• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

1959 Burst VS 1959 Murphy Lab Les Paul

Gretev1

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
31
Interesting comparison between a vintage 1959 Les Paul and a modern Murphy Lab 1959 Les Paul. For those who do not speak German. It is explained that the first guitar has a „Klein“ pickup in the neck and explains the bridge pickup is a „Korean Ibanez“ and also that the middle position is out of phase. The second guitar is a stock 59 burst. Interesting to hear that the Murphy Lab sounds much clearer to my ears.

 

Gretev1

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2020
Messages
31
For the all mystique around vintage LPs etc they're not all great guitars, however do command big bucks.
This is true. However, form some odd reason a very good sounding vintage Les Paul seems to be very difficult for modern luthiers to replicate. I don‘t buy the myth that vintage Les Pauls sound „good“ due to aging as they sounded that way with little aging on recordings from the 60‘s. I assume a good one sounded that way straight out of the box. It is rare to find a new Les Paul sound like a good burst. I think this video is an example of a modern Les Paul that sounds very close:

Still not exact. But close.
 
Last edited:

janalex

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
780
Nice video demonstrating that vintage vs modern can (but not always do) sound nothing alike. The modern guitar is missing most if not all the qualities of a 50s LP. Played through a clean amp a vintage LP can still emote everything from sweetness to grit. The modern LP needs a lot of help. It’s waiting for an overdrive pedal to be engaged to get any vibe.
 

jb_abides

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
5,276
I don‘t buy the myth that vintage Les Pauls sound „good“ due to aging as they sounded that way with little aging on recordings from the 60‘s. I assume a good one sounded that way straight out of the box.

So what do you attribute this to?

One longstanding rationale is old growth wood was used in vintage burst, and everything thereafter has been of newer therefore 'lesser' quality. Except I've yet to see documented evidence of forestry depletion or supplier change that perfectly aligns with cessation in '61 and reintroduction in '68... although that may exist, and I am unawares.

With all the forensics around retro construction methods and components ingredients, including using the same machining e.g. Throbacks, one open variable is the skilled craftsmen.

What's your thinking about the X factor?
 

goldtop0

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
8,931
So what do you attribute this to?


What's your thinking about the X factor?
To me it always will be the '60s recordings that audibly give the tonal qualities and sound that I like and that I try to replicate with my LPs 335s Marshalls and Fenders............it's there for the taking.
As for the X factor........that's the players themselves.
 

ADP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
682
There's no comparison. Keep enjoying that Murphy Lab Kool-Aid.
 

jb_abides

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
5,276
To me it always will be the '60s recordings that audibly give the tonal qualities and sound that I like and that I try to replicate with my LPs 335s Marshalls and Fenders............it's there for the taking.
As for the X factor........that's the players themselves.

Right, people's own listening and 'ears' are prejudiced by other factors, like recording and room dynamics. I think getting in the ballpark has been achieved and everything else is down to headspace error ellipses.
 
Last edited:

Amp360

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2012
Messages
852
Kind f neat I guess. I’m not that interested in making a new guitar sound old. I’m more interested in having a guitar that sounds good, new or old.

I would rather hear two great songs using two different guitars that sound great.
 

corpse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
4,876
It's like those German's have a different word... oh man, you can only beat the shit out of a joke for so long...
That is definitely a good "tone difference" demo rig. The '59 is much woodier- open? I don't know- the first one is a great guitar but the difference in obvious.
When I see the sheer number of "Murphy lab" guitars out there for sale- well- it must be a pretty big lab.
 

ajwain

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
80
I’m intrigued by the posts which exclaim the there is “no comparison” or “not even close”… what are we trying to hear? Two guitars which sound the same?
I think if we were to audition two ML instruments back to back, or two similar original ‘Bursts, we would also conclude “no comparison” or “not even close”. Each guitar has it’s own voice, irrespective of when it was made.
If we’re talking about harmonic complexity and things like extended dynamic range, we’re not going to hear those really without being in the room when they’re played! I also think that perceived differences are accentuated at different volume levels.
I wish we could listen to tone objectively and not be biased by what we think the differences should be. Joe Bonamassa doesn’t believe there’s a tonal magic in his vintage guitars compared to his reissues… and he should know.
 

ADP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
682
When I play my R8, it's amazing. Feels great. Sounds great. Then I pick up my Sunburst and I'm reminded. The top end sparkle and harmonics can't be touched. The guitar has also been played for years and years - the more you play any guitar, the better it sounds in my experience. Not to mention you can "feel" the pride and craftsmanship that went into building it. I do love my R8, though. It's 90% of the way there... Just not even close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K_L

corpse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
4,876
Joe B refers to the "5%". Part of that is the mystique- but those old necks are perfection.
Any you can hear the old wood- or sheep's urine.
 

Nifty

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Messages
44
there is technology that can map the sounds to the nth degree of precision. I wonder if someone has already done this.
 

DutchRay

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2015
Messages
872
there is technology that can map the sounds to the nth degree of precision. I wonder if someone has already done this.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, tone is in the ears. Using tech to map a guitar sound is not the problem, reproducing that sound from bare wood is.
 

Nifty

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Messages
44
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, tone is in the ears. Using tech to map a guitar sound is not the problem, reproducing that sound from bare wood is.
For the sake of arguing how different an original and reproduction sound, I would think this could be settled fairly quickly.
 
Top