J 45 standard vs vintage demo

[JuanCarlosVejar]

Folks,

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[fortyearspickn]

Yeppers. Even these tired old ears listening through my MacBook Pro speakers can hear the difference. I suppose it is also a matter of taste. Ginger VS Mary Ann.

But I do like the torrified Adi version much more.

Thanks JCV.

( Now to try to quell that gaseous feeling.)

[j45nick]

Pretty significant differences, if they have the same strings on them. The balance of the two guitars is totally different. The vintage is much more articulate, especially in the mid and upper registers. The standard is a little muddy in the bottom end, which overpowers the mids.

 

The standard sounded really good until he played the vintage for the first time, at which point I said "no contest" from my perspective. The standard was strongest in fingerpicking, and weakest in heavy strumming, to my ears. Picked mid range accent notes sort of disappeared in the mix played that way. The vintage might have been a bit lighter in bass response, but more than made up for it in very articulate mids and uppers.

 

Very interesting comparison.

[Mr. Paul]

This mirrors my experience playing a new Vintage. While folks continue to debate whether Martin's baking process improves the sound, Gibson obviously has a recipe that works.

[fortyearspickn]

I would hope in the interest of fairness and in support of The Scientific Method, he used the same strings, broken in equally.

I would also hope the bracing was the same....

 

My question would be - assuming these are two brand new, out of the box Gibsons? what would a comparison sound like after a year or two?

Assuming the the torrified top is 'aged but stable' will the 'standard' as it is broken in 'catch up' to that aged sound? Will it take 2 years or 20 assuming again the torrified top doesn't change and the standard top does?

We've had a few long discussions of torrified tops here before and this question may have been addressed. If so, I apologize. My interest has been piqued because of the clear (to me) superiority of the torrified sound.

[MorrisrownSal]

What an excellent demo. Thanks JC!

 

Listen at 3:08 - he starts playing a noodle based on Little Feat's Willing... stark differences. Actually stark all around in all the play...

 

I need a bigger guitar wall.

[j45nick]

My question would be - assuming these are two brand new, out of the box Gibsons? what would a comparison sound like after a year or two?

Assuming the the torrified top is 'aged but stable' will the 'standard' as it is broken in 'catch up' to that aged sound? Will it take 2 years or 20 assuming again the torrified top doesn't change and the standard top does?

We've had a few long discussions of torrified tops here before and this question may have been addressed. If so, I apologize. My interest has been piqued because of the clear (to me) superiority of the torrified sound.

 

 

Maybe the non-terrified top would catch up in 20, 30, or 40 years. Maybe not.

 

At my age, I can't afford to wait to find out.

[Hall]

I've said before I wandered into mine by accident when the Vintage first appeared and it was the sound that sold me.

[Lars68]

Don't forget that the Vintage is adi, while the Standard is sitka. I would not be surprised if there is a bracing difference also. So there is more at work here, besides torrefication.

 

I heard a big difference, and I actually, to my own surprise, prefered the Standard. I have listened to comparisons like this one before, and have then liked the Vintage. This time around, however, I thought it sounded brutally harsh, even though I listen through good headphones. Maybe my brain and ears are just too tired today after a rough day at work.

 

Lars

[j45nick]

Don't forget that the Vintage is adi, while the Standard is sitka. I would not be surprised if there is a bracing difference also. So there is more at work here, besides torrefication.

 

I heard a big difference, and I actually, to my own surprise, prefered the Standard. I have listened to comparisons like this one before, and have then liked the Vintage. This time around, however, I thought it sounded brutally harsh, even though I listen through good headphones. Maybe my brain and ears are just too tired today after a rough day at work.

 

Lars

 

 

What you call 'brutally harsh" is what I call articulate. If you find it harsh, you can modulate that both by string choice and pick selection. What I'm looking for is a guitar with a clear voice and a certain balance as a starting point. Without those two things, I've got nothing.

 

For me, the "warmth" you may get from the standard turns into muddiness with certain types of flatpicking. That's probably less important when fingerpicking.

 

In any case, it's good that we don't all like the same sound in our guitars.

[scriv58]

I preferred the sound of the standard as well, and i own a 2016 Vintage. It has lost that same "brash" quality i hear in this video sample, after 10 months of heavy play. Call it Vintage or whatever marketing moniker, it ain't got what my '46 sj has...old sound comes from old guitar.

[JuanCarlosVejar]

Don't forget that the Vintage is adi, while the Standard is sitka. I would not be surprised if there is a bracing difference also. So there is more at work here, besides torrefication.

 

I heard a big difference, and I actually, to my own surprise, prefered the Standard. I have listened to comparisons like this one before, and have then liked the Vintage. This time around, however, I thought it sounded brutally harsh, even though I listen through good headphones. Maybe my brain and ears are just too tired today after a rough day at work.

 

Lars

 

I also preferred the standard

 

 

 

 

JC

[theflyingturtle]

I have gotten to play the Vintage version and own a standard. There is something very lively, rich, and dynamic with every guitar that I have played with a cooked top. In some ways it seems like an amp turned up to "11" and very special in their own right. But they did not sound like old guitars, mature perhaps. Generous even, but not the same as a vintage Gibson. Personally, I think the $ is too great for something that will probably become more common and affordable in the future.

[j45nick]

Personally, I think the $ is too great for something that will probably become more common and affordable in the future.

 

I agree with you on that one.

 

Stewmac doesn't have all the bases covered, but their prices make decent comparisons. Prices below are for book-matched dreadnought soundboard sets, thickness sanded to .125" (just over 3mm)

 

AAA torrefied Sitka $61

AAA non-torrefied Sitka $46

AAAA non-torrefied Sitka $80

 

Red spruce is dramatically more expensive from them, and they don't have it torrefied at this point:

 

AAA old-growth (slow growth from uncut lots) $393

AAA second growth (faster growing, wider rings from previously-cut forests) $197

 

It's hard to get a higher grade of red spruce since the trees are generally smaller than Sitkas, which means more potential for flaws in pieces as wide as are needed for dreadnought tops (about 9" before splitting and jointing).

 

I watched a video a few months ago about finding and harvesting a single old-growth red spruce tree for guitar soundboards. The effort required to do it was pretty phenomenal, since the tree had to pretty much be felled, cut into lengths, and extracted from the side of a mountain. It's no wonder old-growth red spruce costs so much. I doubt if that's what you're buying when you get a red spruce top on a Gibson, or most other guitars.

[bobouz]

I would not run to the bank with generalizations about the vintage or standard models based on this one comparison.

 

But it does create a reference point, and between these two instruments, I prefer the punchier sound of the Vintage.

[Hall]

RE: J-45 Vintage

I got mine by chance meeting when they first came into production.

I paid notably less than $3,000 for it.

Its strong points are clear and balanced sound.

I don't like the case the rest of the word seems to lust after.

It has a house full of family members with which it has found its place.

No more, no less.

It's not for sale.

[62burst]

Ben from Bailey Brothers refers to this one as the J-45 "Vintage Reissue". ?.

 

The caption in the video describes it as the J-45 New Vintage.

 

I thought the "J-45 Vintage" was the torrefied one. Here are the specs for the New Vintage(?) : http://www.gibson.com/Products/Acoustic-Instruments/Round-Shoulder/Gibson-Acoustic/J-45-New-Vintage/Specs.aspx

 

Has something changed, besides the measured loudness between these two guitars? :

 

clip 1 std = 73.9dB

nv = 77.5dB

 

clip 2 std = 77.3dB

nv = 79.5dB

 

clip 3 (Willin')

std = 77.4dB

nv = 78.1 dB

 

clip 4 std = 76.5dB

nv = 77.2dB all maxes at moderate listening volume.

 

t = 2:10 vs t = 2:40 - are these even wearing the same gauge strings, saddle material, pick (even!) ?

 

stuffed the last chord strike, clip 4 on the Std @ t = 4:15 vs 4:45 let 'em all ring.

[j45nick]

Ben from Bailey Brothers refers to this one as the J-45 "Vintage Reissue". ?.

 

The caption in the video describes it as the J-45 New Vintage.

 

I thought the "J-45 Vintage" was the torrified one. Here are the specs for the New Vintage(?) : http://www.gibson.com/Products/Acoustic-Instruments/Round-Shoulder/Gibson-Acoustic/J-45-New-Vintage/Specs.aspx

 

 

I suspect it's a J-45 Vintage, since the New Vintage top isn't torrefied, but is red spruce. The New Vintage had advanced top bracing, not standard. If the Vintage is the same thing but with a terrified top, the advanced bracing could make quite a bit of difference as well.

 

All in all, it may not be as useful as a comparison as it purports to be.

[Leonard McCoy]

It sounds to me the guy in the video is using a too heavy pick on both those acoustics.

[sbpark]

this video pretty much sums up my J45 experience with these two guitars, but I ended up with an older True Vintage. The Vintage I ordered from Chicago Music Exchange was a mess...nearly frozen truss rod, horribly cut not and probably the worst set up I've ever seen (and that says a lot for a Gibson, since they usually have pretty bad factory set ups, so it went back. Would have got another but came across a 2010 TV that just did it for me, and was a LOT less than what a J45V costs even with a good discount. The problem I hear with all the standards I've owned (and I've owned three over the last few years) is there's just something funky going on, like there's a separation between the lows, mids and highs. Some standards have nice lows, but there's just a gap between the mids and highs for me, and the highs always have this strong "clang" thats unpleasant to my ear, while the V and TV are a much smoother, easier on the ears sound, where it obviously has that Gibson growl and midrange bump, but just sounds more even and broken in across the board. I always thought the J45 Standards were just lacking something and something was holding them back sound wise.

[E-minor7]

This Standard is really fat sounding* where the Vintage appears more airy and elegant. Prefer the latter though it's 2 very fine guitars.

(Std's can be fantastic)

 

I know these models from real life and the last Vintage I played was almost so light it became coreless, , , as if the baking had evaporated its soul.

 

T'would be a good idea to try them first-hand - the weight-factor plays an enormous role regarding overall feel here.

 

 

 

 

 

*one can also sense the compression

[j45nick]

 

 

*one can also sense the compression

 

 

That's a good description. The Standard sounds like it has a lid on it.

[j45nick]

sorry, double post