egoidealmusic

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

I met this guy at an music store today and we got talking about breaking in a new acoustic guira (i.e. going easy at firs vs. really digging in) and I mentioned the sticking a radio in the soundhole. He laughs as says it's worthless, but says that wraaping a heating pad in the towel accelerates the drying (aging) of the wood, sort of like a slow torrification. As wacky as it sounds, there's a logic there. Now I'm not in any rush to stick a heating pad in my 45, but was curious as to your thoughts.

Thanks for this, tpbiii. I just ordered some new Hohners, but this is great to know as you're right about how expensive they've gotten (I swear they've doubled in the past 20 years since I last bought one). You're a much better player than I am--that sounds fantastic!

Thanks, all! So it defnitely seems that I should stick with the Hohners. And great point on the humidity, Jinder--it is really humid down here in south Georgia where I live so maybe sticking with the Special 20s would be best --though I do admit that Dylan and Young using the Marine band ones does make them awfully tempting.

Speaking of strange ones, love this one with the skunk stripe:

So, it's time to get some new harmonicas. Yes, I know they can be cleaned, but these are hitting the 25 year mark and it's just time for some new ones. Do any of you play with harmonicas and do you have recommendations? I'd played with the Hohner special 20s for years, but have seen a lot of folks recently saying that they prefer the Marine band ones. Also, do you think that the guitar you play determines the harmonica? That is, if Gibsons are more well known for bottom and mid range (which my new one definitley is), would that suggest that certain harmonicas would sound better with them? Thanks!

Just rewatched that video, and it really does improve the sound (though I don't like even the natural sound of that guitar). Much fuller and warmer.

Thanks, Zomby--I'd checked that video out a couple of days before. One of the best sounding live acoustics I've heard was Jeff Tweedy of Wilco and I'd read he uses a Sunrise as well as some sort of peizo (didn't say which). The soundhole adds a lot of body and bottom end while the piezo gives good string definition and attack. Now, he's also got a fantastic sound guy I'm sure so this isn't me plugging into a PA or into my Marshall acoustic amp, but the stock pickup--while decent for a piezo--just sounds thin and tinny, even with most of the treble dialed way down.

Sorry for bumping my own thread, but considering doing this soon as I might start trying to play out a little bit again (after many a year...).

Haha yes, definitely meant monster! And I'll get some pictures posted soon--the small file limit makes it tricky but I'll figure it out!

Very interesting. I've been playing her every evening for the past week and a half since I got her, and I can start to see and feel the wood grain at the bottom of the soundhole a little bit (where you see the most wear on a vintage guitar). She's sounds amazing--played the other night with a guy who's got a moster of a vintage Martin who said "can you strum a little softer" as I was drowning him out (I didn't--haha)--but she looks like she's been played hard for many years! I'll stress, though, that the sound of this 45 are absolutely to die for, so short of the nitro coming off like greasy black slime like you mentioned, I'm never getting rid of her!

Haha no, no disaster at all, E-minor7--I remember a buudy of mine many years ago had gotten a brand spanking new Les Paul and the very first show he played with broke the headstock, so I'm definitely not in disasterville. And I'll get to buffing! So is that level of softness normal in nitro? Again, this is my first experience with a finish like this (and why I asked the question when I first started this post), but is it always this soft?

So. . .despite being warned I accidentally left my tuner on the headstock while I was at work today (about 6 hours), and this is the result. . .unless you look at it from just the right angle it's not really noticeable, but I'm wondering if there are any suggestions on how to fix, or if it can be fixed. Each of the lines is actually indented, so it's not just on the surface. Damn darn dang. . .I've done this a hundred times on my non-nitro finish (i.e. cheaper) guitars and never had an issue. Accidentally do it once to the new expensive one and here we go. Thoughts?

So, apologies if this has been addressed (I did a search for "blending pickups" and couldn't find what I was looling for), but I'm wondering about those of you who blend a soundhole with a piezo pickup. I'm absolutely loving everything about the new 45, but the pickup is, well, just ok. I've read and seen some videos about folks blending pickups. I'd bought a DiMarzio Black Angel pickup for another guitar, but I'm thinking about wiring (having it wired) alongside of the stock piezo. Bought the Black Angel as a less expensive version of the Sunrise (as I dropped all my dough on the 45). Thoughts and/or experiences?

Reading this makes me wonder if the shorter scale of a J-45 (or whatever) with less tension allows strings to stay "fresh for longer." I've noticed that on my longer scale guitars which sound brighter strings tend to sound dull sooner, while my shorter scale guitars seem to need fresh strings considerably far less often.

Haha I'm not sure I've seen much consensus on these threads which is what I love about reading them. In looking at the older threads there does seem to one things that some folks agree on which is a wider grain produces more low end while a tighter grain produces more high end. Which is interesting to me as the first 45 I got was a tighter grain which had more high end than the replacement which is mostly wider. I've got a low (and not that wide range of) voice so the lower end works better for me, which may be why this new 45 sounds better to me than the old one. But this one also seems to have more harmonics (not sure if that's the right word) where is bassier but also chimes more, almost like a subtle 12 string effect (I'm overstating obviously but don't know how better to explain it). In one of the older threads they mentioned that Gibson used pretty much whatever they could find during WWII which is why there's such a wild range of what older Gibsons sound like--I've heard some that are boomy and bassy and some that are more delicate and high end soudning. Of course much of that is in the play and care of them, but I just think it's fascinating. The two 45s I've had in a pretty short timeframe both sound like 45s but also sound very different. Thankfully, replacement is much to my preference!

sorry I didn't search that first! That is a great discussion.

So as I was just giving the new 45 a little loving polishing after a hard banging, I was looking at the spruce top (which is really gorgeious). While I assume most tops have fluctuation in the grain (sometimes tighter, sometimes wider depending on the weather, etc. the tree goes through) is there a difference in sound between tops that have more tight vs, wide woodgrain? Is that pure aesthetics, or is there a difference in tonality? I'd thing that tighter would mean denser, but that's based on absolutley nothing. When folks look for prime cuts of wood, is one preferable to the other? Also, and unrelated to that question, I have to say I've been amazed hearing this guitar open up over the weekend of some pretty heavy playing. I swear I could hear moments when the secondary tones (or whatever you'd call them) really started to bloom, and I'd also swear that I can hear her getting either louder or more pronounced. Absolutely in love with this one. Still just waiting for her to tell me her name.