P.Walker
New member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2007
- Messages
- 941
Hey all,
I’ve had to sell an R9 recently for reasons other than financial, and decided to organize some of my thoughts on what it means to choose and play a great guitar.
For some twenty years I’ve heard the adage, “You cannot polish a turd, and you cannot keep a good one down,” and “there is no bad or worse, just different.” I do have my own opinions, but my main scepticism with those so called “truisms,” were that they were all-encompassing or diplomatic only on a superficial level. That is, despite seemingly allowing for various opinions to coexist, that train of thought was to me, overly absolutist and very narrow-minded.
When I am serious about buying a guitar, assuming it’s a well cared for instrument, I can (within a short period of time) feel if it’s right for me or not. I used to think it was some instinct that we subconsciously developed as guitar players, but over a long period of time, both facts, opinions, and our ever-changing preferences materialize, and become internalized as “feel.” In short, behind the voodoo there is (pseudo-) science and a little bit of humanity.
To avoid the post getting out of hand, I’ve decided to talk about a few aspects of guitars in general, which help me decide if the guitar is a keeper or not.
The only disclaimer is that I don’t speak from the point of a collector, but actually from the perspective of player foremost and ultimately, the guitar.
The ultimate objective is to discuss and share (as usual), and it would be interesting if some of you agree or disagree with what I have to say.
Brand/Model
I think many of us underestimate how brand-loyal we are, despite how quick we are to criticize the big guys. Of course, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, and there is no loss of self-integrity when we bash Gibson but play Les Pauls (or other Gibson instruments even before 1950).
For me though, I do like Fender and Gibson (and traditional plexis and blackfaces for amps).
My first ever experience with a Gibson Les Paul was a 59 burst from Lark Street a very long time ago. It was a very plain top, well-loved, well set-up, and had Daddario 010-046 gauge strings. Not just a wonderful les paul, but a wonderful guitar. In hindsight, it was a blessing and a curse, but I choose to think positively and that particular Les Paul has always motivated me to never settle or go for aesthetics above all else. Above all, it taught me what a good 50s LP with PAFs sounds like.
Aesthetics
I’m lucky in that I’m not very experimental when it comes to colors or finishes, so I like all the 50s gibson solidbody colors and 60s fender custom colors (though just not on gibsons ).
The R9 that I sold recently was a looker, and my idea of a vintage looking flametop. It was what drew me in to the first place. Historic value aside, it looked even better than the plain 59 burst at lark street that I mentioned above. I began to imagine things: It sounded more hollow, more delicate, more of everything.
Playability
And then I brought it home and compared it to my R7 unplugged, not to test the acoustic tone or some controversial what have-you, but to observe how well I played on each.
I am a pretty picky person and very demanding when it comes to setup, so specs-wise, both the R9 (from 2010) and the R7 (from 2008) were pretty much identical. Both necks are pretty similar as well. The R9 is a little thicker than average and the R7 is a little smaller than average. Frets are the same on both, the R7 slightly flatter because it is my daily player.
I fly around and dig in better with the R7, but it’s because I know the guitar inside out, so rather than this being some inherent advantage over the R9, I reasoned that the R9 was new, so a little unfamiliar, and I admit I was a little afraid to go all out on a practically NOS guitar.
I couldn’t help but notice the difference in volume and the immediate attack of the R7, although acoustic tone, while nice to have, does not do a thing for me until it is plugged in. That’s where it counts for me at least. But the R7 does feel better without the amp. The fingerboard is harder, less drag, and overall I don’t think much when I play.
Which brings me to…
Construction/Tone
Next I’d like to talk about setup, but beyond relief measurement and action height and pickup height (which are important in their own ways of course).
I find it very shocking that many don’t concern themselves with the actual geometry and physics of the guitar neck, and how the truss rod impacts the adjustability of the neck wood. I really got deep into this stuff after getting a rubber-necked ES-335 and I swore to myself I’d never do the same again. That, and C-4’s response in this thread (http://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/s...ck-rise-quot-on-historics&highlight=Rise+hump) is a good resource to follow when you also want to dig deep.
I’ll start by saying that understanding neck relief is the most important part about setting up a guitar. Reason? It affects next fret clearance, intonation, and tone. Everyone can be taught to turn a truss rod, but that’s not what’s important. It’s to recognize when the nect is “right.” Preference excluded, a neck should be very to close to dead flat, or dead flat with a dead level fret surface.
Even when it comes to basic setup parameters and I don’t mean to denounce specific persons or groups, but when people say, “My guitar likes 0.020” relief and very high action,” it does make you raise your eyebrows a little. If you like what the less than accurate intonation does, and if that accompanying sound fits your bill, I won’t argue though. But it would also behoove one to try the alternative “correct” approach as stated in literature.
But even common literature says .010” Fender and .012” Gibson Usa. My personal belief is that that is to cover ass for improper fret leveling and buzzing on the lower frets.
When it comes to adjusting a truss rod and the relief of a neck, in an ideal world, the frets will be level and the surface of the wood is not twisted side to side, or bowed vertically in an extreme manner (extreme manner would be defined as a case where surface anomalies cannot be planed out of the frets themselves), or have “waves” in the wood.
As per the original title though, it’s about choosing which guitars to buy and keep, so I’d like to exclude luthier “tricks” and evaluate the guitar on its own merits, without any help (because really, anything can be fixed. the problem is finding the money, time, and talent to do so).
Normally when people measure relief, they will use the string as a straightedge between the first fret and the neck body joint (to remove the nut and bridge from the equation). But the story does not end there. You will find that relief differs from string to string and the most worrisome case is where the relief on the treble side is MORE than the relief on the bass side (conversely, an intentional planing to leave small relief in the bass side with a dead straight treble side during a fret job will yield in a terrific playing monster of a guitar. Of course it needs to be said that sometimes uneven frets will throw off the reading, but then again, what do uneven frets tell you about the surface of the fingerboard, and conclusively the guitar itself?
And then there is the all too common case of overly bowed necks that force the truss rod to work overtime to compensate for the bow…and that’s not too good either.
Sometimes you will also find that amidst all this, the truss rod adjusts both sides at an uneven rate (or the wood responds at a different rate, or whatever else you want to call it). If you’re picky you will replane and refret…but then what if it still sounds like a dog (to you)?
What about the hump? What if the truss rod can’t adjust for irregularities in the wood?
Answer is that a competent uthier can pretty much fix anything
The better answer is to not worry about such things and shut up and play the guitar,
But for the picky few out there, the best answer is to pick the right one from the very start and play it, treat it well, and get a competent luthier to do upkeep while you making sure that the neck doesn’t go out of wack
I feel the construction of a guitar is a much unappreciated and under-discussed aspect of electric guitars, and the lack of understanding the simple physics behind it creates much confusion, and creates unnecessary “noise.”
This could be the perfect time to talk about tonewoods and the like, but I’d rather not create controversy but rather examine wood as an important component when discussing the guitar on a holistic level. My personal opinion is that the resonance of the solidbody blank is not as important as a hollow chamber on an acoustic guitar, but it is important in other physical ways in an electric guitar. Both acoustic and electric guitars were made with opposing philosophies, and thus I will treat them as such. Simply put, beyond the common truism, “all wood is different,” is my opinion that the physical qualities (density, weight, moisture content, rigidity, ability to retain shape) are more important than the name of the wood, since the former does have a scientific and measurable effect on the sound and way a solidbody guitar (an especially a les paul) sounds.
Coming back to the R7 and R9, the R9 feels and sounds “wet” for lack of a better word. Forgive me for I am not a linguistics major, but the aural is very hard to explain into words…
I like guitars that sound immediate, bright, and have a wide dynamic range; they can get soft and loud. It’s why I like Les Pauls, Strats, and Teles because to me they feel strident, and preserve the attack of the note very well. I like Plexis for the same reasons, and I feel it’s much more exciting to tame the beast than try to wring the tone out of a polite guitar. I’m not a fan of “sag” or “squish” or “compression” or whatever buzz word there is out there to describe the ease of playing a guitar, but I feel those qualities are best displayed through the hands of an experienced player rather than the gear itself. I know I’ve become a better player due to this. If for some reason the musical context calls for even more delicacy than what the hand can provide, than the tone controls on a “wilder” guitar can be more versatile than a guitar that is “dead” from the start.
Specifically, the R9 inherently has a very muddy and soft neck position sound, and a thinner bridge position sound. You know the saying about how a good LP is like a tele on steroids? This R9 bridge is a tele, just not on steroids In comparison, the R7 neck has that clank and attack of a good 50s burst (even under high gain), sounds very bright, and the bridge is thick and honky. I should point out that common setup parameters and hardware are identical for both guitars. Both guitars also weigh the same. And because of these differences I find the R7 is a much better sonically balanced guitar, much more dynamic, clear, and more versatile.
Now, another man’s trash is another man’s gold, and the difference between preference and performance is a very gray area to some. Less mentioned is the fact that we also lie to ourselves because of the opportunity cost of such guitar. But I feel the moment I try to justify the reason for a particular guitar not sounding so well relatively, and try to “see the good side” is the moment I know I will never bond with it. Come to think of it, the R7 from the wall to the cashier took slightly less than five minutes. I do admit the R9 is more pretty, and I’m lucky I like goldtops. However, just like I can make that honest assessment for myself, I should also be able to admit that the R7 sounds better, and I can’t just say the R9 “sounds different” because it has a prettier top. Not to get too philosophical but behind every form of subjectivity lies some sort of objective standard we hold ourselves to.
So since this post went way overboard, I’ll conclude with pics of my two favorite guitars…
I’ve had to sell an R9 recently for reasons other than financial, and decided to organize some of my thoughts on what it means to choose and play a great guitar.
For some twenty years I’ve heard the adage, “You cannot polish a turd, and you cannot keep a good one down,” and “there is no bad or worse, just different.” I do have my own opinions, but my main scepticism with those so called “truisms,” were that they were all-encompassing or diplomatic only on a superficial level. That is, despite seemingly allowing for various opinions to coexist, that train of thought was to me, overly absolutist and very narrow-minded.
When I am serious about buying a guitar, assuming it’s a well cared for instrument, I can (within a short period of time) feel if it’s right for me or not. I used to think it was some instinct that we subconsciously developed as guitar players, but over a long period of time, both facts, opinions, and our ever-changing preferences materialize, and become internalized as “feel.” In short, behind the voodoo there is (pseudo-) science and a little bit of humanity.
To avoid the post getting out of hand, I’ve decided to talk about a few aspects of guitars in general, which help me decide if the guitar is a keeper or not.
The only disclaimer is that I don’t speak from the point of a collector, but actually from the perspective of player foremost and ultimately, the guitar.
The ultimate objective is to discuss and share (as usual), and it would be interesting if some of you agree or disagree with what I have to say.
Brand/Model
I think many of us underestimate how brand-loyal we are, despite how quick we are to criticize the big guys. Of course, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, and there is no loss of self-integrity when we bash Gibson but play Les Pauls (or other Gibson instruments even before 1950).
For me though, I do like Fender and Gibson (and traditional plexis and blackfaces for amps).
My first ever experience with a Gibson Les Paul was a 59 burst from Lark Street a very long time ago. It was a very plain top, well-loved, well set-up, and had Daddario 010-046 gauge strings. Not just a wonderful les paul, but a wonderful guitar. In hindsight, it was a blessing and a curse, but I choose to think positively and that particular Les Paul has always motivated me to never settle or go for aesthetics above all else. Above all, it taught me what a good 50s LP with PAFs sounds like.
Aesthetics
I’m lucky in that I’m not very experimental when it comes to colors or finishes, so I like all the 50s gibson solidbody colors and 60s fender custom colors (though just not on gibsons ).
The R9 that I sold recently was a looker, and my idea of a vintage looking flametop. It was what drew me in to the first place. Historic value aside, it looked even better than the plain 59 burst at lark street that I mentioned above. I began to imagine things: It sounded more hollow, more delicate, more of everything.
Playability
And then I brought it home and compared it to my R7 unplugged, not to test the acoustic tone or some controversial what have-you, but to observe how well I played on each.
I am a pretty picky person and very demanding when it comes to setup, so specs-wise, both the R9 (from 2010) and the R7 (from 2008) were pretty much identical. Both necks are pretty similar as well. The R9 is a little thicker than average and the R7 is a little smaller than average. Frets are the same on both, the R7 slightly flatter because it is my daily player.
I fly around and dig in better with the R7, but it’s because I know the guitar inside out, so rather than this being some inherent advantage over the R9, I reasoned that the R9 was new, so a little unfamiliar, and I admit I was a little afraid to go all out on a practically NOS guitar.
I couldn’t help but notice the difference in volume and the immediate attack of the R7, although acoustic tone, while nice to have, does not do a thing for me until it is plugged in. That’s where it counts for me at least. But the R7 does feel better without the amp. The fingerboard is harder, less drag, and overall I don’t think much when I play.
Which brings me to…
Construction/Tone
Next I’d like to talk about setup, but beyond relief measurement and action height and pickup height (which are important in their own ways of course).
I find it very shocking that many don’t concern themselves with the actual geometry and physics of the guitar neck, and how the truss rod impacts the adjustability of the neck wood. I really got deep into this stuff after getting a rubber-necked ES-335 and I swore to myself I’d never do the same again. That, and C-4’s response in this thread (http://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/s...ck-rise-quot-on-historics&highlight=Rise+hump) is a good resource to follow when you also want to dig deep.
I’ll start by saying that understanding neck relief is the most important part about setting up a guitar. Reason? It affects next fret clearance, intonation, and tone. Everyone can be taught to turn a truss rod, but that’s not what’s important. It’s to recognize when the nect is “right.” Preference excluded, a neck should be very to close to dead flat, or dead flat with a dead level fret surface.
Even when it comes to basic setup parameters and I don’t mean to denounce specific persons or groups, but when people say, “My guitar likes 0.020” relief and very high action,” it does make you raise your eyebrows a little. If you like what the less than accurate intonation does, and if that accompanying sound fits your bill, I won’t argue though. But it would also behoove one to try the alternative “correct” approach as stated in literature.
But even common literature says .010” Fender and .012” Gibson Usa. My personal belief is that that is to cover ass for improper fret leveling and buzzing on the lower frets.
When it comes to adjusting a truss rod and the relief of a neck, in an ideal world, the frets will be level and the surface of the wood is not twisted side to side, or bowed vertically in an extreme manner (extreme manner would be defined as a case where surface anomalies cannot be planed out of the frets themselves), or have “waves” in the wood.
As per the original title though, it’s about choosing which guitars to buy and keep, so I’d like to exclude luthier “tricks” and evaluate the guitar on its own merits, without any help (because really, anything can be fixed. the problem is finding the money, time, and talent to do so).
Normally when people measure relief, they will use the string as a straightedge between the first fret and the neck body joint (to remove the nut and bridge from the equation). But the story does not end there. You will find that relief differs from string to string and the most worrisome case is where the relief on the treble side is MORE than the relief on the bass side (conversely, an intentional planing to leave small relief in the bass side with a dead straight treble side during a fret job will yield in a terrific playing monster of a guitar. Of course it needs to be said that sometimes uneven frets will throw off the reading, but then again, what do uneven frets tell you about the surface of the fingerboard, and conclusively the guitar itself?
And then there is the all too common case of overly bowed necks that force the truss rod to work overtime to compensate for the bow…and that’s not too good either.
Sometimes you will also find that amidst all this, the truss rod adjusts both sides at an uneven rate (or the wood responds at a different rate, or whatever else you want to call it). If you’re picky you will replane and refret…but then what if it still sounds like a dog (to you)?
What about the hump? What if the truss rod can’t adjust for irregularities in the wood?
Answer is that a competent uthier can pretty much fix anything
The better answer is to not worry about such things and shut up and play the guitar,
But for the picky few out there, the best answer is to pick the right one from the very start and play it, treat it well, and get a competent luthier to do upkeep while you making sure that the neck doesn’t go out of wack
I feel the construction of a guitar is a much unappreciated and under-discussed aspect of electric guitars, and the lack of understanding the simple physics behind it creates much confusion, and creates unnecessary “noise.”
This could be the perfect time to talk about tonewoods and the like, but I’d rather not create controversy but rather examine wood as an important component when discussing the guitar on a holistic level. My personal opinion is that the resonance of the solidbody blank is not as important as a hollow chamber on an acoustic guitar, but it is important in other physical ways in an electric guitar. Both acoustic and electric guitars were made with opposing philosophies, and thus I will treat them as such. Simply put, beyond the common truism, “all wood is different,” is my opinion that the physical qualities (density, weight, moisture content, rigidity, ability to retain shape) are more important than the name of the wood, since the former does have a scientific and measurable effect on the sound and way a solidbody guitar (an especially a les paul) sounds.
Coming back to the R7 and R9, the R9 feels and sounds “wet” for lack of a better word. Forgive me for I am not a linguistics major, but the aural is very hard to explain into words…
I like guitars that sound immediate, bright, and have a wide dynamic range; they can get soft and loud. It’s why I like Les Pauls, Strats, and Teles because to me they feel strident, and preserve the attack of the note very well. I like Plexis for the same reasons, and I feel it’s much more exciting to tame the beast than try to wring the tone out of a polite guitar. I’m not a fan of “sag” or “squish” or “compression” or whatever buzz word there is out there to describe the ease of playing a guitar, but I feel those qualities are best displayed through the hands of an experienced player rather than the gear itself. I know I’ve become a better player due to this. If for some reason the musical context calls for even more delicacy than what the hand can provide, than the tone controls on a “wilder” guitar can be more versatile than a guitar that is “dead” from the start.
Specifically, the R9 inherently has a very muddy and soft neck position sound, and a thinner bridge position sound. You know the saying about how a good LP is like a tele on steroids? This R9 bridge is a tele, just not on steroids In comparison, the R7 neck has that clank and attack of a good 50s burst (even under high gain), sounds very bright, and the bridge is thick and honky. I should point out that common setup parameters and hardware are identical for both guitars. Both guitars also weigh the same. And because of these differences I find the R7 is a much better sonically balanced guitar, much more dynamic, clear, and more versatile.
Now, another man’s trash is another man’s gold, and the difference between preference and performance is a very gray area to some. Less mentioned is the fact that we also lie to ourselves because of the opportunity cost of such guitar. But I feel the moment I try to justify the reason for a particular guitar not sounding so well relatively, and try to “see the good side” is the moment I know I will never bond with it. Come to think of it, the R7 from the wall to the cashier took slightly less than five minutes. I do admit the R9 is more pretty, and I’m lucky I like goldtops. However, just like I can make that honest assessment for myself, I should also be able to admit that the R7 sounds better, and I can’t just say the R9 “sounds different” because it has a prettier top. Not to get too philosophical but behind every form of subjectivity lies some sort of objective standard we hold ourselves to.
So since this post went way overboard, I’ll conclude with pics of my two favorite guitars…