Tim Lerch - 4 radically different Guitars playing the same passage.

[wzpgsr]

I liked them all. I bet if you were to blend the acoustic sound of that D’Aquisto with the sound of the mic’d amp you’d have a really nice tone. I have a Fender D’Aquisto Elite, and the in-the-room sound of guitar and amp combined is really something special, in my opinion, for a laminate guitar.

[Stringswinger]

I liked 4 and 2 and would choose either tone depending on whether I was seeking an acoustic tone (2) or electric tone (4).

I do like a nylon string tone as well and while I think there are way better nylon string guitars than the Yamaha (1), I admit that the Yamaha punched well above it's weight.

[Cunamara]

Was there any tone? I must have missed it....

Sure! It was a dark, warm, Jim Hall kind of tone.

I always find the tone discussion interesting because we act (myself included) is if there is some specific objective great jazz tone. And yet I hear people demonstrating and talking about great tone that to me is tinny, ice-picky and unpleasant but to them apparently sounds great. A dark warm tone that I like may be heard by those people as muddy, uninteresting and boring. When people talk about loss of "tone" from patch cords, cable capacitance, tone suck from pedals, etc., they are almost always talking about the high frequency end of the signal. I think for many people "tone" = "bright."

We often talk about tone being in the fingers, but I think it's really in the ears and between the ears. And as someone pointed out upthread, we also hear with our eyes to a great extent.

As for my vote, #4 all the way. #1 sounded nasal and stuffy with a lot of string noise; #2 was bright and harsh with also a lot of string noise. #3 had some warmth and fatness from the amplifier but the acoustic tone was thin and too bright. I don't generally like hearing the mix of the acoustic signature of a guitar and the electric sound, I guess, unless the acoustic sound is very subtle. Which is a little odd because I much prefer to practice unamplified with my archtops and dig the sound I get. Maybe it's because even if I am plugged into the amp I am still always hearing the acoustic sound of the instrument. To me, the best qualities of both sounds are canceled out when I hear them together.

But if it sounds great to someone else, they're right. We all get to like the sound we like!

[dconeill]

For a "jazz guitar tone" I liked #4 best.

If I had to choose from among the acoustic tones, I would have chosen the L5.

But if a flattop guitar of similar quality to the L5 had been included, say a Martin or a Collings or a Taylor (among others) I would likely have chosen that. I've never cared for the sound of an archtop acoustic guitar as a single-note instrument - they're on the thin side.

[skiboyny]

It is an interesting discussion indeed, and of course there is no right answer. None of it is particularly important, I could have been satisfied listening to any one of those passages due to the quality of the player.
To expand a bit on "tone" I prefer to define it as clarity. There is a big difference between clarity and bright. To me the tonal quality is the most important aspect, along with clarity. Honestly I don't get that from the Jim Hall kind of tone, but there are so many that enjoy it. Guitars that are set up to sound like Jim Hall, don't "feel" responsive enough to me. I think that shapes my opinion. I wonder if it has to do with how capable our ears are, at distinguishing frequencies? For example I consider myself as having a good ear musically, but distinguishing very low notes can sometime be a struggle for me. Possibility this would explain why we have different preferences??

Sure! It was a dark, warm, Jim Hall kind of tone.

I always find the tone discussion interesting because we act (myself included) is if there is some specific objective great jazz tone. And yet I hear people demonstrating and talking about great tone that to me is tinny, ice-picky and unpleasant but to them apparently sounds great. A dark warm tone that I like may be heard by those people as muddy, uninteresting and boring. When people talk about loss of "tone" from patch cords, cable capacitance, tone suck from pedals, etc., they are almost always talking about the high frequency end of the signal. I think for many people "tone" = "bright."

We often talk about tone being in the fingers, but I think it's really in the ears and between the ears. And as someone pointed out upthread, we also hear with our eyes to a great extent.

As for my vote, #4 all the way. #1 sounded nasal and stuffy with a lot of string noise; #2 was bright and harsh with also a lot of string noise. #3 had some warmth and fatness from the amplifier but the acoustic tone was thin and too bright. I don't generally like hearing the mix of the acoustic signature of a guitar and the electric sound, I guess, unless the acoustic sound is very subtle. Which is a little odd because I much prefer to practice unamplified with my archtops and dig the sound I get. Maybe it's because even if I am plugged into the amp I am still always hearing the acoustic sound of the instrument. To me, the best qualities of both sounds are canceled out when I hear them together.

But if it sounds great to someone else, they're right. We all get to like the sound we like!

[John A.]

They're all tones. They all sound good. Tim Lerch is a phenomenal player with a genuine, personal voice that comes through on every guitar he plays, and every tune. I can't really say which I prefer to hear him play, since they all sound like him in subtly different ways. For myself, I tend to go for a darker and more electric tone, but it would be fun to try all of those.

My take on the video is that Lerch is trying to emphasize the similarities rather than the differences, how the way he plays them and the way he sets up his mics and amps allows for a workable (for him) and similar tone out of many different guitars. The acoustic ones are probably a little darker sounding than the way those would typically be recorded by people trying to emphasize their acoustic characteristics. The electrics are cleaner and brighter, skewing more toward the tone of a floater on a carved top than other people might typically record. That's how Lerch rolls for the most part. My main caveat to that point is that I've played the D'Aquisto Jazz Line, and it does have that characteristic bright, slightly nasal quality that Lerch emphasizes here baked in (similar to the Eastmans I've tried, though not as pronounced). Even through a pretty warm amp it's there. So it's not just a matter of how he's setting it here.

[citizenk74]

To me this is kind of asking do I prefer the tone of Charlie Byrd, Eddie Lang, Martin Taylor, or Pat Martino. IMHO the un-amplified L5 serves the music best, but more because it’s an acoustic steel string rather than it’s an $8000 guitar. To me they’re just different sounds that can all work depending on the context of the player.