Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

egoidealmusic

All Access
  • Posts

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

15 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. How interesting that while the J-45 is the more famous of the two, here the J-50 is prioritized and pictured!
  2. Thank you! I'm wondering if I'd prefer the darker as I'm assuming there would be a bit more bottom end?
  3. Are these the strings folks are talking about? https://www.amazon.com/DAddario-Phosphor-Bronze-Acoustic-Strings/dp/B07TGX59RB/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwzOqKBhAWEiwArQGwaG9y8HYFP36-kqTKvDZ2l7NNMNuB6xAAu0u2RSf0-2bKrY7IZ46utRoC4YcQAvD_BwE&hvadid=518231869350&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9011338&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=10469496139985351506&hvtargid=kwd-1239112432068&hydadcr=29645_10190482&keywords=d'addario+xt+strings&qid=1633383005&sr=8-3
  4. Thanks for the thoughts, all. Has anyone tried their coated PB coated?
  5. Hi all, So, as you know I've not been too thrilled with the Martin Retro strings I tried, so I want to go back to what was originally installed on her when she arrived. The Gibson site says the guage, but not which type of Gibson strings. Anyone know which are the stock they use?
  6. Ok, so maybe it's a linguistic thing, but I was playing with my buddy last night and I asked him how my guitar sounded with the new strings. He'd heard the guitar many times before and raved about the sound. He said that it sounded generally good but when I went to an E minor it lacked, and his words, "a bark to it." I asked what he meant (he was playing an older J-35) and he described it as an almost rattley low end. I think of this sound on really old guitars, that sharp but woody thump. I think it really just might be my playing style but thought I'd pass it on. Open to suggestions to get that sound! I think it's really the definition on the low E that's the issue. It's there as a general tone, but the low E string itself is getting lost in the sound.
  7. So, while the pickup that came in the 45 is surprisingly good for a piezo, it's pretty thin ampflified. I'm thinking of spliting the signal with a soundhole pickup (really like that warmth and depth, and have a Dimarzio Black Angel that I reallly like the soud of) but am wondeing if I should ditch the saddle pickup for a K&K in on fell swoop, as they say. Am really happy with the sound of the guitar with the peizo in it (I know that it limits sound, but this guitat sounds fantastic), but if I'm doing a big switch (and paying for it), then I might as well see if there are better options.
  8. It is that quintessential Gibson sound, to be sure. I may be overstating when I use words like snarl or bark, but there's a beefiness in playing a Gibson hard that's very different than a Martin or anything else. Maybe I just bang on it harder than most, but there's a reason that Townsend plays a Gibson!
  9. Thanks for the thoughts, all. The brand newness is mellowing some (I've been banging real hard on it quite often), but it's the Gibson low mids that are still missing. And yes, zombywoof, the nasal twang is part of it, but it's the low twang that's missing, so sliding from a low F# into a G chord lacks the percusive punch (or bark) that the Gibson strings did. Definitely not changing them yet, just was surprised at how stark the contrast was.
  10. I love the sound of a set of warn in strings on a 45 (the originals were perfect until they weren't once broken in) and highs were nicely dampened (which I like), so I thought these might be good to dampen the high end, but they've cancelled out the low in the process. Maybe they'll ease in, but I must admit I'm not impressed so far.
  11. So, first string change on the new 45 yesterday, and I decided to go with the Martin Retros (12-55) because of a number of recs on other pages here. I know that some folks say that these take a bit longer to break in, so maybe this will change, but there's no snarl in her anymore. With the original Gibson strings she really snarled when you drove into her, and these are just very, well, tame. Good balance, though a bit more high end than I want, but there just none of that mid/bottom bark there anymore. Does this speak to Gibson strings being worth it or the mellowness of the Retros? Thoughts?
  12. So, this is just recorded on an I-phone. The guy singing is a buddy of mine who just wrote this tune (we'd only played it a couple of times) before recording. The sound is obviously not great (nor is the performance as it's just to get a song down), but I will point out that that's an unplugged J-45 standing up to a new Jimmy Page tele though a not quiet vox amp. As a follow up to some of my previous posts, Gibson really did do me right. It may not come out through the clip, but this guitar is both beaufiul and a cannon.
  13. The main reason I was interested in the 50's J-45 was the big chunky neck. I've also got pretty large skinny hands, and just love the feel of the thicker necks. I don't see that unless you get into the full on historic range ($4500 and up) that there's any other newer Gibson acoustics with that chunky neck. Not the 00 you want, but maybe the thick girl that you need.
  14. Thanks for the thoughts, folks. I thought it seemed a strange thing, but as I'd never heard of it before I figured I'd see if anyone else had. And now I know why it seemed silly!
  15. I definitley agree with you, MIssori, but just thought it was funny enough to share. I'm sure all guitars are different, but this one REALLY likes being dug into. But I've had othe guitars that have taken a lot longer to really bloom.
×
×
  • Create New...