Sound test 1947 Gibson ES-300 vs 1952 ES-350

[DB's Jazz Guitar Blog]

The 300 is a bit more dynamic and a little brighter, and I like that a little more. But that's through a set-up that's atypical for actually playing a guitar, and without going through the range of possible adjustments (e.g., knobs on guitar and amp, pickup/pole-piece heights) to see what the full range of tones is for both. IOW, I think I'd need to see/hear the Venn diagram of tone (so to speak) through an amp to judge which I prefer. After you posted the 350 clip yesterday, I kind of guessed this question was coming, and listened to some of your other 300 clips. I thought they sounded pretty much identical to yesterday's 350 video, so I'm guessing the intersection in the Venn diagram is pretty big. If it's a tie in sound and feel, and the cost differences and hassle factor of selling are acceptable, I'd take the cutaway. But just by that video, I do prefer the 300.

John

Great observations and you are totally right. It's easy to dial in a slightly darker tone on the 300. I have many vids in which the 300 sounds different. Even a reverb changes the tone ... Even playing it through an amp will change the whole sound. Remember I recorded them both totally dry.

They are both light guitars but the 300 is even lighter than the 350 and even more vibrant. It has a snappier tone and is a bit woodier sounding. But it's not hard to get a different sound from it through another signal chain.

DB

[DB's Jazz Guitar Blog]

Awesome playing, how long did it take you to memorize that!?

The etude I have known for many, many years. I play it every once in a while. It must have taken me some time because it was one of the first etudes I ever studied.

Same strings on both? Both sets new or one broken in more? I listened twice through while looking away the whole time, so I didn't know which was which. Then a third time while watching. I prefer the 300. A dad crisper, but also louder, and that could factor in. I wonder what would make the 300 snappier/crisper, and louder? The wood? Shape? Pickup? (Strings?) But as others have mentioned, I'll bet you could approach the tone of the 350 on the 300 just by rolling of the tone a tad. Also, I know you didn't say it's an issue, but is the cutaway something that is very useful to you?

No, the 350 had d'Addario strings on it which I did not like at all but I just changed them to a TI 0.12 set and the feel and sound of the 350 are dramatically better now. I'll do some new recordings tomorrow.

The 300 is of an even lighter build than the 350. The main difference is that the 300 has a a mahogany neck versus maple on the 350. And only one pup of course on the 300.

By the way, on the 300 are 0.11 TIs which is a very light gauge!

DB

[DB's Jazz Guitar Blog]

Judging from what I can hear now the ES-300 is my favorite because it has the more "dense" tone, nice and fat on the high E string.
In order to really appreciate the minor differences between the two instruments I'd have to hear some SLOW lines, some strummed chords, some picked chords, just a demonstration of the various tones that these guitars have to offer, including the effect of the volume and tone controls. Some un-amplified playing would also help.

I'll do some more recordings tomorrow. Thanks for commenting.

DB

[silverfoxx]

It would be the 350 for me, greater versatility and resale value
a cutaway is a must too, both have great tone.

[Doctor Jeff]

I'd pick the one that has the 1974 Rolex Mariner NIB in the case... ;-)

Tough call. I prefer the sound of the 300 just because I like a little more crispness in people I listen to, though ironically for me personally to play it's not such an issue.

I'd really look at which feels better to play, is in better condition when looked at in detail, and possibly which would be more bang for the buck in terms of collectibility and value.

[pingu]

The thing is ....

would you you take the 350 on a gig ?
It's too expensive/rare to take out isn't it ....

i think I'd keep the 300 ....

[citizenk74]

To my aged and jaded ears, the 350 has the buttery tone that does it for me, though the margin (unlike the tone!) is thin. It's a coin toss, really. Both are fine vintage instruments exhibiting the positive attributes of age and use. You can't go wrong either way.

[Marinero]

Being electric guitars capable of altering the tonality, I think both could be tweaked to get "your sound." However, judged by your video, the ES300 is my choice: richer, fat tone, well-rounded notes and a great guitar for comping. Did we also forget that acoustic guitars have differing tonalities based on where it is played in relation to the bridge/neck? Cutaway has no bearing for me. Its about the sound. Good playing . . . Marinero

[floatingpickup]

350
The 350 sounds warmer to me. In addition to the sound, I prefer a cutaway on an electric guitar. I love non-cutaway acoustics though. Just a personal preference.
Keith

[EllenGtrGrl]

Both sounded cool, but I personally preferred the ES-350 - it sounded a little darker, and smoother/less percussive than the ES-300. But, I wouldn't hesitate to play either of them, if they were offered to me.

[Woody Sound]

No, the 350 had d'Addario strings on it which I did not like at all but I just changed them to a TI 0.12 set and the feel and sound of the 350 are dramatically better now. I'll do some new recordings tomorrow.

The 300 is of an even lighter build than the 350. The main difference is that the 300 has a a mahogany neck versus maple on the 350. And only one pup of course on the 300.

By the way, on the 300 are 0.11 TIs which is a very light gauge!

DB

That could be why it sounds brighter. But it doesn't explain louder. I would do the comparison with the exact same strings. Might open your eyes (or ears) to what's really happening. Interesting thought that the mahogany guitar sounds brighter that the maple.

[skiboyny]

I'd pick the 350 but honestly we split hairs. The sound of the guitar for me is heard for about 2 seconds at that point it becomes the performance. In the end it's always about the player. Keep the one that plays the most comfortably but most important inspires you to play. Inspiration is really the only reason you need and it's totally personal.

[deacon Mark]

This is pretty easy here and I agree with what most have said. The 300 more crisp and maybe a bit more punch on the initial contact with the pick. But that said the main point is that each of these guitars sound GREAT GREAT. I am mean the tone is classic and focused for jazz guitar the pure sound one might look for and then be done. Certainly different than an L5 carved top or built-in but absolutely fantastic jazz guitar sound.

To to be fair Dick you can send me either one whatever one you like the best I take the other. I might add that the sound they get is classic but the player has to produce the results and sound still is in the HANDS.