallet]over the years.
Probably cost me a marriage too.
I'm going to make a list one day..."guitars I have owned", that might be the makings of a thread.
And now, the end has come......no no ....wrong line...ha ha
...Now I just play that HR of mine, which I have come to know in all of
its strengths and weakness and just dig that sound and feel so much.
I can truly say I don't want another instrument.....
BTW part of learning about this guitar included, trying different designer p/u's
....I just kept going back to the 490's that I think are what were OEM, I can get
what I need from them,finish.
The only change was some Bourns pots that were very much smoother in their
action.
I was trying to find what pots were in PRS's cause they always seem so light and
fast in action.
That's it.
Had the guitar 5 years now ...Unless something major happens to it that's me sorted.
A great feeling
So my friend, why not just love the one you're with....and not muddy the water with facts as to why.
-
I will make my mock complaints about Chris later.
In my reply above, I forgot to mention adjusting pickup height and individual screw height.
So you've checked out 57s and BBs. No CBs yet. ….O….K…
What about Holmes, Rolph, Throbak, Skatterbrane, Sheptone, Lollar, Klein, J.S.Moore, Bill Lawrence, Dimarzio, Barden, Fralin, Kinman, Rio Grande, Seymour Duncan, TV Jones, WCR, Wolfetone, Timmy's, Harmonic Design, Bareknuckle, Kent Armstrong, Haussel, Amber, Schaller, Gotoh, Tom Anderson, Red Rhodes, Carvin, Schecter, Amalfitano, Jon Baxter, Budz, Bulldog, Cavalier, Chubtone, Curtis Novak, Ellis, D. Allen, Don Mare, Dragonfire, Fatboy, Glendale, IronGear, Ironstone, Kinman, Kloppman, Langcaster, LSL, Mojotone, Florance, Railhammer, Rose, Shed, Fred Stuart, Biltoft, Zangbucker, and more…...
Last edited by Hammertone; 03-23-2014 at 08:58 PM.
-
[Hammertone]>>> I will make my mock complaints about Chris later.
Too busy with genuine complaints I assume,...
-
HT, I have tried some of the ones you mention, but of course not even close to 'many'... in any case, thanks for the list, its a great summary...
the idea here was to benchmark Gibson originals against Gibson remakes, to make this more operational... but if some of those makers offer a really usable PAF bridge position remake that works on an archtop, please let me know which... (no irony in my message)...
-
Phil,
Every direction has been tried.
Coil balance, imbalance. Controlled pitch and transverse, scatter of various tensions and scatter-ed-ness-o-sity.
Alnico of all the fun numbers. Various gauss-es. Aged en-gauss-ed-ness of various patterns (kill in general, kill the ends, kill based on some hypothetical experience of some famous PU).
MANY other dubious factors have also been altered or duplicated.
Many beyond-stupid (and that's saying a lot for guitar-dom) non-factors have also been altered or otherwise tried.
Different bobin color. Different slug end shapes. Different hat worn while winding.
In the analog world there is an infinite (arguably, depending on your views of physics) number of possible PAF configurations.
But in my opinion, there are more variations from one beloved vintage PAF to another than there are between many of the perfectly fine modern versions of the PAF from both small boutique builders and large manufacturers.
Others may feel otherwise for their own reasons.
Chris
-
Oh, cry me a river. And I do hope you look like that delectable Imelda May. You missed Stew-Mac's Golden Age Parson Street PAFs and I hope your Western backside of the globe-centric (the sun rises in the Far East, after all) view excluded this?http://music.geocities.jp/kt_vintage...tgoldtone.html Originally Posted by Hammertone
So, go on and cly me a liver.
-
I have never understood the fascination with the original PAFs and the "collectability" they imply. Even worse, 1950s and 1960s Fender planks selling for BIG BUCKS. C'mon. these are slabs put together in a factory in the space of 3-5 hours. Why can't the just minted MIM Esquire sound as good as that 1961 Fender? And at 0.05% of the cost!
On the 175 front, I used to own a '53 with dogeared pickups. That thing must have weighed next to nothing. The tops were pretty damn thin. It has a nicer acoustic voice than modern 175s (not that you want to play it acoustically, of course).
Anybody A/B the new Monkey on a Sticks Guild is selling? I'm interested if they were able to successfully replicate the old Monkey on sticks sounds. No way I would spend over $1k on the original Monkey on a sticks.
-
Loss of Magnetism perhaps?
20 years ago I owned a 59 single paf 175. The pickup output level was heaps less than other hb's - you had to really crank the amp. I was told this was due to the weakening of the magnet over time. Chris does that sound right to you?
Phil do you notice a drop in output level compared to your other guitars? Congrats on your happy purchase.
-
hi, yes, there is a drop in output levels, but its not huge. Say 20%, not in a math sense, but you know what I mean... Originally Posted by 3625
-
my experience has been that pickups don't make as big a difference as the boutique manufacturers would like you believe. I don't think a reissue's difference from an original can be chalked up to pickups.
-
what is monkey on a stick? Originally Posted by NSJ
I have never understood the fascination with the original PAFs and the "collectability" they imply. Even worse, 1950s and 1960s Fender planks selling for BIG BUCKS. C'mon. these are slabs put together in a factory in the space of 3-5 hours. Why can't the just minted MIM Esquire sound as good as that 1961 Fender? And at 0.05% of the cost!
On the 175 front, I used to own a '53 with dogeared pickups. That thing must have weighed next to nothing. The tops were pretty damn thin. It has a nicer acoustic voice than modern 175s (not that you want to play it acoustically, of course).
Anybody A/B the new Monkey on a Sticks Guild is selling? I'm interested if they were able to successfully replicate the old Monkey on sticks sounds. No way I would spend over $1k on the original Monkey on a sticks.
-
I own a 1961 ES175D with PAFs. It sounds different from modern 175 guitars - more woody, less sustain. To be frank, I was not overwhelmed by the sound from the PAF (muddy in the bottum) , and I had always like the P90 better, so years ago, I replaced the neck PAF with a modern P90 in humbucker disguise (yes, I have kept the PAF, of course). The difference is that I find the sound from the P90 more balanced, clearer in the bass, but that woody, marimba like character of the guitar is very much still there unaltered.
I have had my 175 since 1973, and it seems to me that the sound has changed since then. I remember it as more clear, less woody and with more sustain when I got it. Many love that particular woody sound, but to be frank I liked it better back then, and I don't play it much these days, but that's just me.
It may be my imagination and gradually changing preferencies, but I have sometimes thought that the ageing of even a laminated instrument can explain a change in sound over the years. For example, the glues binding the layers of the laminates together may have disintegreted somewhat with the passing of time. It has been seen with many Gretch guitars from the 1950s and 1960s which have litterally fallen apart due to disintegrating glues. Maybe PTChris can chime in about this?
Like PTChris and Jack I think the particular sound of your guitar - which seems to be in the same ballpark as mine - is more a product of the laminate box (and its age?) than of the pickups.Last edited by oldane; 03-24-2014 at 08:52 AM.
-
A D'Armond floater. Originally Posted by jzucker
-
>>> 20 years ago I owned a 59 single paf 175. The pickup output level was heaps less than other hb's - you had to really crank the amp. I was told this was due to the weakening of the magnet over time. Chris does that sound right to you?
I never even thought about magnets (well I was a teenager so maybe thinking about not much at all) until DiMarzio came out with their retro-fit ceramics to boost the output of HB's by replacing those pesky alnico magnets. They did indeed give notably more output, and since clean tone was hardly the idea, they were somewhat popular for a short time.
So then for laughs I did keep an eye on apparent output vs. coil vs. magnets. I never have been methodical about it, but it has seemed to me that magnets do weaken over time, you can notice the output difference, and the "tone" difference is almost indistinguishable from just moving the PU away form the strings a bit. Maybe a touch more low end in the older weakened magnet, but this is a completely un-measured impression on my part.
I can hear absolutely no difference between an old magnet, a magnet that is intentionally charged at a lower strength, and a magnet that has been intentionally weakened to simulate age. But others may hear a difference or claim to have a more authentic "vintage" method to a particular magnet character.
And this is staying out of the whole matter of an Alnco 5 vs. an Alnico 2 when there has been some effort to match the strength of the two (not maxing out the 5).
My opinion.
>>> I have sometimes thought that the ageing of even a laminated instrument can explain a change in sound over the years. For example, the glues binding the layers of the laminates together may have disintegreted somewhat with the passing of time. It has been seen with many Gretch guitars from the 1950s and 1960s which have litterally fallen apart due to disintegrating glues. Maybe PTChris can chime in about this?
In my opinion/observation laminates do age and you can hear a difference in may cases. I am not familiar with how phenolic glues may break down over time, and there may also have been formaldehyde-based glues used as well as more mundane glues.
But yes, in my opinion even when there has been no catastrophic failure of the laminate, the guitar does nonetheless age with changes in the resins in the wood layers themselves and in the adhesives used.
I am unaware of what various manufacturers use now for laminating, so it is quite possible that modern laminates will be more stable over the very long term.
But definitely agreed, laminated guitars are not acoustically locked in from the day of lamination even though they are more stable than solid wood.
My opinion only.
And back at Phil: In my opinion, you could replace the current PUs with any of a number of PAF clones and still have the magic. I have no informed opinion regarding Gibson-brand PU's as a replacement or alternative to some of the other PAF offerings out there.
Chris
Reply With Quote
Gibson LeGrand Missing Split Diamond Inlay
Today, 11:40 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos