2013 bursts to the real thing

Xpensive Wino · Dec 3, 2013

How old were '50s bursts in, say, 1965-71?

Seems like they sounded fine on the recordings made back then, and the wood wasn't "old", was it?

JPP-1 · Dec 3, 2013

kats said:
I'm not sure I've played or recorded the Marquis, but I will definitely give them a whirl. I was basing my opinion on normal D28s. From an engineering standpoint they are not the funnest to record - a little boomy and a thinner top end. The older ones generally sound "stronger" for lack of a better term, and translate well when recorded. One thing we can agree on (sound preferences aside), these guitars have little in common to each other - as you also point out.

My main beef is that the newer D28s do not feel like an instrument for the working professional. Just too fragile for the rigours of the road. Are the Marquis better from that standpoint?

---------

That said, in my experience, great players sound great no matter what the guitar. From an engineering POV, there is nothing I can do with a lousy sounding player - and I'm talking sound, not chops. There is no guitar in the world that will improve their tone. The tone is in their fingers and brain. they constantly adjust their technique (subconsciously) to achieve the tone they hear in their head.

It's important that the instrument inspires the player though, or at the very least not distract them.

I feel bad talking martins here on the LPF but like historic LPs, Take a dozen d28s and they'll all sound a bit different even new ones. Some can be great some just good rarely do you get a bad one. D28s can be more of a challenge to record than say most Taylors which seems to always sit right in the mix. With that said, I would say the hd28, hd28v, d28 marquis and the other custom shop martin d28s ie the authentics have more going on more lows more highs more overtones again this has a lot to do with the construction methods and can prove even trickier to get to tape than a standard d28 which is more straight forward and punchy.

Postwar D28s should be more robust than their scalloped braced brethren because this adds stability to the top. This was the reason why Martin eventually went with non scalloped straight bracing -to minimize warranty repairs. The resulting tonal compromise kinda gave golden age status to those prewar martins much the same way norlin's improvements gave golden age status to 57-60 Les Pauls. Of course Martins improvements weren't quite as tone robbing as Norlins and many of these "improvements" get mitigated with use. Which is why a heavily played used d28 can often sound bigger louder and more open than a factory fresh one.

Anyway my apologies for the martin ramble here but I think we're all guitar lovers and hopefully there are enough parallels between both brands to make this relevant to the forum.

yeti · Dec 3, 2013

kats said:
I'm not sure I've played or recorded the Marquis, but I will definitely give them a whirl. I was basing my opinion on normal D28s. From an engineering standpoint they are not the funnest to record - a little boomy and a thinner top end. The older ones generally sound "stronger" for lack of a better term, and translate well when recorded. One thing we can agree on (sound preferences aside), these guitars have little in common to each other - as you also point out.

My main beef is that the newer D28s do not feel like an instrument for the working professional. Just too fragile for the rigours of the road. Are the Marquis better from that standpoint?

---------

That said, in my experience, great players sound great no matter what the guitar. From an engineering POV, there is nothing I can do with a lousy sounding player - and I'm talking sound, not chops. There is no guitar in the world that will improve their tone. The tone is in their fingers and brain. they constantly adjust their technique (subconsciously) to achieve the tone they hear in their head.

It's important that the instrument inspires the player though, or at the very least not distract them.

Martin D-28's are known for being somewhat difficult to record, their voice is a boomy one and getting a good sound onto tape has been one of the more challenging tasks a regular engineer would encounter. Little parlor guitars tend to record better, Mahogany guitars tend to record better than Rosewoods, regarding D-28's, maybe a less exuberant example from the 60's will sound better on recordings than a lively new one, who knows? Recording isn't the same as real life, microphones are not ears. I like the Marquis for their sound in the real world, making them sound good on a recording is another matter altogether. I have never been able to capture my D-18 DC the way I hear it live, same is true for my '25 Weissenborn, it takes the right room, the right mic, the right preamp and the right player, I don't have access to either.

BTW, the most fragile Martin guitars were the ones from the Golden Era.

trapland · Dec 4, 2013

jbzoso2002 said:
I think pickups, electronics and hardware have
at least as much to do with the tone if not more
than the wood does.:couch

Jimmy

I'm not so sure anything more than pickups and wood have a huge effect.

I'm not talking about vintage LPs here, but I have owned at least 30 standard type LPs from the 90s and I hated EVERY ONE that did not include a 490r and 498t. I had at least 3 with 57 classics and a couple with pat numbers and other brands(as replacements) . Amongst the ones with my preferred pickups, only 4 sounded good enough to keep for years.

Most of those with my preferred pickups had pretty much the same finish and hardware..m always translucent lacquer and nickel. Many we're better playing guitars than the ones I kept. Only those 4 where magical sounding. It was the wood. I don't believe you MUST use 300 year old wood to make an amazing guitar. But I DO believe you need amazing wood.

Pickups you hate can make good wood sound weak. Pickups you like still can't make a guitar sound great if the wood isn't right. And if it sounds like magic without your fav pickups, it MAY be heaven with them.

I'm no expert, but I have owned about 40-50 LPs since the early 90s. A few we're production models, some were from the 70s and 80s. Most have been custom shop models from the 90s till now and a few of those were historics. One historic 2008, two custom shops 1996 and 1998 and a production 1996 magical to me. I think unless you can afford to keep MANY MANY guitars for their looks, you have to kiss a lot of frogs and then resell them to find the princesses.

Wood and pickups, pickups and wood. There was probably more good wood in the 50s-60 but there is still good wood today. Less of it maybe, but just as magical.

wizardmc · Dec 4, 2013

Neck wood matters I think.

kats · Dec 13, 2013

Just a quick pic of braz vs IR on a larger scale:

DoctorMO · Dec 18, 2013

The 2013 does provide the vibe that we have all been looking for for the last 20 years of reissues. These guitars really did not feel right before 2009 and could really not be compared to the old 50s LP How could they with those gigantic necks. I had a nice Murphy aged guitar I bought off of Vic in 2004 and the neck actually hurt my hand to play it was so big and uncomfortable . In 1993 and 94 the neck size was perfect but the frets were totally wrong and the neck angle was off. In the 2000's the neck began to grow and the frets were just plain goofy big and flat undressed. The Burst Bucker was a step back from the 57 classic. It took Gibson 20 years to basically get it all right AND THEY HAVE DONE THAT now with the 2013 changes and the Custom Bucker. It only cost me 40,000 dollars to get to this point!! Thankfully the resale has always been very good!

landminelenny · Dec 18, 2013

Xpensive Wino said:
How old were '50s bursts in, say, 1965-71?

Seems like they sounded fine on the recordings made back then, and the wood wasn't "old", was it?

Yes it was old wood. The wood used by Gibson in the 50's was select old growth honduran mahogany, eastern rock maple and brazilian rosewood that was naturally air dried and seasoned over a period of many many years. Today they use mass production kiln dried woods that are far inferior as tone woods. Gibson will never be able to recreate the vibe and tone of the old Les Pauls until they use the same materials, which is never gonna happen.

Black58 · Dec 22, 2013

landminelenny said:
Yes it was old wood. The wood used by Gibson in the 50's was select old growth honduran mahogany, eastern rock maple and brazilian rosewood that was naturally air dried and seasoned over a period of many many years. Today they use mass production kiln dried woods that are far inferior as tone woods. Gibson will never be able to recreate the vibe and tone of the old Les Pauls until they use the same materials, which is never gonna happen.

Are you prepared fer BigAl's wrath? :ganz

Big Al · Dec 22, 2013

landminelenny said:
Yes it was old wood. The wood used by Gibson in the 50's was select old growth honduran mahogany, eastern rock maple and brazilian rosewood that was naturally air dried and seasoned over a period of many many years. Today they use mass production kiln dried woods that are far inferior as tone woods. Gibson will never be able to recreate the vibe and tone of the old Les Pauls until they use the same materials, which is never gonna happen.

Not true and more myth than fact, I'm afraid.

No long term, seasond air dried wood was used in any Les Paul. Gibson had been kiln drying it's wood for many years prior to the 50's.

What old growth? People keep tossing that term around without any real understanding of its meaning. A tree that Robin Hood climbed in Sherwood Forest, if cut down today is "Old Growth". Certainly not the Maple or Mahogany used by Gibson in the 50's.

It's getting old. I agree with you that no one will ever build a 59 Les Paul. I don't agree with your reasons. Won't ever happen.
Can't be done in 2013 or 1913 or 2213. But they sure can build one that plays as well, sounds as good and looks as good. Maybe...GASP!!!...dare I say it... better!! That has been shown many times.

Even without mythical, mystical faerie forest flora.

Both times.
:laugh2:

Red Baron · Dec 22, 2013

Black58 said:
Are you prepared fer BigAl's wrath? :ganz

LOL I was thinking exactly the same when I read that post :lol

...Paging Big Al :ha

Red Baron · Dec 22, 2013

Big Al said:
A tree that Robin Hood climbed in Sherwood Forest, if cut down today is "Old Growth".

Priceless Al! :applaude

JR.Deluxe · Dec 22, 2013

How about Billy Gibbons' beard? Is that old growth? Or kiln dried?

rockabilly69 · Dec 22, 2013

yeti said:
I played a D-28 Marquis that was just unbelievable, it sold for under 3K, the best D-28 I've ever played. But deep down I'm a mahogany guy.
Anyway, the defenders of vintage Martin orthodoxy seem like a sorry lot to me, reality can be such a bitch.

This always gets me too. I've played plenty of vintage Martins, and I can tell you from experience that my new Martin HD28 can hang. AND, as for playability, mine plays and intonates better than most vintage Martins I've played. I play from 4 to 8 hours a day at least 6 days a week for a living, and my new Martin sounded great out of the box and settled in extremely fast! It sounds HUGE and when I play live, I use a UST and an external mic that I lean into when I want to hear the big sound. I own 5 Martins, 2 dreads, and 3 000s. The oldest one is a 1998, so none of them are vintage, but every one could pass as one on a recording. I took me a while to figure out mic placement on the HD28 for recording but now I can do it in minutes. Here's what it sounds like, listen on monitors to hear the low end...

https://soundcloud.com/#daniel-weldon-1/song-for-b-martin-hd28

And a week before I bought my HD28, I bought one just like it for friend that I helped when he was guitar shopping! It sounds IDENTICAL to mine, I don't
think I could tell them apart in a blind test!

Professortwang · Dec 22, 2013

I bought one also, HD28V is my flavor of choice. I had a friend that went on and on about how his guitar was a canon and how new guitars can't compare. He brought it over one night; mine plays better, sounds better, and was much less expensive.

Triburst · Dec 22, 2013

I agree with Big Al's excellent point on this topic... A great guitar is a great guitar, regardless of when it was made.

:wail

kats · Dec 22, 2013

Ultimately I believe the market has the final word on "the bests". I used to hear the same thing about vintage U47 mics, Stradivarius violins (please don't get me started on that ridiculous blind test), and myriad of other old vs new instruments. And after decades of experience I've concluded that the market has usually been right in it's judgment.

2013 bursts to the real thing

Xpensive Wino

Well-known member

JPP-1

Well-known member

yeti

Guest

trapland

New member

wizardmc

Active member

kats

Member

DoctorMO

New member

landminelenny

Les Paul Froum Member

Black58

New member

Big Al

Well-known member

Red Baron

Well-known member

Red Baron

Well-known member

JR.Deluxe

New member

rockabilly69

Well-known member

Professortwang

Active member

Triburst

Well-known member

kats

Member