littlelegs Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 I'm sure this has been talked about before and I have searched through the archives but an update would be much appriciated. In my efforts to find the right Guitar and also just being very curious ( in addition, not being able to find any dealers in the UK that have enough stock or any stock of gibsons for that matter that would allow me to find out for myself, yes we have discussed that in other threads), Could the good people of this forum please explain the difference between the mahoghany and rosewood versions of the J45,especially how it sounds ( and yes I know there different woods!) Still searching for the perfect HB but I could be persuaded otherwise......or could I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearbasher Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 My Hog 45 had a voice like Dylan's My Rosewood like Pavarotti's I still have the Rosewood. The Hog is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefleppard Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 i think gearbasher has it, the hog is dry and hollow, the rw is warm and rich. i think with any rw model you have to sit through the 'opening up' period, but in general they become quite luscious though my SWD has yet to do so. i recently played them side by side and found them to be like step children of the same family. similar in name only. the rw is more like the AJ. the aj being my personal fave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWilson Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 My Hog 45 had a voice like Dylan'sMy Rosewood like Pavarotti's I still have the Rosewood. The Hog is gone. He ain't lyin'!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 "the hog is dry and hollow, the rw is warm and rich." That's good. Id add that a good mahog has a unique top end sparkle that's best heard in fingerpicked lines, single note runs, and slide. RW is fat with a metallic edge. Which one works for you depends on your own taste and musical preferences. Wall of sound vs intricate clarity. Ytube has samples of both. ps if you rw, consider also the advanced jumbo. Its 25.5 scale lends itself to a bit more top end clarity and cut than the J45rw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry K Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Mahogany is crisp and cutting. Rosewood is chocolate, dark and full, with lots of overtones - can become muddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modac Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 The mahogany guitars I like are warm, dry, and breathy, with fat, woody, ringing trebles. I never hear rosewood as "warm"....rosewood, the way I hear it, and in the best case scenario, is wet, damp, cool, ringing and reverberating----unless the guitar is suffocating in lacquer----when they just become dull, spongy and thumpy, as soon as the new string sheen wears off. To me, a warm guitar has to breathe, and have breath-----I seldom hear that in rosewood guitars. Especially in big, fat, tubby sounding square shouldered dreadnoughts. Mahogany is much more malleable to the player than rosewood---which is quite dictatorial. I find the rosewood tendencies that I am not fond of in large guitars, become exponentially less troubling, the smaller the guitar is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Mahogany is much more malleable to the player than rosewood Interesting. Kind of like single coils vs humbuckers. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modac Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Yes....I guess that's about right. Good way to put it.. Rosewood can be really hard to work with----for me, anyway. I've grown to like it, but pretty much only on small, shallower bodied guitars----where the reverb effect is much less pronounced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefleppard Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 actually, yes - spongy, thumpy and sometimes muddy. but, when recorded i find the rich, chocolate end comes out because the microphone seems to find "it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modac Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Ok....yup....I have a Martin OM42 that records beautifully, though to hear it in person, it doesn't fit the tonal template that usually makes people exclaim "I'll bet it would record great". It is a real full, thick, dark sounding, powerful guitar, with a chime to the overtone. It records like a mahogany guitar, though. Regardless of wood choice, I still find that there seems to be a correlation, among Montana Gibsons, lightness of build, and outstanding tone----moreso than with other factory made guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefleppard Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 Regardless of wood choice' date=' I still find that there seems to be a correlation, among Montana Gibsons, lightness of build, and outstanding tone----moreso than with other factory made guitars.[/quote'] cool correlation if i am i understanding you right. light build = outstanding tone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modac Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I've always noticed that the lighter-weight Gibsons I've played----and bought----are the ones that appeal to me the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefleppard Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I've always noticed that the lighter-weight Gibsons I've played----and bought----are the ones that appeal to me the most. thanks. i'll keep that in mind next time i'm 'window shopping'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlelegs Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 hey guys you should all be writing for guitar magazines with descriptions like that, but its all good stuff and believe it or not it all makes perfect sense so many thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acousticworship Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 A friend came by the other day with his J-45RW, and we compared it with my Hog J-45MC, which is about a year old. I believe his is about 3 years old, if my memory serves me right. I have D'Addario Phosphor Bronze EXP Light Guage, but I'm not a big fan of these and will be switching back to the D'Addario EJ16 Phosphor Bronze uncoated strings. I believe he said he had Martin Med/Lights on his. The first thing we noticed was that mine was quite a bit lighter than his. Don't know if it was the rosewood, or just the overall construction, but there was quite a bit of difference in weight. As far as tone goes, his was quite a bit bassier than mine. It seemed to resonate on the low E string, where mine seems to resonate more on the A string. The could be due to the different brand and guage of strings, but I'm sure some of it was due to the Rosewood vs the Mahogony. Mine on the other hand, had a louder, more defined top end. Both had the distinctive J-45 midrange sound, mine maybe a little moreso than his. I think we both liked the bigger bottom end on his, and the brighter, crisper top end on mine. Maybe Gibson should make one that's half and half! Bottom line, both sounded like a J-45, just different variations thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarstrummer Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 The rosewood probably accounted for much of the weight difference. I wonder if anyone has ever made a guitar with half of the back one wood type and the other half another? Hmmmm. You might be on to something there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearbasher Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Martin did it. MTV-1. Bass side was RW, trebile side was hog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearbasher Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 The rosewood probably accounted for much of the weight difference. I wonder if anyone has ever made a guitar with half of the back one wood type and the other half another? Hmmmm. You might be on to something there. Martin did it. 1996 MTV-1. Bass side was RW, treble side was hog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearbasher Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 BTW: The Martin MTV-2 is half RW, half maple. http://www.martinguitar.com/guitars/choosing/guitars.php?p=i&m=MTV-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modoc_333 Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 The mahogany guitars I like are warm' date=' dry, and breathy, with fat, woody, ringing trebles. I never hear rosewood as "warm"....rosewood, the way I hear it, and in the best case scenario, is wet, damp, cool, ringing and reverberating----unless the guitar is suffocating in lacquer----when they just become dull, spongy and thumpy, as soon as the new string sheen wears off. To me, a warm guitar has to breathe, and have breath-----I seldom hear that in rosewood guitars. Especially in big, fat, tubby sounding square shouldered dreadnoughts. Mahogany is much more malleable to the player than rosewood---which is quite dictatorial. I find the rosewood tendencies that I am not fond of in large guitars, become exponentially less troubling, the smaller the guitar is.[/quote'] first let me say that i think it's funny i'm quoting you with our names so close....lol ok... i think you are right. both have there place. i have found that i LOVE my southern jumbo with new strings but not as much with old ones. i hate an AJ with new strings... but i LOVE them with strings that are just a LITTLE old... not worn out, but they need to lose a little of that new string sheen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modac Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 I always get a kick out of it when I read that someone tried a guitar that sounded dull, and which they didn't like, because it had "old" strings on it. Newsflash----good guitars sound good with old strings, new strings, or in between strings. If you can't coax good tone out of a guitar with old strings, then you're probably gonna spend a lot of money on strings, and spend even more time changing them. The Gibson models I like, because they tend to do well with staccato type things, sound fine with old strings, and best with played in strings. I think Gibsons, as a general rule, because of their characteristic dry,woody, pattern sound, hold up pretty well with old strings----except for some of the more Panzer-like Modern Classics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWilson Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 modoc_333- I agree with you on the AJ and strings. I haven't had a lot of experience with the AJ, but a few months ago I played one at GC and just couldn't put it down. I'm positive it was the same one that I played last Friday as the plastic cover on the pickguard was peeling off in the same spot. They had obviously put on new strings as they were really bright and shiny and the treble E and B strings (unwound) were gold or brass colored. They were silver last time. It didn't sound bad mind you but just not as good as with the older strings I was strumming on. My J-45 likes new strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 the RW smells better. seriously. it's now my second favorite smell*. and for sheer unplugged sonic beauty my RW45 is the best sounding guitar i've ever played. however... does it sit well in the mix? can you sing over it? is it too boomy? does it lack high end sparkle? can it get muddy? does it have an annoying buzz halfway up the A string when hit with a sharp attack that none of the others strings have??? the answer to all is maybe, maybe not...except the last which is yes. but overall it has a warmth and tone (and smell) that is simply gorgeous. every other guitar i tried (and there were a lot) sounded thin too me in comparison. but is "thin" easier to record and mix? more of a classic acoustic guitar sound? better to sing over? maybe. but stick your nose in the rosewood and breathe deeply. yeah. *(#1 is bacon...what did you think it was?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajsc Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 "Newsflash----good guitars sound good with old strings" There's old strings, then there's oooooold strings. I've played guitars at gc that had rusty, brittle, black strings. No guitar is going to sound good under that situation. If they are actually putting, new strings on once in a while, then I have to say it's a welcome change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.