JohnCovach Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Just a probably-not-very-helpful aside: I'm not surprised that the current G guitars are nice--I've got a recent SG Classic with P-90s that's great. The only thing I have against G's on the current market is their price. If I were offered a nice used Les Paul at the same price as a 150, I'd be interested. But I just can't see spending the extra cash for the name. For this reason, Heritage guitars seem more "honest" to me, though I realize that's entirely subjective.
Mark Gregg Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 Wow, I can’t believe how nice you guys are. I’m a newbie at discussion boards in general but I have been posting on TGP lately in response to some UA threads. What a zoo! Mr Seacup, I believe that you are correct that my guitar is a deluxe but the inlays are actually abalone. It really is a looker. Kuz, I read your post about the bridge and I have to admit I was a little skeptical about the 24% figure you sited in improved sustain. I had not heard about this previously so I did a quick and dirty comparison. Niether guitar suffers from any lack of sustain that I ever noticed. What I did was an acoustic comparison so louder pickups could not impact the outcome. What I found was that by putting the lower bout of the guitar on the floor and the headstock against my head, I could compare the sustain acoustically pretty well with my watch. I got 5 seconds on the high E and 17 seconds on the A string on both guitars. I could see maybe a slight difference but logically, since the bridge is obviously on the end of the vibrating string, I wouldn’t think it would have too dramatic an impact. This is not conclusive, just a quick check on my part. I wanted to get into the construction differences of the guitars and make some observations about the differences I find and of course some similarities. Probably the single biggest difference for the player, between the two guitars except the pickups are that the G had been pleked and the 150 hasn’t. The plek setup on my two G’s are immaculate. They are the best sounding and playing guitars I have ever played. When I say sound, I don’t mean the actual tone of the wood but the intonation and playability which to me translated directly to sound. The other thing that is different is that the 150 seems to have bigger fret wire. I slightly prefer the G’s fret wire type or size. I don’t know what it is. The setup on the 150 is definitely in the ballpark of the Pleked G’s. The nut is cut well and the intonation is spot on. The neck is true and the fretwork is excellent. Another difference is that the G’s have a long neck tenon and the 150 doesn’t which I found kind of weird because my Heritage 535 does have a long neck tenon. In fact, that’s why I came to this forun in the first place, to find out why that was. I can’t tell any difference or impact on tone with the different neck tenons. I own other G’s that don’t have the long tenon and in particular, I enjoy playing my ’72 SG which does not and sounds great. The 150 has a slimmer neck profile but is identical in width at the nut to the R9. More like a ’60 LP I think. I think that Gibson must have a major advantage in wood acquisiton compared to smaller companies due to the amount of wood they source and how long they have been doing it. Even so, I don’t find the wood quality to be any better on the high end G’s than on the 150 except maybe the fingerboard which seems higher quality in the G. It is finer grained and darker in color. The maple flames are both gorgeous with the 150 being more dramatic and vibrant in my particular 150. Also the binding and matching headstock flamed and ‘burst maple veneer and the matching pickguard along with the triple binding on the 150 makes the R9 seem understated. I find that the playability is very similar in both guitars with fret wire being the biggest difference and a personal preference along with neck thickness. I find the hardware on both guitars to be excellent and the Kluson repro’s on the G get the nod for vibe. I do like the way the bridge sits on the posts on the Heritage. It is a very tight fit and doesn’t rock or slip which probably makes tuning and intonation more stable. In my next post, I’ll get into the electronics and tone specifics. I’m also slated to perfom with my friend Bob Zinner tomorrow night at his gig and he graciously offered to let me perform with his original ’59 LP so hopefully I can get a stage comparison with the 150 on that gig. I’ll take photos and post them.
mars_hall Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 You are probably aware that Seymore Duncan did scientific test that showed like a 24% improvement in sustain going to the nashville bridge and tailpiece. I have been trying to find this study. Can you point me to it? Thanks
Kuz Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I have been trying to find this study. Can you point me to it? Thanks Call Jay Wolfe. He is a person friend of Duncan and went over the whole study over the phone. The results of the study was the reason they insist on Nashville hardware only on their Heritages.
Spectrum13 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Interesting. If you are being scientific clocking the sustain and compairing the wood selection, neck tenions, stings neck shape and frets... would you not need to have the same bridge studs, type bridge, saddle material, stoptail materials with top wrap? String vibration is transfered to the body through the bridge and tailpiece. These things have been discussed here with a consensus on things like zinc vs aluminum stoptails. Reference the current thread on the red 555 with changing out hardware.
Mark Gregg Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 Sorry Spectrum. I wasn't trying to imply that I was being scientific. I was just curious because I hadn't heard about the tune-o-matic bridge having so much more sustain. I just wanted to check it acoustically and I shared what I found with my specific guitars. Of course there could have been more sub-audible sustain from the G due to the tune-o-matic. Nothing I've shared so far is particularly scientific. It's just my observations and I wondered if anyone else had these guitars. I don't feel that most of the production G's can stand up to the 150's so that's why I chose G's best. (although I have to give G some credit for upping their game overall) I also see your point about hardware needing to be the same. I actually think that the hardware will only make a subtle difference compared to pickups, electronics and setup. Besides, I'm comparing basically stock guitars except for pickups, which I think is more necessary to have the same since the impact on tone while plugged in is much more dramatic. I'm sure acoustically there would be a noticable difference but I don't think that it's any more dramatic than different batches of wood. I think it's probably less dramatic. I could be wrong and if I'm missing something, I'll definitely check it out. I'm curious for sure. There is an acoustic difference between the R9 and 150 though that is noticeable. The 150 is louder when played lighter but both guitars are about the same volume when hit hard. I guess you could call it compressed but it's not compressed when you play loud, the volume is louder when you play soft (on the 150 compared to the R9), so if hardware is aiding in this effect, I don't believe that it's a negative thing. I will check the thread on the hardware swapping and I appreciate that you pointed that out. I noticed that the studs on my 150 have a smaller diameter and I don't think a tune-o-matic bridge will sit steady on them. I'll definitely check it out.
JeffB Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Not trying to discredit anyone or any method. More of a revelation than any thing. I carried out my own non scientific tests on 7 guitars. Non of them were fitted with the same hardware and there were 3 different scale lengths involved. I was inspired to conduct the experiments by Mark's post. I am easily lead. Niether guitar suffers from any lack of sustain that I ever noticed. What I did was an acoustic comparison so louder pickups could not impact the outcome. What I found was that by putting the lower bout of the guitar on the floor and the headstock against my head, I could compare the sustain acoustically pretty well with my watch. I got 5 seconds on the high E and 17 seconds on the A string on both guitars. I could see maybe a slight difference but logically, since the bridge is obviously on the end of the vibrating string, I wouldn’t think it would have too dramatic an impact. This is not conclusive, just a quick check on my part. The guitars I used were: H150, Gibson Gem US strat with 2 post trem, MIJ strat with Kahler trem PRS SAS, Yamaha Pacifica 112 Hamer Phantom. The results as far as sustain goes.......All very similar, not much in it at all. One thing I noticed was the maple neck bolt ons were louder and the bolt on's with trems faded faster but carried on for as long. The Pacifica fluctuated. It has the oldest stings along with the Hamer. The MIJ strat has the newest. The H150. PRS SAS and US strat have had their strings on for the same amount of time. Wouldnt sustain come more from manipulation of the string on the fret board and other factors? Simply plucking a string bought to pitch and suspended at two points would yield the same or similar results no matter almost what the two points were anchored to. I understand or assume that the body of the guitar resonates along with the vibration but that isn't going to make the string vibrate any longer. Is it? Unsure. One thing that I found interesting was that there was no real tone difference in any of the guitars when you have you ear stuck to the head stock and yet sit down and strum acoustically there is a difference. But...Then plug in and play it as an electric guitar is meant to be played and yehaa the differences stand out like... well... dogs balls. All in all I wasted a couple of hours but I guess I learnt something. Electric solid body guitars guitars are more fun plugged in to an amp than having their headstock stuck in your ear. Edit: Apologies if this is a thread hijack.
Spectrum13 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Mark, I believe you have an ABR-1 bridge on your Murphy. There are a couple of options for changing out the studs from the wider Nashville to the narrow ABR-1 like the Faber Stainless Steel posts and a company (Brown?) that you just screw into the Nashville anchor or you can get a conversion ABR bridge or just ream out the hole in the bridge. Call it observations, curious or being scientific, that's how wisdom happens.
PacerX Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Simply plucking a string bought to pitch and suspended at two points would yield the same or similar results no matter almost what the two points were anchored to. I understand or assume that the body of the guitar resonates along with the vibration but that isn't going to make the string vibrate any longer. Is it? Unsure. To get a better mechanical feel for this, you have to stop thinking of the system as rigid. In effect, one spring (the guitar string) is being suspended on another - the body/neck/bridge system. Depending on the stiffness of the body/neck/bridge system, the efficiency of that system in rejecting energy, the mass of that system, the amount of energy put into the string, and the frequencies of that energy - the sustain will vary. The human ear is probably not precise enough an item to accurately pick out the differences in two systems unless those differences are dramatic. One thing you can do, at least mechanically speaking, with maximizing sustain is to ensure that structurally you have given yourself every advantage you are willing to look into. Some things that will help sustain include: 1) The stiffest neck to body joint possible... believe it or not, structurally that's usually a bolt-on. Glue can't compress two pieces of wood together... machine screws can. 2) Mass. Heavier = more sustain, simply because the heavier body is more difficult to vibrate. 3) Breakover angle. The steeper the breakover angle the less energy is lost as the string's tension breaks into vectors over the bridge. 4) The most rigid bridge to body face interface possible. A tremolo wouldn't be a good choice here, particularly a floating one. Locking ANY tremolo back hard against the body will increase sustain because the springs are mechanically out of the system at that point. 5) Material rigidity. Rigid (and dense) woods likes maple and mahogany have an advantage here. Softer woods like spruce... not so good... Also, and this one is obvious... heavier strings = more sustain.
pushover Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I'm a little confused about the sustain measuring activity. It seems that you're measuring how long an unobstructed (as can vibrate freely) metal string can vibrate. Given that each string is tuned to the same frequency, you're basically measuring something driven by the wavelength of the note the string is strung too. IMHO opinion, this should be the same except perhaps for some subtle differences in the string materials themselves. Scale length shoudn't be an issue.. since the length is still always a power of two multiplication of the frequency the string is tuned too. From wiki, it defines sustain as: "Sustain is a parameter of musical sound in time. As its name may imply, it denotes the period of time during which the sound is sustained before it becomes inaudible, or silent." So according to that definition sustain is all about how long you can hear it, rather than how long it vibrates. So the string it may still be vibrating for the same amount of time, but the amount of sympthetic vibration of the guitar itself (which is what you hear) may not be nearly the same between the two guitars.. And that to me seems to be what you need to measure, the rate of decay of the sound, rather than the longevity of the vibration itself. Note: I'm not an expert in any of this, I'm just thinking it through as I type.. So anyone else buy into what I'm trying to say?
JeffB Posted March 26, 2009 Posted March 26, 2009 All in all I wasted a couple of hours but I guess I learnt something. Electric solid body guitars guitars are more fun plugged in to an amp than having their headstock stuck in your ear. This is the core of what I was trying to say. Electric guitars are meant to be plugged in. What point is having an electric guitar with wonderful acoustic tone if that just translates to a muddy sound plugged in. I had fun checking things out and I know it wasn't scientific and there were to many variables but the end result of plugging in highlighted the pointlessness measuring acoustic qualities of a solid body electric. Everything works together to make a good electric tone.
PacerX Posted March 26, 2009 Posted March 26, 2009 I'm a little confused about the sustain measuring activity. It seems that you're measuring how long an unobstructed (as can vibrate freely) metal string can vibrate. Given that each string is tuned to the same frequency, you're basically measuring something driven by the wavelength of the note the string is strung too. IMHO opinion, this should be the same except perhaps for some subtle differences in the string materials themselves. Scale length shoudn't be an issue.. since the length is still always a power of two multiplication of the frequency the string is tuned too. Again, the guitar itself is basically a variable spring, soaking up vibrations. The fewer it soaks up (you can call it an efficiency loss), the longer the note will sustain. Tone and sustain obviously aren't the same thing, but they are related... "TONE" would be determined by what and how much of it gets "soaked" up - different types of construction respond to different frequencies different ways... For instance, jazz players seem to really like a tone that's basically just a fundamental with very little (more like "zero"...) complex harmonic structure... They're basically "dead" sounding, at least as amplified. This might be a necessity to allow complex chordal structures not to sound like a couple of cats fighting in an alley. A Telecaster or Stratocaster's tone, or a true acoustic, on the other hand, is heavy in harmonic structure. LP's fall in between the extremes. The actual construction of the guitar is very important in this. Telecasters don't sound like trem-equipped Strats, and Strats don't sound like LP's, and LP's don't sound like jazz boxes - pickups are part of that, but so is construction.
Paul P Posted March 26, 2009 Posted March 26, 2009 Putting together a few of the posts in this threads, it looks like to get the most sustain you would want the guitar with the least acoustic sound (unplugged). To me this makes sense but I've read lots of people who say they judge an electric's quality by the sound it makes acoustically, the more the better. Sustain can't be everything unless you're going for a strictly string and pickup sound. Would people who crave sustain be happy with a guitar of infinite mass and stiffness giving them very long sustain ? You could go a step further and encase the guitar in a vacuum for even more sustain. But there would be only one tone and every guitar would sound the same. So you have to trade sustain for any other tone and perhaps give up a lot of it for a tone that you find pleasing. What about sustain maintained by the soundwaves coming from the speaker ? The more flexible the guitar the more it should be able to sustain this way (feedback is great sustain). Which one do musicians usually mean ?
bolero Posted March 26, 2009 Posted March 26, 2009 hey, this is a cool thread...Mark, those are both beautiful guitars!! what kind of pickups are in them ? I like the Mojo & traditional look of Gibson guitars but I have been blown away by the quality, feel & playability of Heritage, they are really top notch. I have a couple Gibby's I am keeping too though looking forward to your results, sounds interesting. I'm also curious about the neck joint on H150's, I can see there is a chamber in there where the drill bit went thru the wall of the pup cavity.....same as my 150. as long as it's a tight fit I'm not too concerned, but I have never seen a diagram of how they attach the neck...and obviously you can't see it by looking in the pup cavity.
JeffB Posted March 26, 2009 Posted March 26, 2009 Putting together a few of the posts in this threads, it looks like to get the most sustainyou would want the guitar with the least acoustic sound (unplugged). To me this makes sense but I've read lots of people who say they judge an electrics quality by the sound it makes acoustically, the more the better. Sustain can't be everything unless you're going for a strictly string and pickup sound. Would people who crave sustain be happy with a guitar of infinite mass and stiffness giving them very long sustain ? You could go a step further and encase the guitar in a vacuum for even more sustain. But there would be only one tone and every guitar would sound the same. So you have to trade sustain for any other tone and perhaps give up a lot of it for a tone that you find pleasing. What about sustain maintained by the soundwaves coming from the speaker ? The more flexible the guitar the more it should be able to sustain this way (feedback is great sustain). Which one do musicians usually mean ? Some of my guitars sound great through some amps and not so great through others. Ive found what works with what and I'm happy. I consider the amp and guitar to be kind of one instrument. They are both kind of useless with out each other. The cheap Yamaha which acoustically feels dead works great through my fender amps but not so well through any Mesa I own or have owned. The PRS SAS is bright, lively and resonant unplugged sounds best through any Mesa, I don't like it much through my fenders but can live with it through a marshall. What I'm trying to say is its all good and well to sit there noodling away unplugged. Sure you will get an idea of how it feels and if you can live with it and feel if the sound of it comes from the back of the guitar or just seems to come off the hardware but what does that tell you about how its going to react to: the preamp, the power amp and the cab and speaker/s.( Maybe a few stomps and a fx processor as well) To many times Ive seen people agonize between a couple of electric solid body guitars acoustic qualities only to plug in and discover the guitar they liked, and felt sure they would take over the other acoustically, was not the guitar they liked amplified. Incidentally, I like my H150 through any of my amps. Marshall, fender and Mesa. Acoustically its in the middle of the guitars I have. Its actually a bit honky, not so nice. It rips plugged in. Very smooth lead tone, great crunchy rhythm tone. Just a few of my thoughts and in no way conclusive proof of anything other than I like to plug my electric guitars in.
PacerX Posted March 26, 2009 Posted March 26, 2009 Some of my guitars sound great through some amps and not so great through others. Ive found what works with what and I'm happy. I consider the amp and guitar to be kind of one instrument. They are both kind of useless with out each other. The cheap Yamaha which acoustically feels dead works great through my fender amps but not so well through any Mesa I own or have owned. The PRS SAS is bright, lively and resonant unplugged sounds best through any Mesa, I don't like it much through my fenders but can live with it through a marshall. What I'm trying to say is its all good and well to sit there noodling away unplugged. Sure you will get an idea of how it feels and if you can live with it and feel if the sound of it comes from the back of the guitar or just seems to come off the hardware but what does that tell you about how its going to react to: the preamp, the power amp and the cab and speaker/s.( Maybe a few stomps and a fx processor as well) To many times Ive seen people agonize between a couple of electric solid body guitars acoustic qualities only to plug in and discover the guitar they liked, and felt sure they would take over the other acoustically, was not the guitar they liked amplified. Incidentally, I like my H150 through any of my amps. Marshall, fender and Mesa. Acoustically its in the middle of the guitars I have. Its actually a bit honky, not so nice. It rips plugged in. Very smooth lead tone, great crunchy rhythm tone. Just a few of my thoughts and in no way conclusive proof of anything other than I like to plug my electric guitars in. Welp, at the end of the day, what it sounds like plugged in is most assuredly what is important. The mechanics of why things work the way they do are the means to an end - tone you think is great! All understanding the mechanics allows you to do is manipulate what you can if you want to change something or enhance something.
Kuz Posted March 26, 2009 Posted March 26, 2009 I played the "pick of the litter" yesterday at Willcutts. Eric the excellent salesman (actually he is more like head manager and a great player) said he was going to change my mind about a great R9. He did. It was a great guitar, but I wouldn't trade any of my Heritages for it (even straight up). I am now of the belief after playing this R9 that a "pick of the litter" custom Gibby is as good as a 150, but not better!
skydog Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 I played the "pick of the litter" yesterday at Willcutts. Eric the excellent salesman (actually he is more like head manager and a great player) said he was going to change my mind about a great R9. He did. It was a great guitar, but I wouldn't trade any of my Heritages for it (even straight up). I am now of the belief after playing this R9 that a "pick of the litter" custom Gibby is as good as a 150, but not better! And at 1/3 the price, the H makes it a no-brainer!
Mark Gregg Posted March 30, 2009 Author Posted March 30, 2009 Ok, on to electronics. Here is where my bias shows itself. It’s not a bias for Heritage or Gibson guitars, but rather late ‘50’s-early ‘60’s Gibson pickups or PAF’s. I also rather like the later pre T-tops and T-tops as well. These pickups are the reason that the 150 has been saving my life every night for the past few weeks. The 150 has actually been in mothballs mostly for the last couple of years or so and the need for another LP for pickup comparisons was the reason I started using the 150. I found an amazing set of pickups that were wound by a guy named Jared using late “50’s wire and ‘60’s magnets. They measure 7.4k at the neck and 8.1k at the bridge and are the most balanced, bell like toned set I’ve yet used. I haven’t popped this set into the Gibsons yet but I will get around to it at some point. For now, they are really knocking me out in the Heritage and they are making my 150 my #1 guitar. The Duncans that came in the 150 were uninspiring to me as were the Burstbuckers in the Gibsons. I know that PAF prices are out of control but at the moment, if that’s the tone you need, I know of no place else to get that tone. If the cost is an issue, I recommend replacing your pickups with T-tops. It will be like night and day. The other electronic difference is the tone pots or rather, the tone caps in the G’s versus the Heritage. I like the Heritage caps better. I don’t know their value but their taper is much better than the VOS’s which don’t do much until they are turned all the way down. So my take on the VOS vs Heritage 150’s differences are that there aren’t very many differences except price. They are both world class renditions of the original ‘bursts or goldtops. Gibson has some logo mojo and snob appeal but the Heritage is a guitar you can afford to take out and not worry about so much. Mine's getting the snot played out of it. I’m really loving it. Should you buy the Gibson? It’s a personal call but I wouldn’t recommend it because it’s better. I don’t think it is.
Thundersteel Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 I also rather like the later pre T-tops and T-tops as well. Can you expand on those further? I've never heard of those.
Mark Gregg Posted March 30, 2009 Author Posted March 30, 2009 T-tops are the Gibson pickups that followed PAF's and can be identified by a raised T pattern on the bobbins. You can usually find them on ebay. Jimmy Page's #1 guitar, the '59 I believe has a PAF and a T-top in it. Listen to the breakdown on Heartbreaker on How the west was won to hear how he goes from a bell like tone to a Tele tone to the hammer of the gods tone in a single live solo.
yoslate Posted March 30, 2009 Posted March 30, 2009 Mine's getting the snot played out of it. I’m really loving it. To quote the beloved Muddy: "Thass what it all about...." I'm Here
skydog Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Wow, I can’t believe how nice you guys are. I’m a newbie at discussion boards in general but I have been posting on TGP lately in response to some UA threads. What a zoo! That's putting it mildly! TGP (The Gestapo Police) moderators have created a climate where if one were to yell boo, everyone there would jump. It's unbelievable some of the stuff they let pass and some of the stuff they penalize. I try not to go there too much anymore. Nothing is selling anyway, so what's the point? Glad you're here and really like this post. Lot's of info.
Hfan Posted April 4, 2009 Posted April 4, 2009 I can't comment on recent Gibbons, I remember the ones I had in the 70's (60 Les Paul SG and a early 70's standard should have kept them) where great. One thing that comes to my mind in a basic comparison today is the price point. Eespecially if you purchase a used Heritage, there are incredible values out there. I believe in general, the quality of the Heritages are above and beyond the Gibbons although I have never checked out the custom shop or high $ G models. For the average working (hopefully in this economy) guy the quality and price point may be the determining factors.
paul144 Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I gotta say, these "guitar geek-squad" postings are making my brain hurt ;D If I may suggest a test...Get 12 Heritage junkies and 12 Gibson junkies, blindfold them, and have them listen to Robben Ford or Joe Bonnamassa play a 150 and an R9 with their bands and see if they can tell which is which, and take a vote. Seriously, even if the $6000 Gibson sounded 20% better than a 150, why buy it when the 150 is hanging there for $4k less? I don't need to impress anybody with that kinda bling hanging around my neck.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.