Dumb Questions on Playing a Gibson ES-175

[Gustavo Eiriz]

I can only add one or two things to what other people said. If the pickups are too high you might also lose some dynamics in the amplified sound.
Using a washer between the pickups screws and the top reliefs some weight from the top giving you more dynamics and liveness, i saw it on a youtube video by a famous jazz guitar teacher, and i can confirm it to be true.
By the way, Gibson guys knows what and why they do things: if it has a thick top is to give you a fat amplified sound.
Good luck and congratulation! Beautiful guitar.

Enviado desde mi LG-H870 mediante Tapatalk

[pingu]

Raise the action ....

[jonh]

Raise the action ....

Hi all, I wanted to reply to Pungu since a few of you have questioned the string height. I get the same results with my bridge where it is, when I tested it high as well as "ridiculously high."

I appreciate the suggestions, though.

When I set this guitar up I wanted to get the action lower, even though it was set to Gibson specs. I'm aware of how strings can be too low and contact frets when played hard. I ran into this with a 1930s Slingerland archtop that I restored. I had to do a neck reset, straighten the neck and replace the fretboard. It didn't have a truss rod so I had to mill grooves in the neck for a couple of carbon fiber rods. It plays pretty well now, but it was major surgery.

So, when I was setting up this ES-775 I was trying to figure out if the strings really were in contact with the frets, even though it didn't seem like that was the problem. I did some testing (several times, out of frustration) and ruled that out. But thanks for your suggestions, glad to have the input. Lots of wisdom on this forum.

-Jon

[citizenk74]

What kind of fiend are you asking for, Citizen? A guitar fiend, dope fiend, or some other kind?

Most definitely a Guitar Fiend.

[archtopeddy]

This discussion about the acoustic sound of an ES-175 reminds me... Wasn't Joe Pass' first Virtuoso album recorded acoustically using an unplugged ES-175?

[oldane]

This discussion about the acoustic sound of an ES-175 reminds me... Wasn't Joe Pass' first Virtuoso album recorded acoustically using an unplugged ES-175?

Yes, except for one tune. The story goes that the guitar was actually plugged with the intention of recording a mix of the amplified and acoustic sound. But somehow the technician missed it and only got the acoustic part on tape. But who knows, maybe that story is just ..... a story.

Frankly, I don't like the acoustic sound of Joe's 175 on that record as little as I like the acoustic tone of my own 1961 175. I use to compare it with the sound of a monkey farting in a tin can.

[rpjazzguitar]

Odd idea maybe:

The best sound I ever heard from a 175 was Jim Hall's. He had a Guild pickup on it, which may have been a single coil.

[ronjazz]

Odd idea maybe:

The best sound I ever heard from a 175 was Jim Hall's. He had a Guild pickup on it, which may have been a single coil.

pretty sure it was a humbucker, but certainly a warm, fat beautiful sound both live and recorded. I heard that guitar many times live, even had a chat with him (he often borrowed an amp from me when he came to Boston) about the new ebony fingerboard Jimmy D put on it for him. He used fairly light strings and a light touch with the pick to get that sound. Liquid, hardly any attack noticeable, like he drew the sound out of the guitar-amp combination.

[Irishmuso]

Yes, except for one tune. The story goes that the guitar was actually plugged with the intention of recording a mix of the amplified and acoustic sound. But somehow the technician missed it and only got the acoustic part on tape. But who knows, maybe that story is just ..... a story.

Frankly, I don't like the acoustic sound of Joe's 175 on that record as little as I like the acoustic tone of my own 1961 175. I use to compare it with the sound of a monkey farting in a tin can.

I don't like the tone on that record either. The only track I can listen to is 'Here's That Rainy Day', which sounds so different from the rest of the album. If only the rest of the tracks had the same sound. I always thought it amazing that it was even released. Did Joe know about the problem? Could he not have gone in next day or whenever and recorded it all again with the amp problem sorted. They would have been different versions but equally valuable. Better still, had they done this, why not release both versions and let the public decide? I realise that's not how record companies operated in those days. Nowadays, some enterprising company would do a limited edition heavy vinyl edition for $50-60.

[Betz]

A beautiful guitar! Do you know how much it was played? A few years ago I bought a NOS Martin CF-1 archtop. It had been hanging in a shop for 10 years. I purchased it on line and when it arrived the unplugged tone was tight with almost no dynamics. But I knew this was an acoustic guitar, and like a flat top would open up. And did it ever. The more I played her the better she sounded.

And BTW, I love the unplugged sound of my ES-175 VOS.

[lawson-stone]

there was a thread here some time ago on the tone of Joe Pass' Virtuoso album. A few of us actually did experiments with mic'ing the ES175 and running a direct line to record, and the results came quite close to what you hear on Virtuoso. I've personally never had a problem with the sound on that recording, and actually like it because it's not your stereotypical acoustic sound. It sparkles and snaps, growls and speaks. It's not my favorite, but somehow it fits the way Joe was playing on that album, IMO.

[Stringswinger]

The Virtuoso record was made on Pablo records. Norman Granz, the owner of Pablo wanted everything to be one take, warts and all on that label's releases. The concept was to capture pure jazz improvisation. I have all of Joe Pass's work on that label, and while much of it is far from perfect (mistakes can be heard and the tone sometimes is less than stellar), it is all wonderful.

Joe's tone on "For Django" or "Intercontinental", IMO is as good as jazz guitar tone gets. It is a very "electric" tone, played on a 1962 Gibson ES-175D with flatwounds. I own three Gibson Es-175D guitars, each strung with flatwounds. Joe's early tone is the sound that I am always trying to achieve. If only I had his fingers and skill set.....

[DB's Jazz Guitar Blog]

The Virtuoso record was made on Pablo records. Norman Granz, the owner of Pablo wanted everything to be one take, warts and all on that label's releases. The concept was to capture pure jazz improvisation. I have all of Joe Pass's work on that label, and while much of it is far from perfect (mistakes can be heard and the tone sometimes is less than stellar), it is all wonderful.

Joe's tone on "For Django" or "Intercontinental", IMO is as good as jazz guitar tone gets. It is a very "electric" tone, played on a 1962 Gibson ES-175D with flatwounds. I own three Gibson Es-175D guitars, each strung with flatwounds. Joe's early tone is the sound that I am always trying to achieve. If only I had his fingers and skill set.....

"Joy Spring" (live recording) and "Simplicity" are equally good in the 175 sound department. I think Joe pretty much set the standard for the archetypal 175 jazz guitar sound on those early records. Maybe even for the genre as a whole.

DB

[lawson-stone]

Here is a shot you might not have expected. Gene Bertoncini playing a blonde Gibson ES775! Taken Jun 1, 2004 at a workshop.

[Betz]

The Virtuoso record was made on Pablo records. Norman Granz, the owner of Pablo wanted everything to be one take, warts and all on that label's releases. The concept was to capture pure jazz improvisation. I have all of Joe Pass's work on that label, and while much of it is far from perfect (mistakes can be heard and the tone sometimes is less than stellar), it is all wonderful.

Joe's tone on "For Django" or "Intercontinental", IMO is as good as jazz guitar tone gets. It is a very "electric" tone, played on a 1962 Gibson ES-175D with flatwounds. I own three Gibson Es-175D guitars, each strung with flatwounds. Joe's early tone is the sound that I am always trying to achieve. If only I had his fingers and skill set.....

Thank you for the info on Virtuoso. You also might be the perfect person for a question as you own 3 ES-175’s! I have had my 2016 VOS about 6 months now and find new things I like every time I play her. She has a remarkable 10th to 15th fret sweet spot. I have also started lusting after an early 90’s ebony ES-165. My rational side is saying it is too close to the 175 I already have. Are each of yours unique, able to do certain things exceptionally well?

[Stringswinger]

Thank you for the info on Virtuoso. You also might be the perfect person for a question as you own 3 ES-175’s! I have had my 2016 VOS about 6 months now and find new things I like every time I play her. She has a remarkable 10th to 15th fret sweet spot. I have also started lusting after an early 90’s ebony ES-165. My rational side is saying it is too close to the 175 I already have. Are each of yours unique, able to do certain things exceptionally well?

All three of my 175's are different in feel and sound.

My 2017 VOS 59 is the lightest and most acoustic.

My 2017 Figured is the heaviest and most electric.

My 1997 is in between those two.

While they are all different, they are not as different as my carved electric archtops or my carved acoustic archtops. That said, I do believe a two pickup 59 reissue and a 90's one pickup 165 would be different enough in both tone and feel to easily justify owning both. Hope that helps.....

[jonh]

My experience with the 775 is that it is a heavier build than a 175 and while all 175s made past say 1970 are somewhat dead acoustically, the 775 is an extremely dead guitar in that respect.

Swinger, this got me thinking. There's obviously a lot of weight variation and the 775 I have to admit is a bit of a pig. Anyone care to share the thickness of your 175 tops? If you have a caliper, check your top at the f-holes and post the thickness and year. Inquiring minds want to know.

My '91 ES-775 is about 1/4" or .25", my Epi Joe Pass (Peerless, 2003) is about 7/32" or .220", and my '61 ES-125TD is about 5/32" or .160"

[Betz]

All three of my 175's are different in feel and sound.

My 2017 VOS 59 is the lightest and most acoustic.

My 2017 Figured is the heaviest and most electric.

My 1997 is in between those two.

While they are all different, they are not as different as my carved electric archtops or my carved acoustic archtops. That said, I do believe a two pickup 59 reissue and a 90's one pickup 165 would be different enough in both tone and feel to easily justify owning both. Hope that helps.....

It does. I really like how you were able to to express that by comparing the acoustic to electric balance. So the 90s 165 is going to be a different beast than the 2016 175 VOS. And I really dig that Gibson black finish . . .

Thank you!

[rsclosson]

I may be wrong, but isn't the OP talking about the fabled and much revered "thunks" that wins the approval of 175 players and listeners?

[mikeSF]

Don't forget Jim Hall. There's a whole library of early ES-175 JH records with the classic thunk sound.

[Tal_175]

I think the thunk of ES 175 and what OP is talking about are two different things.

[lesyeuxnoirs]

Hi all,

Got my first ES-175, a 1991 model. Fabulous tone, but I have a few dumb questions for the ES-175 experts.

When I play it acoustically and plugged in, it has a compressed sound to it. This is most pronounced when playing it acoustically. By "compressed" I mean if I pick hard it doesn't respond louder like I would expect, it sounds like it is limited by a compressor. The relative volume doesn't change much.

I have several archtops now, including some 1930s acoustics, a '61 Gibson ES-125TD, an Epiphone Joe Pass and a Loar, and I don't experience the same thing with them (at least not to this degree). In my journey looking for the perfect jazz archtop I've played some Heritage guitars, a Fender D'Aquisto and others...again, I didn't experience the extent of the compression I experience on the ES-175.

I'm used to being able to "dig in" when I want to change the dynamics, and I'm used to having the guitar respond.

I've had it a few days and I'm learning how to play it...it seems like it needs a really soft touch and completely different playing style than I'm used to. Using a soft touch I get a nice range of dynamics through the amp. It's just...different.

It has the 3-piece maple neck, maple body, ebony fingerboard and TOM bridge. (It's actually an ES-775, so same body/neck as a 175 with gold hardware, neck pickup moved to the end of the fretboard and more bling.)

So the range of dumb questions for the group here include:
1). Is this compression that I'm experiencing typical of an ES-175 compared to other archtops?
2). Do you ES-175 players use a significantly different picking/playing style on an ES-175 than you would on other archtops, or even semi-hollow or solid body guitars? Do you not "dig in" like you would on other instruments?

Thanks in advance for your sage wisdom and advice. I've learned so much on this forum and appreciate the contributions so many of you have made to it.

-Jon

Hi Jon

Congrats on your NGD - enjoy it in good health

I have two 175s and am very familiar with what you describe...the sound getting thinner when you dig in

I think that the suggestions to raise the action and lower the pick up are sound

I also think that some of this depends on pick ups. In my 175 with P90s - no issue; in my other with Classic 57s...big issue

what I’ve found useful to play at the sweet spot between the neck pup and the neck. It also pays to play around with volume. Following the advice of other forum members (esp. Lawsonstone), I now turn my amp up and turn the guitar volume down (sometimes as low as 5). That helps a lot

hope this is useful

apologies if it’s all a bit obvious

best

david

[Herbie]

Swinger, this got me thinking. There's obviously a lot of weight variation and the 775 I have to admit is a bit of a pig. Anyone care to share the thickness of your 175 tops? If you have a caliper, check your top at the f-holes and post the thickness and year. Inquiring minds want to know.

My '91 ES-775 is about 1/4" or .25", my Epi Joe Pass (Peerless, 2003) is about 7/32" or .220", and my '61 ES-125TD is about 5/32" or .160"

I don’t know if this helps but here is the numbers of the tops of my three current f-hole guitars:
ES-175 VOS 1959 (2012) 4,95 mm – 2,6 kg
ES-175 VOS 1954 (2015) 5,83 mm – 3,06 kg
and for comparison:
ES-275 (P90s) 5,23 mm.

The difference in feel goes with the numbers: 1954 feels ’deader’ than 1959. ES275 has less depth so the feel is different, less vibrant.

Of course one must consider also that VOS 1959 is 1 pickup model so the top vibrates a bit more freely.

I have always thought that the OP’s question is about every archtop. That has been a hard school for my heavy right hand. But enjoyable school!

[2bornot2bop]

Hey, Citizen, tell your friend/fiend that I do have a pic! Thanks for asking.
Attachment 73700

Killer guitar jonh! Killer guitar!

[Tal_175]

Also pick is an important factor for the compression. Some picks just make ES 175's (and other guitars) sound compressed even when picked lightly, others give you more "headroom".

For example, Dunlop Jazztone picks sound more compressed to me. The regular red Jazz III's sound more open. Although out of the package, the unbevelled edges have molding marks that can make it sound thin. Some sandpaper and polishing work clears that nicely.