RocknRollShakeUp
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2006
- Messages
- 767
LOL, so you have no evidence to support what you claim. Hence for you the conversation is over. But not before some parting name calling: attempting to cast dispersion on my ability to discern tone because I challenge your unprovable assertions -then you run to your safe space.
I find it amusing to think that of the 1000s of different cuts of wood having varying weights and densities, from different trees of different ages, scattered across a diverse geographical region, that all of these cuts of wood have some recognizable magical tonal property, that the aurally gifted such as yourself can discern. frankly, I find that assumption preposterous, but you can believe whatever you'd like, you just can't prove it.
To your other points , my ears are just fine and i take tone very seriously, to my own amusement sometimes. I also own and have owned vintage guitars albeit not a Burst.
Here are some facts. Gibson made bursts from 1958-1960. if it wasn't built during that time its not a Burst, regardless of how old the woods might be or what magical properties you'd like to imagine the woods in your guitar have.
While my Gibson R9s were not built in 1959, tonally, they embody everything I've looked for in a great Les Paul. And, whether it matters or not, like the glorious Bursts before them, they are genuine Gibson Les Pauls.
Afaic this is as good as any Les Paul tone I've heard.
I fully endorse and support this cogent response! :dude: