2013 bursts to the real thing

Hardrockmapletop · Nov 3, 2013

Everyone repeat after me...
"Yes, Old growth wood from trees that are hundreds of years old, has completely different tonal properties than plantation grown wood used in current guitar production."

wink

Kim R · Nov 3, 2013

Minibucker said:
I wonder if the original Bursts sounded in their first ten years like current Historics do these days, or were they always 'better' from the word go?

That's a fun and perplexing question.... Probably no way to ever answer that one due to recording fidelity, vintage amplification, playing styles - and that's all if one could identify an absolutely verified vintage recording of the model.

As to the issue of the new guitars forty years from now..... Is there anyone on this board young enough now to let the rest of us know?? Wait..

Minibucker · Nov 3, 2013

That's the thing...too long to wait.

If someone actually invented a time machine....imagine how much money you could make on the side by offering 'real' aging.

Hardrockmapletop · Nov 3, 2013

We had a very similar thread at the beginning of the year where I posted the following link explaining Old Growth Wood.
Big Al need not watch this, as he has already stated that he believes none of this applies to solid body guitar construction, a view which I strongly disagree with. :hippy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0UnF6ct6Qc

Black58 · Nov 3, 2013

There are LOTS of ways to cross the street, people. :ganz

:2cool

Big Al · Nov 3, 2013

Hardrockmapletop said:
We had a very similar thread at the beginning of the year where I posted the following link explaining Old Growth Wood.
Big Al need not watch this, as he has already stated that he believes none of this applies to solid body guitar construction, a view which I strongly disagree with. :hippy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0UnF6ct6Qc

Bro you show such ignorence on this subject that you post a video that prooves it. :hee

As I explained before this old growth term applies to temparate forests and applies to Acoustic Top Wood, specificly close grained spruces.

This doesn't apply to tropical rainforest. Jesus! you watch some woodworker video, that's your proof. You don't seem to understand at all. Where is your proof of old growth Maple or Mahogany in Les Pauls?

I met with and did discuss this verything, with the very same people who bought the wood and ran the wood dept in Kalamazoo. Hey, I'm glad you learned some new words and phrases, have some new concepts to misunderstand and misapply. You might even fool some into bying your misapplied logic. But it still ain't true, and you still ain't right.
:spabout

EdKing · Nov 3, 2013

A 59 or 60 guitar sounded great when made. Unless you think 7-8 years of age made Clapton's, Green's, Taylor's or Bloomfield's LPs sound the way they did. If there's such a thing as old growth wood, then I believe.

Hardrockmapletop · Nov 3, 2013

So what you're saying Al, is that Gibson were using plantation grown mahogany in the 50's?
Is this what you believe?

Read up on what the term OLD Growth refers to Al.

An old-growth forest (also termed primary forest, virgin forest, primeval forest, late seral forest, or in Britain, ancient woodland) is a forest that has attained great age without significant disturbance, and thereby exhibits unique ecological features and in some cases may be classified as a climax community. Old-growth features include diversity of tree-related structures that serve as diversified wildlife habitat that leads to higher bio-diversity of the forested ecosystem. Diversified tree structure includes multi-layered canopies and canopy gaps, high variance of tree heights and diameters, diversity of decaying classes and sizes of woody debris, and diversity of tree species.

Timber cutters were in there Al, all over the world, right through the 1950's, in all types of forest, cutting the best trees with the highest yield.
They were cutting mahogany and rosewood from virgin forests in central and south America, Africa, as well as Australia.

If you can provide evidence that Gibson were using plantation grown mahogany in the '50's, I'd love to see it.

Here the Definitions of Old Growth Forests for North America for ya big guy!.
Never too late to get educated there AL! Bahaha!!!

http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/old_growth_definitions.htm

Hardrockmapletop · Nov 3, 2013

EdKing said:
If there's such a thing as old growth wood, then I believe.

Hi Ed.
I have a small stockpile of old growth Honduran mahogany and non-stump Brazilian rosewood.
Several of the neck blanks are incredibly dense, super stable old wood that was cut in the '60's.
It has growth rings that are super tight, and the tap tone is like steel pipe, just phenomenal !!!
I believe some, maybe a lot of this quality wood, from very old trees, made it's way into Gibson production in the '50's.
Believe it Ed!
Your Burst, like mine, is likely made from a tree 400+ years old or more. That's what they were cutting in the 1950's and '60's.

jbzoso2002 · Nov 3, 2013

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

Minibucker · Nov 3, 2013

Well...we (or those in posession) can always look at the grain/rings on 50's Les Pauls to see if it's tighter than contemporary ones. Should be obvious, right?

L.A.Man · Nov 3, 2013

There was a time on this forum, that the mere mention of a historic sounding as good as old wood, would bring a flurry of nasty responses.

" you just don't understand , you don't get it you poor unsophisticated, newbie"

Now all of a sudden we have 2013,s and CC models that have captured the time machine, and now they sound very similar,depending on who you talk to.

Somebody is full of shit.

I sold two very good historics to buy a 54 conversion, to see if there is a distinct difference between old wood vs. new. Notice I didn't say better, but what differences I hear,when comparing

Old wood is different, notes jump into a controlled feedback very easily, like there is a subtle boost tied into the signal chain. The top end is sweeter and fuller sounding,to me.

Is it "better" sounding than a good historic?, for some things. But it is clearly different,unmistakingly so, to me.

With all due respect to the resumes of Big Al, and others that have earned their stripes in the guitar world, the one thing you never learned during your years of experience was what sounds good to me. Granted, there are great things to be gained by working around guitars for years in many ways,but what works for one guy does not work for another.

I don't care what guitar a guy plays it sounds like that guy more than that guys guitar,it's about the sum of its parts.

L.A.Man · Nov 3, 2013

Minibucker · Nov 3, 2013

L.A.Man said:
There was a time on this forum, that the mere mention of a historic sounding as good as old wood, would bring a flurry of nasty responses.

" you just don't understand , you don't get it you poor unsophisticated, newbie"

Now all of a sudden we have 2013,s and CC models that have captured the time machine, and now they sound very similar,depending on who you talk to.

Somebody is full of shit.

I sold two very good historics to buy a 54 conversion, to see if there is a distinct difference between old wood vs. new. Notice I didn't say better, but what differences I hear,when comparing

Old wood is different, notes jump into a controlled feedback very easily, like there is a subtle boost tied into the signal chain. The top end is sweeter and fuller sounding,to me.

Is it "better" sounding than a good historic?, for some things. But it is clearly different,unmistakingly so, to me.

With all due respect to the resumes of Big Al, and others that have earned their stripes in the guitar world, the one thing you never learned during your years of experience was what sounds good to me. Granted, there are great things to be gained by working around guitars for years in many ways,but what works for one guy does not work for another.

I don't care what guitar a guy plays it sounds like that guy more than that guys guitar,it's about the sum of its parts.

But what if someone isn't saying better or worse, but that there's no consistently appreciable difference? I think there'd have to be just from a density standpoint.

L.A.Man · Nov 3, 2013

I think a consistent appreciable difference is impossible, every guitar is different, inconsistency is why we have more than one guitar.

And as was told to me by someone who knows more than I do, "there is old wood, and new wood, they CANT be the same.

So many great members here have accumulated a vast amount of knowledge, not to be discounted by any means. My point being old wood ruled around here for a long time, all of a sudden the tides are turning?

Minibucker · Nov 3, 2013

L.A.Man said:
I think a consistent appreciable difference is impossible, every guitar is different, inconsistency is why we have more than one guitar.

And as was told to me by someone who knows more than I do, "there is old wood, and new wood, they CANT be the same.

So many great members here have accumulated a vast amount of knowledge, not to be discounted by any means. My point being old wood ruled around here for a long time, all of a sudden the tides are turning?

If so, I guess it's just a difference in birthday candles. I'm sure others feel that a solidbody's 'acoustic' qualities have no impact on plugged-in tone or playability.

kingsxman · Nov 3, 2013

randall said:
Wow, sounds so close, almost the same. Now this is what i am talking about.

Such a poor comparison though...

They didn't let the notes sustain at all. and you cant hear anything tonally different really based on the amount of overdrive used. Overdrive really hides a lot of the tonal differences. Although overdrive does make other tonal differences potentally more apparent.

Crappy iphone video also.

My guess is he could have grabbed a US Standard and it'd sound the same.

kingsxman · Nov 3, 2013

Back to op's original question.

So I had the opportunity to play a real 59 burst side by side with my 2013 LP when I bought my 2013. This was Dave Rogers burst. The burst was fabulous. The 2013's were fabulous. The differences I heard in tone were the following. I was playing on a 60's Vox AC30 clean:
Real burst pickups were softer.
Real burst neck pickup was clearer which made playing on the neck pickup more fun.
I felt the sustain was comparable.

The "feel" difference was noticeable as the real burst had a slightly smaller neck. Not as deep and not as much shoulders if memory serves me correct.
The harder finish on the real burst made playing it (neck feel) a bit easier.

IMHO all the 2013's I played were very good guitars. Now, they had some 2012 guitars that I played that didn't hold up as well in the tone dept. Some 2011's and older guitars that were closer...but still lacking a certain something that the 2013's had. But is it a $2000 difference (between an older guitar and a 2013?) Absolutely not. Nothing that a tweak of the tone knob on the amp couldn't fix.

So I'd say a 2013 gets you 90% of the way there to a real burst.
Pre-2013 gets you 88% of the way there.

Kim R · Nov 3, 2013

And:

Another aspect of Mike's singing '60 Burst yesterday, was that sustained notes sounded slightly "chorus'd," (as in "through a chorus effect"). I attribute this to the properties that L.A. Man mentions above - that the fundamental note and its blooming harmonic tend to come up quickly and coexist. It's subtle but its there and even more with a little drive/dirt. We've all heard this through various effects/guitars/amp rigs but it seems to be another typical characteristic of a well-performing vintage Paul, straight into the amp and practically without effort.

The good vintage Pauls perform differently than the new guitars, IMO. For those who are really dialed into these sonic qualities and can physically hear them, there is an unmistakable difference (based upon years of listening to the observations of others around me when I'm hearing it myself). One of the fellows playing Mike's Burst yesterday stopped during some noodling and said, "it's just so easy!" (to coax out the good notes).

Reality check:

My intial and ongoing experience with vintage Pauls was working on them, not playing them. This mostly amounted to correcting wiring harness failures, replacing/repairing pots, switches, a few frets, repairing inlays, shaving bridges (neck set), set ups, etc. This does NOT make for expertise or profound knowledge on the topic of vintage guitars and I'm not claiming either. More importantly: Not all of the old guitars sounded good (some sounded awful despite a lot of effort, dollars' worth of parts, and fiddling).

A good/great vintage Les Paul produces a fundamental note and then responds/performs differently than a good/great newer guitar - of the examples I've heard, played, tinkered with.

L.A. Man: Well-stated; great post.

Minibucker · Nov 3, 2013

Gotta be the glue.

But more seriously.....I've never played a 'Burst, but I've played several vintage Strats and Teles, and to me they indeed were night & day difference than even the 'masterbuilt' reissues. Almost turned me off to newer Fenders. I actually hope that it's not the same difference with vintage vs. new Les Pauls....or at least if it is that I don't get to play a Burst!

2013 bursts to the real thing

Active member

Kim R

Guest

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Member

Kim R

Guest

Well-known member