tbonesullivan

Well, just got this in the old email. I guess the prayers have been answered, though I kinda miss the "limed mahogany" color, but I guess people really want TV Yellow to look like an old TV yellow guitar. https://heritageguitars.com/pages/core-collection-h-137

What kind of music do you play? Are you more of a clean player? The SD 59's are nice, but they are definitely a bit "rude" sounding, designed to sound good for rock and roll. Dimarzio 36th Anniversary PAF pickups aren't super expensive, and are really REALLY nice sounding. Not as crystal clear as say the Schaller Golden 50s that Heritage used for years, but very balanced and just really nice sounding pickups.

It's all about the $$$$. The biggest sellers that Heritage has and has had for years are the H150 and H535 models, which correspond to two of the G-brands most popular models. It is kinda sad that pretty much all the models that separated them from G-brand are gone, but they have to make the guitars that the market wants and will sell to keep going.

SUPER SCORE. With the HRWS that's great, and the color is awesome. The pickups in their now are also a really good choice for a semi-hollow.

Yes, and also no. Musical instruments are not engineered, they are designed, and decisions made often can fly in the face of what an engineering or mechanical standpoint would be. My other musical side is a brass musician, and I have spent far FAR more time involved in playing Tenor, Bass, and Alto trombone than I probably ever will while playing guitar and bass. And I have seen many products of "superior engineering" fall flat on their face in that market, just as they do in the guitar world. Because it's not about engineering, it's about design, it's about produced sound, it's about the feel of the instrument, and other things that cannot be quantified. You have people who are all about trying to market how their product / design is the product of superior engineering, ignoring the fact that where instruments are today is the result of hundreds of years of change and evolution. They also tend to ignore the fact that often, they were NOT the first person to think up the design, and that it didn't work the first time. Then you also have to remember to throw in the placebo effect, which results in some people always thinking every change they make results in something better. It's pretty amazing to see how many different takes their are on the "best" bridge for a G-style guitar, and what aspects of that particular bridge make it "the best". Ted McCarty had a degree in engineering. He oversaw GIbson during the time when the Tune-O-Matic was originally created. Yet, the PRS design he consulted on, which premiered in 1994, came with not the PRS adjustable Stoptail bridge, but with the bridge that they have used for years now: a stop tail that is a solid piece of metal, with screws at the back for rough intonation. Pretty much a lightning bar. Minimal pieces should result in maximum sound conduction, and with all of the tension of the strings applied to the threads in the bushings, that should result in a large amount of engaged surface area under a lot of pressure. But is that really the secret to the "best" tone and sustain? Look at the ABR-1. The strings rest directly on the saddles, which are on a threaded insert, which rests in/on the bridge. This itself rests on wide threaded washers which are on 6-32 x 1-1/16" posts threaded directly into the wood of the guitar. Many consider the ABR-1 without the wire to be the best bridge for G-style guitars, even with the fact that they can collapse over time (some state that the first few years used a better alloy and won't collapse), and that the range of intonation adjustment is limited. This however seems to have a lot less potential for sound conduction than the lightning bar in some ways, so is that really what the "secret sauce" is? I won't mention the nylon bridge inserts that Gibson went to in the early 60s, which are Angus Young's favorite, but others hate. It's all about the sound, and they are supposed to give a softer edge on the notes due to construction. Look at the two major types of tremolos out there: fulcrum and roller based. The Floyd Rose type and Kahler type are the epitome of the design, especially in their current form, though they are often felt to lack sustain. However the solution to that for many is pretty simple: Materials and Mass. Brass Rollers and Saddles on the Kahler. Heavier Tremolo Block on the Floyd. I guess I'm rambling now, but I always come back to how Eric Clapton has blocked tremolos on his Strats and doesn't just use the hardtail version, as he feels they sound better. Tone secret: One of the guitars used on Early ZZ Top records was a hardtail strat. Everything from an engineering standpoint, if you want optimal sound conduction, should favor the hardtail. But many don't, even if they never use the Tremolo.

I have the roller bridges on two of my Heritages, and one has a Bigsby, which really makes it a better choice, for me anyway. For the other, just never noticed a difference, and kinda liked the unique look of the Schaller tailpiece and bridge, and they also matched the chrome schaller pickups on the guitar. I have heard that the Kluson ABR-1 may be the "closest" to the "original". There are, of course, a ton of magical properties assigned to the ABR-1 design, and the changes over the 1950s and 1960s have been sliced and diced to bits, with many claiming they have the "one true" replica. It's like they forget that even in the 1950s, Gibson was a COMPANY, making a PRODUCT. Why did they use acrylic inlays? They were more cost effective. The changes to the ABR-1 were often cost related, as was the change to the Nashville style bridge. The early ABR-1s were supposed to have fairly soft brass saddles, and there may have been variations in the alloys used for making the main body of the bridge. These days many makers use alloys in their ABR-1s that won't collapse over the years, so who can say how accurate they are. And then there are the Babicz bridges, which are designed so that the entire bottom of the bridge is in contact with the body via a shim.

I was at one of the PSPs when Vince Lewis was there, and he had the Schaller roller bridge on his guitar. He said it gave a warmer tone. Schaller makes great hardware, and I actually had the original style hardware put back on my H535 when I got it. I like the look.

The H-158 "Classic" I has both a laminated arched top and back, with no electronics access plate.

Bad Horsie for Life. Never want to deal with a non-optical actuated wah again.

Hmmmmm. They do look very similar. The shape of the top and bottom of the plates is also identical. The size of the glass envelope actually can vary, as they are pretty much made by hand. They also look to have identical getter halos on the top of the plate structure. I can however find pictures of the JJ 6V6 tubes that don't have that cut out on the tops and bottoms of the plate, and don't have the window. The Russian made tubes have also definitely had differences over time.

Nibs have always been interesting to think about, as a lot of companies who have bound necks avoid nibs like the plague. Martin guitars usually don't have bound necks, and when they do, the frets go over the binding I believe. Ibanez guitars, even the high end Japanese signature and hollow body models, have the frets over the binding. I think Taylor guitars does as well. However, with binding, that means you don't really need to dress the fret ends, which saves time. I've seen some articles by Dan Erlewine regarding saving the nibs when refretting. However usually they are a pain to deal with if you want to refret the guitar. You need to have the frets perfectly measured or when you hammer them in they may not fit.

That really looks like a JJ 6V6 S. Does it have a square "window" on the sides of the plate structure? only the JJ 6V6S and Telefunken new production tubes have a square window on the side with an envelope that is the same size as the base like that. Round top, with getter flash at the top. Green is a mid level rated tube, about a Groove Tubes 5.

Which version of the Mesa 6V6 tubes did your California Tweed come with? They've had a few different versions over the years. I believe they used to use JJ for those, but the recent pictures I have seen show a tube I don't recognize.

I keep thinking about getting a Fillmore, but with how full my stable is, can't really justify it. I do have a Lonestar Special, and yeah, in some days it's harder to dial in. It's very "subtle", while the Fillmore gives you three great modes with a lot of flexibility, and you don't have to flip a bunch of switches to get them. The ability to have TWO channels exactly the same is really great, as I always find that my favorite modes somehow end up on the same channel. They kinda did that on some earlier amps like the 2 channel Solo Head and Tremoverb, but it wasn't quite the same. It was more like you could only use the EQ curve, while the channels stayed otherwise the same. So you could make the orange channel sound "red", but you couldn't have the clean channel on the red channel.

Ahh, that's no fun when a tube goes and takes stuff with it. They really did make an amp that appeals to a lot of people. A lot of people were confused when it came out, as they always expect something like a Rectifier or a Mark series amp, but Mesa definitely did their home work. They made a relatively simple amp that is easy to dial in and sounds great while covering a lot of sonic ground. Sure it doesn't have all the bells, whistles, and mini switches that a Mark Series amp does, but it more than gets the job done. I may have to pick one up, though first I need to make some room. Too many amps around that I am kinda "meh" on.