Need to understand "fat" tone
Slugger
Gibson Les Paul is popular is because of its
"fatter" tone as compared to the Stratocaster.
My question is:
How do the tones of the archtops (like the ES 175)
and the semi-hollow bodies (like the ES 335) rate in
terms of "fatness"? i.e. Are they "fatter"
or "thinner" than the Les Paul?
Thanks,
Slugger
David Stephens
Archtops sound more acoustic and 'woodier' than LPs, but not necessarily
fatter. The 'fatter' tones generally come from the pickup and the values the
caps on the tone controls. Ed Bickert plays a tele that sounds 'fat', but
most teles are set up to sound brighter than Strats. So it's pickups, string
size and type, etc., etc., etc. The FAQ gets into the many facets of tone.
Dave
Slugger <sl...@home.com> wrote in message news:39A20699...@home.com...
peatea
Like many words these days, the word FAT is totally abused.
The oposite of FAT would be TWANG.
Then there's MIDRANGY, MUDDY, CLEAN, DIRTY, JAZZ TONE, BLUES TONE and
finally NO TONE.
Pt
Mark Kleinhaut
(and comes from) the player. Technique is the primary factor that
effects tone even before you factor in the consequences of all the
other numerous choices you have to make, listed here in an order which
sort of follows the signal flow: Picks (or nails), strings, set-up of
action etc., pickups, guitar type, effects & cables, amplifier and
settings, speaker cabinet(s), room acoustics and your position in room
and finally, the listener's perspective. These are just the objective
factors (and there are still others such as humidity & temperature).
There are also soft or subjective influences such as your state of mind
and emotional well being, or for that matter, what you have for
breakfast.
Happy pick'n
--
Mark Kleinhaut
Info and soundclips available at
www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/Amphora.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Kleinhaut
Pete Kerezman
This thread seems pretty revealing about the imperfection
of language when it comes to describing the tone of an
amplified guitar. Words like "thick," "bright," "full," "dark,"
"mellow," and all them other ones like "twang," what the
hell do they really mean? I *think* i know but what if i
don't? It's nerve-wracking.
Texas Pete
Pete Kerezman (pete...@aol.com)
ros...@inet.net
pea...@earthlink.net (peatea) wrote:
> Like many words these days, the word FAT is totally abused.
Especially when it's spelled 'phat'
Frank
--
http://mp3.com/bzb (hear my band)
http://home.conectiv.net/~rosebud/frank
JAlbin1916
All that is true, but ...
To most people, "fat" means accentuated mids and lows, and attenuated highs.
For various electronic and physical reasons a typical Gibson-style humbucking
pickup has a "fatter" frequency response curve than a typical Tele- or
Strat-style single coil pickup. Archtops also tend to be bassier and
mid-rangier than solid bodies.
So, in general, through the same amp, with the same settings and the same
strings, single coil + solidbody = thinner than humbucker + archtop, with
sem-hollows straddling the fence. There are exceptiions (e.g., Ed Bickert vs.
Brian Setzer) but the generalization jives with most players' experiences, I
think.
As to why Les Pauls are "popular", you have to factor in variables such as
status (they cost a bloody fortune), and association with particular players
("Slash rools, dude") as well as tone. But whether it's "popular" or not
really doesn't matter. If you like it, it's good. If you don't it's not (at
least for you).
-John
Nuke "hatespam" to reply
fretwizz
wrote:
> pea...@earthlink.net (peatea) wrote:
>
> >
> >Like many words these days, the word FAT is totally abused.
> >The oposite of FAT would be TWANG.
> >Then there's MIDRANGY, MUDDY, CLEAN, DIRTY, JAZZ TONE, BLUES TONE and
> >finally NO TONE.
> >
>
> This thread seems pretty revealing about the imperfection
> of language when it comes to describing the tone of an
> amplified guitar. Words like "thick," "bright," "full," "dark,"
> "mellow," and all them other ones like "twang," what the
> hell do they really mean? I *think* i know but what if i
> don't? It's nerve-wracking.
>
> Texas Pete
> Pete Kerezman (pete...@aol.com)
Because of how subjective these adjectives are,(no two people perceive
sound the same way) you will always know what they mean... to YOU.
Steve
A.M.Quinn
<URL:mailto:dcs...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Check out our FAQ at http://www.wpi.edu/~kgh/rmmgjFAQ.html
>
> Archtops sound more acoustic and 'woodier' than LPs, but not necessarily
> fatter. The 'fatter' tones generally come from the pickup and the values the
> caps on the tone controls. Ed Bickert plays a tele that sounds 'fat', but
> most teles are set up to sound brighter than Strats. So it's pickups, string
> size and type, etc., etc., etc. The FAQ gets into the many facets of tone.
>
> Dave
>
> Slugger <sl...@home.com> wrote in message news:39A20699...@home.com...
comes from the tight acoustic coupling of the strings to the body. The
archtop body is very efficient in converting the string vibrations into
sound. The result is that the string vibration is rapidly damped after
the string is plucked. Usually it is the fundamental frequency that is
eliminated or reduced in volume after a fraction of a second. It is this
that makes these guitars so good for chord rhythm playing or clearly
articulated jazz lines.
Because this quality is reflected back into the strings themselves and
magnetic pickups are sensitive only to the string vibrations, the
archtop can produce a unique electric sound which can never be exactly
reproduced by any other guitar. The sound may be made fat or thin by the
choice of pickup and associated electronics but this extra dimension,
which is additional to the routine percussiveness of a plucked string,
will always be there and is what archtops are all about.
Semi acoustic archtops like the ES175 try to keep the tight coupling of
the strings but throw away the sound that twould normally be produced by
using a less acoustically efficient laminated body. This allows them to
be played louder without feedback (and be cheaper), and can produce
excellent archtop-like results.
Semi-hollows go even further and sacrifice some of the string coupling
for more sustain and greater resistance to feedback. They cannot produce
the true archtop sound, particularly in the bass.
Arthur
Tom Lippincott
>fatter. The 'fatter' tones generally come from the pickup and the values the
>caps on the tone controls. Ed Bickert plays a tele that sounds 'fat', but
>most teles are set up to sound brighter than Strats. So it's pickups, string
>size and type, etc., etc., etc. The FAQ gets into the many facets of tone.
>
>Dave
A couple of other characteristics that Les Pauls have, though, that supposedly
contribute to their "fat" tone are the 24 3/4" scale length (as opposed to
Fender and most of the carved top Gibson type archtops), the set neck versus
bolt on neck (only applicable in comparison with Fender type guitars), and the
woods used and construction method; mahogany neck and body, which is supposedly
on the "dark" side sonically, and a maple top. Oh, and there's also the string
angle at the headstock (which is similar to most archtops but different from
most Fenders). Also, I think that neck shape and mass can have a significant
effect on the tone, although I don't know if Les Pauls' necks are unique in
that regard.
In general, I think that the cliche of Les Pauls being thought of as having a
"fat" tone is usually used when comparing them to Fender type solid bodies. I
do think that ES335s and their ilk tend to sound relatively close in tone
(fat-ness?) to Les Pauls.
Tom Lippincott
Guitarist, Composer, Teacher
audio samples, articles, CD's at:
http://www.tomlippincott.com
peatea
> A couple of other characteristics that Les Pauls have, though, that supposedly
> contribute to their "fat" tone are the 24 3/4" scale length (as opposed to
> Fender and most of the carved top Gibson type archtops), the set neck versus
> bolt on neck (only applicable in comparison with Fender type guitars), and the
> woods used and construction method; mahogany neck and body, which is
supposedly
> on the "dark" side sonically, and a maple top. Oh, and there's also the
string
> angle at the headstock (which is similar to most archtops but different from
> most Fenders). Also, I think that neck shape and mass can have a significant
> effect on the tone, although I don't know if Les Pauls' necks are unique in
> that regard.
> In general, I think that the cliche of Les Pauls being thought of as having a
> "fat" tone is usually used when comparing them to Fender type solid bodies. I
> do think that ES335s and their ilk tend to sound relatively close in tone
> (fat-ness?) to Les Pauls.
I have always wondered why people put so much thoughts into the type of
wood a guitar is made from. The pickup only receives a magnetic signal
from a vibrating metalic string. There are some great sounding guitars
that are not made from wood not to mention Steinbergers. One of the best
sounding electric guitars I played was an all aluminum Fender Telecaster.
There are also some fine electric guitars with aluminum necks.
Pt
Tom Lippincott
>wood a guitar is made from. The pickup only receives a magnetic signal
>from a vibrating metalic string. There are some great sounding guitars
>that are not made from wood not to mention Steinbergers. One of the best
>sounding electric guitars I played was an all aluminum Fender Telecaster.
>There are also some fine electric guitars with aluminum necks.
>Pt
If that were true then why would anyone bother with different styles of
guitars, including archtops? I agree that these "other" factors probably
matter less on a solid body guitar than on a carved top hollow body, but they
still do make a significant contribution to the end result that comes out of
the amp. The pickup is recieving the signal from a vibrating string, but HOW
that string vibrates is influenced by all of the above mentioned factors.
tom8...@my-deja.com
Very true, also the vibrations in the body cause the pickup to vibrate
slightly as well, particularly on an archtop.
peatea
bands...mostly Fusion. In the 60's I bought an Alpine White 1963 Les Paul
Custom (SG style). I loved that guitar. It could get almost any sound I
wanted. When I went to Vietnam I sold it. I have wanted another one ever
since but their prices are outrageous today.
Even the re-issue is more than I want to pay. So I got the next best thing.
An Alpine White SG Double neck. I like the sound but it is just too dammed
heavy to gig with.
Pt