Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

randyc

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by randyc

  1. According to these authors, Gibson farmed out their amplifiers in the early years of amplified music and did so again later in the company's history. But they did make their own amplifiers for some time starting 1947-ish and possibly continuing as late as the early 'seventies. This book seems well-written and informative and can be found (and read) on the internet. Amps!: The Other Half of Rock 'n' Roll by Fliegler and Eiche
  2. You are most welcome and you are a good fit to the audience for whom the book was intended. Incidentally, although I didn't mention this previously, there are a number of topics in the book for which I've prepared spread sheets. These are intended to reduce lengthy mathematical manipulation. It's possible to enter a few key items and the spread sheets will calculate many critical parameters necessary to design an amplifier. The spread sheets can be downloaded from the same site as the book. best wishes, randyc
  3. You are 100% correct in your diagnosis As a jazz guitarist, I've used heavy flat-wound strings for years. But as you surmised, the heavy sets were used on archtop guitars with very low actions compared to a typical acoustic instrument. I just concluded a brief comparison of different diameter strings on two similarly set-up guitars. The J-45 was strung with .013 - .056 and J-55 with .012 - .053. I didn't expect the relatively small difference in diameters (let's call it around 7%) would have a lot of effect. But I was pleasantly surprised to find that I could work much higher on the neck, nearly to the 12th fret, without all of the muffed notes I'd been experiencing. Thanks to the many of you who recommended this change. (I may go back to the heavy strings later if my agility and finger strength improve with practice !) Cheers, randyc
  4. Hey 335, 175 and L-5 owner (BTW nice axes) I'm a newbie on this forum but have been active (and posted photos) on many other forums for years. There are probably simpler ways but I started posting photos in the following manner years ago and can't think of a reason to change the process: Start a free "Photobucket.com" account then upload your photos to the "library" of your photobucket account. (I like to first move my photos to the "Desktop" on the home screen of my laptop; makes it simple to locate for the upload. Once your photos have been uploaded, you can delete them from the "Desktop".) After uploading, clicking on the uploaded photo in your library will display both the photo and a dialog box to the right of the photo labeled "Share This Photo". Click on the bottom option labeled "IMG" and the URL of your photo will be saved. Now return to the forum and paste the saved URL where you'd like the photo to appear in your post :) Done ! It sounds complicated but really it's not, give it a try. I'm sure everyone would love to see your L-5 (as a long time L-5 fan and owner, I'd sure like to see your guitar !
  5. As a longtime jazz guitarist, I couldn't agree more. A good procedure is to first carefully adjust the TOM bridge for correct intonation and then replicate the dimensions of the adjusted TOM in ebony (rosewood, as shown below, if you can't find ebony). Blank hardwood bridges are readily available from the usual suspects. Most of them are already generically compensated but can be modified with a bit of fiddly hand work. Some guitars (e.g. Heritage H575, probably their most popular jazz guitar) are set up with a hardwood bridge from the factory and are correctly intonated, or very close (intonation might vary slightly with different diameter strings). Flat-wound strings - the deader, the better IMO - are helpful in replicating the tone of the jazz greats of yesteryear, if that's what you're going for. Edited: Like L5Larry, I am also a happy owner of a L-5CES (mine is a WesMo). IMO it doesn't get any better :) Before the L-5, I played an ES-330, Guild SF III and a Heritage H575. All are nice instruments but not in the same league as an L-5.
  6. Sounds great, Frank ! Adding bends was interesting, never heard anyone playing RJ do that before.
  7. Almost forgot, another option that you might consider is two small amplifiers rather than one larger amp. This is a set-up that I used a few times back in the 'nineties. I ran the pre-amp line output from the little Fender Champ to the input of a small 40 watt solid state Peavey amplifier. Here is the setup in my practice room. (Note the Sunn Beta Lead amplifier on casters between the two little guys. I gave up moving that 90 pound monster and my Fender Twin DECADES ago although I still own them along with a few more old amplifiers that I can't part with ! The advantages of this rig are straightforward: Has the tone of the little vacuum tube Fender Champ Some “grunt” added by the higher-powered Peavey (tone controls adjusted for a neutral (flat) response) Each amplifier weighs around twenty pounds With one in each hand it’s easy carry both, even up a flight of stairs. The Peavey adds reverb to the sound if desired (the old Champ has no reverb) My back was very grateful when I started using this setup P.S. In this photo, the cabinet modification to accommodate the larger speaker is obvious. The Fender logo, normally slanted on the cabinet face, had to be relocated near the bottom of the amplifier. P.P.S. The normal second input jack of the Champ has been disconnected and re-wired and re-labeled as the line output from the pre-amp. P.P.P.S. After installing the ten inch speaker I measured the frequency response. After some experimenting, I found that closing the (normally open) back of the Champ - but leaving a small port - enhanced the tone.
  8. Fender Super Champ ? I've never played through one but it has all the right stuff going on, especially the tube lineup (12AX7's driving a pair of 6V6's - around 15 watts). This should sound similar to the old tweed Fender Princeton, which was one sweet amp ! [FWIW, because I tired of carrying around one of my big amplifiers, I replaced the tiny speaker in my early 'seventies Fender Champ with a ten inch Jensen (required a significant cabinet modification). I also added a line output following the pre-amplifier that could be routed through the PA system if the venue - or the drummer - was too noisy for a microphone in front of the speaker.]
  9. P.S. Early recordings of Wes were made with an ES-175. As we know, the ES-175 is dimensionally identical to the L-4CES but has a laminated top and back. There is an old rumor that, not long before he died, Wes wanted Gibson to make him a custom L-4 with a single neck pickup. Can't confirm that, it's just something that I read. My L-4 is about one inch greater in body depth than my L-5 although the lower bout is one inch less than the L-5 - the sound chamber volumes were about equal. Maybe Wes thought the tonal qualities of the two models could be similar if the L-4 lost the bridge pickup (and the L-4 could be more comfortable to play). That is IF the above is even true, LOL. Sheer speculation on my part !
  10. Gorgeous instrument - thank you for sharing ! I wanted one of these guitars since the late 'sixties. The term "L-5," spoken or written, gets my immediate respectful attention, LOL. Natural finish archtops, to me, suggest that the top has been carefully selected for uniform, flaw-free grain. Some might disagree, opining that a uniform grain structure is neither necessary nor desirable (perhaps using the example of Bob Taylor's "oak pallet" guitar) arguing that more complex and desirable harmonic overtones are produced from a non-uniformly-grained top. Perhaps that's true but my old ears can't detect subtleties like that. I believe that the longevity of any guitar is extended with a straight grain top because stresses are distributed evenly across the top as it moves with age, humidity and temperature. I also think that tonal qualities will likewise be more consistent as the instrument ages as opposed to the inconsistently changing dimensions of a non-uniform top due to unequal stresses. These are personal opinions, based only on intuition and NOT on measurements or audible comparison. I'm not fortunate enough to own a L-5CES with that flawless natural finished top, I have a WesMo with the traditional sunburst. But I DO have a natural finish L-4CES that I love. It doesn't possess the tonal qualities of the L-5 but it is a very versatile instrument ! (That second pickup at the bridge dampens top movement a bit, in my opinion.) Here is a posed photo of the two: (FWIW, at the lower right of the photo is a picture of Johnny Cash with his arm around my Grandmother. I grew up in northeast Tennessee and he was "almost" our neighbor.) Mostly from curiosity, because it was a new product from an American manufacturer, I purchased a chambered, thin Carvin guitar with natural finish a few years ago. It was a bit gaudy for my taste so I soon divested it although it was a satisfactory instrument in some ways (for blues, especially - sort of ES-335'ish). A guitar with a maple top isn't mellow enough - for me - to produce the tonal qualities that I prefer for jazz. Having said that, I am an admirer of Larry Carlton. I also own a very pretty Heritage Golden Eagle (#248 of 250) in natural finish. We all know that Heritage is a Gibson step-child, right ? Here is a photo of that instrument, posed beside my WesMo L-5: I have to admit that there is an inner conflict regarding the finish of the L-5CES (but not other guitar models). Maybe I was conditioned in the late sixties, after hearing and seeing Wes, to think that a sunburst finish is "correct" for the L-5. Weird, huh ? Still, any natural finish arch-top is a fine thing to see and admire
  11. I've had only two encounters with Customer Service (one for an amplifier, one for a guitar). Both issues received prompt attention. In each case, I received a call or an e-mail within 24 hours stating what corrective action would be taken (in one case, a completely new guitar was sent as a replacement for a relatively minor problem with an ES-135 !!!). There are many reasons that I've been buying and playing Gibsons for 55 years. Lifetime warranty and customer service are among them - randyc
  12. Sounds good to me (pun intended)
  13. Please feel free to reference the link to anyone with an interest in the topic. My only qualification, as stated on the second page of the book, is that it not be used for commercial purposes. I started writing the vacuum tube book for different motives but as it progressed, I realized that much of the knowledge required to design circuits with (and understand) these devices has been lost. There ARE a couple of commercially available books on this subject but I wanted to make at least some of the information available to anyone without having to pay for the learning experience. Many vacuum tube amplifiers produced today are simply copies of older designs, emulated without necessarily understanding. I hope that this doesn't sound patronizing and thank you for your kind words - randyc
  14. In the short time that I've been here, I've found most members to be as courteous as you, my friend. It's my pleasure to offer any topical resources that I'm able to provide.
  15. Hi, I'm a recent member whose present interest is acoustic guitars. My introduction (and photos of my current guitars) can be found here in the acoustic forum.. Briefly, I'm a retired E.E. who wrote the following book: This commenced as a brief means of occupying myself during the boredom of recovering from extensive surgery. But it gradually morphed into nearly 400 pages of schematics, explanation, photos, commentary and how-to-do-it. I had already posted much of my material on several jazz guitar forums (where I was previously active) so this effort wasn't quite as stupifyingly time-consumig as one might infer. The book is free but cannot be used for any commercial purpose, as is clearly stated on the second page. If interested, note that the download might take a minute because of the length. Be aware that there is NO "technical support" for this document, LOL, since the intent was that the reader learn from the reading experience by himself/herself ! Even if one has no desire to design and/or build a vacuum tube amplifier, there is still much to be found here. Perhaps one might come away from reading the document with some healthy skepticism for what passes for knowledge about tube amplification on the internet. There is also quite a bit of information about guitars with an entire chapter devoted to setting up a guitar for best performance. The book can be downloaded at this site. Cheers, randyc (Charles R. Couch)
  16. Tom, I absolutely have the same problems, in fact probably much worse since I never played an acoustic guitar very long or very loud and therefore not very well. My abilities are probably distributed about 98% archtop electric and 2% flatpicking :( I can't hang on to a pick for long when I play my acoustic guitars. Sometimes I drop the thing and often, the pick rotates in my grasp. For thirty or forty years I've not had to "dig in" and I'm having problems with my grip, even with textured picks. Also, in the attempt to produce a clear, loud note, I often also hit (and muff) the next string up or the next one down because I have no precision yet when the pick is getting so much penetration into the strings. For many years I've been able to fake my way around an acoustic guitar because only a song or three would ever be performed in a night. And even if I had to play a whole night, playing the Ovation was not dissimilar to playing one of my electrics. It was almost always amplified and never required a heavy touch. To play acoustic guitar competently is a whole new ball game for me and the primary reason that I'm here ! Thanks for the welcome ! (BTW, although there are many here who could offer it, the description of my shortcomings was not intended to elicit advice about my technique. or lack thereof. I think that these things will come with regular practice. I just need to stay motivated. My wife and most attentive. faithful audience died of cancer eleven months and twenty-nine days ago. I've always had a difficult time staying focused and playing at my "A" game level without an audience.)
  17. While that is a fine idea, listening to A/B sound comparisons on computer speakers doesn’t seem to work well in my personal experience. Some years ago, I acquired a Heritage Golden Eagle, a very nice single-pickup jazz archtop (there is a photo below). Members on one of the jazz forums where I was active at the time made the A/B request to compare the “Eagle with my Gibson L-5 WesMo, also a single-pickup jazz archtop. I recorded ten pieces, five with each guitar (some chorded melodies and jazz leads) and arranged them randomly on a downloadable file. About six people on the forum took up the challenge of determining which was the L-5 and which the Eagle. Nobody even came close and most of the guys stated that they sounded the same. The two guitars did not even remotely have similar pickups (the Eagle had a non-adjustable Bartolini, the L-5 had a '57 PAF humbucker) plus the pickup on the Eagle was a “floater” which has a very unique, brighter, less woody tone. The clearly audible differences in tone couldn’t be distinguished without using good headphones or patching the computer headphone output to a decent stereo system (or to powered studio monitors). To my mind, perhaps a bigger problem in distinguishing something as subtle as changing bridge saddles would be the age of the listener – even with very fine sound reproduction equipment. A few years ago, I did a hearing response test found online using a nice pair of Sony headphones (studio monitors would have been better). I can’t recall which one I used but this is an example of one such site. The results were fairly shocking since the gradual degradation of high frequency response isn’t observable to most of us. I would expect the bone saddle to provide more harmonic content than tusq (i.e. more “sparkle”). While a 16 year old might readily detect the difference, it is doubtful that us old guys could. (BTW, I carried this experiment on a bit further by graphing the frequency response of my ears. I then used the graphic equalizer in "Audacity" to contour a response opposite to my hearing. Playing a recorded tune through the pre-emphasized EQ was a revelation but not necessarily a good one. Either I have become accustomed to (and like) my limited hearing or perhaps the logarithmic characteristics of the ear exaggerated the effect. At any rate, I didn't care for the enhanced high frequency response - it was sort of shrill to me.) Ha-ha-ha, actually I DO have more guitars than those shown. They are currently on indefinite loan to my Uncle, the guy who got me started on this guitar path, although he taught me country licks on his (new at that time) Gibson ES-125 played through a Fender Champ. Those that are currently his possession: ’72 Gibson Hummingbird (BTW, this is what I look like now, LOL) ’61 Gibson ES-335 '78 Ovation 12-string (no photo) '91 Heritage Golden Eagle, #248 of 250 total (next to my L-5) '05 Stratocaster (the black one posed beside my white '73) Since I have too many guitars already, I don’t mind if I don't get these back with the exception of the ‘Bird (and maybe the ‘Eagle). Four more that have been given away in the past decade: '59 Gibson Les Paul Jr. (to my brother) '71 Yamaha (I think) 12-string (to my niece) '05 Epiphone Emperor Regent (to my former bassist) ?? Alvarez flat-top set up in Nashville tuning (to my former bassist) Bluesking, my Uncle uses a similar technique as the one you suggested. He tunes down 1/2 step and then capos the first fret so that his open chords are still in tune with the rest of the world.
  18. Incidentally, some engagements for this quartet were wholly acoustic (except for bass). I’m on the right with the Custom Legend and the accompanying guitarist also played the Custom Legend. We were quite happy with the sound of these high-end Ovations as amplified by a Peavey P.A. system, Altec speakers and with some slight help from a Maestro (Gibson) Echoplex. I doubt that this is necessary but these photos are from the late ‘seventies. Occasionally only the comp guitarist/lead singer and I would take a gig (often because the pay was inadequate for the whole band – which incidentally eventually added a pianist and became a quintet). Because we had no backup, I usually brought multiple guitars for a varied sound. In this photo, I’m playing the ’64 Gibson ES-330 while the Custom Legend and a natural-finish Gibson Les Paul Deluxe can be seen in the background. My compadre is playing his old Gibson J-55 before it was stolen from his VW van. It was replaced by the Ovation in the above photo/ Note the use of a 1962 Ampeg Reverberocket amplifier as stage monitor. I still have and use this amp and it produces a delightful sound, especially with the Telecaster, LOL.
  19. Observation noted and thank you. I can’t omit the jazz chords but they can be played with fewer notes and in different positions to ease the pressure on my 71 year old fingers  Major and minor sevenths can be played with just four strings, diminished and augmented passing chords, ditto. More complex chords can sometimes be replaced/faked with simpler chords or eliminating some notes (maybe omit a third or a fifth when a ninth is required). Played on the top strings, these don’t stress me too much and often I can get a thumb on the sixth string to obtain a root for the chord. Old timers like Freddie Green (Basie’s guitarist) often used only three-string chords to approximate higher-order chords because they couldn’t exert enough pressure to obtain a full chord without muffling a string or two. Of course one must know the RIGHT three strings, LOL. I love to play Brazilian music and a steel-string guitar can work (with fingers, no pick) although a classical guitar always sounds sweeter. I faked this for years in jazz venues using the Custom Legend, sometimes even an archtop. It’s not possible for me to approximate those Antonio Carlos Jobim and Joao Gilberto tunes without using those pesky jazz chords. Replacing F with a Dmin7 played on the first two frets, top three strings is easier on my fingers and adds an open string to make it ring, LOL. This doesn’t work with all progressions but maybe 75% of the time. Thank you for the good advice, it is duly noted and will likely be duly implemented. I see the trend here and will definitely defer to those who have been doing this for a l-o-n-g time. I’m competent (or used to be) with a big archtop in my arms but definitely a hack on the J-45. But I sure LOVE it !!! Your comments also received with gratitude. I found a forum thread the other night that discussed tonal/amplitude qualities versus string diameters. With astonishment, I read that many felt that they obtained a better sound with lighter strings. This opposes what I’ve always thought. Remember that I come from a jazz background but historically the banjo was replaced by the guitar only when Gibson engineer, Lloyd Loar, designed a huge f-hole archtop strung with telephone lines, LOL. Only then did a guitar have sufficient volume to be useful. But as I said in my original post, I’ve always thought of acoustic guitars as being different instruments than electric archtops. So my “conventional wisdom” could easily be out of whack with reality. At any rate, there’s no problem trying the differing diameters. When I make experiments like this, I just leave the truss rod cover off so that I can easily adjust relief depending on string tension. (If I find a string combination that seems particularly desirable, then I might also start working on the saddle.) On several of my archtops, individual strings have been replaced by singles of a different diameter. This just sounds/plays better (for me) than using a generically selected set of strings. Usually it’s the top string and the third string (heavier). There’s no reason not to do this on an acoustic guitar – why use a set that a manufacturer chooses as optimum for any guitar and any guitarist ? I have replaced the third string on the J-45 with a larger diameter and I like the sound. Given the universal suggestions here, I may replace one or two strings at a time with lighter ones to evaluate ease of playing and tonal/volume qualities. If I can come up with a combination that feels and sounds right, then I can search for a set that is similar. If I can’t find a set that is satisfactory, then replacing a string or two from a set is certainly not a problem. Thank you, another useful contribution to the developing trend ! Guys, I’ve been lurking here for a week or so and I appreciate all of your comments AND your experience/abilities. Muchas gracias to all !
  20. I was a happy owner from 1961 until 1967 (financial difficulties forced a sale). At that time I owned a 1961 SG-style Les Paul (sold not too much later, unhappily) and the combination of the two was unforgettable. I did a very strange experiment with this amplifier one time (couldn't have been achieved with any other amplifier of that era). I connected a 3 inch portable radio speaker to the speaker terminals of channel 1 with a small value of series resistance in the line. I placed the speaker in a coffee can and stuffed cotton all around it. I placed a microphone right next to the speaker cone and stuffed cotton all around it too. After sealing up the coffee can (holes punched in base and lid for cables) I sent the microphone output to the input of channel 2 of the amplifier. With guitar cabled to the input of channel 1 (and a lot of tone control experimentation) overdriving the tiny speaker and then routing the microphoned sound to the other stereo channel produced a VERY unique blend of distortion. I think the combined output of the GA-79RTV (both channels driven by a mono output instrument) was around 30 watts. This was more than adequate to fill small clubs containing many laughing, shouting blues addicts. The electrical design of the GA-79RTV was an order of magnitude more sophisticated than Fender products of the time. (This opinion offered by a retired electrical engineer with over thirty years experience.) You have a very fine amplifier. I saw this one and it brought back many happy memories.) Cheers, randyc
  21. Hello, I’m a retired engineer and former jazz guitarist but haven’t played with regularity since I relocated from the San Francisco Bay Area fifteen years ago. I was formerly active on several jazz guitar forums (with the same user name as in this forum) but not in recent years. My lack of participation coincided with a general loss of interest in playing. I started playing guitar in 1961 and since then I’ve let many, many wonderful instruments slip through my hands (worse still, sold them at ridiculous prices). Finally, some thirty years ago I made the decision never to sell another guitar (although I’ve given five or six of them to relatives and friends). Over time, this resulted in what you see in the photos below. The focus of this forum is acoustic guitars and I don’t have very many of them, unhappily. I’ve always thought of the acoustic guitar as a different instrument than an electric guitar and that is reflected in my playing, LOL. I don’t play acoustic guitar well for a variety of reasons. That’s not been particularly troubling since my interests generally lie in amplified guitar. Recently that has changed - specifically with the purchase of a 2015 J-45 Standard. I’ve owned a 1979 Ovation Custom Legend, since I bought it new in that year. It was the top of the Ovation line at that time as I recall. I’ve used the guitar occasionally in both un-amplified and amplified venues and the tone has always been adequate. AND it plays easier than any acoustic guitar that I’ve ever handled which was important for one with limited acoustic experience. But for twenty years or more, I've wanted a J-45 for that unique punchy sound and why I never obtained one is a mystery. I’ve purchased many, many guitars that were WAY more expensive than a J-45 Standard so financial stress never drove the issue. Finally, at a recent twenty year re-union of the trio with which I played longest, I just decided to scratch that longtime itch and bought a new Standard. Because I haven’t played in many years, I have no calluses (and very little finger strength or agility). I limit my playing time to ten minute sessions, three or four times a night for now. I play the J-45 in my kitchen because I love the slap-back reverb in that room. I don’t want to sound like a complete fanboy, although it can be noted from my photos that I do love Gibson guitars. I have an issue with the guitar: the action is not at all to my liking. Of course how could a guy formerly accustomed to playing an L-5CES transition to a J-45 without problems - that’s just not going to happen. I have many years experience setting up my own guitars, albeit mostly electric instruments. I added a chapter regarding my methods to my book “Designing Vacuum Tube Amplifiers and Related Topics”. (It’s a free e-book, by the way and I’ll reference the link – be aware that it’s around 400 pages long and takes a l-o-n-g time to download.) The old Ovation has always played remarkably since I picked it up from the dealer and my ’76 J-55 was quickly adjustable to a much lower action without sacrificing tone (although the tone was never at J-45 standards). My Taylor similarly took very little time to optimize. (BTW, that a guitar as expensive as a Taylor 912C ($4,000 - $5,000) should play so poorly out of the box is darned near shameful. I expected this thing to play at least as well as the J-55 and it didn’t. The only reason that I kept the guitar was confidence in being able to set it up to my own standard. It doesn’t sound all that good to me, either.) I’ve never “met” an acoustic guitar with a well-adjusted nut from the factory, it simply doesn’t seem to happen. And for an acoustic guitar, we know that is very important. Well, this Bozeman product was an outstanding exception to the rule ! I could have spent a couple of hours, loosening a string and moving it out of the way, filing or sawing the slot a bit, replacing, re-tightening, tuning the string and playing it all the way up the neck. Repeat as needed for all six strings. The J-45 came from the factory almost as if someone had done exactly that ! But the bridge saddle was not as nicely adjusted as the nut and I spent a lot of time trying to find a reasonable compromise between playability and tone, shaving the saddle and re-adjusting the truss rod where necessary. At one point I removed too much material from the underside of the saddle. I made a brass spacer to the dimensions of the amount of material I’d last removed from the saddle and inserted the spacer under the Tusq saddle before re-installing the strings. (I have a blank bone saddle and one of these days I may machine it to the dimensions of the existing saddle + spacer and install in the J-45 for a test drive.) The current string set is Elixer nanoweb, .013 - .056. They sound fine but I’ve purchased three different sets of inexpensive strings of approximately the same diameters. I’d like to compare them with the more costly Elixer. (FWIW, I replaced a set of Martins, .013 - .056, that were on the J-55 this afternoon with D’Addario EJ11’s, a lighter set. I am not happy with the results but a little aging will likely mellow them.) Although the J-45, as I now have it set up, is not exactly what I’d like, it’s playable to the 12th fret which is as far as I can comfortably reach and – more importantly – sounds GREAT all the way up the neck. I attribute a great deal of my luke-warm satisfaction to my lack of finger strength (exercise required) and lack of acoustic guitar experience. When I was required to play an acoustic guitar in past years, it was with the Ovation, which has a neck arguably as good as any of my Gibson electrics except the L-5. Before acute reader boredom sets in, here are some photos. Electric guitars: From front to rear: ’05 Fender Telecaster, ’73 Fender Stratocaster, ’94 Fender Jazz Bass, ’79 Carvin DC-150, ’65 Gibson SG, ’97 L4-CES, ’97 Guild SF III, ’02 Gibson ES-135, ’64 Gibson ES-330, ’06 Heritage H-575 The same instruments photographed from the other end of the hall: Acoustic instruments: From left to right (bottom row): Sitar (mfr unknown), ’76 Gibson J-55, ’76 Ovation Custom Legend, ’15 Gibson J-45 Standard, ’97 Taylor 912C, ’98 Gibson L-5CES WesMo (I know, I know, the WesMo doesn’t belong with these but I like it close to me in my living room and it actually sounds pretty decent acoustically.) From left to right (hanging): ’02 Martin Backpacker (strung and tuned only for bottleneck), classical guitar (mfr and date unknown), ¾ size fiddle (mfr and date unknown), ’61 Dolmetsch soprano recorder (ivory and rosewood), dulcimer (mfr and date unknown), *1920s Weissenborne lap steel guitar (Dobro, National predecessor), ’47 Kay mandolin (I’ve removed the bridge, waiting for strings) It’s probably unnecessary to mention that the J-45 is the Big Dog in this small pack ! If anyone has an interest in the book “Designing Vacuum Tube Amplifiers and Related Topics” it can be freely downloaded – although NOT for commercial purposes – at the link below. Be advised, as previously noted, that the book is a long one and takes a while to download. The section on guitar set-up is in Chapter 34.0 beginning on page 361. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sutb3baaajypfzp/5jAs6MErWU Cheers, I hope to participate usefully here :) randyc * The Weissenborne is a unique guitar that belonged to my step-father’s dad who was the original purchaser and who died in a 1949 auto accident. I have the original (canvas) case and a steel slide. The guitar remained in that case, with one or two withdrawals, for almost sixty years. This is what I know of it: Weissenborn or H. Weissenborn is a brand of slide guitar manufactured by Hermann Weissenborn in Los Angeles in the 1920s and 1930s. These instruments are now highly sought after, and form the base for most non-resonator acoustic lap steel guitars currently produced. It is estimated that fewer than 5,000 original instruments were produced, and it is unknown how many now survive. The signature feature of Weissenborn guitars is the hollow neck, effectively a highly adapted body chamber that runs the entire length of the body, making conventional playing completely impossible. The name Weissenborn is now commonly used to describe this style of instrument in general, with H. Weissenborn and modern factory or luthier reproductions being referred to as Weissenborn or Weissenborn-style guitars. If anyone has additional or differing information, please PM me - it would be of much interest.
×
×
  • Create New...