LS 540 and 420 differences?

JVsearch said:

This is assuming that most of the tonal differences come from the string break angle over the ABR.

Click to expand...

A low break angle reduces attack and fundamental note, and increase harmonic content.
Increasing break angle produces more attack and fundamental and less harmonics.

In a guitar with a low neck angle is not possible to increase much the strings break angle at the bridge.
If that guitar does not have enough attack, it will be difficult to obtain more that way.
But with higher neck angles you have more freedom degrees for selecting the break angle you want.

StugIII said:

JVsearch said:

This is assuming that most of the tonal differences come from the string break angle over the ABR.

Click to expand...

A low break angle reduces attack and fundamental note, and increase harmonic content.
Increasing break angle produces more attack and fundamental and less harmonics.

In a guitar with a low neck angle is not possible to increase much the strings break angle at the bridge.
If that guitar does not have enough attack, it will be difficult to obtain more that way.
But with higher neck angles you have more freedom degrees for selecting the break angle you want.

Click to expand...

That is true, but in practice it's not a problem as every LP that I have owned has been made to sound worse as the tail piece was moved down to be right on the guitar's top. The sweet spot for my LPs (about 6 or 7 both Gibsons and MIJ) has always needed the tail piece raised to lower break angle over the ABR, so with a shallower neck angle I might actually be able to get the tail piece all the way down onto the body!

Another question:

I was reading that a proper Burst sounds great acoustically and resonates like crazy when played unplugged, whereas most of the Historics don't. What about higher-end Tokais?

Hello!


Just throwing in my 2 Cents.


First of all regarding the rumour of a refinished Gibson Historic with a neck joint, where the heel had little contact to the body, that's true.
The thread was an LPF and it was a Refin done by Florian J?ger from germany. He stated, that he often saw those poor neck settings when he did refins of Historics, though NOT ALL of them have that issue, nor can anybody say on what percentage of Historics that happens.
Unfortunately I am only a reader at the LPF, and so I have no permission to use the search function. But maybe here is a member that can help out?

Regarding neck shapes: I had 4 Tokais til now, 2005 LS80S GT, 2005 LS150VF, 2002 LS320 VF and a 2005 LS320VF. They all had different neck shapes. The 150 and 80S had a quite lareg C profile, but not as big as you will find on a R8.
The 2005 320 had a somewhat medium C shape, round an full, but not fat. This was close to a Historic R9 neck shape imo.
The 2002 had a flat C (well, that's what I call it,-))), it's not a D, but not really a full C and has less shoulders than a 2010 R9 I had for comparison.

All in all, every Historic neck I came across seemed to be thicker than any Tokai neck, I ever played.

I also had the chance to play 2 original '59 Les Pauls, and their neck shape was also different from each other with one coming pretty close to the one of my 2002 LS320, but more round. But both necks were nothing that fat as Historic necks I came across.

What does that mean? Basically nothing, everything is possible, no neck is like the other when handshaping is involved. Basically, the shapes can be all over the place. Nowadays maybe within tighter tolerances, but still.

But I have to say, from all new MIJ Les Pauls, Tokai has to me the best profiles, because they tend to be always in a C shape, whereas Edwards, Epi Japan for example seem to prefer a flatter D shape. I hate a D shape on Les Pauls, but like it on hollowbodys, to each his own,-)))

Someone mentioned, that 50's Les Pauls used spanish cedar for the body. Is that true? I never read about that? Is this something that only was used with Juniors or Melody Makers, or thru the whole LP range?

As fro the resonance, lacquer etc: in my opinion a thin nitro lacquer has 1 BIG advantage over anything else: look. It looks just great, no poly or DD finish can top that imo. BUT I don't think that it has an effect on sound, never ever, sorry! My LS320 I still own has no nitro lacquer like they used in the 50's on Bursts, it's also not very hard, it is more like the lacquer you find on new VOS Historics.
The 320 I still own does not resonate much, the one I sold did. Why did I keep the non resonate one? Beacuse the one that doesn't resonate that well sounds better amplified, the resonate one didn't. And I don't play a Les Paul acoustically much in a band.

The 2 original Bursts I had the chance to play, I played unplugged only (because of the circumstances). Yes, they resonated quite good, but I came across a dozen new guitars that resonate equally or more than the 2 original Bursts. It was pretty cool, to play these 2 originals, because after that I knew that all those mystical things, that are made up around these guitars are only half the truth. Yes, when the owner played his set thru an old JTM45, and the other was played thru a Fender Blues Deluxe, you could hear, that there was something going on there, that I never heard in a new Les Paul until now, BUT it is not that much, that I would have expected. So I went home pretty lucky, because I knew, my Les Paul wasn't that bad in comparison, than I ever thought,-)))


As far as originality goes: If it was upon that, I would always buy a historic, because the Tokais are good, yes, and they have a Braz Board, yes, but the details are more accurate on a historic, Tokai isn't even clos, in my opinion. Also, if I'm lucky, I find 1 out of 20 hi end Tokais which has a good looking flame top. From 20 Gibsons I find 12 to have a great looking top. Sorry to say, but that's my opinion.

I also think, that a R9 and e.g. my LS320 (which is the forerunner of the 420) are 2 different beasts, one with the goal to be as historical accurate as possible (well, they'll never bne perfect, that's clear) and good looking, and the other one with the goal of doing a very well made Les Paul, with premium woods and construction details from the past without being too accurate compared to an original.



Regards


Jonas

Seems like a pretty reasonable summary!

The Spanish cedar thing - AFAIK it was only used in 52/53.

JVsearch said:

Seems like a pretty reasonable summary!

The Spanish cedar thing - AFAIK it was only used in 52/53.

Click to expand...

Hi JVsearch!


Well, I checked Hembree, Carter, Wheeler and Duchossoir and nowhere I have read anything about a 52/53 Goldtop that used anything other than mahogany for the body, nor did I ever see any solidbody from Gibson featuring this wood. I know of some alder Melody makers, some say, that there were ones made out of pine(!), but I never came across cedar when it comes to Gibson solidbodies.

Do you have a picture of such a guitar or maybe any source? Gibson history and Les Paul history is my hobby, so I love to learn something new.


Thanks a lot in advance!


Kind regards


Jonas

Jonas said:

I also think, that a R9 and e.g. my LS320 (which is the forerunner of the 420) are 2 different beasts, one with the goal to be as historical accurate as possible (well, they'll never bne perfect, that's clear) and good looking, and the other one with the goal of doing a very well made Les Paul, with premium woods and construction details from the past without being too accurate compared to an original.


Regards

Jonas

Click to expand...

I mean, I don't really care if the pickup rings don't look right and the archaic celluloid was used on the inlays, as long as it sounds and sustains like a proper old LP

Hassouni said:

I mean, I don't really care if the pickup rings don't look right and the archaic celluloid was used on the inlays, as long as it sounds and sustains like a proper old LP

Click to expand...

Hi Hassouni!


Don't take this personal, as it is not intended to be, but: how many old Les Pauls did you play in your life?
There is absolutely NO such thing as specific way of sound or sustain that all of these guitars inherit. EVERY guitar is different! There is also not one typical neck profile for 58, 59 or 60. The same goes for nearly every detail, there is a lot of variation.
A lot of people say, they want a Les Paul to sound like an old one, but the minority of them has ever played one. What they are after is something, they can't specify, because it's something that has been made up in their heads as an ideal sound of an (old) Les Paul.

I mean, I never played a real Burst over an amp, though I heard a few played thru amps, when I was in the room, and really, for me it sounded nothing the way, I thought it would sound. I don't mean it sounded bad, no, it didn't, it sounded great, but it wasn't THAT much of a difference.

If you are after resonance, pure resonance when played unplugged, then buy a hollowbody guitar, or a semi hollow guitar, or maybe a chambered historic. They all tend to resonate more in most cases, than solidbodies.


For me, a lot of the thing, that creates the sound of an old Les Paul is not so much the wood (I know, we could debate that 'til we die with no conclusion..), because that is something that can be recreated today. It's the pickups for me. I mean, basically, everything about those old Les Pauls is replicable, you can have the same wood, same lacquer, same glue, etc.pp., but it seems to be difficult to replicate the PAF, or a PAF from a certain period (again, a lot of variation) as far as I know.

If I were in the market for an absolute authentic sounding Les Paul, I'd go the way of letting me build one, or buy an old butchered Goldtop and convert it. That wpuld include original electronics from the 50's incl. PAFs -> it's going to be expensive.

You can also use a Historic or a hi end Tokai as a basis to go from there, but in either way, you would have to put more money in it on parts.

I think, the easiest way would be to define, what kind of sound you are really after. And if you have the chance, play an old Burst or listen to it as close as you can to get a thought about how a Burst CAN sound (as mentioned, they all sound different). And then you'll have to decide whether the sound of the Burst is really what you want, or not (which is absolutely possible).


Kind regards


Jonas

Jonas said:

Well, I checked Hembree, Carter, Wheeler and Duchossoir and nowhere I have read anything about a 52/53 Goldtop that used anything other than mahogany for the body, nor did I ever see any solidbody from Gibson featuring this wood. I know of some alder Melody makers, some say, that there were ones made out of pine(!), but I never came across cedar when it comes to Gibson solidbodies.

Do you have a picture of such a guitar or maybe any source? Gibson history and Les Paul history is my hobby, so I love to learn something new.


Thanks a lot in advance!


Kind regards


Jonas

Click to expand...

Just google "spanish cedar" and Les Paul, you will get a bit of info. Some people believe that "spanish cedar" was/is a trade name for a mahogany type wood that was not actually cedar at all.
This practice is quite common in the wood trade.

In the early days of the solid body electric guitar it would not be a surprise to find out that makers tried a few different woods before settling on a formula, I mean Fender made some Teles out of pine early on.

So really, there's no proof, but a few guys and at least one luthier out there claim to have seen and examined more than one 52 LP that was made of this "Spanish Cedar".
It's not like Gibson have come out and confirmed it or anything, although I doubt there's anyone there now that would know or care about the old days.
And most people don't really care that much about the early LPs just the "mythical" bursts and their fantastic price tags! :lol:

Hi JVsearch!



I googled, thank you! Spanish Cedar is waht I came to know as "Cedro", which is quite often used by a luthier here in germany called Dommenget. He prefers it over mahogany as he states it is often light and very hard.

I know what you mean by the trade names,-))) It's sometimes a real pain in the *** to get to know what kind of wood actually is meant. And then there is also the problem of the different languages, I mean, most american wood terms are quite similar to german ones, but some are completely different, and it is sometimes hard to realize, what wood is actually meant.
Korina is a great example. That is the trade name, the name most wood sources in America list it is Limba, and here in Germany it is quite often referred to as Idigbo,-)))

In the early days of the solid body electric guitar it would not be a surprise to find out that makers tried a few different woods before settling on a formula, I mean Fender made some Teles out of pine early on.

Click to expand...

Well, in the case of the Les Paul, that's imo a different story. Ted McCarty stated in interviews, that they experimented with wood combinations and finally settled for mahogany/maple as the best solution. Even one of the prototype (It's the only one I ever saw) in Robb Lawrence's 1st Legacy of the Les Paul Book features this wood combination. So they finally had their formula regarding the wood before production began. Any other wood used afterwards for the body would be an indicator for me, that they lacked maybe enough mahogany and so they used spanish cedar, or they simply bought the wood as mahogany (spanish cedar and mahogany are quite similar looking from what I've seen).
But you never know. There are also Les Paul Goldtops with 1 piece mahogany bodies around, so, basically, anything was possible at Gibson at the time,-)))

So really, there's no proof, but a few guys and at least one luthier out there claim to have seen and examined more than one 52 LP that was made of this "Spanish Cedar".
It's not like Gibson have come out and confirmed it or anything, although I doubt there's anyone there now that would know or care about the old days.
And most people don't really care that much about the early LPs just the "mythical" bursts and their fantastic price tags! :lol:

Click to expand...

Yes, I found the quote from Eric Ernest on the LPF that he states to have seen at least 2 52 Les Pauls with spanish cedar bodies. Well, I think Eric came across more vintage Gibsons than I could if I'd live for 200 years so I trust his experience. There is a lot of details like that flowing arounbd at the LPF where people state to have seen this or that and even have photos about that, and it's a shame that there is no book out there that sums all these things up, that would be a great resource!

Gibson won't confirm anything from the 50's, because they basically can't. I suspect there are any ledgers left with details like used wood on a certain day. They don't even have the shipping totals of the Burst period,-)))

And I think a lot of people care about the early Les Pauls, because they offer great vintage Les Paul vibe for a more reachable price. Especially the 52's and 53's are maybe on their way up now, because completely reversible mods are available to make the trapeze tailpiece playable. On the other hand, and old and maybe abused Goldtop is still a candidate for a conversion with "old wood". And if you check prices for an original example of a 56 or 57 Goldtop, they are not cheap by any means, so, there's definately a fanbase out there,-))))



Kind regards

Jonas[/quote]

Cedro is used a lot in spanish guitars for certain parts by most luthiers,includind the most sucessful. There is certain cedro fom North America called red cedar becoming an standard for the top in Ramirez since 70?s(maybe 60?s) in sustition to german spruce (which is top for hish end spanish guitars). It seems to give the guitar some warm very regarded.

Sorry off topic but when speaking of Les Paulish and spanish cedar I can't resist mentioning Juha Ruokangas, a Finnish luthier. Most beuatiful guitars I have evers seen: http://www.ruokangas.com/?page_id=7&sub=13

I recommend you also check out the 'media/videos' sheet. For example the 'Unicorn Diary #16' is something you guys might find to be interesting.

That comparison from Ruokongas has been discussed at the LPF a few months ago, and basically, the test setup imo is not very objective.

Jonas said:

That comparison from Ruokongas has been discussed at the LPF a few months ago, and basically, the test setup imo is not very objective.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe the objectiveness partly depends how you take that demo. But sure it's there for commercial purposes. However, I personally don't see that demo as a challenge between real burst, Gibson CS or Unicorn. I think it is just a very good example of good, classic Les Paul tones of (very?) different kind of guitars.

What I like about Juha's work is his hunting for the tone by pretty untypical solutions and not just make a perfect replica of a burst/strat/etc.

Hi karppi!


As far as I remember (I didn't watch the video a 2nd time now) I found, that the Unicorn sounded better to my ear when it came to the overdriven sounds, better than the other guitars.

Imo, if you post such a video and have the chance to compare those guitars alongside a real Burst I would have like to see a comparison as objective as possible.

Personally I have no doubt, that Ruokongas builds 1st class guitars, nor do I doubt that nowadays are so much well build and good sounding guitars made than never before in guitar history.
I think the challenge therefore is for the player, to explore what kind of sound he is really after. And that is a big challenge.
See, when the Les Paul came to fame in the 60's there was nothing on the market (well 2nd hand in this case,-)) that could deliver those Les Paul sounds. And as a matter of fact it fitted to a lot players back then who loved the sound. That is where a lot of the myth of the Burst is coming from imo.
Nowadays there is no need for a player to search for those rare Bursts with the high prices, it is something now that is for collectors or afficionados who want exactly the sound an old Burst CAN deliver.

We are very lucky to live in these times with such a range of well made guitars for in every price level, that is something that has never been the case before. In every time there were guitars that would fit to the player, but in the past you had to search much longer and save your money longer than nowadays.

But the disadvantage is, that you tend to lose your head over all those guitars on the market, you simply don't know where to drop your money to get the best (sounding) bang for the buck which often results in a hire and fire mentality according to guitars or gear in general.
When I look back how much of gear I had and sold, it's just crazy. But it's fun,-)))) And the older I get, and the more gear I had I come closer to the abstract thing what tone I am after. I don't think that I'll ever come to the point when I will say that I doubtlessly found it. It's an ongoing search, but that is part of your musical growing imo.

For me it was great to play the Bursts and having heard them directly, because when I heard it, all those tones I imaginated a Burst to have weren't there the way I thought it would be. They sounded great, but there was simply nothing magical going on, at least nothing that made me having sleepless nights. And it made me more satisfied with the guitars, I already have.
I still love guitars, old and new and often buy them, but I concentrate more on the way I play them now, and not, how they sound. Of course, I am a sucker for good looking wood and great craftmanship, yes, but that has to do with the feeling of playing that particular guitar.

Sound is very abstract. Different room, different temperatures, different mood and suddenly everything that sounded great the week before sounds bad now. But it is fun, because you learn something new about sound, and how you hear it, every time you play. Imo.


Kind regards

"Guitars have a potential rather than a sound"...Stratman323 signature.

Very true.