Shadow Puppets Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Looking for opinions on both of these guitars. Looking for a GREAT jazzbox, love the look and feel of both of these guitars but I've only had minimal experience with them both. If you could chime in with experiences of each, that would be much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L5Larry Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 .... Looking for a GREAT jazzbox, ... You'll never go wrong with a nice L-5CES. My 1990 "Historic Series" (James Hutchens) has been may main workhorse guitar for about 20 years. If I thought there was a better jazzbox made by ANYBODY, I'd be playing it! The body size and depth DOES take some getting accustomed to, but once you're over that hurdle, you'll be hooked for life. Whereas a Byrdland, or L-5CT, will have a thinner body and will initially feel more comfortable to play, it will also have a thinner sound. Feel free to PM me if you have any specific L-5 questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Puppets Posted April 1, 2015 Author Share Posted April 1, 2015 Is the body really that much different in size to a 175? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Shadow... Yup. But Larry's correct on his comments from my experience. The 175 also won't have some of the depth of the L5, although it's my own preference. Once you get into this stuff, there are a number of factors I think that others just don't get into. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cody78 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I don't have an L5CES, but I have a ES-5 (same size as an L5) and a ES 175. There is a big difference in feel between the two. Also the ES 5 has a longer scale length like the L5 and it does feel noticeably bigger. ES 175 is 16" and the L5 is 17" at the lower bout. Doesn't sound a lot, but it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 And the 175 is 24 3/4 scale. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I have an L-7c, same size and shape as an L-5c. One thing I notice about it (and L-5's), is that to spite it's large size, there is something "magical" about the way it feels and how easy it is to play and hold. I think besides sound and tone, the arched top and back, and the angle of the neck seem to be made for playability and "fit". Remember, before there were solid-body guitars, these were THE instruments to play for "pros". And they have been around for decades by the 1950's. have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Puppets Posted April 1, 2015 Author Share Posted April 1, 2015 Thanks for the replies so far. Any input on the Byrdland, and how it compares tonally to the L5? YouTube videos make them sound pretty close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 For some reason, my computer is making things a little hard to post. I can't see what I am typing. No real experience with the Byrdland. Have played a couple maybe similar, like ES-350. But no real memories. But as for thin vs full size, played but not owned many. One thing YOU need to be aware of in the Jazz "box" catagory, is the more "acoustic" the guitar is meant to be, the more one particular guitar will be different from the other. Especially in the area of extremes, as in, the extreme "quality". I have played some L-5's that I really don't care for, and some thinline stuff that I found to be really good acoustically. I think what I mean, is the BETTER quality gof guitar you are shooting for, the more important it is to play and find one. One thing about the L-5 series, either the acoustic or acoustic-electric, is they are THE version of the typical "Jassbox". It's a hands-down great choice for Jazz styles, and owning one is a good way to get what that means. But many, MANY great Jazz musicians have used and recorded with slimmer ones, so you can't really say you NEED a full hollow to have that "sound". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Sorry for the above spelling...Can't see and edit. Point to make, you are NOT going to learn what you want to know from youtube vids, the recording quality is far, far to cheap. Neither learn what you want from a cheap recording. The guitars you are asking about are of the more "extreme" quality, and meant to be so. The quality of sound (and how they play) is beyond the capabilies of cheap recordings to capture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdgm Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I can add a bit about shallow vs full-depth archtops; I have 3 shallower ones and an ES175. The 175 does have the extra dimension of bass which also can make your ear think there is less treble though that is not the case. The shallower guitars almost tuck up beneath your (edit-oops) picking arm which can be easier to play (I love 'em) and they do just as well as the deeper guitar when electrified. You would only hear any of the guitars acoustic sound if the pickups are microphonic. And mine are Florentine..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cody78 Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 But many, MANY great Jazz musicians have used and recorded with slimmer ones, so you can't really say you NEED a full hollow to have that "sound". Very true and some great Jazz players even used solid body electrics - Lenny Breau for example. For those not sure who he is, he played with the great Tal Farlow on the album 'Chance Meeting' and featured in the film Talmage Farlow: A Film By Lorenzo Destefano Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 The thing that always bugs me in discussion of "jazz guitar" is that in ways, I personally don't think there is such a thing. There are, however, jazz musicians. Joe Pass did some work on a Fender Jaguar. 24-inch scale solidbody. Don't get me wrong, I love an archtop. Frankly there's a certain size and shape of guitar that simply seems to help me play what it is I'm thinking of playing, regardless what I'm playing. Spell that 16-inch lower bout, 24 3/4 or lesser scale. I even used an archtop in a late '70s country-rock trio for gigs and it worked marvelously. I think the "archtop" or "jazz guitar" tone is in ways hearing what we wish along with what comes from an amp. Scale is even something to consider in tone... strings... amp and amp settings... pup and on-guitar volume and tone settings... Larry is a heckuva player. His 20 years with his guitar will make a huge difference. I think comfort with the instrument and technique are huge aspects of getting "your" music. I've no experience with the Byrdland, but I do find the shorter scale of interest. Just out of my price range and, as my wife suggests, there's enough problem with finding places for guitars as it is. To me there's a small bit of "magic" that comes from personal comfort with a given instrument. To me the 335 feels too big, the neck too long, the scale too long and ... technically none of that is true. But who cares? It feels that way to me. So... I guess my thing is, if you're gonna spend as much on a guitar as on a car, you really should figure how to do a test drive on the kind of roads you plan to travel. For guitaring, that's a metaphor but with as much truth as any statement I might make. The comment that an archtop is a professional's choice is in ways spot-on. Some 50 years ago I was even teaching teens fingerpicking and folkie stuff - and wouldn't have considered an archtop if somebody gave me one. Now? Even my not-so-favorite longer scale 16-inch lower bout archtop gets more play than the semi-hollows, board and flattops. On the other hand... I'm not so sure that my old Guild S100c (SG "clone") can't do "jazz" as well as any of 'em. Still, she sits mostly in her case. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefothefuture Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 If you can demo both some place, do so and form your own opinion. I have an L5CT Double cut that I adore. I prefer a 25.5" scale and so the Byrdlands I have played feel cramped. Odd since I also play Rickenbackers.... A 175 is a fairly different animal, being that it's a little smaller (16" lower bout) and that for the most part they are laminate and not solid wood. That is not to say that a laminate guitar can't sound great (my Tal Farlow can attest to that) but there is a magic about a carved spruce top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drog Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I prefer the size of the ES175 as well, fits me better. You could look at the L4, which the ES175 was designed from. The L4 is a solid wood archtop, with solid mahogany back and sides and solid spruce top. The L5 is a beautiful instrument, I like the Wes version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeko Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I've got a Gibson L4CES and an Elitist Broadway which is similar in size to an L5CES. Although only an inch difference in width on the lower bout but same depth, the waisteline on the two is different. The L4's is up higher toward the fretboard, comes in a bit more toward the belly and as a result the guitar snugs in and down more than the larger Broadway. The upper bout on the L4 is also smaller. Although I like a larger guitar better for it's "presence", the smaller body is much more comfortable to me. My Elitist Byrdland, while fitting my body similarly to the Broadway, hugs in a lot more due to the shallow depth. And yes, the Broadway bellows a bit more due to the extra room in the sound chamber. Not necessarily better but different. It's all in what you like I guess. L4CES: Broadway: Byrdland: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdgm Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I just love that red L4.....beautiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeko Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Here's a Diana Krall video featuring Anthony Wilson on his Gibson Byrdland. I think he and it sound absolutely wonderful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvA6gxXoPno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeko Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I just love that red L4.....beautiful. Thanks jdgm. Appreciate that. \:D/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeko Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 I just love that red L4.....beautiful. Come get me big boy . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimt Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 Byrdland also has a 23 1/2 inch scale .. L5 Gobel model has a 23 1/2 scale, at least mine does. .. L5 Ces , or Montgomery , Super V , Le grande ?,25 1/2 scale , Super 400 , 25 1/2 scale Big difference in all these Sound wize, playing wize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimR56 Posted April 4, 2015 Share Posted April 4, 2015 L5 Gobel model has a 23 1/2 scale, at least mine does. I have a '63 Gobel, which is 24 3/4. I think virtually all of the originals had this scale. I've heard that some of the reissues have 25 1/2, but I"m not sure I've heard of a 23 1/2 Gobel. Custom orders probably account for variances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretplay Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Thanks for the replies so far. Any input on the Byrdland, and how it compares tonally to the L5? YouTube videos make them sound pretty close. If you can find one the Ibanez 2464 made in the 70s is just a superb instrument as good if not better than a Gibson and half the price. Oh yes and 24.75 scale length not Gibsons 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretplay Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Thanks for the replies so far. Any input on the Byrdland, and how it compares tonally to the L5? YouTube videos make them sound pretty close. If you can find one the Ibanez 2464 made in the 70s is just a superb instrument as good if not better than a Gibson and half the price. Oh yes and 24.75 scale length not Gibsons 23 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleeko Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Another Anthony Wilson video to wet your Byrdland appetite . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.