-
The Gibson L5 1934 Reissue came at 9 AM this morning. I immediately changed the strings to match my Loar LH 600. The verdict is still out as to whether this is a keeper or not for some practical reasons:
The Loar is louder in all situations tested which include accompanying piano, playing with upright bass, and solo with a decibel meter. There was absolutely NO CONTEST in this competition. Other musicians and spectators concurred: the Loar was noticeably louder.--especially in fast raucous songs like Sheik of Araby.
The Gibson has a smooth, but quiet voice. A non musician said "That one has a prettier voice, but refuses to let it out....she's holding back". My opinion and concern is that the nice softer smoother sound is what I have my 17" guitars for. This Gibson is smooth, but lacks the volume and bottom end of the 17" guitars. So, when I need that sound, I've already got it covered without another spending $4K.
Other notes:
If I were accompanying a singer only, the L5 would be a better sound. If I'm playing "Dont Get Around Much Anymore" with piano, drums, violin, bass, and maybe clarinet solo, the L5 is the wrong tool for the job.
The craftsmanship of the Gibson is high quality as one would expect. The Loar has finish issues at the neck extension.
Conclusion for now:
At a USED price tag of $575, The Loar LH 600 is a lot of guitar that is hands down louder than the L5.
The L5 at a used price of $4000 is better workmanship, but can only best the Loar in refinement. I'm not a collector or a hired pro showing up to a recording session for TV/movie soundtracks. I'm a weekend warrior musician. So, I may not be able to resist periodical second guessing the expence as "The Emperor's New Clothes". Don't know yet.Last edited by 10course; 03-29-2016 at 12:48 AM.
-
03-29-2016 12:46 AM
-
The real (vintage) 16 inch L-5's were cannons. Why the modern Gibson Company could not replicate that in the reissue is a mystery to me. They sound sweet and have great fit and finish. But an acoustic archtop should have better volume....
All of the boutique archtop builders (from Benedetto on down) build for sweet tone and not volume. The best vintage archtops have both.....
Sorry that your NGD turned out to be a bust.
-
Sorry to hear its disappointing for you. I had a Loar LH700, but found the vee neck to much for me (arthritis in hands). If the Gibson neck is quite a bit less vee'd I'd be interested to know. If it is, and you decide to sell it on, and don't mind shipping to the UK, I may be interested.
Last edited by bananafist; 03-29-2016 at 04:45 AM.
-
>> The real (vintage) 16 inch L-5's were cannons. Why the modern Gibson Company could not replicate that in the reissue is a mystery to me. They sound sweet and have great fit and finish. But an acoustic archtop should have better volume.... <<
Among Lloyd Loar's most important achievements counts the transfer of violin making techniques to the construction of mandolins and guitars. Just by making dimensional replicas (though usually overbuilt and just suggesting the graduation of the plates), using longitudinal tonebars, talking about "harmonically tuned carved tops", etc., you'll hardly get the tonal properties of a vintage Loar or Loar-style L-5. Skilled violin makers are aware of their workmanship and demand more than a miserable salary. After all, it seems the Chinese have less problems with the last point... and they keep on buying shiploads of Alpine spruce and European maple.
Getting a full dynamic range with an acoustic archtop guitar, and a tonal range between "sweet" and "raucous", isn't dependant on the mere size of the guitar. Sure, due to the opted variables, affecting each other, during the instrument making you'll have to preselect whether you stick more to power/loudness, sweetness, raucousness, 'punch', etc.. Also, due to the specific human hearing organ (inclusive the psychoacoustics) most players think that a 16" archtop could do it better than the larger siblings. That's wrong! It's just easier to build a decent/good sounding 16" guitar than a comparable 'full throttle' 17.5 or 18" archtop that sports the same or even more 'headroom', and where the top resonance modes don't 'mush out' under higher (acoustic) load.
Even most boutique archtop builders orient themselves to what has become the more or less one-dimensional signature electric hollowbody archtop guitar sound, something I call the "80/20 sound" (80% electric, only 20% acoustic). Though I think this sound is opportune for the right gig, a really well-built (electric)-acoustic archtop, IMO, is a different animal, much more universal and, btw., less prone to feed back, etc., than many players think. The drawback is that these guitars are harder and more time-consuming to manufacture.
Personally, I'd try to tweak your new L-5. I know this sounds blasphemous for many here, but some of these new guitars (many older ones also) would definitely profit, for instance, from the reducing/scraping down/condensing of the lacquer thickness, or the providing of a closer contact of the frets to the fretboard, and so on. Of course, from a purely financial point of view this would be nonsense. I can only support what someone here recently said: it is the total of all construction materials and methods that add up to the final product.Last edited by Ol' Fret; 03-29-2016 at 05:39 AM.
-
Boy, I would keep the Gibson, play it a lot, and see if it opens up.
If a guitar lacks clarity, definition and balance it's not going to acquire these as it ages.
How many women did you know in HS who later turned out to be knockouts when you went back to your 15th or 20th reunion...and how many of the HS bombshells ended up looking like slightly overripe tropical fruits?!
-
How old is the L-5? Maybe it will open up
edit: nevermind see above haha
-
Yeah, but if I wanted to keep it on the back burner for 15-20yrs, I could think of a lot better ways to spend 15-20yrs than waiting.... I would love a 34 RI L5 but if it didn't float my boat I wouldn't keep it for the time to let the wood to 'dry.'
Originally Posted by goldenwave77
-
I'd stick a big old DiMarzio bucker in the neck of the Gibby, plug into a Fender Twin, and then see who the frig wins the volume war . . .
-
When I look at an archtop one of the first things I check is the bridge. The side by side photo isn't much to go by but the first thing I thought was that the Loar bridge looks better. I don't like any of the staggered saddle type bridges available today. I like the kind that have a tapered saddle. A lack of volume may be partially due to the bridge. A lighter bridge is generally better and of course check for a good fit.
-
The L5 has most likely "gone to sleep", meaning that it needs played to really get the sound out of it, it is a carved top guitar and will need played to break in the top and make it sound it's best. This can take some time on an archtop as the tops are rather thick. By all means keep the one you like the best but play the L5 as much as you can first as it will break in and sound better over time. My now 11 year old Martin 000-28 just seems to get louder and more dynamic everytime i play it now.
-
Lots of excuses made for this Gibson.
The Loar is carved too, how come it didn't need to "open up?"
-
No, excuses if it is a worse guitar, but I am sure the Loar did open up some and is probably a great instrument.
-
I'd say hang on to it for a while longer and give the Gibson a chance ... you've already stated that it has a better voice .. just not as loud
Experiment with different string brands and types .. what works on your Loar may not be the best match for the Gibson
Maybe have a luthier look at the bridge set up
If your still not happy with it in 6 months or a year sell it
-
The Gibby is what it is, a modern carved archtop dressed up to look like a vintage archtop. The Loar is an Asian made copy of a vintage archtop. The Gibby plays great and sounds great, but is too quiet for ensemble work without a pickup (I know, a friend had one and I played it in a real world situation). The Loar gets the acoustic archtop job done, but it is far from the best sounding guitar in the world.
The answer is to go vintage. I do not buy into this "golden age of luthiery" BS. Sure, there are dozens of guys who have bought Bob Benedetto's book and hand make his clones out of stunning woods. And I have yet to hear one that sounds as good as my 1946 Epiphone Triumph, a guitar that was most likely built by Italian immigrants who had been trained in the old world art of violin making. But even those guys did not hit a home run every time.
IMO, if you are after a superb sounding acoustic archtop that has the volume for a purely acoustic, old school jazz sound, you will have to go vintage, spend the money to have the guitar set up to your taste and search for that holy grail. Good things do not come easily in this life.
Yes, the OP can play the hell out of the Gibby and change the bridge to a lighter, rosewood bridge, but it will still be a modern x braced archtop, much more like a Benedetto than a real 34 L-5.
-
Each wooden stringed instrument that gets played regularly is going to "open up". All wooden parts will vibrate more freely and easy. It's sort of a synchronization of the wood cells and the glue lines (provided the glue is hard enough), a stress relief. On a lower level a similar thing can happen with the orientation of the brass atoms in a horn.
Some carved guitars respond better to "opening up" than others, but the overall amount is quite manageable. If an acoustic carved guitar doesn't sound resonant and promising right after the completion, something is wrong. I'd run away immediately, if a luthier would tell me in earnest that I just had to wait a few years, and voilà - the guitar would develop into the bomb!
Another, often more dramatic cause of guitar "opening up" happens after two, three or more decades, when a thick nitrocellulose lacquer shield has cracked up and the instrument begins to live for the first time. In this case you know that the finishing procedure was inappropriate... Depending on the manner such a guitar is used it's going to live well for another 10 or 20 years, until the lacquer cracks are fully plugged with grime, water vapor or guitar polish, and the capillary action has put that mix between the wood surface and the remaining lacquer. So, if a player loves the sound of his/her craquelure vintage axe, you know in which phase the guitar is: after the (undue) lacquer shielding the shielding by grime will follow.Last edited by Ol' Fret; 03-29-2016 at 12:33 PM.
-
-
A couple thoughts:
First off, I am sorry to hear that your Gibson L-5 reproduction does not please you. Personally, I would return it assuming they afforded you an evaluation period. Guitars do open up with play and time, but a mediocre sounding guitar will never become an outstanding guitar. A very good guitar might evolve to excellent or an excellent guitar might become superlative, but evolution has its limitations. You should love a new guitar from the get go. Period.
Somehow the conversation has migrated to the old JGF chestnut of custom lutherie vs. vintage guitars. I am uncertain how we got here, but a factory made reproduction of a 80 year old factory guitar somehow did the trick. While Bob B. Was certainly influential to archtop lutherie, there are many luthiers out there who have developed their own approaches based on a variety of other influences along with their own empirical experience as builders. Many are much more acoustically oriented than the electric/acoustic models being discussed. In my opinion, thinking that a better mousetrap can't be made, is in my view, a cynical thought. Lutherie, is a craft that continues to evolve in terms of design and methods.
There were some absolutely fantastic instruments made years ago, but there were also quite a few unremarkable guitars as well. Additionally, all the vintage guitars auditioned/played today have the benefit of time and play. Some fantastic examples made over the last 20-years might be equally remarkable at a 2075 concert...
My $.02
-
I have no idea why Gibson made the reissues w/an X braced top, that'll reduce the bark somewhat and make it mellower sounding.
all of the original small body L-5's are parallel braced.
-
I couldn't agree more. At the risk of stating the obvious, this effect is particularly pronounced in leap years ending in a prime number, in which case energy waves emanating from Atlantis cause the competing hygroscopic and hygrophobic properties of the wood to realign in a crystalline pattern that is conducive to better tone. I assume that everybody knows this. Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
-
Jabberwocky, that's Steve Greene in that video. He was my teacher. He is brilliant!!!!!!
-
"leap years ending in a prime number"?
how does that work?
-
I know you want to compare apples to apples but I'm going to just throw this one little thing out there. Try different set of strings. You're not trying to make your Gibson sound like a Loar, you're trying to make the Gibson sound as good as it can. Of curiosity, how do they compare for weight? Has nothing to do with the conversation but I'm just curious
-
Do you want to be seen with the real deal or a cheap Asian knockoff?
-
Interesting thread.
I own ( purchased 2 years ago ) a 1995 L-5 RI and also own 2 L-7's both all acoustic, w/no pu's. One's a '36 x-braced.
My L-5 education happened when I played 3 new L-5's last year - -one a WesMo, one w/ surface p/u, and one all acoustic. Each and every new L-5 had the same ' voice ', and my L-5 R/I basically matched all of them. ( or they matched it ). But none of the new ones had anywhere near the unplugged volume I thought they'd have. I'd have traded up if they had.
So I have to conclude that Gibson has succeeded in making these new L-5's sound alike, and match the R/I L-5, and that this was their intention. Plugged in, the 2 L-5's were to die for, and to their credit, Gibson succeeded there as well.
My 2 cents worth.Last edited by Dennis D; 03-30-2016 at 12:01 AM.
-
I completely get where you're coming from. I've certainly had that attitude towards more than one pair of possibilities in my life. But personally... I'm going to call bullhookey on this one. Originally Posted by fritz jones
1) Investment bankers love to look at each others' ties and shoes and judge each other on that. Customers don't see the shoes because they're judging the banker from his face and voice. Then after pleasantries are exchanged, the shoes are under the table. Most people listening at a gig won't even look at the headstock. Those who do, and make a judgment based on that rather than the music and sound, are there for the wrong reason.
2) Some of those 'cheap Asian knockoffs' are really pretty fantastic.
3) Lastly, I don't want my opinion to be defined by what OTHERS determine is 'the real deal'. I bought a German guitar and a Japanese guitar last year - one which 99% of American guitar collectors would not recognize, the other which 100% would not recognize. Both are sublime-sounding; at a time sensitive with overtone when played calmly, and cannons if pushed. And neither "look the part" at all.
If the Loar does the job then it does the job. If it doesn't then one looks elsewhere, but I don't think Gibson has a lock on all things good.
I do lust after a nice-sounding early non-cut guitar like the one Stephen Greene plays above. But I would lust after one even if it said Harmony or Kay on the headstock. And if it did, more the better because it likely wouldn't cost as much!
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale