Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

How is the Gibson 'thump' created ?


EuroAussie

Recommended Posts

I was curious what is the specific design approach Gibson takes in the constructions ofthe guitar to get that low end 'thump that is so distinctively associated with Gibson ?

 

Im assuming they dont apray it with special fairy dust to get that tone when in the 'burst' room .. or do they ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thought I nut I ally came to me as a but of a joke , but was followed quickly by a secondary thought that the thump is only partly in the guitar.

The sound and looks of whatever guitar we pick is engrained in us from our influences over the course of our lives.

This isn't a blanket rule, and just as I'm certain that there are plenty of players who get a 'thump' from a Martin or a taylor even , there are some who play their gibson amend never make it 'thump' . but because of the majority it has been associated with thump and growl .

 

Our influences come through in our guitar choice and style of playing.

 

If I had an ovation lying around I bet I could make it growl a little :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thump is only partly in the guitar .. plenty of players who get a 'thump' from a Martin or a taylor even , there are some who play their gibson amend never make it 'thump'
Well, there is muting and then there is da' Thump. Goes without saying that you can mute anything. Pick em clean and you will find the average CFM low end to be deeper and more resonant than a Gibson, be ita D28 vs an AJ, a J40 vs a J185, an OM vs a J45 or an 0018v vs an L00. The average CFM has a purer and more articulate voice across the board. The average Gibson bass is more contained and blends more with the mids (Martins have more hi-lo separation).

 

Its been said - I concur- that this goes back to Gibson's roots in building archtops and mandos--bracing for a more percussive effect and voicing for inside jazz chords instead of classical arpeggios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree other brands than Gibson are able to provide the thump, but there's a dimension to the G-flavor, which make them very fine thumpers.

 

That might be that extra dry woody tone. Not a specialist on the topic, I'd still say some Gibsons perform the thump better than others.

 

For me the early vintage squares - which means the slim back bracers between 1960 and somewhere in 64 - are able to do the job. Same with the light weight slopes.

 

Listen to this between 3:25 and 4:00 - and listen in the cans.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Listen to this between 3:25 and 4:00 - and listen in the cans.

 

My '64 is identical except mine was converted to a solid saddle 30+ years ago.

 

I think mine sounds even better. Yes, of COURSE I would say that, but I'm being honest. It does NOT sound as good as my Martin or either of my J200s when judged in overall frequency response and volume but it is my go-to guitar in spite of that. That's speaks volumes.

 

I'll have owned mine for 30 years in November, bought over the phone from Elderly and delivered COD:

 

5bwnya.jpg

 

Someone named Chris Clark owned it before me, as he carved his name and 21737 into the back of the neck. I drop filled with super glue, wet sanded and buffed it back in the 80s so I wouldn't feel it but it's still visible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was curious what is the specific design approach Gibson takes in the constructions ofthe guitar to get that low end 'thump that is so distinctively associated with Gibson ?

 

Im assuming they dont apray it with special fairy dust to get that tone when in the 'burst' room .. or do they ?

 

 

 

I know why I personally like the sound, but why do other people use it? To me, blues is normally better without too much sustain - of course always exceptions waiting out there.

 

So Stairway to H on the D28 is like Da da da da da da da da........

 

On the L-0 more like Dunk dunk dunk dunk dunk dunk dunk! [biggrin] [biggrin] [biggrin] Which is better for....what?

 

 

BluesKing777.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think mine sounds even better.

 

Oh yeah, your well mojoed SJ isn't forgotten - unfortunately never heard here either.

 

You choose to post a pic of the bill (which is interesting) - so you owe us a shot of the actual guitar.

 

Without being sure, I have the feeling it is the rounded back-brace version, which in my experience added a bit more mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where it comes from I don't know. Is it magic, no? I assume it is in the bracing and arche radiuses of the top and back. Does it work magic, yes? I'm not a great player, but what I do play often has a lot of "inside jazz chords." On a Gibson J45 they are sweet! The only Martin that came close to that sweetness was a POW Martin. None of the Taylors came close, (not that that is bad but not the sound for which I was looking.) I think that slightly compressed sound attributes to the thump. In my opinion, Gibson makes the best hog in town. Again, how do they do it? I don't know but I hope they keep on doing it!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really surprised that all the knowledgeable people here haven't answered the question. Don't feel too bad as most other guitar builders haven't figured it out either.

 

In the beginning of the "dreadnought" craze there were only a couple of companies in the race. Martin and Gibson were among the leaders at the time.. Martin's original and most successful design was the square shoulder long scale approach. Mahogany on the D-18 and Rosewood on the D-28 D-35 and D-45.All LONG SCALE instruments. Gibson soon figured out that the round shoulder, SHORT SCALE with mahogany body approach was a much better design.

 

This is the design that gives you the mysterious Gibson "thump" you are inquiring about. Gibson was the first company to use the SHORT SCALE on the dreadnought size guitar and that has defined their sound.

 

Let the discussion begin......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't build them, I only play them. To my mind, it tends to come down to the bracing when you think about what gives an instrment a "characteristic" sound identified with this or that builder. So if I had to hazard a guess I would think where the short scale comes into play is that it tends to move the bridge closer to the soundhole which should allow for more top movement. If you add to this a forward shifted scallop X bracing which moves the bracing further from the bridge again allowig for more top movement you shoud get one heck of a good low end response.

 

Problem is the theory does not always meet reality. I have played more than a few guitars with a straight tapered X bracing that had plenty of low end punch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't build them, I only play them.

 

 

 

Lucky you don't build them, or we would be talking about our ZombiWoof 45 geetar. (ZW45 ???) [mellow]

 

 

Did you think the archtop you were trying had the Gibson 'sounds', ZW?

 

My black L50 has short scale, spruce top, but the rest.....not much like a J45, but it sounds like a Gibson at 100 paces! (and my ES125 sounds and plays like a Gibson and my 12 string for that matter.....)

 

Back to the fairy dust theory. [mellow]

 

 

BluesKing777.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The early Gibson dreadnoughts were not braced with the forward shift. The first forward shift was the Advanced Jumbo and it was a long scale. The reason the short scale gives a warmer thump is because there is less tension on the short scale string and it has a deeper vibration when the string is played. Combine that with the warmth of the Mahogany and the sloped shoulder and you get the unique Gibson Thump.

 

All of the J-45s are short scale and they didn't have a forwards shift until the marketing geniuses in Montana decided to make the True Vintage 45 a couple of years ago. They actually put the forward shift on a guitar that never had it and had the temerity to call a "True Vintage". Most here will tell us that the forward shift on the True Vintage 45 does not give it more power or thump. It still sounds like a J-45

 

I like your ideas on the voicing the bracing gives and would tend to agree but keep in mind that Gibson copied the Martin X brace and the two brands have different and unique sounds. The big differences between the two companies are the Long Scale used by the Martin guitar and the square shoulders. Martin does love its rosewood and these features give the guitars a nice crisp tight tone that is perfect for flat picking. Gibson's warmth and thump make them perfect for vocal accompaniment.

 

I did get these opinions from Ren Ferguson and conversations with Kevin Kopp and guys like Dan Roberts, Eldon Whitford and John Walker. I am just repeating what I have heard. I hope others weigh in here as if we get more opinions and ideas maybe we can get a better picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good point that someone had already mentioned is that Gibson builds a radius into the top, more similar to a carved archtop jazz guitar (more similar than other guitar makers who make "flat tops") Could this have something to do with the percussive like thumpy tone? Some J45's have this more than others, and it is evident in the square shoulder Hummingbird too, (but not always) also short scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. All Gibson acoustics are constructed with a 28' radius top and also the 12' radius back. They may appear different from model to model but they are all constructed the same. Both long and short scale. This has to be a big contributing factor to Gibson's unique sound. So it's starting to look like there is no one easy answer. All these unique features added up are contributing to the sound and let's not forget the dovetail neck joint that is hide glued. Looks like the list goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good point that someone had already mentioned is that Gibson builds a radius into the top, more similar to a carved archtop jazz guitar (more similar than other guitar makers who make "flat tops") Could this have something to do with the percussive like thumpy tone?
Suspect so. I do know this--that while scale length is part of the difference, a short scale Martin sounds different from a Gibson: my 00018 had more note to note separation, more articualte single notes at the expense of blend, scooped mids.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've owned guitars that were profoundly overbraced. One that comes to mind is a horrible Russian thing. The output was thin, not a lot of volume, but yet sustained a long time. There's physics going on here that I can't wrap my head around. It's got something to do with the energy of the vibrating string 'not' being transferred to the bridge and top, and therefore the energy is burned up keeping the string vibrating a longer time. By contrast the energy of the plucked string on some Gibsons is transferred more easily to the bridge/top so the strings stop vibrating quicker...more decay. Is any of that lucid? I don't know the physics of it and I'm making myself look like an idiot trying to explain it anyway. It's all to do with energy dissipation or something.

 

I honestly think it was a lucky mistake. I doubt anyone in the 30s or 40s decided to create the Gibson 'thump'; it was just a fortunate combination of ingredients.

 

 

And something to consider (playing the devil's advocate). WE like the thump. others think it sounds like a guitar full of wet laundry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

I've owned guitars that were profoundly overbraced. One that comes to mind is a horrible Russian thing. The output was thin, not a lot of volume, but yet sustained a long time. There's physics going on here that I can't wrap my head around. It's got something to do with the energy of the vibrating string 'not' being transferred to the bridge and top, and therefore the energy is burned up keeping the string vibrating a longer time. By contrast the energy of the plucked string on some Gibsons is transferred more easily to the bridge/top so the strings stop vibrating quicker...more decay. Is any of that lucid? I don't know the physics of it and I'm making myself look like an idiot trying to explain it anyway. It's all to do with energy dissipation or something.

 

I honestly think it was a lucky mistake. I doubt anyone in the 30s or 40s decided to create the Gibson 'thump'; it was just a fortunate combination of ingredients.

 

 

And something to consider (playing the devil's advocate). WE like the thump. others think it sounds like a guitar full of wet laundry.

 

All very fine, but we still need to see that old brass tr-covered amber burst SJ. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucky you don't build them, or we would be talking about our ZombiWoof 45 geetar. (ZW45 ???) [mellow]

 

 

Did you think the archtop you were trying had the Gibson 'sounds', ZW?

 

My black L50 has short scale, spruce top, but the rest.....not much like a J45, but it sounds like a Gibson at 100 paces! (and my ES125 sounds and plays like a Gibson and my 12 string for that matter.....)

 

Back to the fairy dust theory. [mellow]

 

 

BluesKing777.

 

 

Nothing I would call "fat" or "big banging" about that archtop. It is almost a relief to go from it to my J-50. But folks who know archtops keep telling me that mot only does it sound like it should but that it is a heck of a good example of a late 1930s Gibson archtop.

 

It is still here with me, however. I am about to slap some 13s on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...