Question about a specific tonal characteristic of vintage Les Pauls

[Guitar Magic]

On modern Les Pauls (90s and post 00s) whether it's been a Historic (CC or regular) or a production model, I usually find that the low-E and high-E is not as snappy sounding as the rest of the strings. On my late 60's Goldtops if I remember correctly that was not the case most of the time. And not on my '60 Special. I had a handful of 2010's Historics that had a rather dull low-end - no snap, no percussiveness in the attack. You know that Tele kind of response that most of us like in a good LP, that was missing. To be clear I'm talking about the acoustic tone. I would tinker these guitars days in and days out with different truss-rod, pole piece, bridge and tailpiece height adjustments, but the dullness in those ranges always translated into the electrified sound (talking about past 12 o'clock on the master of a big old JMP, not some bedroom noodling).

Is it just me or anyone else familiar with my observation? What is the reason for this in newer LPs? And what is the case with 52-60 Les Pauls? Everytime I listen to a vintage one I hear crystal clear lows and highs, no dullness, no muddyness.

I've owned close to a hundred Les Pauls from every kind. From cheap early 90s Studios to beautiful '68 Goldtops (and one 1960 Special) and countless Standards, Classics and Historics from different periods. The ones that certainly had that Telecaster low-end was my '68 GT, one of my late '69 GTs that interestingly had a factory Braz board, my '72 54/58 Standard (the one with the 1-piece body and neck, wrap-around TP) and a 2006 R9.

The worst was a 2016 flametop R8 that was a beauty queen, but it sounded like the wood was just brought up from underwater. With all the Historically accurate bells and whistles, that guitar was dead as a doornail.

 

[designerseye88]

I've had a few reissues and replicas in the past and the only guitar I've noticed that has that acoustic 'snappyness' to it is my 52/57 conversion. It's something I didn't really know about until I got it but it's there. I remember seeing a video when JoBo tried the new Murphy lab range and made a similar comment. Not quite sure why older guitars have it. My guitar has 50's parts so It could be the parts but I suspect the wood is a factor .

 

[Guitar Magic]

I've had a few reissues and replicas in the past and the only guitar I've noticed that has that acoustic 'snappyness' to it is my 52/57 conversion. It's something I didn't really know about until I got it but it's there. I remember seeing a video when JoBo tried the new Murphy lab range and made a similar comment. Not quite sure why older guitars have it. My guitar has 50's parts so It could be the parts but I suspect the wood is a factor .

Wow, it's really hard to find a good Les Paul isn't it? Once you know how a good one should sound, that is. Honestly, I've yet to have good luck with post 2010 Historics. All of them that I had lacked this most important tonal characteristic. Seems like getting every technical specs right is just not enough when the wood is totally different than in the old days. I had a few nice sounding mid-2000s examples on the other hand. I prefer the rosewood and mahogany before around 2009, but that's just me. The vintage ones are on a totally different level though.

Wish it would be possible to make a new LP sound like an old one. One that you sit down in a chair with, strum it acoustically and the notes just jump out of the fretboard clear, strong and snappy. Those rare ones inspire me to play more professionally and learn new things because anything you play on them is incredibly rewarding.

 

[designerseye88]

Wow, it's really hard to find a good Les Paul isn't it? Once you know how a good one should sound, that is. Honestly, I've yet to have good luck with post 2010 Historics. All of them that I had lacked this most important tonal characteristic. Seems like getting every technical specs right is just not enough when the wood is totally different than in the old days. I had a few nice sounding mid-2000s examples on the other hand. I prefer the rosewood and mahogany before around 2009, but that's just me. The vintage ones are on a totally different level though.

Wish it would be possible to make a new LP sound like an old one. One that you sit down in a chair with, strum it acoustically and the notes just jump out of the fretboard clear, strong and snappy. Those rare ones inspire me to play more professionally and learn new things because anything you play on them is incredibly rewarding.

The only other guitar which has come close is a well made replica. That guitar was very resonant but didn't have the snappy feel. I think it weighed only 8.6 pounds and the finish was so thin. I did put some 50's hardware on it but again no snappyness.

The main difference between modern reissues and the vintage stuff is the woods, Scale length and tailpiece position, I wonder if this changes things?

 

[brandtkronholm]

On modern Les Pauls (90s and post 00s) whether it's been a Historic (CC or regular) or a production model, I usually find that the low-E and high-E is not as snappy sounding as the rest of the strings. On my late 60's Goldtops if I remember correctly that was not the case most of the time. And not on my '60 Special. I had a handful of 2010's Historics that had a rather dull low-end - no snap, no percussiveness in the attack. You know that Tele kind of response that most of us like in a good LP, that was missing. To be clear I'm talking about the acoustic tone. I would tinker these guitars days in and days out with different truss-rod, pole piece, bridge and tailpiece height adjustments, but the dullness in those ranges always translated into the electrified sound (talking about past 12 o'clock on the master of a big old JMP, not some bedroom noodling).

Is it just me or anyone else familiar with my observation? What is the reason for this in newer LPs? And what is the case with 52-60 Les Pauls? Everytime I listen to a vintage one I hear crystal clear lows and highs, no dullness, no muddyness.

I've owned close to a hundred Les Pauls from every kind. From cheap early 90s Studios to beautiful '68 Goldtops (and one 1960 Special) and countless Standards, Classics and Historics from different periods. The ones that certainly had that Telecaster low-end was my '68 GT, one of my late '69 GTs that interestingly had a factory Braz board, my '72 54/58 Standard (the one with the 1-piece body and neck, wrap-around TP) and a 2006 R9.

The worst was a 2016 flametop R8 that was a beauty queen, but it sounded like the wood was just brought up from underwater. With all the Historically accurate bells and whistles, that guitar was dead as a doornail.

Buy a Telecaster.

 

[brandtkronholm]

Wow, it's really hard to find a good Les Paul isn't it? Once you know how a good one should sound, that is. Honestly, I've yet to have good luck with post 2010 Historics. All of them that I had lacked this most important tonal characteristic. Seems like getting every technical specs right is just not enough when the wood is totally different than in the old days. I had a few nice sounding mid-2000s examples on the other hand. I prefer the rosewood and mahogany before around 2009, but that's just me. The vintage ones are on a totally different level though.

Wish it would be possible to make a new LP sound like an old one. One that you sit down in a chair with, strum it acoustically and the notes just jump out of the fretboard clear, strong and snappy. Those rare ones inspire me to play more professionally and learn new things because anything you play on them is incredibly rewarding.

And yet you've owned "close to a hundred Les Pauls from every kind".

If the unplugged sound of an electric guitar actually translated to the electric sound then we'd all be dropping double-whites into our Martin D-28s.

 

[thin sissy]

And yet you've owned "close to a hundred Les Pauls from every kind".

If the unplugged sound of an electric guitar actually translated to the electric sound then we'd all be dropping double-whites into our Martin D-28s.

Are you sayying there's no difference whatsoever between electric guitars? So does that mean an ES5 with humbuckers sound exactly identical to a strat with humbuckers? I disagree with that notion, but I see it expressed by many people and we all have our right to opinions.

To the OP, I agree with what you say about vintage Les Pauls. My 2 50's lesters have what I describe "stable" and "dry" lows, highs that go up a long range in the frequency spectrum. I realize my descriptions might not make sense though

Although I don't agree that it's "really difficult to find a good Les Paul", I think they pop up every now and then (especially these last couple of years). But, in my suuuper humble opinion, the best 50's Les Pauls always sound better than the best modern Les Pauls. That has been my experience. Will anyone in the audience notice? Rarely, would be my guess

 

[S. Weiger]

...

Although I don't agree that it's "really difficult to find a good Les Paul", I think they pop up every now and then (especially these last couple of years). But, in my suuuper humble opinion, the best 50's Les Pauls always sound better than the best modern Les Pauls. That has been my experience. Will anyone in the audience notice? Rarely, would be my guess

I would up the ante and say even the average 50's Les Paul (with proper setup), sound and feel better than any modern LP
-at least the ones I have/have had/tried during my 40 years of playing & collecting..
But the ML's are scaringly good though

 

[E.M.]

Wow, it's really hard to find a good Les Paul isn't it? Once you know how a good one should sound, that is. Honestly, I've yet to have good luck with post 2010 Historics. All of them that I had lacked this most important tonal characteristic. Seems like getting every technical specs right is just not enough when the wood is totally different than in the old days. I had a few nice sounding mid-2000s examples on the other hand. I prefer the rosewood and mahogany before around 2009, but that's just me. The vintage ones are on a totally different level though.

Wish it would be possible to make a new LP sound like an old one. One that you sit down in a chair with, strum it acoustically and the notes just jump out of the fretboard clear, strong and snappy. Those rare ones inspire me to play more professionally and learn new things because anything you play on them is incredibly rewarding.

Re: snappiness of the low E, I’m with you 100%. I judge a good LP by this trait. However, I’ve owned a handful historic reissues that have (fortunately) had this trait and many that do not (more common). Those reissues that have a Tele-like low E include my ‘22 Murphy Lab 59, ‘14 LP Benchmark 59, and CC#42 JD Simo 335. These were the guitars with the hardest lacquer + good wood acoustics, almost like a xylophone when you knock on the body.

 

[GlassSnuff]

Lignum. Old growth wood. Harder and more hollow. Wrap on them and they go "thock" instead of "thunk".

Did Leo change the voicing on his amps just to make Les Pauls sound bad? Inquiring minds....

 

[thin sissy]

I would up the ante and say even the average 50's Les Paul (with proper setup), sound and feel better than any modern LP
-at least the ones I have/have had/tried during my 40 years of playing & collecting..
But the ML's are scaringly good though

That is interesting, I hope to play enough 50's lesters in my life to form an opinion on that! The most amount of 50's lesters I've played have been Jr's, and ALL of them have been amazing. Might be luck, but I don't think so

 

[S. Weiger]

That is interesting, I hope to play enough 50's lesters in my life to form an opinion on that! The most amount of 50's lesters I've played have been Jr's, and ALL of them have been amazing. Might be luck, but I don't think so

Lignum. Old growth wood. Harder and more hollow. Wrap on them and they go "thock" instead of "thunk".

Did Leo change the voicing on his amps just to make Les Pauls sound bad? Inquiring minds....

Another interesting thing I've been speculating is this:

1) In the 50's and up to 1965/66 -ish, President Ted McCarty & the executive in charge of purchasing, Rollo Werner, found and bought the wood together. I've read this in some good books re. Gibson, plus reading interviews with Ted.

So far, so good.

2) In 1966 Ted McCarty resigns and overtakes Bigsby together with John Huis, Gibson's vice president until 1965.
Rollo Werner soldiered on until 1973, in all probability still in charge of purchasing wood for the company.

3) When Rollo Werner retires in 1973, Gibson might have good wood in stock still for a couple years (?)
Fact is, 2 years later in 1975, Gibson change for maple neck on Les Pauls, and the quality of the guitars seem to really decline until
much later..

So maybe my above speculation is a big part of the reason wood was better in the old days..? hmm
I mean, in 1973, the succsessor i.c. of purchasing was most certainly not trained & qualified in the same way as the two gentlemen Ted McCarty and Rollo Werner. And management was pretty much indifferent about that, AFAIK.
Plus, of course, was it even possible for Gibson to get old growth wood by then (1975 -ish), even if they wanted to?

 

[Guitar Magic]

And yet you've owned "close to a hundred Les Pauls from every kind".

If the unplugged sound of an electric guitar actually translated to the electric sound then we'd all be dropping double-whites into our Martin D-28s.

Yeah, I had a few ones. The reason: tone chasing. Looking for the mentioned characteristics. A crazy obsession some of you might be familiar with too.

 

[Guitar Magic]

Re: snappiness of the low E, I’m with you 100%. I judge a good LP by this trait. However, I’ve owned a handful historic reissues that have (fortunately) had this trait and many that do not (more common). Those reissues that have a Tele-like low E include my ‘22 Murphy Lab 59, ‘14 LP Benchmark 59, and CC#42 JD Simo 335. These were the guitars with the hardest lacquer + good wood acoustics, almost like a xylophone when you knock on the body.

That's what I'm talking about. I also judge good Les Pauls by this trait (one of the most important traits). I've been more fortunate with late 60s Les Pauls in that regard compared to modern Historics. Might be a factor that I'm located in Europe and maybe the dealers keep the best ones in the US, who knows?

To be clear, I'm not saying that a Les Paul should sound like a Tele, I don't even like Telecasters. It's the unique snappy quality that I'm looking for and find pretty rare in modern LPs. From what I gather that's not the case among the golden era '52-'60 ones - they all naturally sound like that.

 

[Tim]

I find a lot of picks dull the sound. Try a Dunlop Primetone .88

This is an old, but good thread on wood that was used.

 

[Wilko]

I totally get what you on about. I've owned many and have played a few of the great vintage Les Pauls.

I'm really lucky that I found (on eBay!) the traditional in my avatar. I previously had great pleasure and THAT feeling with a bunch of '68s that I bursted, converted, and PAF'd. My other fave was a 1956 that I bursted.

This traditional from 2012 ( I recarved the top) gets me so close to the 50s feel that I sold my '56 as I felt guilty with a family and a stupid expensive guitar.

The other that I have that get THE TONE is a replica built by Jim Nunis (RIP)

 

[Guitar Magic]

I find a lot of picks dull the sound. Try a Dunlop Primetone .88

This is an old, but good thread on wood that was used.

Yeah, I'm familiar with that thread. I have gathered hundreds of photos of vintage Les Pauls' mahogany back. The grain is really similar on the vintage ones to Les Pauls until around 2009 but the growth rings are usually denser despite them being so famously lightweight (if you look at the body from the sides). The post-2009 Fiji-growth mahogany has a completely different look.

 

[Guitar Magic]

I totally get what you on about. I've owned many and have played a few of the great vintage Les Pauls.

I'm really lucky that I found (on eBay!) the traditional in my avatar. I previously had great pleasure and THAT feeling with a bunch of '68s that I bursted, converted, and PAF'd. My other fave was a 1956 that I bursted.

This traditional from 2012 ( I recarved the top) gets me so close to the 50s feel that I sold my '56 as I felt guilty with a family and a stupid expensive guitar.

The other that I have that get THE TONE is a replica built by Jim Nunis (RIP)

I also had a Traditional that sounded spectacular, in fact better than 90% of the Historics that I had. It was a 2009 with a nice fat neck, wish I still had that beautiful guitar. The rosewood was still silky on that one and not the porous, dry variety that I see on later models. I don't really like the RW that has been used since around 2012 on neither USA nor Historics, the dry greyish colored variety. I found that many East Indian rosewood examples on late 60s models were really close to Braz. Those are so nice. Dark, dense, smooth. I liked some of the Madagascar ones as well that the Historics had all through the 2000s until 2008.

 

[Wilko]

Here it is: https://www.lespaulforum.com/index.php?threads/more-on-my-traditional-makeover.205381/

iPhone recording:

 

[Guitar Magic]

That's really nice. The RW on that seems to be the better kind. Read the makeover thread as well, stunning work!