-
I find the discussion about fingerboard materials interesting. I'm not totally convinced about the way it affects tone... I've played Telecasters that had rosewood fingerboards that were very bright and snappy, and I've also played maple fingerboard guitars that are very dark sounding (my Gibson L6-S reissue for example).
The most significant thing about fingerboard material is feel. I think there's really nothing that feels as good under the fingers on a nice archtop as an ebony fingerboard. Nice and smooth, to me it's easier to play on. I've played a Les Paul with a richlite board and I thought it was ebony until I was told otherwise. In saying that I don't think richlite belongs on a Les Paul Custom for example.... a guitar like that deserves real wood.
It's a shame the ES275s are pretty expensive because they look like a really good instrument. The Hofner that Hammertone posted however looks even better... and it's cheaper....
-
01-19-2016 12:51 AM
-
The shot of the electronics looks like a 335 to me - note the position of the output jack. It isn't on the top of the two archtops.
-
Originally Posted by 339 in june
The frets are metal .. a material with the property of low compression ... that means most of the string vibrations are going to be transfered to the material underneath ... and the fingerboard material will provide some feedback to the string vibrations
The same thing will happen with the bridge and the body
So I find it difficult to think how the fingerboard, neck and body materials could not have some affect on the frequency response of the strings
Is that affect significant? ... maybe in a quiet room direct into a decent amp one could tell the difference between two similar guitars made with different woods
I think when you add a band the affect is going to be ever more subtle and difficult to discern .. and then even more so as you add effects and then run it through a PA system or a recording
Even an experienced listener will probably not be able to tell a Les Paul from an SG on a recording .... or even an LP from a Tele
But the player will know which guitar feels and sounds best to his or her ear and hands
And anyone who has ever chased a favorite tone on a recording knows it can be difficult to match that tone without a similar guitar and a similar amp to the ones on the recording
-
Agreed w/ above post! I think even more so these days , w/ today's recordings you can't even tell what type of guitar is being used unless it hasn't been sanitized,remixed, added plug ins, etc............ And belive me I've been there w/ today's producer/engineers!
-
I understand the 17" but much better IMHO
Originally Posted by Woody Sound
-
I don't see anything on a new Alley Kat. I had one of the originals and liked it. I'd definitely be interested in an upgraded model.
Originally Posted by Gitfiddler
-
That guy must be huge. Those 16" guitars look tiny in his hand.
Originally Posted by neatomic
-
Review at Namm
-
Dam i thought i had found home with my 175 but at 5ft6" this smaller guitar ....
Size does matter, when I first rocked up to my old funk band changing from a 335 to a smaller shaped guitar, a japanese casino, the whole band commented that my playing had improved noticeably, that i was much tighter.
Maybe I wont have to worry as I don't think Australia has received the 2016 guitars yet and he says there are a lot of back orders on the 275. Great they did a no frills one.
-
Talking about the semi-hollow flat-top Les Paul Special: "All of the tone, and feel, is just like every other Les Paul."
Originally Posted by theruiz
Talking about the laminated maple ES-275: "In Japan, one of the trends in younger players is jazz." "This is EXACTLY an L5, well it's smaller."
Sheesh.
-
Maybe it's not actually 16". He says it's 10% smaller than an L5. If that's really true, that would make it about 15-1/3".
If so, I'm suddenly getting very interested in the fancier model.
-
Could be math isn't his strong side.. but it does in fact look a tiny bit smaller than the es335
Originally Posted by Woody Sound
-
15x2 may be a good size for a guy who stands when he plays but not a good size for a sit down player IMO. I think Gibson would have been smarter to bring back the ES350T with a 17 X 2-1/4 body (laminate Byrdland).
-
what happened to the L9?
it looks about the same but with a 335 bridge.
-
What's the street price on one of these guitars?
Originally Posted by entresz
-
Originally Posted by pingu
I checked out the ES-275 at the Gibson room at NAMM. Report to come.
Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
Well to each his own. I'm kinda short, and I find 15" guitars to be the PERFECT size when sitting.
Originally Posted by vinnyv1k
-
Im 6'3" tall and 15" is ideal for me, sitting or standing!! Bob
-
I believe so. He says it has a Les Paul neck.
Originally Posted by life_with_a_song
-
-
Originally Posted by Top of the Arch!
Yeah, I've never thought there was much of a correlation between body size and preferred guitar size...what feels good is what feels good.
I do notice, body depth matters to me a bit more.
-
Definitely. I went from a D'Aquisto NY Junior (15" x 2-1/2") To a Sadowsky Jimmy Bruno (14-3/4" x 2-3/4").
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
The Sadowsky feels like the bigger guitar with its extra 1/4" depth, even though it is a 1/4" smaller across.
-
I'd love to see a 1-pickup version, sort of a smaller Wes.
-
Bring it, Hammer!
Originally Posted by Hammertone
-
Lol a new flat top les Paul.
Gibson are so desperate to get that bottom market money but they cant leave the US (or wont) so to compete they are having to cut so many costs, they wont even press a top?
Hilarious.Last edited by Archie; 01-25-2016 at 01:28 PM.



Reply With Quote



Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos