original Burst vs Historic ... Sorry, but...

[GastonG]

It's four o'clock in the morning; back from Montréal to visit my friend who owns a mint 57 Goldtop, an excellent intact '58 Cherryburst and an "unburst" '59. I brought with me two guitars of mine; my aged Y2K 59 and my new 2001 '58 Figuredtop.

I'll explain later the how, why and Whooo... but let me tell you folks, that the Historic Les Pauls are very very far from the real thing...
On a scale of 1 to 10, the 58 and 59 were close... at 9.5, the '57 at 9, the Y2k aged LP59 at 1.5 and the 2001 58 at 1...

Trust me, the Historics don't stand very tall beside the real thing.
It's almost a joke...
I have one description; a Burst has a woody hollow sweet bright full spectrum of TONE not found on a Historic... I'm so sorry but this is the truth....

catch you later with pix and anecdotes.

Gaston
________________________________________
update of August 13th 2001
see the updated section at the end of the LPtest page
http://pages.globetrotter.net/pasha/lptest.html
more "fair" test to come...
GG

 

[plaintop]

What a revelation

This is no secret. Of course they don't sound like an original.

1) They aren't made with "old wood"
2) PAFS
3) They haven't been resonating for 40 years
4) They aren't built the same way


Believe me we all wish they could build the burst again. It is just not going to happen. The historic line is the closest thing we have.

Please post pics

 

[Sam Blob]

Where on the scale...

...would a production Standard be? A TPII? A Love Rock (Japanese-made)?

 

[plaintop]

From what I have heard the "Max' LP is the closest to the original. Must be his attention to detail.

Oh I forgot to mention the skilled labor and attention to detail of the original bursts. Gibson could not afford that talent today.

 

[Joe Ganzler]

Max Les Paul. . .

?

 

[Tim]

Yea, what really made the difference for me was the light weight tailpiece and the real paf's. My R9 is light weight and bright and woody-hollow sounding and through a crunchy marshall it sounds just like an old one to me.

 

[Ramrodrowdyyates]

Well...

I've been saying this for a while now. In 40 years, I believe that some of today's Historics WILL have the sound of the originals. I had a '58 that really didn't sound very good, but I believe it was the pickups, they were even very unmatched to each other, one was terrible. One thing about originals, and I've only played about 20-25, some of the other guys here would have better opinion, is that the ones I've played ALL seen to have really strong resonance when played unplugged. The dried, resonated, older wood IS a big difference. One thing I was told and I believe I read long ago regarding the older Gibsons was that they were built with wood which had been stacked and aged for DECADES before it was worked, (that would be evidence against that split top 60 Les Paul). I don't believe that Gibson uses 30-40 year old wood anymore, unless they happen to find a few pieces somewhere and that probably goes to select custom orders. Most of the wood is whatever and wherever they can find it, I would guess. And I think flame is a higher priority than acoustic qualities or proper ageing when they do buy new stock. A plaintop that was built with properly aged 30 year old wood SHOULD sound better than a AAAAA flamed but kiln dried or improperly airdried for 2 years wood guitar. Add 40 more years of ageing AND PLAYING to that plaintop and there's little doubt where the older and newer are in comparison.
P.S. We always seem to focus on the Maple, but the mahogony body and neck have a bit to do with the sound, also.

 

[LHakim]

Wow, Gaston. It sounds like you are doing a 180 turn on your earlier opinions concerning the tone of original vs. historic sunbursts. Did you guys happen to record this "guitar shootout"? I (and others here, I'm sure), would like to hear the differences for ourselves.

 

[Ramrodrowdyyates]

It's true...

can anyone out there who's experienced the real deal disagree with Gaston (well maybe he's exagerrated a little in the throes of passion). There really isn't a comparison, but you know what? I've had buddies who were Strat fiends, PRS junkies, and hollow body snobs play the '59 and pretty much all (except 1 who has multiple 'burst of his own) declare it to be the finest guitar, period, that they've ever played, too . I have to agree with them, but I think it's a typically good, maybe very good 'burst. I think about 1/3 of the ones I've played were as good, it would take a side by side to declare any better. Gaston OBVIOUSLY knows these guitars as good as anyone on this forum, hasn't he owned several? I'll side with him. 60 burst, 59 burst, where u be?
This is NOT knocking Historics, at least by me. It's like comparing Michael Jordon in high school to Dr J. in his prime. The Historic's will age, playing the heck out of 'em will help, and they will, given time, be great as well. Think of fine wine, age makes the difference.

 

[EdA]

Gaston, thats a bit of a surprise coming from you. In the past youve said that your new historics were as good or better than any old original youve ever had. But you werent comparing them side by side, were you!

Ive always thought that no matter how good a new historic is, there must be at least a little difference between a guitar with new wood and one with very old wood.

BUT Gaston, do both of your historics have 57 Classics in it? If they do, there is no fair way to compare guitars because those pickups sound like SH*T! (sorry classic lovers). They are good for some ballsy thick tones, but sound nothing like PAFs. My '99 with original PAFs sounds as you describe, hollow, sweet nasal, singing, harmonic, blah, blah, all of the things you wont get from a '57 classic. '57s have mud for bottom end and icepicks for top end with nothing interesting in the middle. I cant emphasize enough the difference in tone. And then theres the pots and caps. Sorry Joe G. and Ed R., I do think old centralabs and old paper in oil caps make quite a difference. Not in tone as much as PAFs but in openess, clarity, frequency range and volume. Gaston, do your historics have original pots and caps too?

Of course there are good and bad historics, just like there are good and bad originals. Ive owned a ton of historics and played a ton more, and I chose mine for the qualities I was looking for. I wish I had a chance to compare mine to a bunch of originals. I havent, hopefully someday I will. And I wont be surprised if I hear a difference. But Ill be comparing apples to apples. If Gaston has real PAFs, etc. and has heard that huge a difference well we can assume theres nothing like the real thing, but Gaston, if your guitars are stock from the factory, Im not sure its a fair comparison. -Ed A

 

[Ed Rafalko]

that's it, Ed- yer fired.
Seriously, I am sure there's a difference in tone when you use the caps, but my tone-deaf ears can't detect any change unless I clip the caps out of the circuit entrely. I DO notice a big difference in sound when I put CTS pots in versus the ones they're using stock, even when the stock ones are 500K or better.

 

[Ramrodrowdyyates]

The real difference...

is obvious when you pick an original up and play it unamplified. You can't believe the resonance (those who've played them should bear witness). But I get a ton closer to that with the historics I've played compared to normal Gibsons. That is exactly what's missing and gives the "sterile" feel that we hear about PRS's having.( they may have sustain, but that difers from resonance) It's also the difference between Pre CBS and recent strats. (I really think the strats are fine up until about 71-72, most of the pre3bolts are pretty good). I believe the greatest factor is the wood, pickups next. The differences in the wood are ageing, both before and after construction. And there's been too much worrying about the tiny details (ie: the tortoiseshell plastic dots) and not enough about taking shortcuts in ageing the wood BEFORE construction on these Hysterical Models.

 

[Des Howl]

I guess we'll never know what a real '59 or '60 sounded like when it was new, to compare them fairly to Historics.

But I can totally believe older-growth and better-aged wood stock was available back then... unless Gibson ever discloses the age of their supplied wood, we can assume the current wood selection might be "newer" for competitive reasons.

What bugs me is no-one has figured out how to duplicate a real PAF humbucker (the "holy grail" of tone) which after all is just wire and a particular magnet type! Do you think age matures these pickups also? I mean they're electronic, wood is a far less constant thing...

 

[Sean]

What's all this "resonance" stuff about? So, a guitar is played a lot for 40 years, this improves the sound? Why?

Sounds a little too much wishful thinking going on here. Anyone care to back up this "resonance" factor with evidence?

 

[LHakim]

Sean to me "resonance" is simply the ability of certain materials to "intensify" (and not necessarily amplify) the string's vibrations through "sympathetic" vibrations which are more in-phase w/ the original vibration and therefore less prone to cancel out certain weaker frequencies/harmonics, overtones etc. resulting in a tone that is fuller, deeper, richer, more sustaining and yet has sufficient upper harmonic content to simultaneously sound bright and cutting as well. Its like a balancing act between achieving max. girth w/o compromising sustain too much. This is my simplistic lay understanding of the phenomenon which may be corrected by someone else here with more technical knowledge of acoustics. Plus everyone has a theory about all this.

The comments above about Gibson's use of wood in the 1950's that was already old and was properly air-dried before being worked is correct. It is also correct, at least according to a former Gibson custom shop boss and to this Country's premier vintage guitar dealer that Gibson is indeed taking shortcuts in the drying of the mahogany used in the reissues. What effect if any this has on the guitar's tone will be debatable.

BTW, I predict this thread will kick Karl's burst-search into a frenzy!:lolspin

 

[Ramrodrowdyyates]

Resonance, wood and ageing...

I am going to use some anecdotes here to explain my stance on the ageing issue:
Wood is a very cellular material. many hollow cells connected together similar to a honeycomb. As the wood dries out these cell walls become thinner and harder, but also more brittle. (In MOST cases... some woods seem to become harder, as anyone who has ever tried to cut an old dead bois d'arc stump can attest). These thinner and harder cell walls transmit sound very effectively, but due to the effect of going through solid and hollow structures a harmonic effect that we are calling resonance occurs. Now if you dry this wood out slowly over years it will dry thouroughly. Doing this before building the guitar insures it is well aged and dried throughout the wood. Doing this in a kiln will not only dry the wood out unevenly (more on the outer edges and faces than the center, but it also dries the wood so fast that the cell walls do not shrink as well or uniformly. The cell walls being thicker makes additional drying harder because there is less moisture able to escape the tighter cell structures. Also, the cell walls are less brittle, so the vibrations from extended playing has less effect of breaking down the cell walls. I believe most here will agree that a well played guitar, over time, tends to sound better. This is from the "ageing" factors shown above. If I were making furniture I would have no proble using kiln dried wood, because I don't care HOW it sounds. With wood, I want wood that is well aged BEFORE the guitar was built. I believe there is still some ageing effect from drying of the wood after the guitar was built, but much less than before construction.

 

[Joe Ganzler]

I'm with RamRod. . .

?

 

[Ed Rafalko]

The wood used in the '50s was probably cut in the '50s too- the war effort for World War II used up most of the world's aged lumber reserves, and so the trees that were eventually used for Gibson Guitars in the '50s was probably cut in the '50s as well, and was probably in the 40 to 50 year age range when it was cut.

Nowadays the modern growth cycle is around 20 years, with a rule of thumb on aging for a year every inch- that is, the wood used for the necks on the Historics is probably taken from trees that were planted in the very late '70s at the earliest, and it seasoned for 3 years before Gbson used it. The bodies were probably planted sometime after that and grown 15-20 years and seasoned for two years.

The areas in which rtrees grow will also effect iuts cellular structure, which will affect its tone. The forests that the wood was culled from during the '50s is now open ground, and is unusable for forestry. Water and mineral content will affect cellular shapes and structures within the wood, and this affects tone- the mountainsides they're pulling wood from nowadays is a more mineral-laden area, and that means smaller cells, more mineral content, higher density and mass, and different tone.

Just my opinion. I'm extremely happy with my reissue, though, because I'm tone-deaf and wouldn't know good tone if it reached out and handed me its business card.
.

 

[GastonG]

see the TONE TEST

Here's the link to my TONE TEST, it answers a lot that's been said...
http://pages.globetrotter.net/pasha/lptest.html

Ed A, it's a 180 degree of turnaround as far as TONE but not on playability and feel... I still prefer those Historics big fat neck...

Gaston

 

[EdA]

Great guitar porn Gaston! Love those pix, wish I could compare like you did. I dont doubt there's a difference. I see you have Antiquities in the aged reissue. Thatll sure get you closer. I like Antiquites a lot, but they still sound quite different than my PAFs. My bridge PAF with a similar output to my Antiquity has much more mid honk and harmonics too it, and ballsier too. I would think you would be closer with real PAFs. But maybe the difference would still be huge.

I guess the most important question is, was there an obvious tone difference unamplified? As Ramrod says, that alone tells a big story.

Again I wish I had access to some real ones to compare myself, when I do, Ill post what I find as well....