-
I don’t know … I’ve listened to that video of yours a bunch, and if I close my eyes I can’t even tell when you switch from the 175 to the first Seventy Seven (burst). The second (natural) one sounds less like the 175 (I can tell with my eyes closed when you switch).
Originally Posted by jzucker
Interestingly, the burst is spec’ed differently (laminated spruce top, maple neck, ebony board). I have one of those with a single pickup. It sounds like the burst you play there. I think more than anything this all illustrates the variation in tone of individual guitars.
Jack disagrees in 3-2 …
-
11-11-2022 01:10 PM
-
Something I think people miss when "copying" the 175 is often it's depth. The 175 is quite deep for an archtop. I really think this effects the way the guitar vibrates and how that is translated through the pickups.
Just my completely unscientifically tested opinion.
-
So that's where all the 175s are ! Originally Posted by MtnCat
I liked the '67 best....
S
-
I don’t know … I’ve listened to that video of yours a bunch, and if I close my eyes I can’t even tell when you switch from the 175 to the first Seventy Seven (burst). The second (natural) one sounds less like the 175 (I can tell with my eyes closed when you switch). Originally Posted by jzucker
Interestingly, the burst is spec’ed differently (laminated spruce top, maple neck, ebony board). I have one of those with a single pickup. It sounds like the burst you play there. I think more than anything this all illustrates the variation in tone of individual guitars.
Jack disagrees in 3-2 …
-
Interesting tread. What can a poor man do? I'm a lefty, and in my search for something like the 175 I have had to settle with the Eastmann 372, which have the looks alright, but lacks in tone! So what would you good people in this forum suggest as a possible neck-replacement-pickup in order to get closer to the fat, warm mellow tone of the 175 we all love. I know I can get as many different answers as the are readers of this tread, but anyway... I might get a direction in which to look.
-
I wouldn't necessary call it a 175 clone, but I am very satisfied with a Borys B160. It definitely scratches my laminate jazz guitar itch.
It may not quite have the same amount of "thunk" as a 175, (I'm not necessarily going for that), but it is definitely has a nice full chunky sound. It is definitely more well made than a 175, and it has a 1 3/4" nut which I like. It's also a 25" scale, but they make one that is the Gibson scale.
-
There were a few threads on this, found this one : Anyone Pimp Their Eastman? ...might narrow your "quandary" Originally Posted by [email protected]
S
-
It ain't the pickup. It's the top. The eastman has a very thin top and i'm guessing different bracing too. It's never going to sound like a 175. The greco and ibanez copies are constructed more like a gibson. Not sure what the answer is for a cheap leftie but the pickup isn't going to get you there... Originally Posted by [email protected]
-
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Well, unfortunately Jack is right. The guitar is not the same as a 175, that doesn’t make it bad btw, in fact as an acoustic instrument, it’s kind of a better build. However, that acoustic quality reflects in its sound.
Would a Gibson pickup help? I’m sure it would sound better, and they’re cheap used. $60 on the right day and you’re halfway there. Get yourself a diamond tolex, no mid knob Polytone MBIV, and you’ll have a decent jazz sound with no fiddling around with presets and bs. Even with a LP, it delivers a solid jazz sound.
-
Just as Fender got it right the first time with the Tele and Strat, and Gibson with the LP, the 175 is just a perfect design for its intended purpose.
Yes there have been some refinements over the years, but 175s as a group sound more similar than different.
Let’s hope Gibson goes back to making them again as rumored.
-
When I play it, I don’t want for more.
When I put it down and look at it, I can’t believe that is actually wood.
The best, the original. The benchmark.
-
No the pickup would not help. I put a Gibson pickup in my Ibanez and it sounds like an Ibanez. Which is to say it sounds pretty good, but not like an es175. Originally Posted by vintagelove
Unplugged my 175 has that ‘thunky’, midrangey quality. It’s definitely in the build.
-
This is an over-simplification. It depends what you are trying to change about the sound. A different pickup can alter the "eq' of the amplified sound; ie more mids, softer treble, whatever, and also add a bit of perceived compression to an otherwise harsh sound ( through magnet cork-sniffing). Obviously, what a pickup can't change is the physical reponse of the instrument itself - ie sustain, complexity or lack of it, susceptibility to feedback, and "note envelope', as it's called. So yes, not much chance of changing an Eastman into a Gibson via a pickup change, but still some possibility of adjusting the amplified sound somewhat. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Having tried more pickup changes than I can remember over decades, the last thing I'd do is put a current Gibson Classic 57 into most archtop guitars. I know there are a lot of C57 fans on this forum, but to my ears the potted, equal-coil C57 pickup manages to be both bassy and shrill at the same time. Sounds nothing like an early Gibson 60s Pat #, at least to me. Subjective, of course
, but there's an argument that on amplified plywood/ laminate guitars, pickup choice matters rather more than on a carved-top guitar.
-
Well I think that detail isn’t relevant to the op particularly. He wants an alternative to a 175, Originally Posted by Franz 1997
This is an over-simplification. It depends what you are trying to change about the sound. A different pickup can alter the "eq' of the amplified sound; ie more mids, softer treble, whatever, and also add a bit of perceived compression to an otherwise harsh sound ( through magnet cork-sniffing). Obviously, what a pickup can't change is the physical reponse of the instrument itself - ie sustain, complexity or lack of it, susceptibility to feedback, and "note envelope', as it's called. So yes, not much chance of changing an Eastman into a Gibson via a pickup change, but still some possibility of adjusting the amplified sound somewhat.
Having tried more pickup changes than I can remember over decades, the last thing I'd do is put a current Gibson Classic 57 into most archtop guitars. I know there are a lot of C57 fans on this forum, but to my ears the potted, equal-coil C57 pickup manages to be both bassy and shrill at the same time. Sounds nothing like an early Gibson 60s Pat #, at least to me. Subjective, of course, but there's an argument that on amplified plywood/ laminate guitars, pickup choice matters rather more than on a carved-top guitar.
and as a 175 player I regret to say I can’t think of one. Maybe a luthier? Nothing from Far Eastern makers (fine guitars in their own right) that I’ve played. A pickup swap won’t do it, obviously.
The tonal qualities of the the 175 are very apparent unplugged, very distinct. A lot of this has to do with attack and decay characteristics, which pickup changes wouldn’t affect. It’s also independent of amplification.
It can be a frustration in some ways, but it does what it does. I ended up buying a 335 (with similar pickups lol) to cover the aspects the guitar couldn’t do. But it does what it does so well, I couldn’t part with it. Nothing else seems to do that specific thing.
Pickups can change the sound, but they don’t change it that way.Last edited by Christian Miller; 11-12-2022 at 06:32 AM.
-
Nb: I haven’t tried the Ephiphone premium 175. I think Lawsons input on would be worth listening to…
-
I wasn't expecting you to buy it, but others might consider the point, if they read the post in full. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Maybe if you'd tried different pickups over the years in 7 different 175s, from 60s to 90s, you might change your view
-
Yeah sorry, post coffee i realised I wasn’t quite responding to what you actually wrote and changed my post. Too late! Originally Posted by Franz 1997
I wasn't expecting you to buy it, but others might consider the point, if they read the post in full.
Maybe if you'd tried different pickups over the years in 7 different 175s, from 60s to 90s, you might change your view
I should never post before coffee.
I haven’t had enough experience to comment on that specific point. Of course the pickup can change the sound. Is that more true of a laminate than a carved guitar? I have to defer.
If I had to guess, I would expect the ‘acousticness’ of the guitar would be a key determining factor here, though which varies a lot even within 175s, and greatly between an Eastman and an Ibanez, say. If the guitar is built heavier it should, in theory at least, respond more like a semi or solid body guitar. (Apols if you’ve posted all of this above.)
Even so I would say neither of the latter guitars really sound like an es175. It’s all a bit getting into the woods, if the op is chasing a specific sound. But if you are just looking for an archtop, there’s loads of options.
-
I had a '63 barney kessel that had been gutted. I put a modern gibson pickup in it (burstbucker) and surprise, it still sounded like a 50+ year old instrument. Guitarists would come up to me all the time and say, man, vintage pickups make so much difference. I had a 2nd one with classic '57 and similar results. The build is way more important than the pickup. That's not to say that the pickup makes zero difference but the exercise with the old BKs basically proved to me that it's the wood and the build. Originally Posted by Franz 1997
This is an over-simplification. It depends what you are trying to change about the sound. A different pickup can alter the "eq' of the amplified sound; ie more mids, softer treble, whatever, and also add a bit of perceived compression to an otherwise harsh sound ( through magnet cork-sniffing). Obviously, what a pickup can't change is the physical reponse of the instrument itself - ie sustain, complexity or lack of it, susceptibility to feedback, and "note envelope', as it's called. So yes, not much chance of changing an Eastman into a Gibson via a pickup change, but still some possibility of adjusting the amplified sound somewhat.
Having tried more pickup changes than I can remember over decades, the last thing I'd do is put a current Gibson Classic 57 into most archtop guitars. I know there are a lot of C57 fans on this forum, but to my ears the potted, equal-coil C57 pickup manages to be both bassy and shrill at the same time. Sounds nothing like an early Gibson 60s Pat #, at least to me. Subjective, of course, but there's an argument that on amplified plywood/ laminate guitars, pickup choice matters rather more than on a carved-top guitar.
-
I agree with most things that have been posted here - a pickup swap won't turn your Eastman into a 175. That doesn't mean changing the pickup won't help to improve the sound of your guitar. Personally, and against all common sense, I hate Kent Armstrong pickups, which come stock in your Eastman. Asian made, botique made, doesn't matter - it's a mistery to me why they have become so popular and so widely used, even in very boutique archtops. Originally Posted by [email protected]
No need to go for anything fancy, there's plenty of cheap pickups from say DiMarzio (the 36th) or Seymour Duncan (most low-gain ones), that can sound good. Agreeing with Chris (Franz1997), I was not a fan of the Classic 57 on my own archtop - very different from vintage Gibson PAFs I tried.
-
And it's a mistery why no other brand has been able to replicate the 175 sound. 335s, teles, strats, etc all have been widely copied by many brands with success. But not the 175... It's indeed curious (and I would argue even the L5 has not been that well copied)
-
Thank you! This is exactly where I was starting Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
There seems to be have been a degree of consensus here that despite a few exceptions and variation in 175s notwithstanding that there are some distinctive features that make a 175 unique
I am amazed that nobody (Eastman? Ibanez?) is producing something that could do a passable impersonation of the 175
-
I once talked to Jay Wolfe about making a plywood version of the heritage 575 and his reply was, "why would we do that? The 575 is a solid, carved top. Better than the 175 in every way"... Originally Posted by EvansDrD
I think that sums up why a 175 copy has never been successfully made. Also , remember you're talking about a niche guitar, relatively poor sales figures - one that gibson canceled because of that.
So, from a manufacturer's point of view, why copy it? And if they make something similar, why not "improve" it. I think that's what heritage did. They improved the 575 right out of the 175 tonal spectrum. Ibanez did the same with many of their axes although IMO, their maple top guitars have more of a 175 vibe than most manufacturers.
[edit]
And another thing, the plywood on the 175 is relatively thick. It seems that eastman used a very thin plywood and bracing on their 372 probably because:
a) That's what they have to work with
b) That's how their guitars have been spec'd from day 1
I heard that Benedetto was hired to help them get their specs together. I think the eastmans sound more like benedetto guitars than gibson guitars up and down their product line.
To make a 175 requires custom plywood. I believe gibson pressed their own.
-
Hi Jorge, good to know you're still posting here!! I think it's been said earlier that, bearing in mind that 175's from different eras sound so different ( and feel so different), that some copies do fall within that range of variation. Jim Hall's early sound is nothing at all like Kreisberg's norlin 175, etc etc. Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
I dunno, I probably have a slight thing against 175s; I have had seven over the years. Why? Well, it was ( and maybe still is ) THE one for that kind of playing, had the creds etc., so the obvious thing to get. But I could never get along with the inconsistency of the necks, particularly these days, with that thin-to-thick " ES " profile, or whatever they call it. As you can see, I kept trying again & again for a long time, before accepting that the 175 wasn't for me.
Ironically, I have an old £200 ebay 1970 175 copy Ibanez that I have worked on; sometimes I bring that out to gigs. The strange thing is that I have had many complimentary comments on the sound - but only from pianists, bass and sax players! They just assume it's a Gibson 'cos it looks like one. It makes me wonder if us guitarists still can't help hearing with our eyes....
-
I've heard kreisberg's 175 acoustically. He uses rounds and so yeah, it's going to sound different from jim hall's p90 equipped 175 but acoustically, kriesberg's axe sounds similar to most 175s. Keep in mind that his has the maple neck so it's got a brighter sound that a typical 175... Originally Posted by Franz 1997
-
This all makes an awful lot of sense, thanks Originally Posted by jzucker
I hadn’t stopped to think that demand for a 175 tone or clone may not be anywhere like as high as I might imagine
Completely agree re: Eastman and Benedetto (although I assumed it was a consequence of Bob Benedetto’s book…interesting that he was involved)
Incidentally, I’ve heard from a credible source that the new Eastman Pisano laminate (480) is more heavily built and has a different ‘recipe’ for the laminate. Wonder if this might be their attempt to head in a different direction ?
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions