-
Ok, so there have been many, many of these vid 'tone comparison' threads. But I think this one's worth a look; these two can both really play IMO, they are going into the same amp ( Hendriksen bud with ext cab) and they both play single lines/ bass lines as well as comping, so you get a good idea of the relative ranges & tones of the 2 guitars.
Looks like recent L5 and 175's to me, maybe 90s perhaps. The 175 looks old, but is without the grommet - which I thought newer ones don't have. Could be wrong on that.
For anyone who hasn't owned or tried these 2 iconic models, this gives a good idea of the two different tones from them; fatter, less dimensional, but classic thunk ( or is it 'plum' now ) from the 175,
more refined, more dimensional but def less thick and 'stringier' from the L5.
Is this 'Scrapple' ? I'm never sure with parker. Got this from a Hendriksen email - they are naturally plugging the Bud amp hard..
-
04-07-2015 07:44 AM
-
awesome playin'! thanks for posting - really good comparision [would be nice to see also the switch between players - as "hands matters"
but very nice].
-
Great clip!!
MD
-
Very nice .... both guitars sound great ...
Good thing I have both models already
My 175 sounds great in some of my other amps, but doesn't sound that good through my Henriksen Jazzamp .... but the L5 sounds great in the Henriksen .... I have some Thomastiks I need to try on the 175 .. maybe that will help
-
Does the Bud have a fan?
Sounds like the fan is a major complaint with the DVMark Little Jazz, which could be a great amp from the tone decsriptions
-
It is Scrapple.
-
It is Scrapple.
Feel sorry for the guy with the Es-175 though, the others guys comping was al over the place. Talk about speeding up and slowing down in the space of a bar.
Originally Posted by Franz 1997
-
This is a very good illustration, I think. We can quibble about adjectives to describe tone, but to me, when I hear a good 175 it is more glassy--more hornlike, and has fewer overtones, I think, than an L5 type of sound. I think part of C. Christian's thing was getting AWAY from the sound of a chordal instrument---and the laminate glassiness of a 150 or 175, is definitely part of that. (If I listen to Eddie Lang's stuff on an acoustic L4, even the sound of single note lines, it always sounds, to me, like a chordal instrument, and then he stops to spin out a few runs...but it is almost a sideshow or distraction from the main thing the guitar was there for.) Originally Posted by Franz 1997
I sometimes think an L5 is more like a grand piano, whereas a 175 is more like a Hammond organ type of sound---less nuance and fewer layers of sound, but very distinct, and identifiable. (I think if you hooked up a 175 to an oscilloscope or tuner, and played it, the frequencies it would register would bounce around less.)
The L5 sound, to me, sounds richer and better when played by itself, or played in a smaller, quiet group---whereas the 175 cuts through better in a mix or in a larger setting. I wouldn't call a 175 "plummy"---I almost think of it like a cucumber taste---crisp, distinct, but without layers of taste...like in a good cucumber salad with vinegar and onion---it has one distinctive taste which is really pleasant. On a hot day, I could eat a whole bowl (or listen all night long), whereas the L5 sound gets to be a bit much, after the first or second helping.
And then, finally, there is the semi-hollow stuff...with a 335 or equivalent, you can get long sustain-y types of sounds, that to me....really expand the scope of what can be played. When I listen to a lot of jazz guitarists, in the back of my mind I always compare their runs to long runs from horn players....not necessarily the number of notes they play but the sustained, extended type of tone....and a little tube-like thickening is interesting here...in that way, a lot of fusion stuff is interesting, though personally fusion is way down on my personal preference list of music I like to listen to.
I apologize for maybe pushing this off track....forgive me, I just want to play a guitar and make it sound like Artie Shaw or Kenny Peplowski or Stan Getz, which is maybe a lot to ask...but still.
-
I know it wasn't the purpose of the video, but if it was a real comparison would be nice for one player, one amp settings, then split screen them together. To me both sounded excellent and question is the L5 worth two to three time more for me to spend.
-
Thnx. Never could quite retain that one.. Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
It is Scrapple.
Feel sorry for the guy with the Es-175 though, the others guys comping was al over the place. Talk about speeding up and slowing down in the space of a bar.
And well spotted about the comping..I noticed that too. Didn't put the other guy off though.
-
I dont know. for a start it seems he had round wounds on his L5. Originally Posted by docbop
-
The comping sounded great to me. they both have great time.
-
Gibson boys. Two very good quality sound instrumentalists using picks. I think if they will play by thumbs we will hear a differenses in the sound.
Last edited by kris; 04-07-2015 at 11:27 AM.
-
A very interesting, evocative and flavoursome description of the difference! It makes sense that the plywood guitar would sound relatively more compressed, with less harmonic bandwidth - it's plywood. Personally, I don't like cucumber..but, well put. Originally Posted by goldenwave77
I have had a couple of nice L5s, and they are the king of their particular heap, no doubt. But I never could get the top string sound I wanted in a combo setting, whereas the 175 just works in that respect. But, playing a 175 at home has its tonal limitations. I have a couple of Slamans ( L5 -ish boutique guitars) on the wall, and keep saying I'll switch to them when I give up gigging..but they have accumulated a lot of dust so far.
-
L5 and 175, for sure. Both are VERY viable jazz tones. I'd be happy with either. I played a 175 for 35 years, and was in hog heaven. Now, I play an 18", carved body, CES-type guitar (Heritage Super Eagle). The tone is very much _like_ the "5," but with more heft on the low-end, as befits an 18" instrument.
I will, yet, also acquire an L5, I'm sure. Gradually, I have been gravitating to the carved-body sound in my inner ears, after questing after the more snappy, laminated-body sound for years and years.
FWIW, Charlie Christian's ES-150 was a carved-top, solid-sides and back Gibson guitar. It was the flat-backed, electrified version of the 16" L-50. The comparable acoustic archtop (L-50) of the period actually featured both a carved top and back. (spruce and maple) His ES-250 was also all carved. Only later, with the ES-300, did Gibson move to laminated construction in the electric line.
-
Side note the video is really about the new Henriksen Bud amp. Well I just now got the email that as of right now the Bud amp is available for order and shipping.
The Bud - Professional Guitar Amplifier for the Best Tone
-
I've had mine for three weeks now and I'm fairly certain it does not have a fan. If it does, you sure can't hear it. Originally Posted by Bluedawg
I'm loving 'The Bud'.
-
I stand corrected.
Greentone has pointed out that the 150 was a carved top, and come to think of it, he's right....I seem to remember that the 175 introduced in what was it...1949....was a departure and breakthrough in its use of laminate.
And yet, to me....Charlie Christian and also Barney Kessel have a very "laminate-y" type of sound....not in a bad way. Also early Tal Farlow. Maybe early recording technology didn't pick up the carved top aspect, though I hear Oscar Moore and to me, his sound is kind of more like a carved top thing. (Maybe I should just stop here, so as not to confuse the issue further.)
As Greentone points out, and I agree, these are all great sounds.
-
250's all had plywood back and sides, the exception being Charlie's blonde 250 which had a replaced back that was carved. Originally Posted by Greentone
-
Or get an ES-300 or early '40s L7, which typically have carved tops and laminated backs. Yeah, that's the ticket! Co-incidentally, there's a '41 L-7 for sale on this very forum….
-
Conclusion: es-175 better for louder gigs... L-5 better quality sound for cameral gigs... am I right?
-
wow, this video really makes me re-think my wanting an L5. The 175 just smokes it. Sounds a lot like my current 175 with a bit more high freq content which makes sense as my 175 has mahogany back/sides.
-
Well, the L5... you want it.... you don't need it... a good 175 covers everything Originally Posted by jzucker
(Believe me, I feel your torment!)
-
what are you talking about? Do you need to say something provocative in every thread to fuel your ego or something? Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
It is Scrapple
Feel sorry for the guy with the Es-175 though, the others guys comping was al over the place. Talk about speeding up and slowing down in the space of a bar.
Back to the thread: I'd take the 175 all day. Excellent sound there.
-
I think part of it is that I've convinced myself I really want an L5 and have wanted one for years... Originally Posted by Little Jay
Well, the L5... you want it.... you don't need it... a good 175 covers everything
(Believe me, I feel your torment!)
I think it's true as stated by someone above that the 175 really excels at ensemble playing but that the L5 sound great by itself for solo guitar. playing. I think the chord solos jump out from the L5 in a way that they don't on the 175.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos