Archtop Madness - Fred Archtop

[2bornot2bop]

DS 250 build by luthier Daniel Slaman, followed by a Gibson L5C from 1953 recently equipped with a floating humbucker, then a Gibson ES 300, a prewar Gibson ES 150 and a Gibson 175 CC from 1980.

[John Link]

That was great. The Slaman was my favorite.

[r_cc_c]

Great video. Thanks for posting.
My favorite on this video is the ES175.
The DS250 is full of character

[AlainJazz]

Very nice! I like them all

[2bornot2bop]

Doesn't "Fred" post here? Why does his playing sound familiar to me?

[vinlander]

My favorite is the 300 with its fattest tone, followed by the 150 what a snap, then 175 with CC some thunk, the 250 Slaman has bite but is a bit too bright and at the end the L5 with floater even if articulate it is not fat enough for my taste.
Of course all that is subjective and probably depends on the settings.

[Marty Grass]

What's not to like?!

[vinnyv1k]

They all sounded great but the L5 was the least favorite for me. The Slaman and the ES150 sounded fabulous.
Thanks 2b !

[Eddie Lang]

Doesn't "Fred" post here? Why does his playing sound familiar to me?

Hi 2b! Yes, Fred posts here. Here is a thread he started yesterday:

https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/guita...er-my-l5c.html



PS. Is it me or has it been a long time since you posted one of your fabulous NGD threads with delightful photos?

Cheers!

[SeanSeb]

I presume they were using the same strings --? What were they?
What sort of plectrum?
Amp? (I am sure the same setting for all...)
C

[oldane]

I like them all a lot - a classic electric "jazz sound" just as I like it.

As for the difference between them, IMHO it takes nothing more than a slight turn of the tone controls on the amp to make them sound pretty much the same. If anything, this demo illustrates the slight difference in sound between the 175 and the others due to the difference in pickup placement. On the 175 the pickup is a little closer to the bridge than on the others. the 175 sounds a bit more "compact" and mid rangy while the others sound more "spread" and "mellow". But again, I think that can also more or less be leveled out with the amp tone controls. I think playing style, setup, choice of strings, amp settings can give far greater tone differencies than the difference between the guitars. But then, these guitars are not too different in construction. The "oddball" here is the L5 with its carved top and floating pickup (BJB?) - but it is not a very different animal either.

I think I could with ease dial in a perfectly satisfactory tone with all of them. If I had to choose, it would be playability and other practical details (say hum and feed back resistance) as well as personal ideosyncratic details (other than the native sound) which would determine which I picked. I do like blonde guitars, and that Slaman sure looks pretty ......

[Greentone]

oldane,

The ES-150 also has a carved top. It's a decent, 30s-era acoustic archtop with a set-in pickup.

[Groyniad]

es 150 was clearly the best sound to my ear

then the 300

then the slaman

then the 175

the the L5

i think the differences are quite robust

[rpguitar]

Funny... I think my impression ranks them in exactly the opposite order! And that's rock 'n' roll, folks. To-may-to, to-mah-to. But I do like them all, no doubt about that.

[oldane]

oldane,

The ES-150 also has a carved top. It's a decent, 30s-era acoustic archtop with a set-in pickup.

Yes, but from what I have read, The top was carved thicker and some of them was even reported to have been flat on the inside (not carved) to better withstand the heavy CC pickup with its huge cobalt magnets without cracking. Of course, I don't know if that's the case with this particular sample. In fact, the Slaman also has a carved top. Spruce or not, thick or thin, to my ears the 150 and the Slaman doesn't sound significantly different in basic character from the laminated top guitars in this comparison. The 350 - and the L5 to a lesser degree - sounds darker and more muddy than the others, but that could be a question of EQ settings (and maybe the state of the guitars harness).

[teleman3726]

All great playing; all guitars sounded different but certainly pleasing.
Nice playing, too. I subscribed to your YT channel.

[BigMikeinNJ]

WQOW what a great way to start a rainy Sunday Morning !! Like them all, but I especially liked the Slaman and gotta say that ES175 really sounded very good also.

[skykomishone]

I really think it's funny the differences in what people hear and like when asked to compare these incredible instruments. The responses are an education in themselves, especially coming from such a diverse group of ears. They all sound great to me. Saying that the L5 sounds 'muddy' is an interesting comment, and I completely miss that in my perception of it. I absolutely love that sound, call it whatever you want. It's like the endless discussions about 'thunk' and ES-175's.

It is enlightening to have the comparison between all of these beauties, and there are virtually infinite opinions about likes and dislikes, and the reasoning behind them. That's what makes these archtops so interesting. Like the people who hear them, they're all unique. The downside, if there is any, might be one's financial or space limitations, or time on earth to experience these guitars for yourself. Sure is a nice quandary to be in. Love those guitars.

[Greentone]

oldane,

I have never seen a ES-150 from the 30s with a top carved only on the outside and flat on the inside. The instrument was basically a L-50 that Gibson installed a pickup on. Now, the 30s examples do have flat backs, unlike the standard '37-'40 L-50s, which feature carved maple backs.

Gibson apparently didn't figure that the 150 was going to be played much as an acoustic guitar and skipped a carved back. The back, instead, is a braced, solid, flat piece of bookmatched maple.

The 30s ES-150 does have good acoustic volume (and tone), despite the not inconsiderable damping of the twin cobalt magnet pickup--which is quite heavy. The electric tone, of course, is legendary (unless the magnets have lost magnetic flux and need re-magnetizing--many do).

The examples I have played remain the best electric guitars I have ever played, and the 150 the preferred instrument of Jimmy Raney, Tal Farlow, Herb Ellis, Howard Roberts, and others for years...not to mention Charlie Christian.

[oldane]

oldane,

I have never seen a ES-150 from the 30s with a top carved only on the outside and flat on the inside.

To be fair, neither have I. Truth to be told, I have never seen more than one old ES150 and that was from a medium distance on a bandstand many years ago. There are very few if any of them here in Denmark. In fact there are extremely few vintage archtops in Denmark - and even fewer up for sale, so it's almost impossible to get ones hands on one here. What I know - or should I say imagine to know - I have from various reading sources through the years. I envy you US people who actually can try out and examine those old instruments.

That about the thicker top of the ES 150 I have from A.R.Dechossoir's Gibson Electrics: "The ES150 model was endoved with a spruce top, which appears a little thicker in the middel than the one on the L50, in order to support the mounting of the pickup." I can't remember where I read that about the flat underside of the toptop, so I must rank it as hearsay. Gruhn's guide to vintage guitars doesn't mention anything about top carve and thickness of the 150.

So much for that. I think I'd better back out of this subject with a humble bow.

As for the sound of the 150, I fully agree with you, and my very favorite jazz tone is the one Jimmy Raney produced on the albums from the late 1950s and beginnign of the 1960s with Jim Hall ("Streetswingers", "Two Jims and a Zoot"). He used his 150 on those records and produces a fat and punchy sound, but still crystal clear - almost three dimentional . IMHO, Jim Halls 175 sounds pale and thuddy in comparison on those records (but of course that can also partly be due to them using different amps and setups). A saxophone tone parallel I also like a lot could be Dexter Gordon in the beginning of the 1960s when he used an old Conn 10M horn with a 1940s Dukoff mouthpiece. One sleeve note writer called Gordons tone "cavernous" and that might also apply to Raneys tone on those records.

Go to 2:00.

[Eric Rowland]

Great playing, great guitars. I love them all. That's the way a demo should be done imho. Thanks 2b!

[destinytot]

I like the sound of the 300 and the 150.

[goldenwave77]

Enjoyed listening to the playing. Tasty and in the pocket. All of them sounded great, IMO.

I think I agree with Olddane----these guitars all share the same Gibson DNA, and have a LOT of commonality. I might term these "NEDSEQ" (Non-Essential Differences, (and) Subject to Equalization").

Maybe future discussions should keep NEDSEQ and non-NEDSEQ differences, in mind.

FWIW, I thought the newer Slaman sounded really, really good. It was my favorite, by a small margin: So much for the automatic superiority of older instruments...

[targuit]

Great playing and each of those guitars sounds excellent to me. What's not to like?

I'd like to know just out of curiosity which guitar Fred finds most playable overall, though he may have commented in the video - I watched it hours ago.

[Fred Archtop]

Hi there !

Thanks for your feedbacks. I've already addressed the questions related to strings and amp used throughout this video here:
https://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/guita...er-my-l5c.html

The similarities/differences we hear between these archtops is something very personal. However, to me, it's more than potato/potato. You can hardly get the same sound out of these guitars. Each of them has a peculiar voice. E.g. the 175 has a highly compressed sound that falls extremely fast whereas the L5 is all the opposite with a long lasting sound (carved top + ebony fingerboard which helps a lot for the sustain).

I'd like to know just out of curiosity which guitar Fred finds most playable overall.

All the guitars have been set up to my own style by Michael, my guitar tech. And the most easily playable is...the ES 150. Incredibly smooth to play. You need to get one in your hands to understand why bebop stars like Jimmy Raney could play Cherokee at 300 with this guitar.

I have my own theory on the acoustic quality of ES 150s since the time I could try several of them, including 2 models, one from 1937 and mine from 1938 on the same day, in the same guitar shop. I read, I think it was in R. Duchossoir's bible on Gibsons, that due to increasing sales in late 1937/1938, Gibson had to "electrify" some on their L-50 designed archtops. These instruments are stamped "DG" on the headstock serial number, and must have a thiner tabletop since they were conceived as L-50s prior being converted to ES150s. This is the case for mine. The 1937 model I tried wasn't "DG stamped" and was considerably less resonant than mine. I guess this has to do with the thickness of the tabletop, the thiner the louder it sings. Just a personal theory based on my experience.

To Oldane, if you're chasing an ES 150 in Europe, we have a couple of them available in France, including one in the shop where I bought mine. It's here (I'm not related with the owner except I'm just a happy customer). It's here:
Gibson ES-150 guitare

Thanks again for your comments which motivate me for releasing other videos with multiple archtops. That's quite a lot of work for recording/mixing/mastering but it's worth the effort if you appreciate.

Cheers