Epiphone Triumph | Gibson L7 Comparison

[omphalopsychos]

One or both of these guitars may be up for sale. There was an interested buyer asking about them on the forum, so I made the video to share with him. Since it's somewhat educational, I figured I might share with the rest of yous.

There's a recording glitch around 1:10 where you hear both tracks simultaneously. I didn't notice until I was mastering (some attention to detail), and by then it was too much work to fix. Also, I accidentally labeled both videos as L7s. Woops.

That's it. Don't have much to say about the comparison. The Epiphone sounds eppy and the Gibson sounds gibby.

It's not a "this vs. that" video. If you want to comment on your preference, feel free to do so. If you do, please also give some specific descriptions of what you hear.


Sorry for encouraging cork sniffing. It beats huffing glue, I guess.

[Burrellesque]

The L-7 sounds sweeter and more to my tastes, but the Epiphone sure has some volume and punch.

[omphalopsychos]

[feet]

you also have them mislabeled in the video, apparently.

the epi sounds more compressed and directional, the gibson sounds a little more full and broadband. epi was warm and middy and could probably be heard from space. depends on the context and need, but i'd probably reach for the gibson solo and the epi in a group or crowded mix.

[citizenk74]

Two great-sounding instruments! I would be hard-pressed to tell them apart in a blind test. In this case. the Epi seemed to have a slight edge in the sweet midrange department, with the Gibson having a tad more "cut." I would be really hard pressed to decide which of these truly fine instruments to part with. The confounding thing about archtops is the player has the worst seat in the house, unless you pull a Robert Johnson and corner-load. Thank goodness for microphones and media!

[NSJ]

Absolutely no comparison. The Gibson blows it out of the water, so much sweeter so much fuller, more radiant sound.

Confession: I own the 1937 L7, for me it’s the perfect fingerpicking instrument.

[omphalopsychos]

you also have them mislabeled in the video, apparently.

oops you’re right. According to the video they’re both L7s. The second one is the Epi.

[omphalopsychos]

Absolutely no comparison. The Gibson blows it out of the water, so much sweeter so much fuller, more radiant sound.

Confession: I own the 1937 L7, for me it’s the perfect fingerpicking instrument.

Had you tried a 16" L7? If fingerpicking is your jam, the 16" blows the Advanced model out of the water.

[NSJ]

Had you tried a 16" L7? If fingerpicking is your jam, the 16" blows the Advanced model out of the water.

No doubt, but I have never played one. I have of course become aware of the exceptional sound of the 1928 to 1934 L5s, carved braces and all.

Gibson made a reissue of the 1934 version , but alas they are NOWHERE to be found used, now.

I’m surprised they nemer reissued the Maybell Carter guitar with identical specs . That’s as ironic as they come, eh?

[omphalopsychos]

No doubt, but I have never played one. I have of course become aware of the exceptional sound of the 1928 to 1934 L5s, carved braces and all.

Gibson made a reissue of the 1934 version , but alas they are NOWHERE to be found used, now.

I’m surprised they nemer reissued the Maybell Carter guitar with identical specs . That’s as ironic as they come, eh?

Didn't they make the 34 reissue X braced? Seems like it would have a distinct sound from the original.





Anyway, here's my take on the two.

The Gibson has a brassier quality. At lower volumes, this brassiness translates to greater complexity. The Gibson suits chord melody very well. What's interesting is that the Gibson can get plenty of volume, but that brassiness translates to harshness at an ensemble volume. With the Gibson there's also the phenomenon that you get when playing a large x braced flat top. You get huge bass, but also lots of treble. Since this is an archtop, there's still plenty of mid range, but when I get up onto the 1st and 2nd strings, the sound is quite a bit thinner than the Epiphone. But man, that bass on the Gibson. It's massive. Wonderful studio guitar.

The Epiphone is extremely focused and even. It's dry. It's blunt. It doesn't have the bass of the Gibson and it doesn't have the sparkle either. There's something woodier and fundamentally darker about the Epiphone, I think. When comping at a louder volume, it stays cleaner much better than the Gibson. You don't get the "clank, clank" of the Gibson. You get the notes you're hitting at a high volume. It's nice to know you can crank the volume without losing your tone. If you're into clean amps, you know what I mean. The balance across the frequency of the Epiphone is also something to marvel at.

It's funny the comparison that comes to my mind between these two is like EQ settings in your car. Do you pump the bass and treble for a "wow" effect? Or do you slightly emphasize the mids and tame the bass and treble to emphasize clarity and evenness?

[Sam Sherry]

Nicely done -- thanks for taking the time to make and post the vid!

The Epiphone sounds eppy and the Gibson sounds gibby.

Words to live by!

Absolutely no comparison. The Gibson blows it out of the water, so much sweeter so much fuller, more radiant sound.

We gearheads tend to make large differences out of tiny differences, don't we?

[jzjazz]

Epi sounds more mid-rangy. I prefered that sound

[NSJ]

Didn't they make the 34 reissue X braced? Seems like it would have a distinct sound from the original.





Anyway, here's my take on the two.

The Gibson has a brassier quality. At lower volumes, this brassiness translates to greater complexity. The Gibson suits chord melody very well. What's interesting is that the Gibson can get plenty of volume, but that brassiness translates to harshness at an ensemble volume. With the Gibson there's also the phenomenon that you get when playing a large x braced flat top. You get huge bass, but also lots of treble. Since this is an archtop, there's still plenty of mid range, but when I get up onto the 1st and 2nd strings, the sound is quite a bit thinner than the Epiphone. But man, that bass on the Gibson. It's massive. Wonderful studio guitar.

The Epiphone is extremely focused and even. It's dry. It's blunt. It doesn't have the bass of the Gibson and it doesn't have the sparkle either. There's something woodier and fundamentally darker about the Epiphone, I think. When comping at a louder volume, it stays cleaner much better than the Gibson. You don't get the "clank, clank" of the Gibson. You get the notes you're hitting at a high volume. It's nice to know you can crank the volume without losing your tone. If you're into clean amps, you know what I mean. The balance across the frequency of the Epiphone is also something to marvel at.

It's funny the comparison that comes to my mind between these two is like EQ settings in your car. Do you pump the bass and treble for a "wow" effect? Or do you slightly emphasize the mids and tame the bass and treble to emphasize clarity and evenness?

I think you make a great point about volume and loudness. That said, 99.99% of the time, nobody is playing acoustic arhtop guitar in a big band these days . I would love for this to be true.

There are two things I have found out to be true that I strongly believe in: number one—-The cardinal sin of playing guitar these days is playing ways too loud. We live in an era were playing loud is considered a supreme virtue and an expression of musical intensity. I believe nothing could be further than the truth.

Number two: if you’re playing electric guitar in a given room, you could pretty much play any electric guitar, amplification is the great equalizer, making a lot of guitars pretty much sound like loud guitars, and all the individual elements of each particular instrument tend to lose their particular qualities.

The true expressive qualities of an instrument reveal themselves in much more quieter settings.

[ThatRhythmMan]

I think you make a great point about volume and loudness. That said, 99.99% of the time, nobody is playing acoustic arhtop guitar in a big band these days . I would love for this to be true.

There are two things I have found out to be true that I strongly believe in: number one—-The cardinal sin of playing guitar these days is playing ways too loud. We live in an era were playing loud is considered a supreme virtue and an expression of musical intensity. I believe nothing could be further than the truth.

Number two: if you’re playing electric guitar in a given room, you could pretty much play any electric guitar, amplification is the great equalizer, making a lot of guitars pretty much sound like loud guitars, and all the individual elements of each particular instrument tend to lose their particular qualities.

The true expressive qualities of an instrument reveal themselves in much more quieter settings.

I agree very much with the first point, but not so much with the second. Guitars can have vastly different timbres when amplified, even when using the same pickup, wiring harness, and strings. I have found that to be true even with guitars that were literally coming off the line one right after the other and could otherwise be thought to be essentially twins.

[omphalopsychos]

The true expressive qualities of an instrument reveal themselves in much more quieter settings.

Isn't it ironic that the move to X bracing and 17" body in 1935 was supposed to make Gibsons louder to make them more usable with a band?

[NSJ]

Isn't it ironic that the move to X bracing and 17" body in 1935 was supposed to make Gibsons louder to make them more usable with a band?

haha queue up Barney Kessel’s diatribe about sctatchy Crystal microphones and playing rhythm guitar behind some mediocre tenor and trumpet players in the 1930s dance bands. Then of course he pivoted to the beautiful sound of his Charlie Christian pick up, which was apparently made of electronic fairy dust “ that is not found any place on earth today“.

This reminds me of the story my teacher told me when he was playing in Sinatra’s big band for some concerts. He had to use the volume pedal, because when comping, Sinatra absolutely HATED the sound of the magnetic pick up . Obviously, when it was time to take a chorus, , he had to turn the volume pedal up

[oldane]

Absolutely no comparison. The Gibson blows it out of the water, so much sweeter so much fuller, more radiant sound.

Confession: I own the 1937 L7, for me it’s the perfect fingerpicking instrument.

It depends on what you want it for. Those old Epiphones were the quintessential big band rhythm guitars, not fingerpicking parlor guitars, and most often they delivered volume and projection more than sweet sound whereas Gibsons were sweeter but often not heard so well in a big band. Apart from the volume/projection, the Epiphones were more mid range centered (which is clearly heard in the OPs clip) and as such they easier found their own sonic space in between the bassist and the pianists right hand which also helped them to be heard - and to stay out of the bassists and pianists way. BTW, the same comparison can be made between the Stromberg and the D'Angelico instruments (the originals, not the present day instruments bearing the same names).

[omphalopsychos]

BTW, the same comparison can be made between the Stromberg and the D'Angelico instruments (the originals, not the present day instruments bearing the same names).

That's very interesting. I've never played any Strombergs and I've only ever played one D'Angelico. I'm planning to take a trip to NY in the summer and hope to play more examples of both.

[oldane]

This reminds me of the story my teacher told me when he was playing in Sinatra’s big band for some concerts. He had to use the volume pedal, because when comping, Sinatra absolutely HATED the sound of the magnetic pick up . Obviously, when it was time to take a chorus, , he had to turn the volume pedal up

I can follow Ol' Blue Eyes very well on that. I too don't at all like the sound of a magnetic PU for 4-to-the-bar comping. In such a situation I don't use a pick but brush the strings with my thumb. By brushing rather than picking I get a "schwish" kind of attack which is much more tolerable for me than the massive sound of a pick hitting the strings. It doesn't sound like an acoustic rhythm guitar but the overall effect comes closer as I hear it.

[feet]

There are two things I have found out to be true that I strongly believe in: number one—-The cardinal sin of playing guitar these days is playing ways too loud. We live in an era were playing loud is considered a supreme virtue and an expression of musical intensity. I believe nothing could be further than the truth.

Number two: if you’re playing electric guitar in a given room, you could pretty much play any electric guitar, amplification is the great equalizer, making a lot of guitars pretty much sound like loud guitars, and all the individual elements of each particular instrument tend to lose their particular qualities.

The true expressive qualities of an instrument reveal themselves in much more quieter settings.

not to be a contrarian douche, but

1- playing loud as awesome. fact. but since i play a lot of electric, and guitars with a fair bit of air inside them that matters. the interplay between guitar and amp and volume and the literal and figurative feedback you get from a loud amp- awesome. why i do it. otherwise, it just isn't the same. yes, even clean.

2- i can tell mine apart, but they are all wildly different (on purpose, to avoid redundancy). but i run into this with acoustic guitars, wherein i've tried a bunch of different pickup systems in them. you spend all this time getting them sounding great a safe home volume and as soon as you turn up to a decent gig volume- instant ass.

so while the true nature of guitars are revealed at lower volumes, the tens of thousands who show up to the stadiums to hear me can't tell.

[campusfive]

Fantastic analysis.

And, I think somebody replied a while ago on another thread, but it turns out the '34 Reissue is NOT x-braced. I have definitely been guilty repeating that wrong info, so I figure it's especially incumbent on me to help correct it.

Didn't they make the 34 reissue X braced? Seems like it would have a distinct sound from the original.





Anyway, here's my take on the two.

The Gibson has a brassier quality. At lower volumes, this brassiness translates to greater complexity. The Gibson suits chord melody very well. What's interesting is that the Gibson can get plenty of volume, but that brassiness translates to harshness at an ensemble volume. With the Gibson there's also the phenomenon that you get when playing a large x braced flat top. You get huge bass, but also lots of treble. Since this is an archtop, there's still plenty of mid range, but when I get up onto the 1st and 2nd strings, the sound is quite a bit thinner than the Epiphone. But man, that bass on the Gibson. It's massive. Wonderful studio guitar.

The Epiphone is extremely focused and even. It's dry. It's blunt. It doesn't have the bass of the Gibson and it doesn't have the sparkle either. There's something woodier and fundamentally darker about the Epiphone, I think. When comping at a louder volume, it stays cleaner much better than the Gibson. You don't get the "clank, clank" of the Gibson. You get the notes you're hitting at a high volume. It's nice to know you can crank the volume without losing your tone. If you're into clean amps, you know what I mean. The balance across the frequency of the Epiphone is also something to marvel at.

It's funny the comparison that comes to my mind between these two is like EQ settings in your car. Do you pump the bass and treble for a "wow" effect? Or do you slightly emphasize the mids and tame the bass and treble to emphasize clarity and evenness?

[omphalopsychos]

Fantastic analysis.

And, I think somebody replied a while ago on another thread, but it turns out the '34 Reissue is NOT x-braced. I have definitely been guilty repeating that wrong info, so I figure it's especially incumbent on me to help correct it.

Thanks! I appreciate the correction. Makes the idea of the Gibson reissue slightly less unappealing.

[KirkP]

Fantastic analysis.

And, I think somebody replied a while ago on another thread, but it turns out the '34 Reissue is NOT x-braced. I have definitely been guilty repeating that wrong info, so I figure it's especially incumbent on me to help correct it.

Correct. I think Gibson used X-bracing only on the first several years of the “Advanced” 17 inch bodies (1935-1938). The ‘34 L-5 reissue had a 16 inch body, so wouldn’t have X-bracing. I think the X-bracing was used in the early years of the Advanced body due to the reduced arch. The contour was changed when they went to parallel bracing in 1939. I’m no expert, correct me if I have this wrong.
Vintage Guitars Info - Gibson archtop vintage guitar collecting

[NSJ]

Correct. I think Gibson used X-bracing only on the first several years of the “Advanced” 17 inch bodies (1935-1938). The ‘34 L-5 reissue had a 16 inch body, so wouldn’t have X-bracing.
Vintage Guitars Info - Gibson archtop vintage guitar collecting

And with that, went any appeal whatsoever I may have had for the 34 reissue. Meh.

Actual 1930s Gibsons a truly unique place. Unless I magically win the lottery and find a great '28 L5, I'll happily keep my '37 L7.

Lord knows Gibson have come up with some hairbrained schemes to sell strange looking guitars. But sadly they never could reproduce their 1928 L5.

It just means there's no market for it, except for isolated idiots like me.