-
It's that acoustic quality...it's always present in the L5...even plugged in.
The 175 sounds like an electric guitar. It's the only electric guitar that sounds like it, but it's an "electric" tone.
This clip has me really....really...thinking about starting a 175 quest...
-
04-08-2015 09:56 AM
-
Not so sure about that. My 175 actually has a really acoustic sound to it. I think good 175s do.
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
This was recorded direct into the mixer, no microphone.
-
At the end of the day, you also have to take into account the 24-3/4" and 25-1/5" scale lengths. I had played the 24-3/4" scale ES-175 and ES-335 guitars for so many years that they felt like extensions of my arms, to be honest about it.
Gradually, however, I started logging in more hours on 25-1/5" scale guitars. First, through a long-term loan of a ES-300, then through ownership of an Aria PE-180. Also, I have owned Fender guitars forever.
One thing led to another and now I feel _more_ comfortable on the longer-scale instruments. I never thought that would happen, but it is now true. Years of gigging on the PE and the Telecaster have bumped me up to the longer scale.
Otherwise, the ES-175 is simply a SUPERB gigging jazz box.
-
Originally Posted by jzucker
I will agree with Jack, I too had a very acoustic ES-175 (my blonde one) but it did take me by surprise.
I think either that gentleman's ES is a really dead kinda 70's one (I know not all 70's etc) or the amp is not very nice.
Either way he's a damn fine player. I will agree though that the tone he gets is not discernible from any $200-500 archtop and to my tastes is not very pleasant.
A better comparison would be if he played both guitars as I really don't like the other player and that can make a big difference.Last edited by Archie; 04-08-2015 at 10:25 AM.
-
I would agree with Zucker. My '68 175 had a "not bad" acoustic tone, although not in keeping with my carved Gibson or Heritage.
Herb Ellis' 175, OTOH, which I played years ago, had a very lively acoustic tone and surprising volume. Ellis frequently rolled the volume off and played it acoustically.
Ellis' 175 was lighter than mine...probably about 5.5 lbs. Mine was an even 6 lbs. The light ones are acoustically lively.
-
another thing to note is that if you play a very aggressive, notey style, the 175 may be the better choice.
-
Oh, I agree...i'm talking specifically about the tone in the henriksen vid...crank up a 175 and that's the 'electric' tone i'm talking about.
And of course there's exceptions...but while I like the tone in jack's video, that also would not be the first tone i'd think of from a 175.
-
I think the tone of mine is pretty typical of a vintage 175. Mine is a bit darker due to mahogany back/sides. Listen to metheny's tone from the montreau jazz fest with steve swallow and bob moses. You can hear a similar lilt to the sound. Jim Hall live also though he turns the tone control way down Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Wouldn't you say that your tone in this direct recorded vid is much brighter and less "thunky" than say, some of the live recordings you posted with it since you've had it? That's what I'm hearing, at least.
-
I think L5 has better quality "acoustic" sound than es-175.
-
Actual and possible variables between those two guitars;
String type and brand . . age of strings . . condition of strings regardless of age . . pick type . . pick technique . . tone and volume pot settings . . pickups . . rosewood vs ebony bridge and finger board . . action setting and/or set up in general . . . scale length.
How could anyone possible make any definitive comparison between those two models? The better comaprison would be between those two particular guitars as they are currently set up. That L5CES sounded quite a bit more muffled and less lively than just about any others I've heard. By contrast, the 175 sounded better than most others I've heard.
Does anyone doubt that the 175 could have been made to sound much less appealing with different or older dirty strings and a poor set up? Or, that the L5CES could have been made to sound much better? IMO . . it was nice to listen to it. But, it's relatively valueless as a comparison of the two models.
-
I hear it exactly the same Jeff. In fact, Jack and I exchanged a couple of PMs on that topic. He explained the reason for the difference. My preference is strongly towards the earlier videos. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Sorry you found it 'valueless'. Others seem to disagree. The OP was about the sounds of the 2 guitars, not the specs. And it's obvious that the comparison is 'as they are currently set up'. What else could it be? Originally Posted by Patrick2
If your point is that set-up makes a difference, I think we all get that. The idea was simply to post a comparison that many would find interesting, not to equate an L5 and a 175.
-
here's another comparison video that's interesting.
-
Originally Posted by jzucker
I'm just hearing a load of bass, which isn't surprising for either model.
The Es-175 definitely sounds thinner and more nasal with booming bass. I would have liked to hear less bass on the 175 as a trade off.
-
Please don't take my comment of the video being valuless as an insult to you for posting it. All I'm saying is that if someone was trying to decide between buying either guitar based purely upon what they hear in this video . . they may not be hearing the whole story about the real differences. Taking it to the extreme, let's string up an L5CES with .013 round wounds and have a player with a heavy hitting technique and an extra heavy guage pick play the guitar with the tone control rolled 50% back and the action set up very high . . . and compare it to a 175 with .012 flat wounds a subtle pick attack low action and the tone control wide open. The results would be misleading. Agreed? Originally Posted by Franz 1997
-
Agreed! Thanks for clarifying. Originally Posted by Patrick2
I found the video particularly interesting partly because I've owned 2 L5s and seem to have gravitated to 175s, for live playing only. Even so, I wish I still had my 60s L5.
-
The video is trying to sell the amp so guitar comparison was could say a derivative use. Originally Posted by Patrick2
-
I really enjoy Greg Koch's videos for Wildwood Guitar. Apart from his entertaining banter, and excellent playing, the recordings are consistently good and through the same Tone King Imperial amp, which makes for a good base line comparison.
To my ear, an L5 has an extended frequency response compared to an l4 or an ES175, both low and and high. The attack also seems more immediate, due to the scale length, I think. YMMV.
L4
L5WES
ES175
-
Originally Posted by Patrick2
yep, 13 rounds--that's my thing except for the very high action part.
I can get a nice fat sound from my 60s L5 through a 60s blackface Twin
w/heavy gauge rounds and a 2mm purple Dunlop w/a medium lowish action
-
I wonder, over the years, how many great guitarists who gigged with the ES-175 played an L-5 back at home or in the studio? We know, for example, that Benson--who gigs almost exclusively with his GB-10--tends to pull a lot of time on his Johnny Smith and Super 400 in the studio. I'll bet that at home he uses the D'Angelico. (Then, again, lots of guys at that level don't play too much at home.)
For decades I gigged on 16" or 17" laminated archtop guitars, but played a carved Gibson at home. Now, I play mainly a carved Heritage at home and gig with an Aria copy of a Super-V. (Not to suggest that I am in Benson's league, or even an approximation of a great guitarist. Just a long-term, gigging scuffler.)
The point is, to deal with big rooms, volume, feedback issues, etc., I and others tend to use laminated guitars. At home, it's a different story.
Jim Hall...laminates out, carved woods at home.
-
Here's another thought. Since I spend so much time on my 175 and my ES137 (both 24.75" scales), what do you think of something like a Ibanez GB-200 as a spruce top guitar (albeit laminate) instead of an L5? It would be a lot easier to go back and forth with and they do sound great although obviously not as good as a solid top guitar. Then again, they are sturdy, amazingly consistent setup and not as prone to feedback...
-
goodness, those clips are bright. Originally Posted by L4CESN
-
Agreed. Love koch on a tele but didn't feel like he brought out the best qualities of those archtops. Using a BB preamp for overdrive would not be my first choice on an L5 though I can understand why wildwood might want him to demo them that way. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Also, while I love the JLH stuff, it's unlikely JLH ever played that stuff on a $5k archtop!
-
I think Koch mainly makes the guitars he demos sound the same. In a (dare I say it?) blind test, I doubt one could reliably guess what's he's playing, except for really obvious stuff like strats on the in-between settings. Originally Posted by jzucker
Agreed. Love koch on a tele but didn't feel like he brought out the best qualities of those archtops. Using a BB preamp for overdrive would not be my first choice on an L5 though I can understand why wildwood might want him to demo them that way.
Also, while I love the JLH stuff, it's unlikely JLH ever played that stuff on a $5k archtop!
John
Reply With Quote
Pitfalls of Patterns
Today, 06:06 PM in Improvisation