What working at Gibson is really like
Bruce Morgen
job at Gibson? Maybe it's
time for a new dream:
<http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Gibson-Guitar-RVW318442.htm>
RichL
In the interest of full disclosure, the guy should have posted his last
performance review.
WB
>
Never worked at a corporation huh ?
Replace every occurance of "Gibson" in that writeup with any
NY Stock Symbol name and it would read the same. Seriously.
The primary goal of every business traded is to make (more) money
than last report and they all become a sweat shop in one way or another.
One sour grape in the vast wasteland ... I'm just glad this guy
isn't a doctor ....
WB
>
> In the interest of full disclosure, the guy should have posted his last
> performance review.
>
>
Master Betty
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hdmdnTfacfxKn63W...@supernews.com...
I was able to view all the reviews for Gibson USA and they were similar.
However, I've worked in manufacturing and I have no desire to return.
Finding happy employees on the production line is (probably) an exception
and not the rule. These people would probably be more than happy to work for
Gibson if they had worked in a textile mill. Boring!!
Jim
Sac Dave
Sounds like a generic summary of any job
Master Betty
"Sac Dave" <dia...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8673b38f-c75d-4ae9...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
++++++
LOL...For a factory job it doesn't sound that bad. I heard at Jim Beam you
had to ask for permission to go to the bathroom.
Jim
Greendistantstar
> I heard at Jim Beam
> you had to ask for permission to go to the bathroom.
>
> Jim
So you're on a production line at a factory that puts darkish liquid into bottles and they won't let
you take bathroom breaks?
It doesn't take too much imagination to see how *that* gets sorted, does it?
GDS
"Let's roll!"
VampX
> Sounds like a generic summary of any job
>
> ++++++
>
> LOL...For a factory job it doesn't sound that bad. I heard at Jim Beam
> you had to ask for permission to go to the bathroom.
>
> Jim
Well it all seems to be directly proportional to the quality of the
product they are trying produce. In this case, both are crap.
--
VeronicaX
-------------------------------
Tony Done
"Master Betty" <ne...@mind.com> wrote in message
news:hgp0p2$o76$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I think that because Gibson has an iconic status we musos would like to
think of their production as something like Santa's workshop; employee
gripes would not raise so much interest in most industries.
Tony D
jtees4
wrote:
They should just start an import line, and call it Epiphone...Oh, they
already did that?
****
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=789610
http://www.reviewmymusicnow.com
Monster Zero
"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:o500j5higobuck4p6...@4ax.com...
These things are prevalent in many companies. It's sad really. When I worked
for Tyco Intl. my department( IT support) had a "how long will the current
manager last" pool because we went through about 2 a month for about 3
years. I was offered the position twice and turned down a 25% raise because
none of us wanted nothing of it.
I have a supervisor in the company I work for now who honestly knows and
does nothing and he breaks company policy, state and federal laws (sexual
harassment, fudging hours to reduce overtime pay) and the guy hasn't had so
much as a written warning. He also wastes company money by the thousands by
sending techs to areas that are a hundred + miles out their respective areas
to run service calls for his best friend whom he hired and almost
immediately promoted to assistant supervisor and that guy is even more
useless than him.
I am personally getting ready to sue for all the overtime I am owed. It's
sad really because on the whole I like my work and the company but even
after direct complaints to HR by nearly every tech in the area about the
fudged time sheets and losing money for overtime owed the guy has no fear
because AFAIK he's never been warned or talked to about it.
Sorry to slightly hijack the thread I just had to vent for a minute there.
WB
>
> Well it all seems to be directly proportional to the quality of the
> product they are trying produce. In this case, both are crap.
With the exception of the robo guitar ... guitar manufacturers are
still producing 1950's technology ... how hard it it be ?
jimmy
>Depends on a large variety of variable factors, starting with wood
>selection.
I'm beginning to doubt that. Everybody who plays my Martin DCX1E
wants to buy it. The only thing wood about it is the top so maybe
that's all that matters. And just when you think it cant get any
better, plug it in. WOW!
jimmy
That blows MZ. I happen to work for possibly the best manager in the
world and the very best part is I KNOW IT! Good luck with the suit.
tony
jimmy
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:43:02 -0400, jimmy <bigto...@hotmail.com>
>No, wood selection is critical, and only the first of many variables
>that go into making a good guitar.
Oh, OK then. Your argument has completely changed my mind ;) Next
guy who asks to buy my DCX1E can have it for a song!
Dr. Zontar
> I think that because Gibson has an iconic status we musos would like to
> think of their production as something like Santa's workshop; employee
> gripes would not raise so much interest in most industries.
True. But the part about inept management seem to ring true. Look at
how many bad ideas Gibson has put into production in the past few
years. Even if you think the Robot Guitar is a good idea, you have to
admit that the Zoot Suit SG is downright stupid and ugly.
- Rich
Dr. Zontar
bra>> wrote:
> I am personally getting ready to sue for all the overtime I am owed. It's
> sad really because on the whole I like my work and the company but even
> after direct complaints to HR by nearly every tech in the area about the
> fudged time sheets and losing money for overtime owed the guy has no fear
> because AFAIK he's never been warned or talked to about it.
It sounds like there's more than just a bad manager at work. If HR is
turning a blind eye, then the problem goes deeper. Maybe someone
higher up in the company is screwing you out of your overtime. Good
luck with the lawsuit.
- Rich
Ray
Maybe this will help, the words I use to comfort myself after 30 years
in American corporate culture:
"If this shit was fun they would not have to pay me to do it." - Me
jimmy
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:48:54 -0400, jimmy <bigto...@hotmail.com>
>Your DCX1E is okay, and a good value for what it is. If was as great
>as you think, why would Martin continue building so many other guitars
>for a lot more money? How could they possibly compete with a superior
>guitar that sells for only 600 or 700 dollars?
Pretty sure it's just price points. I'd love to have a d-28 but can't
justify the cash.
>
>And, yes, the wood selection for the top of your guitar was a critical
>element for it being however good it may be.
I think the only way to really come to a conclusion is to get in a
room with blindfolds & a stack of different guitars. At the end of
the day it's all about sound. I'd bet that at least 1/2 the owners of
solid body guitars could not tell that my shenandoah D-35 or DX are
not solid bodies. Not saying you could or couldn't and I'm not sure
that I could.
tony
Monster Zero
"Dr. Zontar" <drzo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ed9977a7-e673-4227...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
- Rich
Well I haven't called a lawyer yet. I sent a formal letter detailing all the
pay I am owed to HR and I am giving them a week.
Tony Done
- Rich
I wonder how much of that is perception of design incompetence is also part
of the icon image, and how Gibson compares with, say, Fender and Ibanez in
the bad ideas department? A lot of their recent offerings have been silly
and gimmicky, but they any dafter than eg Fender relics? They did have some
very successful radical ideas that took a long while to gain acceptance,
like the Explorer and Flying V.
I have an issue with their poor quality control of fit and finish compared
with what I have seen of other big names. That makes you wonder how good the
QC is on the working bits of their guitars.
Tony D
RichL
A better test of quality would be to do the same thing in 20 years
(i.e., with 20-year-old guitars). I think that would emphasize wood
quality.
dvaoa
> Ever dreamed about getting a
> job at Gibson? Maybe it's
> time for a new dream:
>
> <http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-Gibson-Guitar-RVW318...>
You know...I read that, and all it made me think of was my company.
Every day I have to bite my tongue not to walk up to my manager and
ask him, "Are you ever curious about what the difference is between
managing a group...and building a team?"
-d
DeeAa
> I think the only way to really come to a conclusion is to get in a
> room with blindfolds & a stack of different guitars. At the end of
> the day it's all about sound. I'd bet that at least 1/2 the owners of
> solid body guitars could not tell that my shenandoah D-35 or DX are
> not solid bodies. Not saying you could or couldn't and I'm not sure
> that I could.
>
Well whenever any body local gets into a discussion with me about
these issues I bring along my guitar that is made of stone(!) and play
it and make him guess what material is the guitar. Or a friend's strat
with a birch neck and spruce body. Nobody can ever tell them apart
from regular guitars.
Wood matters very little on electrics and these days they even make
acoustics without wood well.. It matters if it's completely wrong for
a guitar (too soft for neck, lacking solidity in a body such as
plywood, etc.), but when it's got a suitable consistency and tone
transfer and/or isolation qualities etc. it can just as well be
plastic or whatever. One of the best sounding guitars I ever played
was made of some sort of compressed paper-based stuff that felt like
plastic and wood mixed...flaxwood or something. Incredibly resonous
yet solid.
This does _not_ mean that it doesn't change the sound. Yes some
materials are brighter etc. but it has very little to do with tone in
general, just adjust EQ a tad and it's just the same.
Body wood importance on electrics is about as big a sham as imagining
notable differences between pickups of exact same construction and
materials, or super-$$ speaker and audio cables etc. Modern myths
players are keen to believe. But then again, a staggering number of
people also believe in ghosts, various deities and various other fairy
tales so I guess it'd be too much to expect from people to think with
their own brains for a change ;-)
Cheers,
Dee
Nil
> Well whenever any body local gets into a discussion with me about
> these issues I bring along my guitar that is made of stone(!) and
> play it and make him guess what material is the guitar. Or a
> friend's strat with a birch neck and spruce body. Nobody can ever
> tell them apart from regular guitars.
You're playing them with a lot of distortion, aren't you?
Well there you go. In that case, you're not hearing the guitar, you're
hearing the amplifier distortion.
yowie
And why does it cost so much?
jh
because someone is willing to pay so much.
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
Until the neck on your favorite Les Paul develops a twist because it
was made from poor quality wood.
Those DXC Martins have some overall quality issues. One is that the
plastic back and the wood top expand and contract at different rates,
so the tops are prone to cracking and pulling away from the sides.
Another place they saved money is the fretwire, which apparently is
quite soft.
sa...@dog.com
Make one and get back to us.
That $7 coffee cup you are holding was made from less than a penny's
worth of dirt. Make one of those, too.
RS
wrote:
>Body wood importance on electrics is about as big a sham as imagining
>notable differences between pickups of exact same construction and
>materials, or super-$$ speaker and audio cables etc. Modern myths
>players are keen to believe. But then again, a staggering number of
>people also believe in ghosts, various deities and various other fairy
>tales so I guess it'd be too much to expect from people to think with
>their own brains for a change ;-)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dee
You know, Dee, I've told you that I appreciated what you post here,
but this is an exception. I own quite a few guitars, and I've worked
on hundreds of instruments. I can tell my guitars apart easily, and
much of it does relate to type of wood. If you can't hear a difference
between the sound of a piece of stone and a compressed paper body, I
don't think you should be making pronouncements or calling other
people brainless.
WB
>>> guitar manufacturers are
>>> still producing 1950's technology ... how hard it it be ?
>>
>> And why does it cost so much?
>
> Make one and get back to us.
>
> That $7 coffee cup you are holding was made from less than a penny's
> worth of dirt. Make one of those, too.
>
I'd like to someday compare the $25k, $8k, $4k, $2k Gibsons and $9.95
Epi Les Pauls side by side to see if my modest playing could tell
the difference. Now .. if I was a *professional* musician in the
caliber of some of the greats, a $8k wouldn't be out of question
if it was really a fine *instrument*.
$500 to $700($1k) range is my idea of a hobby guitarist that most
of us are ... considering if anyone here can *actually* play a song
in front of people from start to finish without fucking it up.
dvaoa
> $500 to $700($1k) range is my idea of a hobby guitarist that most
> of us are ...
Amen.
> considering if anyone here can *actually* play a songin front of people from
> start to finish without fucking it up.
You mean, unlike the "pro's" who never fuck anything up when playing
live?
Yeah, it's only us AG schlubs that miss a note or a string ;-)
-d
jimmy
wrote:
Ever since I saw Bonnie Raitt do a re-start of "Something to Talk
About" I haven't felt that F-ups are such a horrible thing.
tony
Wrong_Note_Rod
> Body wood importance on electrics is about as big a sham
I totally disagree. Body wood does make a difference.
I've got one custom strat neck that I adore, but have gone thru several
bodies trying to find it a good home. Only one body has a narrow enough
saddle string spacing (exactly 2 inches, thats really narrow) to work
properly with this neck, because of the way the frets are rounded off down
at the ends. the point is, this one bridge, is on a body of unknown make
and origin, and it doesnt sound anywhere NEAR as good, as two other bodies
I've used, a mahogany one and an alder one, all with the same pickups.
the only difference in all these scenarios, is body wood, and possibly,
bridge metal composition. the crap body with the narrow bridge has less
sustain and less definition, and simply sounds "thinner" than the other
two. Same pickups... I just used the same strat pickguard every time i
switched the neck. the mahogany body sounded darker and more full or
rounded, better low end, sounded better with the bridge pickup, the alder
one sounded a little brighter than the mahogany, better on the neck pickup.
I recorded them as well, playing the same licks, same amp, and compared
them using my DAW program.
wave forms dont lie. All three guitars sounded different.
Greendistantstar
IMO it's how you recover from a F-up that matters, like a ballet dancer who can slip and make it
look like they really meant to do it.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
WB
>
> IMO it's how you recover from a F-up that matters,
bingo ...
jimmy
I haven't seen any of those issues yet but all martin tops are prone
to cracking, aren't they?
jimmy
Bonnie wasn't very graceful in this incident. Just flat out stoppped
playing and said "what's that noise in my monitor?" You're right
though, you can muster through 7 make it not look tooo bad. On the
other hand, I play with a guy & if someone else screws anything up
he'll laugh at them so the listeners will be sure to know it wasn't
him. Nice huh?
tony
Stephen Cowell
"Wrong_Note_Rod" <wrongn...@yahoo.com> wrote
> the only difference in all these scenarios, is body wood, and possibly,
> bridge metal composition.
You're not working with one variable... the bridge has
more to do with it than the body... much more, IMO.
You want the spacing of the *bridge*... can't you
move it to another body and try it? Or is it a
standard-metric problem?
Body density completely matters, btw... especially
if you're looking for the guitar and amp to hook up.
Heavier bodies are harder to do this with... but
basswood is too spongy, IMO. Alder is best, it
seems... but I've got an ash guitar that I've removed
wood from that works well.
__
Steve
.
Stephen Cowell
"WB" <nos...@no.com> wrote in message
news:4b323d7b$0$5351$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
> Greendistantstar wrote:
>>
>> IMO it's how you recover from a F-up that matters,
>
> bingo ...
Now you're talking *jazz*...
__
Steve
.
Twibil
>
>
> I haven't seen any of those issues yet but all martin tops are prone
> to cracking, aren't they?
(Shrug) No more than anyone else's solid tops.
But I *would* have to say that Taylor guitars seem to be the ones most
prone to body cracks.
Twibil
<stephenleeNOSPAMcow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> IMO it's how you recover from a F-up that matters,
>
> > bingo ...
>
> Now you're talking *jazz*...
Well, not quite.
Jazz largely consists of digging yourself a deep, deep hole at the
beginning of every break, and then seeing if you can dig your way back
out before 12 bars expire.
Thelonious Monk comes to mind.
Wrong_Note_Rod
> "Wrong_Note_Rod" <wrongn...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> the only difference in all these scenarios, is body wood, and possibly,
>> bridge metal composition.
>
> You're not working with one variable... the bridge has
> more to do with it than the body... much more, IMO.
>
> You want the spacing of the *bridge*... can't you
> move it to another body and try it? Or is it a
> standard-metric problem?
yeah, the screws dont line up with other standard holes.
its been driving me crazy, to be honest.
i'm gonna have to buy a body blank and then have a luthier or repair guy
drill the body and put the bridge on... and then, like you said, its still
the same crappy who-knows-what-kinda-metal bridge
but its the narrowest string spacing i've ever seen on a tremolo bridge,
really helps with this particular neck... frets are sort of rounded off too
much at the edge, so, if the string spacing places the hi E near the edge
of the fretboard, i'll accidentally pull the damned hi E over the edge all
the time, drives me crazy
and I like the neck and frets too much to have it re-fretted....
so until i can find a really good tremolo bridge with really narrow string
spacing, I'm stuck with this unknown origin thing.
jtees4
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:01:32 -0500, sa...@dog.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:48:54 -0400, jimmy <bigto...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:18:37 -0500, sa...@dog.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:43:02 -0400, jimmy <bigto...@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:39:14 -0500, sa...@dog.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:26:43 -0600, WB <nos...@no.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>VampX wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well it all seems to be directly proportional to the quality of the
>>>>>>>> product they are trying produce. In this case, both are crap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With the exception of the robo guitar ... guitar manufacturers are
>>>>>>>still producing 1950's technology ... how hard it it be ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Depends on a large variety of variable factors, starting with wood
>>>>>>selection.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm beginning to doubt that. Everybody who plays my Martin DCX1E
>>>>>wants to buy it. The only thing wood about it is the top so maybe
>>>>>that's all that matters. And just when you think it cant get any
>>>>>better, plug it in. WOW!
>>>>
>>>>No, wood selection is critical, and only the first of many variables
>>>>that go into making a good guitar.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, OK then. Your argument has completely changed my mind ;) Next
>>>guy who asks to buy my DCX1E can have it for a song!
>>
>>Your DCX1E is okay, and a good value for what it is. If was as great
>>as you think, why would Martin continue building so many other guitars
>>for a lot more money? How could they possibly compete with a superior
>>guitar that sells for only 600 or 700 dollars?
>
>Pretty sure it's just price points. I'd love to have a d-28 but can't
>justify the cash.
>
>>
>>And, yes, the wood selection for the top of your guitar was a critical
>>element for it being however good it may be.
>
>I think the only way to really come to a conclusion is to get in a
>room with blindfolds & a stack of different guitars. At the end of
>the day it's all about sound. I'd bet that at least 1/2 the owners of
>solid body guitars could not tell that my shenandoah D-35 or DX are
>not solid bodies. Not saying you could or couldn't and I'm not sure
>that I could.
>
>tony
Good point! "I think the only way to really come to a conclusion is to
get in a room with blindfolds..."
I've been saying that in this newsgroup for many years about a variety
of different things, from guitars to amps to pedals, etc.....but
everyone wants to believe what they believe but are never willing to
put it to the blindfold test. Then when someone posts a clip and says
"tell me what I'm using" everyone comes out of the woodwork as to why
it's not a fair test.
****
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=789610
http://www.reviewmymusicnow.com
jtees4
wrote:
>On 22 joulu, 21:16, jimmy <bigtoeh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hail Steinberger!
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
It don't. Google "inflation calculator." Also Google "what the traffic
will bear."
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Sure! Done it many times.
> without fucking it up.
Well, now...
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
YERP! Like Dad used to say about driving - "always leave
yourself an out."
--
Les Cargill
WB
>
> Sure! Done it many times.
>
>
>> without fucking it up.
>
> Well, now...
>
>
Me too !
99 % of the time ... only I know I fucked it up too, and
then BFD ... sue me ... ban me, I don't care.
However I'm sure many of use have struggled through
playing with others who can't play shit right .. or in time .
jtees4
Actually, I am a Yankee fan and originally from the Bronx. So I agree
with that one for sure too!!!!
Monster Zero
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:16:32 -0400, jimmy <bigtoeh...@hotmail.com>> >>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:48:54 -0400, jimmy <bigtoeh...@hotmail.com>> >>>>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:43:02 -0400, jimmy <bigtoeh...@hotmail.com>
Concerning electrics: To me the only exceptions are highly expensive
custom guitars compared to a $99.00 special. I've owned so many axes
it's a sickness really and I've had everything from a Custom Les Paul
with all the fixins to 75.00 scrap heap guitars and lots in between
and what I have personally found is that electronics and tuners are
God and everything else is embellishments. I had a plywood bodied
Martin Stinger SSX with stock pups that would sing for days and
sounded and played beautiful.
I personally love to make sleepers out of cheap ass electric guitars.
Really gets under the cork sniffers skins too when you plug in and
make a 200.00 electric sound better than their 2k Les Paul. I can
think of several former bands I was in where that transpired weekly.
LOL "how do you get that piece of shit to sound so good"?
Concerning Acoustics: There's no argument to make really IMO. Wood,
nut, bridge, pin, fret material and build quality are all huge factors
in how good an acoustic sounds. I can't recall a cheapy acoustic I've
owned that sounded as good as say a lower end Taylor or Martin. I do
not play much acoustic guitar so a $200.00 Kona A/E with D'addario
strings suits me fine. If I gigged regularly with an acoustic I'd most
likely spend 1k or more on one and not think twice about it.
The Repair Guy
> DeeAa wrote:
>
>> Body wood importance on electrics is about as
>> big a sham
>
>I totally disagree. Body wood does make a difference.
It makes _some_ difference. I've mentioned that
I made a P-bass body from double thickness 3/4"
plywood and slapped a Fender neck on it.
No one noticed (except for weight).
IMO wood type is down on the list after pickups,
and maybe neck material.
(stone is a little extreme, though)
The Repair Guy
repairguy1993 dot netfirms dot com
Arlowe
Oh come on...be fair here.
He never used the word brainless, he wrote "think with their own
brain."
big difference.
I have to somewhat agree with Dee, The quality of design, workmanship
and materials (quality, not type) have a bigger impact than the species
of timber used.
Ok, you may be able to tell the difference between a cedar body and a
spruce/rosewood body on an non-amplified acoustic, but 99.99% of the
population can't.
However... I would bet money you couldn't tell the difference in sound
between a Maple Telecaster body & an Alder body with all things being
equal. By the time the sound exits the speaker the signal has been so
coloured by the signal chain that whatever subtle differences there may
have been will be gone.
>If you can't hear a difference
> between the sound of a piece of stone and a compressed paper body
Read Dee's post again. You will find that he said the material can
change the sound.
Bruce Morgen
Actually, I found a bigger
audible difference between
two alder-bodied Teles than
between one of them and an
otherwise-similar Tele with
an ash body -- it's more
the density and seasoning
of the individual body's
lumber than the species of
the tree is was cut from.
My best sounding electric
has an Asian basswood body
and an American rock maple
neck -- and imo that neck
has much more influence on
its tone than the body!
RS
wrote:
>RS wrote on 24/12/2009 :
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:24:54 -0800 (PST), DeeAa <aeph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Body wood importance on electrics is about as big a sham as imagining
>>> notable differences between pickups of exact same construction and
>>> materials, or super-$$ speaker and audio cables etc. Modern myths
>>> players are keen to believe. But then again, a staggering number of
>>> people also believe in ghosts, various deities and various other fairy
>>> tales so I guess it'd be too much to expect from people to think with
>>> their own brains for a change ;-)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Dee
>>
>> You know, Dee, I've told you that I appreciated what you post here,
>> but this is an exception. I own quite a few guitars, and I've worked
>> on hundreds of instruments. I can tell my guitars apart easily, and
>> much of it does relate to type of wood. If you can't hear a difference
>> between the sound of a piece of stone and a compressed paper body, I
>> don't think you should be making pronouncements or calling other
>> people brainless.
>
>Oh come on...be fair here.
>He never used the word brainless, he wrote "think with their own
>brain."
>big difference.
No, the big difference to me would have been if he said "IMO." There
are seasoned musicians and builders that know this stuff very well,
that still manage to avoid making flat out pronouncements that define
others' positions as "not using their own brains" or whatever. It's
uncharactaristically insulting...IMO. <g> I didn't expect that.
>I have to somewhat agree with Dee, The quality of design, workmanship
>and materials (quality, not type) have a bigger impact than the species
>of timber used.
>Ok, you may be able to tell the difference between a cedar body and a
>spruce/rosewood body on an non-amplified acoustic, but 99.99% of the
>population can't.
And most can't tell string gauges, types of speakers, amp brands, and
the whole slew of what gets discussed here, right? So all of a
sudden, types of wood are "a sham" (I'll be more careful with quotes)
but the rest are not?
Here's the major point that's often overlooked: The comfort level of a
musician is often a magical thing. If the gear does it for you, you
play without thinking about it. If you're on stage and thinking about
how you're not getting quite the right sound, you're going to screw
up. THEN the average Joe will notice. Doesn't matter if he understands
that you're using NOS tubes or a plywood guitar.
>However... I would bet money you couldn't tell the difference in sound
>between a Maple Telecaster body & an Alder body with all things being
>equal. By the time the sound exits the speaker the signal has been so
>coloured by the signal chain that whatever subtle differences there may
>have been will be gone.
Nope, you'd lose that bet. I own strats made of solid maple and of
alder, and I can tell the difference in a blink. And I'm not saying
that one is always better. They're good for different things.
And of course if you don't like strings, pickups, volume controls, or
whatever you can swap them. Body wood...not so much. That's why a
good-sounding body is important.
>>If you can't hear a difference
>> between the sound of a piece of stone and a compressed paper body
>
>Read Dee's post again. You will find that he said the material can
>change the sound.
Yeah, it just sounded dismissive. I mean, if types of wood are out of
the discussion, then so are subtleties in speakers, strings, pickups
and all the other magic stuff we talk about here. Cause certainly
there are some who can't hear differences in any of them, god bless
'em. But that doesn't invalidate the opinions of those who can.
And again, it just seemed uncharacteristic for Dee, so it was a
surprise. BTW, The last guy that made that sweeping statement said
that ply or crate wood was indistiguishable from other tonewoods, but
that an aluminum nut would make a guitar sound good--even on fretted
notes.
RS
What's the E-to-E spacing, Howlie? Gotoh makes bridges with about
2-1/16" or so. I've seen a...hmmm...Peavey predator, I think? that may
be smaller, but generally 2-1/16" is easy to find. Guitar Fetish (GFS)
may have something that works. Be carefull that the block is made
well, and that the holes for the ball ends are not drilled too deep.
Otherwise you break a string on stage and end up fishing for it. GFS
also has blocks and saddles, so maybe you could retro the existing
plate if the block's holes align.
BTW, your description of the sounds of those guitars is about exactly
what I would have said as well (re mahogany vs alder, etc). And same
thing here...I have guitars set up similarly with both types of
bodies.
RS
Ever play a plexiglass Danelectro? Those are interesting, but rather
hard-sounding, IMO.
Trouble with the list of priorities is that you can swap pickups but
you can't swap body wood. So that always moves it to the top of my
list. Sometimes a guitar body has a particular resonance that tends
to swamp out other adjustments, too. I find some swamp ash bodies do
that. No way to get those notched frequencies back once they're gone.
EQ or pickup swaps won't do it.
Arlowe
> No, the big difference to me would have been if he said "IMO."
>
Any time you read a comment from me on anything just assume there is a
great big IMO in front of it, because that is what it is, my opinion.
Any time you make a statement that is argumentative or contradicts my
view I will assume you mean "in my opinion".
I will also do this...I promise not to take your opinion personally, I
promise not to take offense at any comment you make.
I can say that because of history...I say it because I respect your
right to an opinion. You are not here to troll...you have "history"
here.
I don't care if we agree or disagree...that will not change.
I did however take some offense at you misquoting Dee. This is a
difficult format to convey thoughts as it is, when someone muddys
things up with misquotes (I honestly think yours was not intentional)it
makes it even more difficult.
This is "IMO"of course :)
RS
wrote:
>RS explained :
>
>> No, the big difference to me would have been if he said "IMO."
>>
>Any time you read a comment from me on anything just assume there is a
>great big IMO in front of it, because that is what it is, my opinion.
>
>Any time you make a statement that is argumentative or contradicts my
>view I will assume you mean "in my opinion".
>
>I will also do this...I promise not to take your opinion personally, I
>promise not to take offense at any comment you make.
If you take it like that, then fine. I don't. If something is a fact,
state it as fact. But if it's a matter of opinion, then how difficult
is it to word it as such?
Ohm's Law is E = I R That is a fact, no IMO needed.
"I think Martin guitars sound tinny" That is an opinion. Fine.
"Martin guitars suck" And that is a contentious invitation
(paraph) "don't think with their own brains" Same deal
On the latter, he got my reaction. No big deal. I didn't see dee
getting pissed about anything.
>I can say that because of history...I say it because I respect your
>right to an opinion. You are not here to troll...you have "history"
>here.
15+ years. That's not an assumption of authority though.
>I don't care if we agree or disagree...that will not change.
>
>I did however take some offense at you misquoting Dee. This is a
>difficult format to convey thoughts as it is, when someone muddys
>things up with misquotes (I honestly think yours was not intentional)it
>makes it even more difficult.
If it's important to obey to the letter, then "IMO" will go a long way
to clarification.
And I didn't see any huge difference between shortcutting the
presumptiuous " I guess it'd be too much to expect from people to
think with their own brains for a change" to "brainless." Same
diff...it's insulting to those who don't hold the same opinion, and I
said so. I also didn't mention the "big sham" part, equally
presumptuous.
But this is laborious. I trust that most understood what I was saying.
And it was in the interest of avoiding spread of wrong information,
and it is incorrect information. However, I am perfectly willing to
concede that some people can't tell the difference between various
types of guitar body woods.
Back to (hopefully) a more productive track:
It may be educational for anyone who buys into the dismissive posts to
talk with one of the custom body makers like Warmoth, or better, call
Tommy at USA Custom Guitars. They've tested hundreds of bodies from
hundreds of batches of wood. There are even charts online at Warmoth.
And no one is saying that there is not overlap between wood species,
or that a plywood plank can't sound great, or that -all- alder sound
precisely like this... The assertion is that there is a degree of
predictability and character that usually applies to certain wood
species. How else would you tell them apart at all? Think about it:
There are characteristic weights/densities, characteristic grains,
etc. But there's no characteristic resonance or sonic properties for
some reason?
RS
<wrongn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:24:54 -0800 (PST), DeeAa wrote:
>
>> Body wood importance on electrics is about as big a sham
>
>
>I totally disagree. Body wood does make a difference.
>
> the mahogany body sounded darker and more full or
>rounded, better low end, sounded better with the bridge pickup, the alder
>one sounded a little brighter than the mahogany, better on the neck pickup.
>I recorded them as well, playing the same licks, same amp, and compared
>them using my DAW program.
I agree with this. That's much like how I'd characterize differences
between alder and mahogany. Real mahogany, that is. The batches of
current so-called mahogany are often not even in mahogany's genus
(Swietenia). If importers can find something where the grain looks
similar, they call it mahogany. That 'Asian Mahogany' or whatever
often sounds closer to alder or ash.
RS
>
>Back to (hopefully) a more productive track:
>
>It may be educational for anyone who buys into the dismissive posts to
>talk with one of the custom body makers like Warmoth, or better, call
>Tommy at USA Custom Guitars. They've tested hundreds of bodies from
>hundreds of batches of wood. There are even charts online at Warmoth.
>
>And no one is saying that there is not overlap between wood species,
>or that a plywood plank can't sound great, or that -all- alder sound
>precisely like this... The assertion is that there is a degree of
>predictability and character that usually applies to certain wood
>species. How else would you tell them apart at all? Think about it:
>There are characteristic weights/densities, characteristic grains,
>etc. But there's no characteristic resonance or sonic properties for
>some reason?
PS: Here are direct links to Warmoth's body wood and neck wood
databases:
http://www.warmoth.com/Guitar/Bodies/Options/BodyWoodOptions.aspx
http://www.warmoth.com/Guitar/Necks/NeckWoods.aspx
If it's a conspiracy of sham artists, then it's pervasive; most custom
manufacturers and luthiers, when pressed to talk about differences,
will come up with very similar descriptions. Here are equivalent
charts at USA Custom Guitars (great company):
http://www.usacustomguitars.com/bodywoods.html
http://www.usacustomguitars.com/neckwoods.html
So if wood types are generic, try finding someone who refers to maple
as 'dark sounding' or to mahogany as 'thin and bright.'
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
I once built a guitar with a rock maple neck and a 2 inch thick rock
maple body just to see what would happen. Let me tell you... it
sounded different than any solid body guitar I ever played. Sustained
for about a day and a half, and rang like a bell.
RS
>
>I once built a guitar with a rock maple neck and a 2 inch thick rock
>maple body just to see what would happen. Let me tell you... it
>sounded different than any solid body guitar I ever played. Sustained
>for about a day and a half, and rang like a bell.
Maple is heavy. 2" thick was probably an anvil. But it gets an
undeservedly bad rap as tonewood. It's bright, but not in the same
sense as the 'annoyingly bright' woods, which normally have pronounced
mid-scoops. IME, maple does not suffer from the latter.
And of course that's what they made those old expensive violins from.
What did you do with the guitar?
jimmy
I agree with pretty much all of that. My reality check now is if I
don't play it, at least now & then, it's for sale. The only exception
is sentimental value. I'll never sell my old mansfield classical. My
wife gave me that one on our first Christmas together almost 30 years
ago.
Having said all that, I believe that I'll end up with several higher
end acoustics & electrics along with a good acoustic amp and a couple
tube amps. I'm almost there.
tony
Jack Pagel
maybe First Act.
jtees4
I had an 83 Carvin DC100 all maple. Body and neck maple. Ebony board.
Brass nut. Expected it to be bright, but it really wasn't all that
bright. Heavy? Yes.
jtees4
If my mouth is open, you can assume it's my opinion.
jtees4
>On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:09:29 GMT, Jack Pagel <nz...@tds.net> wrote:
>
>>Exactly, how many guitars have you seen that are made of pine? Besides
>>maybe First Act.
>>
>
>There is a whole cult of people making nice guitars out of pine
>
>Here's just one of them
>
>http://pinecaster.com/
There are a lot of people who love Pine Teles. There must be something
about a tele that works well with pine becuase you don't see it much
with other guitars.
VampX
> Exactly, how many guitars have you seen that are made of pine? Besides
> maybe First Act.
Esteban....
--
VeronicaX
-------------------------------
VampX
> I did however take some offense at you misquoting Dee. This is a
> difficult format to convey thoughts as it is, when someone muddys
> things up with misquotes (I honestly think yours was not intentional)it
> makes it even more difficult.
>
>
> This is "IMO"of course :)
IMO, you could be right there
--
VeronicaX
-------------------------------
The Repair Guy
>Exactly, how many guitars have you seen that are
>made of pine? Besides maybe First Act.
Friend of mine made a pine strat body. Used a
Fender neck, DiMarzio pickups, hardtail.
Sounds great. Resonant.
The Repair Guy
>>>I totally disagree. Body wood does make a difference.
>>
>>It makes _some_ difference. I've mentioned that
>>I made a P-bass body from double thickness 3/4"
>>plywood and slapped a Fender neck on it.
>>No one noticed (except for weight).
>>IMO wood type is down on the list after pickups,
>>and maybe neck material.
>>(stone is a little extreme, though)
>
>Ever play a plexiglass Danelectro? Those are
>interesting, but rather hard-sounding, IMO.
Never even held one. Heard Siegel-Schwall, Rollo
used a fretless plexi bass. Sounded great. Eyes
closed, I never would've said "Hey - that's a non-
wood bass!" :-)
>Trouble with the list of priorities is that you can
>swap pickups but you can't swap body wood.
>So that always moves it to the top of my list.
I've used the same neck, pickups, and bridge
with 3 different bidies - koa, rock maple, and ash.
There were differences. The biggest surprise
I ever got was swapping in a grahpite resin neck -
major tone change (other variables unchanged).
Bottom dropped out, all mids & highs.
>Sometimes a guitar body has a particular
>resonance that tends to swamp out other
>adjustments, too. I find some swamp ash bodies
>do that. No way to get those notched frequencies
>back once they're gone. EQ or pickup swaps
>won't do it.
True, although I think that's outside the norm.
Bruce Morgen
My old Gibson L-6S was all
maple, all the time too
(yes, even the fretboard)
-- a truly wonderful,
underappreciated instrument
that I wish I hadn't sold
off in a fit of poverty
back in '85 or so.
RichL
Hmmm, funny, we have different reactions to that guitar. I bought one
back in the mid-70s and it was the only guitar I was ever glad to get
rid of. I always chalked it up to the maple + humbuckers combination,
it seemed to me that their natural sounds were fighting each other. The
end result was pretty sterile, in my view.
Bruce Morgen
Most versatile guitar I
ever owned -- its major
deficiency was the
switching, which was
confusing until I
figured out what each
position of the rotary
actually did. I could
do credible Strat and
Tele sounds with it --
and since I don't like
LPs and SGs, I didn't
miss the fact that it
sounded nothing like a
typical two-'bucker
Gibson.
My current all-maple
necked favorite has a
bridge 'bucker -- but
since I have no use for
traditional PAFish
'buckers, it's a twin-
blade that's switchable
between series and
parallel coil circuits
with the push-pull tone
pot.
Different strokes....
RS
<repair...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>RS <R...@saynotospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Ever play a plexiglass Danelectro? Those are
>>interesting, but rather hard-sounding, IMO.
>
>Never even held one. Heard Siegel-Schwall, Rollo
>used a fretless plexi bass. Sounded great. Eyes
>closed, I never would've said "Hey - that's a non-
>wood bass!" :-)
A lot of this stuff becomes much more apparent when you're playing it.
There's also interaction between a live guitar body and sound coming
out of the amp that's easy to feel on stage--the guitar comes alive.
>Trouble with the list of priorities is that you can
>>swap pickups but you can't swap body wood.
>>So that always moves it to the top of my list.
>
>I've used the same neck, pickups, and bridge
>with 3 different bidies - koa, rock maple, and ash.
>There were differences.
What were the differences?
I've always wanted to give koa another try. The koa solid bodies that
I've tried haven't worked for me.
>The biggest surprise
>I ever got was swapping in a grahpite resin neck -
>major tone change (other variables unchanged).
>Bottom dropped out, all mids & highs.
That's a great example! I was set to buy a Moses graphite neck for a
synth guitar experiment that I was working on. Tried a graphic neck
guitar locally and changed my mind about that within a minute.
Incredibly hard, unyielding sound, with very strange tonal balance. I
think the low bass was there, but it was not reinforced by lower
overtones.
The end result: I actually had trouble tuning that guitar! There were
no harmonic clues. Ping-y sounding top end. Attack that was way too
fast, almost percussive.
That kind of defines what I've always regarded as 'hard' sounding,
whether it's a body or neck.
>>Sometimes a guitar body has a particular
>>resonance that tends to swamp out other
>>adjustments, too. I find some swamp ash bodies
>>do that. No way to get those notched frequencies
>>back once they're gone. EQ or pickup swaps
>>won't do it.
>
>True, although I think that's outside the norm.
Depends how picky you are. In my case, that's "very". <g>
When I was a kid, I'd play anything. If there was something lacking,
I'd just try to overpower it by the way I played. My first strat
changed that, as I found quirks that couldn't be done on other
guitars. And I started listening closer to see what each guitar was
good at.
So I've had some guitars that I just can't stand, and it's usually due
to the neck or body (obviously, I try to swap pickups or modify
electronics to fix things). The major problems usually fall into
'hard-sounding' as above, or some kind of odd peak or notch. Sometimes
the latter can be charming, but often it amounts to a scoop or nasal
sound that really can't be EQ'd out or corrected with pickup swaps.
Often light ash will do that. Or semi-hollows where the resonances
suck mids. Heavy ash sometimes sounds hard, but I've had better luck
with maple (which is -reputed- to sound like that).
That happens with some necks, too. I think a slight amount of flex
actually complements the tonal spectrum (vs the inert graphite necks).
So I've got about 6 solid bodies and 1 semi-hollow that collect dust.
I wouldn't feel right selling them cause I just don't think they can
sound good.
Nil
> Hmmm, funny, we have different reactions to that guitar. I bought
> one back in the mid-70s and it was the only guitar I was ever glad
> to get rid of. I always chalked it up to the maple + humbuckers
> combination, it seemed to me that their natural sounds were
> fighting each other. The end result was pretty sterile, in my
> view.
I think we've compared notes on this guitar before. I had one for a
couple of years, too. Hated it. It didn't sustain well, uninteresting
sounding pickups, and that rotary switch was inconvenient and yielded
too many un-useful sounds. I played another one just like it a few
years ago, and it confirmed my recollections.
RichL
I don't recall the exact order, but if I remember right the combinations
were bridge pickup only, neck only, both in series/in phase, both in
parallel/in phase, both in series/out of phase, and both in parallel out
of phase.
On most guitars I can tell the difference between series and parallel
when the pickups were in phase, but on the L6-S there was hardly any
difference. Series should have been much darker than it was, which I
chalk up to the maple body.
The out-of-phase/series wasn't horrible but parallel it was so thin and
upper-midrangey as to be useless.
I think if you had those combinations available on, say, an SG, it
wouldn't be so bad.
The Repair Guy
>>I've used the same neck, pickups, and bridge with
>>3 different bidies - koa, rock maple, and ash. There
>>were differences.
>
>What were the differences?
Well, first off, I bought the maple body back when
I thought mass = sustain :-) It sounds bright, as
you'd expect, but a little dead sounding, especially
in upper register. Could never figure out why.
Maybe something to do with resonant frequency.
The koa body was my main body for years. Nice
round semi-warm tone, but heavy. That's the only
reason it's been sidelined. Good balance from
lowest to highest notes.
I've used ash and flame maple, and to my ear
they sound similar (taking into account variation
within wood types) - similar to koa but "springier".
>I've always wanted to give koa another try. The
>koa solid bodies that I've tried haven't worked
>for me.
What complaint? The notching you mention below?
>>The biggest surprise
>>I ever got was swapping in a grahpite resin neck -
>>major tone change (other variables unchanged).
>>Bottom dropped out, all mids & highs.
>
>That's a great example! I was set to buy a Moses
>graphite neck for a synth guitar experiment that I
>was working on. Tried a graphic neck guitar locally
>and changed my mind about that within a minute.
>Incredibly hard, unyielding sound, with very strange
>tonal balance. I think the low bass was there, but it
>was not reinforced by lower overtones.
Maybe that's a better description of what I heard.
All I know is, I had to bump up bottom & kill highs.
>The end result: I actually had trouble tuning that
>guitar! There were no harmonic clues. Ping-y
>sounding top end. Attack that was way too fast,
>almost percussive. That kind of defines what I've
>always regarded as 'hard' sounding, whether it's
>a body or neck.
Yeah - the stereotypical maple neck/fingerboard
sound... squared.
>>>Sometimes a guitar body has a particular
>>>resonance that tends to swamp out other
>>>adjustments, too. I find some swamp ash bodies
>>>do that. No way to get those notched frequencies
>>>back once they're gone. EQ or pickup swaps
>>>won't do it.
>>
>>True, although I think that's outside the norm.
>
>Depends how picky you are. In my case, that's
>"very". <g>
I've gotten less & less. I have noticed tonal oddities
in different bodies, but no extreme unfixable ones.
Either I've been lucky, or my hearing is worse than
I thought (possible).
>When I was a kid, I'd play anything. If there was
>something lacking, I'd just try to overpower it by
>the way I played. My first strat changed that, as
>I found quirks that couldn't be done on other
>guitars. And I started listening closer to see what
>each guitar was good at.
I started out the same way, gradually got more
discerning, and finally decided it's just too much
trouble getting The Sound. If the sound coming
out of my amp doesn't actually piss me off, I can
generally work with it.
>So I've had some guitars that I just can't stand,
How did you wind up owning them??
--snip--
RS
<repair...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>RS <R...@saynotospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>I've used the same neck, pickups, and bridge with
>>>3 different bidies - koa, rock maple, and ash. There
>>>were differences.
>>
>>What were the differences?
>
>Well, first off, I bought the maple body back when
>I thought mass = sustain :-) It sounds bright, as
>you'd expect, but a little dead sounding, especially
>in upper register. Could never figure out why.
Wood species do tend to have characteristics as a family (if I haven't
said that enough yet<g>), but yeah, this is probably where the
'variations within species' applies. I've played a couple maples that
were miserable, but I haven't found any that I'd characterize as dead
sounding. Maple often gets a bad rap. maybe deserved in this case.
>Maybe something to do with resonant frequency.
Sounds like it. Have you tried different necks, or the ol' C-Clamp on
the headstock trick?
>The koa body was my main body for years. Nice
>round semi-warm tone, but heavy. That's the only
>reason it's been sidelined. Good balance from
>lowest to highest notes.
I've been exploring darker sounds lately (picked up a few mahogany
bodies) but maybe I'll give koa another look. I was put off by some
acoustics that I didn't like, though there was one that was absolutely
amazing--incredible projection. And a couple electrics that I didn't
care for--looked great though.
The side-pieces of many Travis Beans were koa, but of course their
contribution to tone is minimized by the TBs' aluminum core.
>I've used ash and flame maple, and to my ear
>they sound similar (taking into account variation
>within wood types) - similar to koa but "springier".
I could see that. Sometimes harder ash sounds decent...defined, maybe.
But to an extreme, that's "hard." Like Mike Stern's Tele.
I generally prefer alder. Swamp Ash often has wierd mids (I touched
on that) so it's great for certain things that I like (mostly clean
hendrixy-sounding stuff) but I don't use them for single-note.
One of the guys at the old Warmoth used to characterize swamp-ash as
"fast." I understand what he was saying. Not all positive either. To
my ear, there's a percussive attack with less bloom afterward.
>>I've always wanted to give koa another try. The
>>koa solid bodies that I've tried haven't worked
>>for me.
>
>What complaint? The notching you mention below?
No, more like 'hard' or analytical sound.
>>>The biggest surprise
>>>I ever got was swapping in a grahpite resin neck -
>>>major tone change (other variables unchanged).
>>>Bottom dropped out, all mids & highs.
>>
>>That's a great example! I was set to buy a Moses
>>graphite neck for a synth guitar experiment that I
>>was working on. Tried a graphic neck guitar locally
>>and changed my mind about that within a minute.
>>Incredibly hard, unyielding sound, with very strange
>>tonal balance. I think the low bass was there, but it
>>was not reinforced by lower overtones.
>
>Maybe that's a better description of what I heard.
>All I know is, I had to bump up bottom & kill highs.
My experience with graphite was an eye-opener. I had played Kramers,
Travis Beans and Velenos before, and I liked them. So no aversion to
man-made tone woods (err...tone-metals). But I started thinking that
some 'anti-resonances' may be a plus, especially in bolt-ons. A friend
of mine, a guitar maker, said the same. In fact, he elaborated on
types of truss rods, etc. So I've taken a step opposite to the norm,
thinking that maybe strategic flaws in coupling provide a lot of the
warmth that we've come to value. Anti-graphite.
>>The end result: I actually had trouble tuning that
>>guitar! There were no harmonic clues. Ping-y
>>sounding top end. Attack that was way too fast,
>>almost percussive. That kind of defines what I've
>>always regarded as 'hard' sounding, whether it's
>>a body or neck.
>
>Yeah - the stereotypical maple neck/fingerboard
>sound... squared.
>
>>>>Sometimes a guitar body has a particular
>>>>resonance that tends to swamp out other
>>>>adjustments, too. I find some swamp ash bodies
>>>>do that. No way to get those notched frequencies
>>>>back once they're gone. EQ or pickup swaps
>>>>won't do it.
>>>
>>>True, although I think that's outside the norm.
>>
>>Depends how picky you are. In my case, that's
>>"very". <g>
>
>I've gotten less & less. I have noticed tonal oddities
>in different bodies, but no extreme unfixable ones.
>Either I've been lucky, or my hearing is worse than
>I thought (possible).
I doubt that you're having any trouble hearing anything. Everyone's
ears are different. One of my golden-eared friends, a session
guitarist, can tell the pitch of ultrahigh or ultralow notes. I hear
rumble, he hears "just a bit flat from low A". But I've found that
I've got better sensitivity to detail in mids than he does. Go figure.
>>When I was a kid, I'd play anything. If there was
>>something lacking, I'd just try to overpower it by
>>the way I played. My first strat changed that, as
>>I found quirks that couldn't be done on other
>>guitars. And I started listening closer to see what
>>each guitar was good at.
>
>I started out the same way, gradually got more
>discerning, and finally decided it's just too much
>trouble getting The Sound. If the sound coming
>out of my amp doesn't actually piss me off, I can
>generally work with it.
>
>>So I've had some guitars that I just can't stand,
>
>How did you wind up owning them??
Retarded impulsive buys, mostly. I'd buy four guitar bodies and one
would be wretched. I'm getting better at being able to tell ahead of
time. And some, I just thought I'd try 'em. Warmoth or someone would
have a cool looking body, and of course there's no way to audition, so
I'd just snag it.
Over the course, I've started finding patterns for what sounds good to
me and what doesn't so it's not a complete loss. I never get around
to selling anything, and I'd probably have to truthfully advertise it
as "I think this sounds horrible" so I doubt that it's worth the
effort. <g>
The Repair Guy
>
>>Maybe something to do with resonant frequency.
>
>Sounds like it. Have you tried different necks,
>or the ol' C-Clamp on the headstock trick?
No. I always figured if you had to start using
compensations like that, maybe you have the
wrong body in the first place.
>I generally prefer alder.
Yeah. It gets a bad rap sometimes because of
looks, but I think it generally sounds good and is
more consistent from piece to piece than other
snobbier woods.
>>Maybe that's a better description of what I heard.
>>All I know is, I had to bump up bottom & kill highs.
>
>My experience with graphite was an eye-opener.
>I had played Kramers, Travis Beans and Velenos
I've never even seen a Veleno IRL. Good quality?
>before, and I liked them. So no aversion to man-
>made tone woods (err...tone-metals). But I started
>thinking that some 'anti-resonances' may be a
>plus, especially in bolt-ons. A friend of mine, a
>guitar maker, said the same. In fact, he elaborated
>on types of truss rods, etc. So I've taken a step
>opposite to the norm, thinking that maybe strategic
>flaws in coupling provide a lot of the warmth that
>we've come to value. Anti-graphite.
Side note: I have an old Epiphone Spotlight (PRS
clone for us poor folks), and it has a phenolic (?)
fingerboard on a mahogany neck. Noticeable
bottom loss/ treble emphasis there, too, although
not as obnoxious as a graphite bolt-on neck
>Over the course, I've started finding patterns for
>what sounds good to me and what doesn't so it's
>not a complete loss. I never get around to selling
>anything, and I'd probably have to truthfully
>advertise it as "I think this sounds horrible" so
>I doubt that it's worth the effort. <g>
I think it's a shame that it takes so long to isolate
the qualities the player likes. At least, it did in my
case. Year after year of different pickups, different
body & neck woods - all to get an "almost perfect"
sound. Through a particular amp, no less.
I've given up on getting the sound I hear in my
head. Life is too short. I saw a recent Eric Johnson
interview where he said essentially the same thing
(although I'm sure he's still WAY pickier than I am).
RS
<repair...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>RS <R...@saynotospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>My experience with graphite was an eye-opener.
>>I had played Kramers, Travis Beans and Velenos
>
>I've never even seen a Veleno IRL. Good quality?
Oops...didn't answer this before. It's been many years since I
played a Veleno. I think it was either like Rundgren's Ankh guitar or
something similar. See about halfway down:
http://www.veleno.net/history2.htm
The neck was uncomfortably thin. I'd get used to it, but I
mean...REALLY thin. And I'm not a fan of baseball bat necks.
I don't remember it sounding like anything special, but in those days
I didn't have as much idea of what to listen for. A blessing in some
ways. <g> I keep thinking about that when I see one of the "all
tonewoods are the same" threads: Lucky that they can't hear it, cause
now they don't have to fuss with finding good-sounding bodies and
necks.
Anyway, you should be able to find a Travis Bean or an aluminum-neck
Kramer somewhere if you haven't already checked them out. I didn't
find the same flat clinical tone with the aluminum necks that I did
with graphite.
TheChris
4ax.com:
> I don't remember it sounding like anything special, but in those days
> I didn't have as much idea of what to listen for. A blessing in some
> ways. <g> I keep thinking about that when I see one of the "all
> tonewoods are the same" threads: Lucky that they can't hear it, cause
> now they don't have to fuss with finding good-sounding bodies and
> necks.
Once you play or record with a Steinberger, you start to question the
whole wood equasion :)
I'm with you - I can't hear it - especially with any bit of distortion.
Distortion is like burning food.... does it really matter what you burned?
:)
--
Christopher Bell
http://www.myspace.com/bellboudreaux
______________________________
| |
| Any Amp! |
| ________________________ |
| |!!o Q Q Q� Q Q Q :: | |
|==============================|
Linux user #497844