es-175 mahogany body vs maple
steve
darker than the all-maple bodies?
thanks,
steve
--
"It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance, that it is directed by insolent
passion."
Edmund Burke.
Charlie X
If there is a difference, i cant hear it.
These are 2 guitars that I play a lot and am currently using both in
the studio...the only difference i can hear is in my set up...my 88
needs some fret work, but other than that, i can use either
interchagably and no one would know...and that is thorugh the same amp
with same settings.
just my 2cents...ymmv
http://charliex.com
steve
Appreciated, Mr X.
Thanks,
Charlie X
The board seems to have low activity as of the last few weeks...wonder
whats up?
Joey Goldstein
> Were all the gibson 175s from '83-90 mahogany back and sides? Is the sound
> darker than the all-maple bodies?
>
> thanks,
> steve
My mahogany 175 has less top end an all-maple 175. This is especially
noticeable when playing them acoustically.
##### likes to talk about how his mahogany 175s are darker too.
So this is a generally accepted thing.
However, I find that when amplified, the all-maple 175s have a more
pronounced low end, especially when you roll off the tone control.
I.e. The mahogany guitars have a more pronounced lower mid-range than
the all-maple guitars.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Joey Goldstein
> steve wrote:
>> Were all the gibson 175s from '83-90 mahogany back and sides? Is the
>> sound
>> darker than the all-maple bodies?
>>
>> thanks,
>> steve
>
> My mahogany 175 has less top end an all-maple 175. This is especially
> noticeable when playing them acoustically.
> ##### likes to talk about how his mahogany 175s are darker too.
>
> So this is a generally accepted thing.
>
> However, I find that when amplified, the all-maple 175s have a more
> pronounced low end, especially when you roll off the tone control.
> I.e. The mahogany guitars have a more pronounced lower mid-range than
> the all-maple guitars.
>
PS
I don't know anything about your chronology question.
lukejazz
I always get the feeling that my (maple) es775 has too much low end.
Plus it's extremely resonant on the pitch "F" - especially 8th
position on the A string. I've got no other like guitar or 175 to
compare it to.
Luke
www.lukejazz.com
Joey Goldstein
Well I never said the words "too much".
I actually find my mahogany 175 a bit too thin on the bottom when I'm
playing at home.
But it sounds pretty good on gigs.
Maj6th
absolutly horrible when played in a gig setting and conversly one that
sounds horrible at home sings on the job; go figure.
Maj6th.
pmfan57
Because some guitars just sound better loud than others do. It's
amazing how much louder you are playing live. I don't think that's
surprising. Another problem is all the things you forget when you
only play at home. Like making sure all the strings you aren't using
(especially the third (G) string for me) are not ringing out for
example. A mess at any live volume. I guess you have to practice
loud sometimes. Like anyone around here's going to put up with that.
tom walls
I think that playing in ensemble is part of the equation. Playing solo
at home you can dial in a warm, lush, tone and be happy as a clam, but
in an ensemble you have to cut through and that velvety fog ain't
going to make it.
paul
at the end of the day, how a guitar/amp sounds at home has little to
no bearing on how it will sound on any given gig, even the number of
people in the room can affect the sound quite a bit.
--paul
pmfan57
Right. Another good reason not to have the speaker in your ear at a
gig. What sounds bright on stage will sound much less so out in the
audience.