• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

Are '50s Les Pauls acoustically louder?

Guitar Magic

Active member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
97
This is a question for those who owned or played several 52-60 Les Pauls. Are these vintage guitars louder acoustically than the average Historic or a '68/'69 Goldtop? In my neck of woods, we don't have a chance to try old Les Pauls in stores, so it would help a lot if you guys who are furtunate to own a '50s LP could share your experience. I personally had a nice 1968 Standard, two '69 Deluxes and an 1960 LP Special DC (and many Historics), but never had a chance to play a real 52-60 Les Paul, which is my dream.

I've been wondering for years about how a genuine '50s LP would sound unplugged. I imagine a loud, dry, hollow acoustic tone, similar to a good '68 Goldtop but even louder, more vibrant and more complex. But maybe 50's Les Pauls are all over the place just as much as current ones? If I'm fortunate, I will be in the US this summer and I might have a chance to try a real '50s LP in a big name store like Rumbleseat or Norman's. Until then, please let me know your experience in this specific regard.

I would be really surprised if it turned out that a '68 GT have an identical unplugged tone to an average '50s GT. Is that a possibility?
 

Thundermtn

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2016
Messages
548
If you're in Nashville the places to go in addition to what you mentioned are Gruhn, & Carter Vintage. Don't skip Carter! It's the best elc. guitar store I've ever been to. Monster selection of everything and they where much more customer friendly than some of the others. Rumble Seat was REALLY good too, but focus much harder on vintage.

Other stores to hit are Eastside Music Supply, Corner, and Fanny's. Type of spots for average Joe with normal size pockets but still quality stuff.
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
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.


This is a question for those who owned or played several 52-60 Les Pauls. Are these vintage guitars louder acoustically than the average Historic or a '68/'69 Goldtop? In my neck of woods, we don't have a chance to try old Les Pauls in stores, so it would help a lot if you guys who are furtunate to own a '50s LP could share your experience. I personally had a nice 1968 Standard, two '69 Deluxes and an 1960 LP Special DC (and many Historics), but never had a chance to play a real 52-60 Les Paul, which is my dream.

I've been wondering for years about how a genuine '50s LP would sound unplugged. I imagine a loud, dry, hollow acoustic tone, similar to a good '68 Goldtop but even louder, more vibrant and more complex. But maybe 50's Les Pauls are all over the place just as much as current ones? If I'm fortunate, I will be in the US this summer and I might have a chance to try a real '50s LP in a big name store like Rumbleseat or Norman's. Until then, please let me know your experience in this specific regard.

I would be really surprised if it turned out that a '68 GT have an identical unplugged tone to an average '50s GT. Is that a possibility?
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
Here's one example in the first couple minutes of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgbgUMqUMns

That old horse chestnut. This is probably the most singularly deceptive guitar video I've ever seen on youtube on so many levels its staggering.

If you took two historics or two bursts you would also note a difference in acoustic output from guitar to guitar.

Also doesn't dimarzios burst have PAFs where the reissue has dimarzio pickups. The only thing that video seems to prove is that if Dimarzio was trying to capture the PAF tone he should go back to the old drawing board. Unless of course that 2002 R9 was just a heavy tone turd.

I also wonder if the results would have been different had they tried 11s. I find some guitars tend to sound better with thicker gauge strings.
 

P.Walker

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
941
my R7 sounds as dry as bone compared to my R9 which is a little squishy and feels forgiving.

As for a burst, there used to be a plaintop 59 at lark street's that felt and sounded like fossilized rock; very plingy, glassy, and dry for lack of a better word. Played and sounded great.
 

Doc Sausage

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
1,707
Maybe someone can enlighten me. Why does it even matter what a LP sounds like "acoustically?" I have yet to see anyone perform with one truly unplugged, sans amplification. Who does that? To me it's like trying to illustrate a light bulb's light spectrum qualities holding it in your hand and not hooked up to an electrical source. Among MANY other examples of demonstrating a product about how it's NOT intended to be used!

Doesn't THAT electrical source carry with it a myriad of sonic possibilities? :##
 

P.Walker

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
941
Maybe someone can enlighten me. Why does it even matter what a LP sounds like "acoustically?" I have yet to see anyone perform with one truly unplugged, sans amplification. Who does that? To me it's like trying to illustrate a light bulb's light spectrum qualities holding it in your hand and not hooked up to an electrical source. Among MANY other examples of demonstrating a product about how it's NOT intended to be used!

Doesn't THAT electrical source carry with it a myriad of sonic possibilities? :##

You're absolutely right :)

But I can see why some would first play unplugged. At least for me, the shittiest plinkiest sounding les pauls unplugged usually sound great plugged in.
Gibson and les paul did not intend for the body to resonate (although that doesn't mean everyone should agree with it). I happen to agree with it though; if I want air, I'll play a 335. With a good solid non-resonating body you're gonna get a plinky sounding axe unplugged...and then plug it in and hear the magic; that's the true litmus test.
 

deytookerjaabs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,592
I don't think it's even fathomable that they would be. Perceived loudness can change on one guitar simply by changing string gauge/types. It also can be different on particular ranges on the guitar, do you want loud bass, mids, highs, a good balance of all, loud chords down low in first position or up high in 10th position etc.

Considering in the 50's not only did the weights vary but the cuts & carves of the necks had large differences meaning those guitars would be under different measures of compression given equal relief/tension which you can only conclude means a good range of "resonant" (I hate that word!) properties across the board just like with other solid bodies built in the 50's, very inconsistent as it was a time of constant innovation/experimentation. They also had more subtle tolerance differences from neck angle set & neck joint consistency all the way down to varying weights of identical pieces of hardware.

Way too much variation for them to all attain a supposed "golden mean" of acoustic loudness. Not to mention, being what they know about flat/arch tops etc for every property you try to maximize you minimize something else to a degree.
 

slammintone

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
2,003
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
 

Thundermtn

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2016
Messages
548
That's how the one I played sounded as well, MUCH more depth in harmonics. The real thing was not even in the same ballpark with the new high end stuff. In a different room with your eyes shut you could tell the difference in tone.
 

Maxmc

Active member
Joined
Mar 15, 2015
Messages
652
I owned and played a '60 burst for about ten years back in the late eighties/early nineties (see avatar at left). Nearly thirty years later I now own a CC#6. A few things that have struck me is the fact that the CC is very loud acoustically, more than I remember my burst to have been. I would love to be able to compare the two side by side but unless someone out there knows where 0 0304 is now, that ain't going to happen. Memory is a funny thing and it's funny how some things can really bring things back to mind, and the acoustic thing is one. From experience I have found that an acoustically louder electric guitar also rings a lot longer too and this must lead to better sustain. Tone is another question; I have heard guitars that sustain for days that sound crap. Certainly my CC's tone is NOT crap. I think a word from Mr Bonamassa on this question will be as close to gospel as you'll get. He's played more Les Pauls, burst or otherwise, than I've had hot dinners.
 

Doc Sausage

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
1,707
Well, let me 'axe' you this; can the opposite also be true? Is it possible a vintage, D-45 Martin, with an aftermarket bridge pick up, pale in comparison to a lesser, say, Taylor, straight from the factory with electronics, EQ, etc...when plugged IN? Or is that apples and rudabegas?
 

Bouldergold

Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
70
I have owned 68 , 69, early 70's Goldtops.
68, 69, 71 Black Beauties
A couple Historics.

And a 52-57 Conversion with PAFs.

The Conversion is louder, more clarity, and sounds better ( by far ) than the others in all situations.

The early Black Beauties were the closest and the Historics all sounded flat.
 

JPP-1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
1,336
Wow some interesting comments on this thread. There must be some really Godawful historics out there. Flat sounding no less. I guess it happens. Then again this is an internet forum.

My experience was a tad different. While I loved a couple of the vintage LPs I played over the years, particularly a well worn PAF equipped GT, the skies never parted nor did the the three headed god of Burst Tone appear. I checked and the spirit of Page, Green and Allman never entered my fingers -though the guitar itself was as cool as it comes afaic.

Today I'm enjoying a TH59, that has that open, dry woody nasally honk and vowelly flutey chime depending on pickup position together with incredible clarity and response. hallmarks of a great LP afaic. Sensitivity to pick attack, pick position is also immediate with the right amp: Early marshall, Tweed, Trainwreck style, something simple you just leave cranked and adjust via the guitar. Basically many of the characteristics I recall from the better vintage LPs I've played.


While a reissue will never be as cool or as valuable as an original I feel fortunate I can enjoy the great iconic LP tone I have in my head without compromise.

That is my off-topic counter opinion seeing that this thread went from volume levels of vintage guitars to the let's talk about how crappy the new Gibson's sound.

On another thread on this forum, Tom Wittrock indicated he was quite pleased with the feel and tone of his CC Donna LPs and how well they compared to his original. I was rather surprised but no less impressed by his candor and complete lack of airs, condescension, or hyperbole.
 
Last edited:

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
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.
 

goldtop0

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
8,931
Not a vintage LP but my '13 R8 is louder acoustically than the other Historics I've had and still have and that does translate to a beefier more robust richer tone plugged in.
My bandmates and others attest to this.
 

StSpider

Active member
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
2,148
If loud unplugged tone was the ticket to tone heaven we would all be playing ES 335s with gauge 11 strings.
 

tooold

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
2,071
For the older members of the group... didn't this whole "what does it sound like acoustically?" thing start when Larry Carlton said he always played 335's acoustically before plugging them in? I think it was an interview in the late '70's.

335's are different animals, obviously, than a Les Paul. Or a Telecaster. Even though they're semi-hollow, they generate a lot more sound acoustically than a solid body, and they can be more fun than a solid body if you're watching baseball on the couch while noodling.

With all due respect to LC, my priority with an electric guitar is what it sounds like plugged into a good amp.
 

Wilko

All Access/Backstage Pass
Joined
Mar 11, 2002
Messages
20,853
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.
 
Top