2013 bursts to the real thing

[Minibucker]

Make sure you use a wound G too, like originally intended.

 

[Big Al]

Clearly there are some bad vintage guitars. Just not sure what that proves. The question is do the better historics today match up in the character and EQ of their sound with the better vintage ones, and that is clearly not the case in my experience. There are awesome Historics, but played side by side with the better vintage, it's different. But to each his own. Just saying, many of these old guitars could use some maintenance work to sound their best, and just because one of the big burst dealers is selling it doesn't mean any of that work has been done. The price prohibits it in most cases.

You keep harping on this as if you know something we don't. You seem to want to make a distinction between the two tonaly.

OK you're wrong. I have owned real Burst, have axcess to them and a working knowlege of them for over four decades. I built a burst in 79 and have a background as a repair tech. I know how to set them up as well as play them.

I posted that I compared several vintage Lesters to Historics and found no apparently significant difference in tone quality. Not just my opinion, the owners of the bursts agreed. NONE sound Identical. They all sound a little different. No two bursts sounded alike, and has anyone, anywhere found two that sound identical?

Still I have yet to find anyone that has identified a singular burst tonal property found in vintage bursts and missing from newer Les Pauls. Those that make such claims always seem to just fail in a blindfold test.

The truth is a good Les Paul sounds like a good Les Paul.

 

[Black58]

Make sure you use a wound G too, like originally intended.

With a name like Minibucker, seriously, .. er, .... weelll ... :rolleyes

 

[Black58]

You keep harping on this as if you know something we don't. You seem to want to make a distinction between the two tonaly.

OK you're wrong. I have owned real Burst, have axcess to them and a working knowlege of them for over four decades. I built a burst in 79 and have a background as a repair tech. I know how to set them up as well as play them.

I posted that I compared several vintage Lesters to Historics and found no apparently significant difference in tone quality. Not just my opinion, the owners of the bursts agreed. NONE sound Identical. They all sound a little different. No two bursts sounded alike, and has anyone, anywhere found two that sound identical?

Still I have yet to find anyone that has identified a singular burst tonal property found in vintage bursts and missing from newer Les Pauls. Those that make such claims always seem to just fail in a blindfold test.

The truth is a good Les Paul sounds like a good Les Paul.

You were away, when Wiz used to be another name an' had a mental collapse!
Now, he has this name, and is workin' on a brand-new an' improved mental collapse! :rofl

 

[Minibucker]

With a name like Minibucker, seriously, .. er, .... weelll ... :rolleyes

'Big Al' was taken....

 

[Kim R]

smile A commentary from the cheap seats:

Just today, I had the distinct pleasure of playing Mr. Slubowski's '60 Burst. During this same session, I was able to hear two other very accomplished players run some melodies and chord progressions on the guitar, both clean and slightly overdriven. What an incredible guitar - and it has that sound: bright, clear, nothing shrill, big squish on the attack and an enormous bloom (clean and dirty). "Sweet and Clear" would sum it up.

And..... Sitting right there beside the famed '60 Burst, was a 20th Anniversary Historic model. I played it before and after playing the '60 Burst and can say definitively: These two guitars sounded significantly different.

The new guitar sounded great, period. The 2013 CustomBucker voice was very typical in all three positions. It was louder in volume than the Burst, it wasn't nearly as compressed as the Burst, nor did it sustain like the Burst (even when the Burst was being played at very low volume). The Anniversary guitar was a spectacular example, sonically - no issues, no complaints.

It would be impossible to take some of the "I'm playing a Burst!" filter out of the impression Mike's guitar leaves you with. His other two Bursts do the same, yet with their own personalities and slight differences. However.... none of you guys would have any trouble telling the difference between these two guitars today even if we had left the back door open and you were on the sidewalk.

FWIW: I'm not a collector, I own one LP (2013 R6), and I think the new guitars are fantastic. We all heard the distinct voice of the Burst today, and we've done the same with others in the past (various years' Historics and Vintage instruments). They are all a lot of fun, but they don't sound the same.

Edit: PS... Slub drug along a 1961 ES 345TDC with the stereo rig, also. We set it up with two amps and really had a treat of vintage Gibson tone going. A mutual friend who can knock around some great jazz/bluze licks did the guitar justice and it was righteous (huge) smile - 'Could have sat and listened all day. We need more time for this sort of shenanigans...

Thank You Mike!

 

[Minibucker]

Will the Historics sound like the Bursts do now after another 40 years, or is it really just different genetics?

 

[Red Baron]

big squish on the attack and an enormous bloom (clean and dirty).

it wasn't nearly as compressed as the Burst, nor did it sustain like the Burst (even when the Burst was being played at very low volume).

I know exactly what you're saying, also Historic's seem to lack a 'throatiness' (for lack of a better word) that many bursts possess... not that either is better, just different.

 

[Minibucker]

I know this has amp OD and it's a youtube vid and all, but here's an old vs. new vid and think there's a noticeable difference (to me the orig, sounds 'woodier' and less 'hard' than the RI). Is this what you'd say you notice as well? Almost like a more broken-in speaker.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8V8BCZ29sI


Still pretty close, though.

 

[Big Al]

Kim, how do Mikes other vintage Bursts sound compared to the 60? Are you saying all the Vintage BURST sound like that 60?
REALLY?
What you did do was compare it to Mikes 20th Ann that he just now got and has how many hours of playing time? One? Two? That is it question answered?

I'd feel better if you had compared my well played, hard giged Y2K 13 year old than a brand spanking new one that hasn't been played.

Just my thoughts.:2cool

 

[MikeSlub]

Kim, how do Mikes other vintage Bursts sound compared to the 60? Are you saying all the Vintage BURST sound like that 60?
REALLY?
What you did do was compare it to Mikes 20th Ann that he just now got and has how many hours of playing time? One? Two? That is it question answered?

I'd feel better if you had compared my well played, hard giged Y2K 13 year old than a brand spanking new one that hasn't been played.

Just my thoughts.:2cool

Al, if you re-read Kim's post, he isn't saying all three Bursts sound exactly the same.

The 20th Anniversary he played was the one in the shop.

He didn't play a well broken in older guitar, since the subject of this thread is a question on comparing a vintage Burst to a 2013 Historic. That's why he commented on the 2013 20th Anniversary guitar. I fully understand your point about older, well broken in Historics, but unfortunately there aren't many 2013 Historics that fit that bill yet.

 

[Hardrockmapletop]

Old wood, that is "Old Growth Wood", just sounds different.
No, your new historic probably will never have the same tonal characteristics as Old Growth wood, as Kim described above.
It's no different with early solid body fender.
That swamp ash was coming out of some real big old trees.
You can change pickups in those guitars, and "most" still retain that woody openness, chime, call it what you will.
It's an argument I've had 300 times with people that have no concept of how old growth wood effects the tone of a solid body guitar.
You either hear it, or you don't!
I feel sorry for the people that haven't cottoned on to the beauty of what growth wood sounds like.
Old growth wood is still available in limited quantity.
If Gibson were to produce a limited run of "authentic" Burst replicas with old growth woods, only then would they be on track to produce guitars like they were producing in the '50's.

 

[Big Al]

The very fact that one was motivated enough to have an opinion on an issue produces/guaranties a bias - we need some extra-terrestrials to ask. Or non-guitar playing e.g.Chinese scientists over 50. As they do not have a preference/preconception/prejudice what to look/listen for, what is 'mojo', 'feel', 'tone', 'looks'. As they did not grow up with the concept - tone and looks - of a Les Paul/music made on a Les Paul.

We (members) are biased by definition - we either own/owned/played one (Burst) or we will never have enough money even for a conversion. We are utterly unable to give an unbiased evaluation/comparison/answer.

But, for sure, we can have some fun with a thread like this. We always do.

Now for the OP question - the best reissues (based on wood, if a person is capable of identifying it) since 2007 with proper hardware and electrics, and properly set up will have better Burst tone than at least half of known Bursts and conversions. But they will not have desirable production year. Among reissues 2013s just have wood above average for Gibson CS production and hardware and electrics closest to Burst yet - stock from the Custom Shop. A proud owner does not need to know a thing on a subject in order to have an reissue closest to Burst, he just need the money. A consumer's dream. Hence the popularity. And hey - they look the part, which helps the popularity big time... sadly - maybe even more than the tone.

( The fact that 2013s are more consistent - for the guitars of the same production year - than previous years and that 2013s stock from the CS are also closer/closest yet to Bursts tonally in general just proves a couple of things :

- the wood used is important but less than Gibson and Vintage market had us believe (Bursts used different wood spicies)
- Gibson benefits the most/makes greatest profit on the insane Bursts' prices
- Gibson can make not equal but better Burst than the original for at least last 5-10 years
- Gibson predicts the market for Burst like guitars (and maybe for electric guitar altogether) approaches it's biologically caused and therefore unavoidable and irreversible decline

It seems that we might have a final Burst replica (one that can not be improved and therefore will not be improved in couple of years) from Gibson CS which is equal/better than the original in 5-7 years, NOS and aged in let's say 15-20k range, based on current CS prices and current USD exchange rate. If this forum lives until the moment, we'll see if I was wrong ...)

:bigal
I mean really...:bigal

I would say an informed opinion is not bias. Blind allegiance to some mythical ideal, maybe so. I know tone. I know how to listen critically, I've worked in Recording Studios as a musician, producer and engineer. I don't want anyone making my sound judgements for me. Any honest listening will inform you. The key is open ears.

:bigal WTF! what different species of wood????? The only wood change would be the Rosewoods and otherwise the rest is the same species as 50's.

that post hurt my brain it was so far fetched and unrelated to reality.

 

[randall]

I know this has amp ID and it's a youtube vid and all, but here's an old vs. new vid and think there's a noticeable difference (to me the orig, sounds 'woodier' and less 'hard' than the RI). Is this what you'd say you notice as well? Almost like a more broken-in speaker.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8V8BCZ29sI


Still pretty close, though.

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

 

[Big Al]

Al, if you re-read Kim's post, he isn't saying all three Bursts sound exactly the same.

The 20th Anniversary he played was the one in the shop.

He didn't play a well broken in older guitar, since the subject of this thread is a question on comparing a vintage Burst to a 2013 Historic. That's why he commented on the 2013 20th Anniversary guitar. I fully understand your point about older, well broken in Historics, but unfortunately there aren't many 2013 Historics that fit that bill yet.

You are correct, Mike. I still had Korus post in my head and it was messing with my thought processing.

How can any "new" guitar be compared fairly? I have always found they need at least 80 hours or so to open up. Still, based on older Historics performance I think it reasonable to expect similar results from new 13's over time. I don't believe 13's possess any special tone over other years.

Still I would ask is it possible to find groups of guitars with matching voices? Even if close, one will have more bite, less attack, greater swell, less bloom, notes of mint...

And as hard as it is to find Les Pauls with perfectly matching voices, it is just as hard to seperate the tonal commonalities shared among similar voiced Historics and Vintage. They definately share the same tonal flavor and as we have seen many times can be impossible to identify in blind listening.

 

[MikeSlub]

Al, I agree with everything you said above. :jim :2zone

 

[Big Al]

:frank: :frank: :frank: :frank: :frank: :frank:

 

[Big Al]

Old wood, that is "Old Growth Wood", just sounds different.
No, your new historic probably will never have the same tonal characteristics as Old Growth wood, as Kim described above.
It's no different with early solid body fender.
That swamp ash was coming out of some real big old trees.
You can change pickups in those guitars, and "most" still retain that woody openness, chime, call it what you will.
It's an argument I've had 300 times with people that have no concept of how old growth wood effects the tone of a solid body guitar.
You either hear it, or you don't!
I feel sorry for the people that haven't cottoned on to the beauty of what growth wood sounds like.
Old growth wood is still available in limited quantity.
If Gibson were to produce a limited run of "authentic" Burst replicas with old growth woods, only then would they be on track to produce guitars like they were producing in the '50's.

What old growth wood? Old growth refers to a stage of FOREST HABITAT not some mythical age of havested logs, which is the same now as then. The old growth old wood myth never applied to Les Pauls and is just another cool sounding term used to over romanticise vintage Les Pauls into fetish objects.

Old Growth is the ancient Forest. Old Growth Forest of concern to guitar builders is in regards to acoustic top wood, where wood Hundreds of years old is most desirable.

Argue about it another 300 times, you'll still be wrong.:bat

 

[Kim R]

You are correct, Mike. I still had Korus post in my head and it was messing with my thought processing.

How can any "new" guitar be compared fairly? I have always found they need at least 80 hours or so to open up. Still, based on older Historics performance I think it reasonable to expect similar results from new 13's over time. I don't believe 13's possess any special tone over other years.

Still I would ask is it possible to find groups of guitars with matching voices? Even if close, one will have more bite, less attack, greater swell, less bloom, notes of mint...

And as hard as it is to find Les Pauls with perfectly matching voices, it is just as hard to seperate the tonal commonalities shared among similar voiced Historics and Vintage. They definately share the same tonal flavor and as we have seen many times can be impossible to identify in blind listening.

Al,

What Mike said.smile I was literally comparing the new, off-the-truck '13 model to his vintage 1960 tea/honey Burst. His '58, '59, and '60 Bursts do not sound or behave exactly the same but they definitely share that squish-bloom-glide caper that is very characteristic of the vintage guitars that sound and perform well.

Mini,

Yes, I hear a little bit of that vintage Burst "glide" versus the Reissue "cut," but it's subtle. If the player had let the notes sustain and bloom more, I think it would have been more obvious.

And to All: When I offered that earlier post "from the cheap seats," I meant that it's just another guy's opinion - not more/less.

 

[Minibucker]

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?