H150 vs. 58 & 60's vintage lespauls

[dbetts41]

I think the 150 holds it's own quite well...

 

[Guest HRB853370]

Never was any doubt about it!

[golferwave]

I liked that! Thanks for posting.

[dbetts41]

to be honest through a computer they all sounded the same to me... I thought the marshall tone was better, but that might have been a result of where the mic was placed etc... bottom line...imo... any guitar in a good players hand is going to sound good.

[ridethatbike]

I actually preferred the Heritage/Marshall combo. It was a bit more articulate than any of them with the Vox. I usually like Vox sounds, but that amp was a little muddy. The Gibby's sound good with the Marshall too, just not blankety-blank thousand dollars better than the Heritage.

[mark555]

if you can't play, it doesn't matter how much your guitar cost or when it was built! But I'd take all three of them!

[Kuz]

This was discussed here a few weeks ago.... http://www.heritageownersclub.com/forums/topic/20327-the-doug-pat-show/

 

My opinion is still the same; the '58 was easily the cream of the crop in that shoot out, not even close.

 

YMMV

[zguitar71]

This was discussed here a few weeks ago.... http://www.heritageownersclub.com/forums/topic/20327-the-doug-pat-show/

 

My opinion is still the same; the '58 was easily the cream of the crop in that shoot out, not even close.

 

YMMV

 

I agree. The h and the 60 were good but not like the 58.

[rockabilly69]

The '58 ruled that pack, not even close! That guitar would stand out in a pack full of vintage LPs. I thinked

the Crossroad pickups in that H150 sounded to tight and dark. It was most likely a dud H150 and there are

duds with every make of guitar. The guy said that he tried a bunch of things before he settled in to the WCR's

which he liked. What I liked about the 58 was although it had the signature midrange you could equally hear

the wood and the high end. That guitar sang, and was representative of what I think the ultimate LP should

sound like. I know that my two H150 sounded WORLDS apart! Both good but very different.

[yoslate]

My opinion is still the same; the '58 was easily the cream of the crop in that shoot out, not even close.

 

That's two of us, John.

 

The '58 ruled that pack, not even close! That guitar would stand out in a pack full of vintage LPs.What I liked about the 58 was although it had the signature midrange you could equally hear

the wood and the high end. That guitar sang, and was representative of what I think the ultimate LP should

sound like.

 

That's right.... That's right....

[Gitfiddler]

What pickups were in that 58?

[mtpatty]

'58, then the '60, then the H150... I will say that the Heritage thru the Marshall sounded ballsy- but that '58 has that dry chalky sound old wood for days- simply divine and dreamy

[Kuz]

What pickups were in that 58?

 

Well, if it is all original as the video stated, the '58 had original Patent Applied For pickups (PAFs).

[bolero]

I think WCR pots his pickups, so for a direct PAF comparison you'd want a throbak or a wolfetone in that H150. that could explain some of the sonic differences

[Moxnix228]

I wonder if Pat ever got that damn thing lit?

[mtpatty]

I think WCR pots his pickups, so for a direct PAF comparison you'd want a throbak or a wolfetone in that H150. that could explain some of the sonic differences

 

that and the '58 and '60 are some old wood guitars- with that dry chalky sound- i don;t think you can get that with a newer guitar, no matter what pups you use...of course a nice set of Kloppmann's might help...

[rockabilly69]

I'm under the impression that there is some old wood lying around that can be had to build a guitar like that.

And also I feel Throbaks are as good as guitar pickup needs to be, and have both the tone, and the necessary

slight microphonic characteristic that is so important in getting that wood sound, but I don't think you're going to

get a guitar like that from a company that mass produces to any extent. Also there are plenty of suppliers of all

the needed metal parts (ie bridge, tailpiece, studs etc). Companies like Pigtail, Retrospec, and Callaham are

doing wonders with that stuff. But that '58 had everything in the right balance, and I've only heard that from a few

guitars. Like I said before, that guitar would rise to the top even in a pack full of vintage LPs! Hearing that guitar

made my day.

[Kuz]

that and the '58 and '60 are some old wood guitars- with that dry chalky sound- i don;t think you can get that with a newer guitar, no matter what pups you use...of course a nice set of Kloppmann's might help...

 

Well, I disagree. I think more of the great sounding vintage guitars (which are very much a small percent of all vintage guitars) were just happy accidents. Meaning this great guitar happened to get the best wood that day, the best scatter wound pickups, had the best neck, was finished the best, ect.

 

I think the percent of guitars that sound great today compared to the percent of great sound guitars from the 50s & 60s is probably 10:1 or maybe even 25:1. There was no special attention to keeping the finishes thin, or weight concerns, or many of the "precautions" of building we have today.

 

Ren and the boys have openly said that Gibson in the late 50s through 70s made as many guitars as they could as fast as they could, with whatever materials they had lying around.

[Guest HRB853370]

Well, I disagree. I think more of the great sounding vintage guitars (which are very much a small percent of all vintage guitars) were just happy accidents. Meaning this great guitar happened to get the best wood that day, the best scatter wound pickups, had the best neck, was finished the best, ect.

 

I think the percent of guitars that sound great today compared to the percent of great sound guitars from the 50s & 60s is probably 10:1 or maybe even 25:1. There was no special attention to keeping the finishes thin, or weight concerns, or many of the "precautions" of building we have today.

 

Ren and the boys have openly said that Gibson in the late 50s through 70s made as many guitars as they could as fast as they could, with whatever materials they had lying around.

 

+1 on that. Happy accidents. Even the most scrupulous collector will admit that!

[Guest HRB853370]

I'm under the impression that there is some old wood lying around that can be had to build a guitar like that.

And also I feel Throbaks are as good as guitar pickup needs to be, and have both the tone, and the necessary

slight microphonic characteristic that is so important in getting that wood sound, but I don't think you're going to

get a guitar like that from a company that mass produces to any extent. Also there are plenty of suppliers of all

the needed metal parts (ie bridge, tailpiece, studs etc). Companies like Pigtail, Retrospec, and Callaham are

doing wonders with that stuff. But that '58 had everything in the right balance, and I've only heard that from a few

guitars. Like I said before, that guitar would rise to the top even in a pack full of vintage LPs! Hearing that guitar

made my day.

 

Not so sure about that Rockabilly, I think you could take 100 Les Pauls from Gibsons production line right now, and I bet 95%+ would be excellent playing guitars. Its just the state of today's manufacturing processes with the low tolerances they have. However, I would still rather have a handbuilt one from Heritage.

[rockabilly69]

Not so sure about that Rockabilly, I think you could take 100 Les Pauls from Gibsons production line right now, and I bet 95%+ would be excellent playing guitars. Its just the state of today's manufacturing processes with the low tolerances they have. However, I would still rather have a handbuilt one from Heritage.

 

I agree the playability would be there at that percentage, but I feel the percentage of the great sounding ones is so low because of what

they used for parts, Yeah they used what they had lying around, but and what was lying around, was better than what they are using now.

To get that sound you need the right ingredients, and burstbuckers and two piece fingerboards ain't part of that sound. And Slammer

my next electric guitar will be made at Heritage! I like the handbuilt aspect too. I want a P90 Goldtop, but I want to have it built with

what I feel are the proper parts, and I'll wait till those elfs at Throbak finish tooling up their P90's:) I love my Heritage H150 and I

think mine sounds better (TO ME), then the one in that recording. But I think the chunk of wood on mine is probably more resonant,

and the pickups I used I feel are better than than WCR's for the resonant tone that I personally look for.

[koula901]

Now boys . . .remember the post about violins that Kuz recently posted. We'd all have to hear them with our eyes shut, and no indication of which guitar was made in what year.

[minervadreaming]

Personally I thought that the 58 sounded best overall, that both the 58 and the 60 sounded better than the 150 through the vox, and that the 150 sounded better than the 60 through the Marshall. They all sound good!

[Kuz]

I agree the playability would be there at that percentage, but I feel the percentage of the great sounding ones is so low because of what

they used for parts, Yeah they used what they had lying around, but and what was lying around, was better than what they are using now.

To get that sound you need the right ingredients, and burstbuckers and two piece fingerboards ain't part of that sound. And Slammer

my next electric guitar will be made at Heritage! I like the handbuilt aspect too. I want a P90 Goldtop, but I want to have it built with

what I feel are the proper parts, and I'll wait till those elfs at Throbak finish tooling up their P90's:) I love my Heritage H150 and I

think mine sounds better (TO ME), then the one in that recording. But I think the chunk of wood on mine is probably more resonant,

and the pickups I used I feel are better than than WCR's for the resonant tone that I personally look for.

 

Trust me, this one has the right parts (big old neck, thin nitro, RS guitarworks pots, bumble bee caps, and Lollar P-90s). Look at my signature, almost all of my guitars have Throbaks and I LOVE them more than any other humbucker made. But Lollar hit it right on the P-90s. I would love to hear Jon's take on the vintage P-90, but I don't know if I will ever swap out the Lollar P-90s.

 

 

[rockabilly69]

Nice Kuz, I can almost hear the guitars in that picture, but I'm not a Lollar fan as they didn't have

what I look for in a P90. I've tried them in a few guitars and they didn't work for me, and then I re-

placed them with SHED P90's that worked perfectly. The Lollars had good balance but not that

slight microphonic characteristic that I like. It could be very well that we are looking for different

tones in a P90. I like rude P90 tones like this, do yours get this sound???...,

 

http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=8291529 picking

http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=6608365 (when I switch to the bridge position you can hear it

get rude but still sense the microphonic tone)

 

My buddy had a Reverend with Lollar P90's that was built like my Special and he felt the same about

the pickup choice. He sold the guitar, built himself a LP Junior and slapped a SHED dogear in it. And

yes, it barks. I think the Lollars we used were lower in output, they were too clean and didn't hit

my amp hard enough (I typically don't like high output pickups, but I like a little oomph from bridge

P90's) and I was using a Top Hat Club Royale TURNED UP!!! Maybe I needed a set of overwound

Lollars?

 

I got my love for the rude sound of P90's from my old Gibson ES-125, that set the standard for my

slide guitar tone. So I'm thinking Jon will chase that vintage Gibson tone, and his ears and eye for

Gibson vintage tone seem to be right on. That's why I'm waiting.

 

Funny thing I like clean tones when I play a humbucker, or deceptively clean if you know what I mean.

And Throbaks get that sound. And your Throbak'd Goldtop is what I call a work of freaking art.I can just

imagine how that thing sounds when that Deluxe is getting into the zone!