The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 26 to 48 of 48
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by deacon Mark
    Here is something to chew on that is in the same sort of comparison.

    I have a 2000 Vestax NY 4. This is one of the original run of these and is 18 inch box with a press top but it is a solid top. I assume same as the Gibson formed top guitars they now are selling. I can tell you my Vestax DA is an amazing winner for acoustic sound. It actually has more sound and sounds much better than many carved top guitars I have heard. It has plenty of volumn and while it is not a real D'angelico it has better sound than many Johnny Smith Gibsons and some acoustic L5's, if not more than a few. With the floater it sound like the typical carved top guitar not a laminate. It sounds better than some custom carved boutique guitars that will remain un-named.

    I simply point this out because may luthiers are going to a lot of work carving and getting things down and frankly this guitar acoustically might have you scratching your head and wondering? I am not saying that carving and graduation of the top are maybe over-rated but that sometimes one never knows how would will respond. Also the guitar being press-formed by not carved does not in anyway act like a built in laminated guitar.
    Same Experience here. I have a Vestax 2000 Nyl-3 and a Nyl-4. The nyl-3 looks like and sounds like my ‘57 D’A New Yorker. The Nyl-4 sounds like my GJS (thanks to Joe D!)

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Well you might want to define which era Johnny Smith Gibsons you found to be weak. I found most to have a pleasant acoustic sound with a nice midrange quality lacking in the more Modern thinner top guitars.
    And this could just be how we each hear things we have a preference for. Not necessarily good or bad, just different.

    The one thing is when Norlin era Gibson's which includes some of the Heritage owners made them. They tended to have fairly Plain Jane maple backs and sides.
    They felt that these actually sounded better than the highly figured wood.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    I could not agree more. I've owned a NYL4 purchased from John Reynolds of Golden Age Fretted Instruments out of New Jersey. He carries a fraction of the arch tops he once did. Having owned 4 of them I'd classify Vestax as great guitars, and the NYL2's are nice too, especially so after a pickup change.
    I may have tried that guitar, pricey but nice, before he moved across town to a larger space a couple of years ago. I was just there in June. I would say he has more inventory overall now, and more in the store than shows up online. Doesn't seem to be a lot of turnover on archtops, though. He's got a few that have been there for quite a while.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    [QUOTE=jads57;972000]Well you might want to define which era Johnny Smith Gibsons you found to be weak. I found most to have a pleasant acoustic sound with a nice midrange quality lacking in the more Modern thinner top guitars.
    And this could just be how we each hear things we have a preference for. Not necessarily good or bad, just different.

    The one thing is when Norlin era Gibson's which includes some of the Heritage owners made them. They tended to have fairly Plain Jane maple backs and sides.
    They felt that these actually sounded better than the highly figured wood.[/QUOTE

    With Gibsons from anytime generally from the late 60s forward you must evaluate the guitar individually. Norlin era was no considered as good but frankly not true many of those were fine guitars. The Norlin era had those plain jane backs and the not so nice yellow and black sunburst. The key is that the figure of the maple has zero to do with the actually sound of the guitar. Even a spruce top that may not be tight straight grain, even appear inferior can sound wonderful.

    I would have nothing to do with a GJS double pickup, if I found on that was really good I would convert it to a single in a heartbeat. Most of the doubles are just heavier due to the pickups but to me it take away the acoustic properties. Also most buying JS Gibsons are neck-pickup players who could care less. I just find at times the JSG can vary after the initial 6-9 years they came out. I believe Johnny Smith even got on them about the QC he mentioned this in the past. Also, Johnny Smith himself was a superb repairman and knew all about the construction of archtops. Gibson could not go changing things for convenience as they do at times with him knowing something was wrong. Johnny Smith necks are supposed to be 1 3/4 at the nut end of story. The carving goes into the neck and the fitting of the neck is different that the L5 of Super400. I just find some Smith's I have played heavy and over built and the weight seem to be in the neck block.

    I have owned 2 GJS myself a 1973 and the other might have been just before then, both were single pickups and fine guitars. I in fact the 1973 was used pretty good not beat up but not mint or even excellent and it really had a smooth acoustic sound stood with any guitar. The other was in mint shape beautiful cherry sunburst and I thought great but sound wise not a good as the very used one. The mint one ended up getting pickguard gas and I had to get the pickguard changed in a hurry once it started.

    At certain periods of time maybe the first GJS the QC and attention was great those but the prices are pretty high. I played Johnny's person guitar in Colorado is was a blond one and long time ago but of course stock as they come and it was fine. No better or worse than what came off the line and that was in 1979. I also played his D'angelico New Yorker that day and let just say...……...that was a guitar. If I recall it did have more bass response than his GJS and of course it was hard to get past the ICON of jazz guitars with a floater.

    I had too an Norlin era L5 from 1978 with BJB pickup fantastic guitar wish I still had it although a plain jane back and black and yellow sunburst. The bottom line is as always trust but verify...….play every Gibson archtop and evaluate individually.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    My experiences are similar to Deacon Mark's. Some archtops are heavy and acoustically nothing to write home about. OTOH, some of them are sensational as electric archtop guitars, IME.

    The best acoustic-electric guitars I have played were virtually all thinner plate carves than the ones mentioned above. Even the more interesting acoustic-electric laminate-body guitars featured thin laminates. I remember Herb Ellis' '53 ES-175 (owned now by a forum member) having a thinner laminated top plate than the contemporary ES-175 with the figured woods. You could turn off the volume on Ellis' guitar and strum it acoustically in a duo or trio, or when backing a singer, with a telling effect--not bad for a laminated guitar. OTOH, many of the contemporary ES-175 guitars with the heavier builds sound simply fantastic as electric guitars.

    The same is true for the esteemed L5CES. It's a real battleship of a build. Carved, but kind of heavy. It's not the acoustic instrument that, say, a Heritage Golden Eagle typically is (with a floater), but try to beat it as an electric jazz archtop.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    As far as plain non flamed maple goes like the Norlin days, Jimmy D’Aquisto was adamant that plain sounded better than flamed but said customers insisted on the nice flamed maple.
    I had a plain Jane 1978 Super 400 and a flame monster 2014 S400. The Norlin sounded way better. Also my 1977 Byrdland sounded better than my 2014. The year a Gibson was made means nothing. It is hit or miss regardless of when it was made. Even the Crimson custom shop made some turds. Just because wood looks great doesn’t mean it will sound as good as it looks. I have 3 L5 Wesmo’s and they all sound different and have different weights. I have 2 Tal Farlow’s and one has way better sustain. Every guitar is a dice roll. It comes down to a wood tone stack. Also I have had guitars sound great from day one and others take years before they sounded great. Wood is unpredictable.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    And this is why Archtops are so interesting. The very one that sounds great acoustically can be a headache to gig with,and the opposite as well.
    I'm just happy I found one that seems to be a happy medium for me at least
    Elferink Tonemaster archtop 16&1/2"x3" thicker top plate with a floater.

    But in fairness I don't play louder Rock gigs with it. And the Heritage 550 would definitely be able too do that!

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    I just keep thinking there are so many more solutions available once you decide to amplify an archtop, or if the archtop already has a pickup. And you pretty much ought to be able to dial in the sound you want, or close - what with all the options available. The only real issue may just be volume.
    But if the intent is for the archtop to be used only as an acoustic, if you don't like the sound or it just isn't there, you don't have a lot of options. Maybe different strings, and / or a bridge, but then what ???
    I think the odds are good you'll never be stuck ( or shouldn't be ) if you'll be playing amplified. However if the guitar doesn't have ' that sound' acoustically, and that's how you'll be using it, there isn't a lot you're going to be able to do to improve it.

    Just my two cents......

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Dennis D
    I just keep thinking there are so many more solutions available once you decide to amplify an archtop, or if the archtop already has a pickup. And you pretty much ought to be able to dial in the sound you want, or close - what with all the options available. The only real issue may just be volume.
    But if the intent is for the archtop to be used only as an acoustic, if you don't like the sound or it just isn't there, you don't have a lot of options. Maybe different strings, and / or a bridge, but then what ???
    I think the odds are good you'll never be stuck ( or shouldn't be ) if you'll be playing amplified. However if the guitar doesn't have ' that sound' acoustically, and that's how you'll be using it, there isn't a lot you're going to be able to do to improve it.

    Just my two cents......
    That's true to a point, there's a lot more to tweak with pickups and an amp. But if that's all that mattered, we'd all be playing solidbodies I've been through upgrading capacitors, pickups, nut, etc., with a couple of Epi Joe Pass Emperors, and it can help, but marginally.
    Fooling with modeling amps & settings helps, too, but you can only take away tone, and add volume & distortion.

    I have a flatop Martin I've experimented with trying to get a jazzier sound. It has a Fishman Aura system with piezo saddle pickup, tone control & microphone modeling- I've tried it with a couple of Rolands & Fender modeling amp- no amount of tweaking will get it to sound like an archtop like an L5.

    To your point, in both cases, the guitar's acoustic quality makes it sound the way it does.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    I was pretty shocked at the improvement when I re-wired my L5ces.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    So here's an interesting one. Dennis Buddimer used an Ovation acoustic to mimic an L-5 acoustic in some of his session work.Go Figure!

    Maybe the key is all of us just practicing a lot more,LOL!

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Lawson-Stone, how did you reword your L5?

    I recently bought an ‘82 L5 and replaced the whole harness and pickups (put in some ‘62 Gibson hums) and could not believe the improvement!

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jads57
    ... [ ] ...The one thing is when Norlin era Gibson's which includes some of the Heritage owners made them. They tended to have fairly Plain Jane maple backs and sides. They felt that these actually sounded better than the highly figured wood.
    Interesting. Gibson, unlike other builders, did not use quarter-sawn maple for the back plates of their carved arch tops. They made the switch to quarter-sawn wood and began with very plain wood. They have continued to use quarter-sawn wood up to today, but now it's highly figured.

    I always wondered why they made the switch. Quarter-sawn wood is typically more expensive than flat-sawn or rift-sawn wood. Old Gibson arch top back plates rarely have any problems of which I'm aware, and I wonder if the switch was made because they got different wood suppliers, or because the flat-sawn wood they had previously been supplied with was no longer as well aged or stable.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 6v6ster
    Lawson-Stone, how did you reword your L5?

    I recently bought an ‘82 L5 and replaced the whole harness and pickups (put in some ‘62 Gibson hums) and could not believe the improvement!
    I ordered a complete "re-wire" kit with all the pots, caps, switch, and jack already soldered. I just connected them to the pickups and mounted everything.

    My L5ces had a very odd problem. The Neck volume never really turned the volume down the zero, and the tone control seemed to have very little effect at all. I tend to think of a guitar's wiring as a complete system, and didn't want to replace piecemeal. I also did not trust my skills operating on an L5ces. So I found a wiring harness made by "Jackson Electronic Luthier" that used outstanding components and simply did the pickup connection and mounted everything else.

    Loved the outcome. The volume/tone give me the outcomes I wanted.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lawson-stone
    I ordered a complete "re-wire" kit with all the pots, caps, switch, and jack already soldered. I just connected them to the pickups and mounted everything.

    My L5ces had a very odd problem. The Neck volume never really turned the volume down the zero, and the tone control seemed to have very little effect at all. I tend to think of a guitar's wiring as a complete system, and didn't want to replace piecemeal. I also did not trust my skills operating on an L5ces. So I found a wiring harness made by "Jackson Electronic Luthier" that used outstanding components and simply did the pickup connection and mounted everything else.

    Loved the outcome. The volume/tone give me the outcomes I wanted.
    Lawson you scored and did it correct. Best to start all over with new pots and wires. That replaces all the time and headache if things are not correct. Those pre-wired harnesses are super. Can I ask what they charge for those harnesses?

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by deacon Mark
    Lawson you scored and did it correct. Best to start all over with new pots and wires. That replaces all the time and headache if things are not correct. Those pre-wired harnesses are super. Can I ask what they charge for those harnesses?
    This is the one I used

    Sold for $99 on Reverb. Not cheap, but I had confidence in the components, soldering, etc. Like I said, just connect the pickups, feed it all inside, and mount the hardware.

    Loved the results.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lawson-stone
    This is the one I used

    Sold for $99 on Reverb. Not cheap, but I had confidence in the components, soldering, etc. Like I said, just connect the pickups, feed it all inside, and mount the hardware.

    Loved the results.
    I thought a new harness would sell for $400 minimum. How is it worth their time to create these so cheaply?

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    I bought one from a dealer in NC Atlantic Customer guitars. I needed to replace a 335 style guitar for a customer and for $75 it is easier to buy than make really. If all I did was solder and do wiring then I can see doing my own but these days not needed. What I got had CTS pots and it was great.

    Sometimes though the customer wants to keep all things original and I get that so then I have to solder and wire. That is not my favorite repair but a must for sure.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
    I thought a new harness would sell for $400 minimum. How is it worth their time to create these so cheaply?
    Actually I tried pricing one myself using the same components and I couldn't do it. Buying it pre-made turned out to be the best idea. I love the results, which is the thing that matters.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Aside from laminated or carved construction, maple vs spruce top seems to make a difference in the overtones. Maple has more cutting brightness on the treble strings, drier lows in the lower strings. Spruce has smoother highs and sweeter lows. This is based on my experience with my Byrdland and ES 175.

    I can also hear that clearly in this video. Compare starting at 2:22 (spruce) and 2:44 (maple)

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Greentone
    My experiences are similar to Deacon Mark's. Some archtops are heavy and acoustically nothing to write home about. OTOH, some of them are sensational as electric archtop guitars, IME.

    The best acoustic-electric guitars I have played were virtually all thinner plate carves than the ones mentioned above. Even the more interesting acoustic-electric laminate-body guitars featured thin laminates. I remember Herb Ellis' '53 ES-175 (owned now by a forum member) having a thinner laminated top plate than the contemporary ES-175 with the figured woods. You could turn off the volume on Ellis' guitar and strum it acoustically in a duo or trio, or when backing a singer, with a telling effect--not bad for a laminated guitar. OTOH, many of the contemporary ES-175 guitars with the heavier builds sound simply fantastic as electric guitars.

    The same is true for the esteemed L5CES. It's a real battleship of a build. Carved, but kind of heavy. It's not the acoustic instrument that, say, a Heritage Golden Eagle typically is (with a floater), but try to beat it as an electric jazz archtop.
    Certainly I believe that amplified tone and acoustic tone are related in a strange way, and is not possible to have everything in the same guitar. Nothing gets any fatter than a heavy L-5 Ces or Wes style guitar (the ces is fatter). But its acoustic tone is really not good compared to real acoustic arcthops.
    You can also look for other qualities that are not fatness. Thick top carved are ny cup of teas for amplified tone.

    Enviado desde mi LG-H870 mediante Tapatalk

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    I tried a 60s two pickup L5 that was pretty resonant.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Some makers just make loud guitars... Eastmans always seem to be really loud for some reason, even the laminates.