Are '50s Les Pauls acoustically louder?

Wilko said:

I've posted on this many times.

There people who say that the acoustic properties don't matter with an electric guitar. That is proven false as soon as the subject of 335s comes up. The same effect that wood has on a 335 effects a how a Les Paul sounds, just to different degrees.

How a Les Paul sounds acoustically is certainly an indicator of some of the qualities that can be exploited plugged in.

Most players just don't get it or care.

Click to expand...

You are 100% correct but you do understand that total amplitude which was the OPs question is just one of many acoustic properties.

When I've purchased acoustic guitars in the past I've always chosen the one that sounds best, best of course is subjective: harmonics, overtones, warmth/bright balance etc. total loudness is for me secondary to tone, even on an acoustic.

From my experience, the total unplugged amplitude of an electric guitar is indicative of its unplugged volume output. Some acoustically loud electric guitars sound great, some don't. But I do agree that the overall acoustic tone of an electric guitar does certainly have an impact on its plugged in tone.

Wilko said:

I've posted on this many times.

There people who say that the acoustic properties don't matter with an electric guitar. That is proven false as soon as the subject of 335s comes up. The same effect that wood has on a 335 effects a how a Les Paul sounds, just to different degrees.

How a Les Paul sounds acoustically is certainly an indicator of some of the qualities that can be exploited plugged in.

Most players just don't get it or care.

Click to expand...

I find that too many listen for loudness only and that factor alone, in a 335 or a Jr by itself is meaningless as a tone qualifier. Actuall tone content of the acoustic tone does indicate how an electric may sound amplified.

I listen to the front/attack for quick clear articulate responce with easy harmonic chirp an responce to dynamic pick/finger attack or legato notes. I listen to strumed and plucked chords as they sustain and fall away, for bright twangy full frequency content. I look for a bright, ringing brang. Dull or thin are no go. I strum/pluck hard and soft and listen for dynamic spread from bridge to neck.

Some of my guitars which most everyone who hears or tries that are regarded as having exceptionly good tone, are not noticeably loud acousticly, in fact less loud than some of my others, but they do have the acoustic qualities I descibed.

Volume alone, IMO, is a false indicator of tone.

I never buy an LP based on acoustic tone or volume... Only on what it sounds like through an amp, and of course preferably through the same amp with the same pickups and even bridge and tailpiece and strings... now its apples to apples.... if I love it through the amp after all that then I got a winner!

But talking about acoustic tone, I agree with many here that louder doesnt always make better... I know we can all argue what 'better' means but I know what I want to hear through an amp... The OP asked about acoustic volume in vintage guitars vs. newer and historics... To me volume means nothing... I dont have much experience with new historics but I feel that the acoustic RING of a great vintage guitar is where I hear the difference... Ive never owned a burst but Ive owned three fifties goldtops... The first one I owned when I strummed it acoustically I was like holy shit man that sounds different than anything I have at home... I found a way to buy it... wish I still had it.

Its interesting to listen to the acoustic differences... but play a bunch new or old through and amp and if it does it for you thats all that matters!

Big Al said:

Mine we're all different. Some louder, some not so much. I never could find a correlation with acoustic loudness and electric tone that I could lay my finger on.

Click to expand...

My findings as well. I've had some that sounder louder acoustically, which didn't necessarily mean they sounded better amplified, in fact one of my loudest LP's unplugged, was actually quite ordinary amplified. One thing my best sounding LP's did have in common was weight - they were in the 9.5lbs region.

JPP-1 said:

You are 100% correct but you do understand that total amplitude which was the OPs question is just one of many acoustic properties.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry I didn't clarify.
I understand the difference between total amplitude and tonal quality as a part of the tone equation. I was merely responding to the total dismissal of acoustic properties as being completely irrelevant.

Wilko said:

I'm sorry I didn't clarify.
I understand the difference between total amplitude and tonal quality as a part of the tone equation. I was merely responding to the total dismissal of acoustic properties as being completely irrelevant.

Click to expand...

I know you get it Wilko. I was being specific for those that rely on volume alone.

In comparing the acoustic loudness of my Burst to my 52 Tele, 55 Strat, 62 Junior and 57 Junior, I find that it is, acoustically, the quietest of the bunch. However, I also find that it is the most resonant of these, i.e. ; I feel the string vibrations moving through the wood of the guitar more than on the other guitars. My Burst is also in the 9.5 lb range (just a little under). My thoughts are that the enhanced resonance in the Burst finds it's way back (feeds back) to the pickups and contributes to the sustaining quality that is so special in a Burst. This is something I've noticed in most (but not all) of the Bursts I've had the pleasure to play.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL4kJL_NDR0

It's not about loudness. It's about frequency balance. Also, PAFs are microphonic and very sensitive to harmonic overtone, so the resonance of the wood definitely factors in. I won't say that Bursts are louder, but my experience with them and the couple of Reissues I've owned is that Bursts tend to be "thicker" sounding, acoustically.

As I muse the term "loudness" and JJ's comment, I'm reminded of the old stereos from the 70s. They often had a button or switch labeled "loudness" which thickened the sound for listening at lower volumes. When I play a good burst, unplugged, it's almost like a (hypothetical) "loudness" button is engaged. :hmm

Thanks guys for sharing your experiences!

Just to make it clear: I don’t believe that acoustic loudness has any beneficial effect on plugged-in tone (on the other hand, unplugged characteristics like natural EQ, sustain, note attack certainly does). The reason I asked this particular question is that I have heard many folks comparing Bursts to chambered Les Pauls in regards to unplugged loudness. Since then, I’ve always wondered if there’s really a general quantitative differece in this regard. The one and only reference material is the already mentioned Dimarzio Burst vs R9 video. While it’s completely inconclusive being only one single comparison, it can be clearly heard that there is a distinctive acoustic volume difference. So I opened this topic to hear the observations of the highly experienced members: is it possible to draw a general distinction between '50s Les Pauls and later ones based on the acoustic loudness factor? Or are '50s examples totally all over the place just like Historics?

Please chime in guys if you can add any more personal observations to confirm / refute this rumour. I certainly will get back to this topic with my own experiences after visiting the recommended stores in August.

Loved the light bulb analogy doc sausage. Fun thread. The mystic of the late 50's LP continues.... good times!

Agree on the " amp" sound test. lol

My 335 sounds plinky ? unplugged ~ Who would guess

Connect to 65 DR, watch out ~ Lambo Countach ~

:jim

I really don't notice my burst being any louder acoustically compared to my other electrics.

I have a good friend who has owned hundreds (thousand?) of late 50's Les Pauls. I have been fortunate to play a few of them. I did attempt to correlate "what is it" about 2 weeks ago. One of the thoughts I specifically considered was the sound they made acoustically. The last time that I played 2 of them (a 58 gold top and a 56 Custom (black of course)) I not only held and played them but then I instantly held and played a few more modern ones from his collection including 80's, 90's, and R series. The only thing I really noticed that seemed really different that I could quantify was the balance vs weights. Although the 50's (real ones) les pauls were quite heavy--they also seemed considerably more balanced both held in the hand and sitting. Possible it was just the bigger necks they both had giving more weight to the neck prompting that balance? Seems vague but that is the only thing I could find that was different between old ones and newer ones.

good point. i have 30's gibson archtops that history says were built to be loud to keep up with orchestras but they arent loud! they are kind of quiet by todays flat top standards but.. if you get intimate with one of those they have awesome sweet tones. whats crazy is you have to beg someone to give you 3500 bucks for an old mid to higher end archtop.some of the old 0- sized martins arent loud but have chime for days.size doesnt matter?

JPP-1 said:

There are some great sources on this board that I'm sure can provide you with insight into your original question. While I've played a few 50s Les Pauls I didn't pay particular attention to the acoustic volume level.

I would say this though. Don't confuse quantity with quality.

Even with my Martin acoustics which are played acoustically. Louder does not always equal better. Harmonics, overtones, warmth, clarity, responsiveness, each of these factors is as important as total amplitude. I don't think I ever heard of an acoustic player say tonal nirvana is found in the loudest acoustic. Unlike an electric, an acoustic capable of generating greater amplitude can provide an advantage in certain circumstances where an acoustic instrument needs to provide greater projection. Bluegrass guys tend to like big loud guitars because they have to compete with the output of banjos in a live setting.

I have had some acoustically "loud" electric guitars that have been a let down plugged in and some that have sounded great.

i think a better approach is to listen to the tonal nuances of the guitar played acoustically rather than the total output. An electric guitar's acoustic output volume should be irrelevant. Rather it's the quality of its acoustic tone together with how this acoustic tone interacts with the pickups and ultimately the amp that is crucial for a great sounding electric guitar tone imho.

Click to expand...

les pauls are heavy guitars that will almost always sustain nicely acoustically no matter what year they are. my opinion is that 68 percent of why a vintage les paul kicks but is because of the state of the pickups.there are hot pickups. and weak pickups.some old ones dont trip my trigger. most do! i think the reason newer les pauls dont sound as good is because of the wiring and pickups. there is somethng 'stiff' about the newer ones. thats just my opinion.. but i really feel that way.feel free to ridicule. it will be a walk in the park compared to when my wife yells at me.

slammintone said:

Since I've only strummed one Burst I can say that one didn't sound especially loud or anything unplugged compared to more modern Historics of which I've played and owned probably 25 now. When someone else plugged the Burst into an amp however, that was a different story. That Burst (don't know if they're all like this) had like a natural sustain generator built in. The longer the sustain went on the stronger the signal seemed to get. Other than that, the real Burst had a timber, a dry upper mid character I've also never heard Historics do before with factory pickups, Throbaks, none of them. Got to hear a nice stock 2012 R9 right after the real thing was played and it was.......different.:2cool How different? Well, one of the two guitars sounded like it was made from some honest to gosh tone woods and the other (the one more common to that which I'm familiar with!!) sounded as responded as if it were straining for all it was worth to be like the real thing and failing. YMMV :salude

Click to expand...

agogetr said:

les pauls are heavy guitars that will almost always sustain nicely acoustically no matter what year they are. my opinion is that 68 percent of why a vintage les paul kicks but is because of the state of the pickups.there are hot pickups. and weak pickups.some old ones dont trip my trigger. most do! i think the reason newer les pauls dont sound as good is because of the wiring and pickups. there is somethng 'stiff' about the newer ones. thats just my opinion.. but i really feel that way.feel free to ridicule. it will be a walk in the park compared to when my wife yells at me.

Click to expand...

I was horsing around over Christmas and I came across an interview (audio) with Seth Lover who claimed, in that interview, that today's stock Gibson Pickups are "much" (his words) better than the ones he invented and used in the 50's-60's. I cannot find it again or I would somehow link or attach it. I believe it was in the book "Million Dollar Les Paul" but if it is I cannot find it again. Billy Gibbons said that he went to Gibson in Kalamazoo in the early 70's to figure out what "it" was about some pickups and he claimed that the ladies (apparently they were all ladies) were so "willy nilly" about the windings that he gleaned zero information from the trip. He claimed there was a little timer that they set so they would know when to stop winding and that they would start talking and chatting and functionally ignore the beeps, producing pickups with sometimes thousands more or less windings than the previous ones they had just wound. He (like you seem to be mentioning) relates that fact of the different specs of the pickups to the elusive sound that some seem to have. As far as the search for good pickups, few things other than strings are easier to replace than pickups. Relatively cheap, easy, changes nothing permanently except solder. Even true vintage pickups do not cost THAT much in comparison with buying a vintage guitar. Ebay and Craigslist abound with them and Seymour Duncan has more than most could ever try and will even make one to your exact custom specifications. My friend that has owned all the vintage guitars claims (his opinion, not necessarily mine) that Seymour Duncans are the highest of quality. The vast majority SD prebuit pickups go for less than $300 for the pair and a totally custom set will set you back in the $350 (ish) range If you really are interested in that thought, then you can certainly get to vintage pickup specs (either real old ones or new) for far less money than most people posting on here spend to buy-sell-trade attempting to find what they are looking for? I have one set of SD Antiquity pickups in one of my LPs and I think they sound very nice. I am very unclear if they somehow sound ridiculously better than most of my others? They certainly do not sound worse. There are SO many variables in the construction of a Les Paul with SOMEONE claiming that every detail--screws, wood, glue, paint (Silverburst people claiming silver sounds better), lacquer vs Satin, neck, tuners, weight, solid vs holes vs chambering, fret wire material, Top wrapping the tail, etc etc that I have no clue which one is right. I did calculate that there are around 10^26 potential different iterations of the Les Paul if you consider them all--far more that the number of all guitars ever made on earth..and likely more than there have ever been people on earth. I do not even know if most of it really makes any difference at all when you get beyond the basic plain construction of the Les Paul. I have 5 including 2 studios (SD in one of my studios). One of my studios "feels" the best of all our guitars to me and my 16 year old. one I think "sounds" the best. The other 3 (one Standard and 2 Customs) seem to have their place as the flavor of the day at my house. I have zero clue that if you could somehow play all of them blinded which would win the shootout. They all sound and feel like really good guitars.

I will give it a shot in this subject of Les Paul tone . I do believe that wood that is aged naturally makes a difference as a Vintage Guitar expert told me that it takes 10 years for a guitar's sound or tone to ripen in order to fully resonate properly, also while we are on this topic I also believe that the type of finish and how thick it is applied to the body makes a big difference , and also how a lot of companies dry there woods , for example back in the 50's Gibson Kiln dried there woods and now there is more modern methods used for the same process ,after all you have to get out all the moisture from said wood to get it to sing . I do believe that the right pickups make a difference . As far as Gibson Les Paul's go I do believe that a good sounding Les Paul must be in the 8.5lbs -9lbs range and closer to 9lbs also ,as it's the total sum of the mass of the entire body . I do not believe that acoustic tone makes a squat of difference in a solid body guitar . Probably the most important part of the equation has to be -must be Good Wood .

I guess one of my pressing questions about the vintage sounds is "is there any valid objective proof that Vintage Les Pauls actually sound better"? Not just "I played one and it sounded much better" but some actual scientific data showing that they do? I know this has been done comparing $Million+ dollar violins with very nice modern violins and the answer was that it is BS. They do not sound better. A very high quality Stradivari copy sounds just like the original when neither the player nor the listener knows which is which, and even a computer cannot tell any difference. I question if this is not also the case with Les Pauls? I am not saying it is true or it is not true. As I mentioned above there are around 10^26 possible variations and there is someone, somewhere that claims EVERY single variable is "it". Yesterday I stumbled across a forum claiming that "it" is the capacitors (capacitors literally cost less that a dollar). I am unclear if I even calculated the capacitors when I was figuring the 10^26 but the guy was suggesting that orange drops and black beauties were "crap" and that only bumble bees could make the sound that was vintage. Claimed he had a "real 50's" as well as an R-something model and that only by swapping the capacitors did his R sound just like the vintage model and then the vintage model sounded bad. Someone, somewhere is arguing (and buying) the other 2 types. Someone is arguing that thicker lacquer is making it sound better. Someone that lacquer robs the sound. Someone is claiming that satin is the key so that it breathes. Someone else is buying literally a metal coated one (see the "Alloy series"). My only point is not until we truly know if there is an "it" (meaning "do vintage Les Pauls REALLY sound different?") can we then try to figure out what "it" is.

Big Daddy Class said:

I guess one of my pressing questions about the vintage sounds is "is there any valid objective proof that Vintage Les Pauls actually sound better"? Not just "I played one and it sounded much better" but some actual scientific data showing that they do? I know this has been done comparing $Million+ dollar violins with very nice modern violins and the answer was that it is BS. They do not sound better. A very high quality Stradivari copy sounds just like the original when neither the player nor the listener knows which is which, and even a computer cannot tell any difference. I question if this is not also the case with Les Pauls? I am not saying it is true or it is not true. As I mentioned above there are around 10^26 possible variations and there is someone, somewhere that claims EVERY single variable is "it". Yesterday I stumbled across a forum claiming that "it" is the capacitors (capacitors literally cost less that a dollar). I am unclear if I even calculated the capacitors when I was figuring the 10^26 but the guy was suggesting that orange drops and black beauties were "crap" and that only bumble bees could make the sound that was vintage. Claimed he had a "real 50's" as well as an R-something model and that only by swapping the capacitors did his R sound just like the vintage model and then the vintage model sounded bad. Someone, somewhere is arguing (and buying) the other 2 types. Someone is arguing that thicker lacquer is making it sound better. Someone that lacquer robs the sound. Someone is claiming that satin is the key so that it breathes. Someone else is buying literally a metal coated one (see the "Alloy series"). My only point is not until we truly know if there is an "it" (meaning "do vintage Les Pauls REALLY sound different?") can we then try to figure out what "it" is.

Click to expand...

As soon as someone defines the word "better", maybe someone get start working on a scientific test.

Oh and those stradivarius studios which are oft quoted (but seldom read) used a handful of violins. Which means statistically, nothing definitive can be stated.