Of the many new J-45’s are available in 2024? Which one? Edit

[Sgt. Pepper]

28 minutes ago, Dave F said:

Me too

He opened for Chris Stapleton. I would have rather had Marty as the headliner.

[Dave F]

39 minutes ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

He opened for Chris Stapleton. I would have rather had Marty as the headliner.

I saw him about 4 years ago. Connie Smith opened for him. 

[Sgt. Pepper]

18 minutes ago, Dave F said:

I saw him about 4 years ago. Connie Smith opened for him. 

I saw her at the Grand Ole Opry.

[Larsongs]

Were they all playing J-45's?

[Sgt. Pepper]

Just now, Larsongs said:

Were they all playing J-45's?

No. Emmylou Harris was there that night. She played her SJ-200. Toby Keith was the there that night. Can’t remember what he played. Saw at least one Martin. There were so many people playing it’s hard to remember it all. Toby might have had a Tak.

[Dave F]

I’ve seen Vince Gil play a J45 at the opry

[PrairieDog]

10 hours ago, Lars68 said:

I just want to point out that because something is made with less expensive parts/materials and using less labor hours, it is not necessarily of lesser quality compared to a more expensive counterpart. I believe this to be especially true if one part of the perceived quality is something as subjective as tone. Sometimes a cheaper material has all the right attributes, and the only difference that matters is just price. Keep in mind also that a manufacturer can ”over spec” something simply in order to signal a ”higher” quality, one that can not be measured, only perceived. How come we so often are lured into thinking the most beautiful, exotic, rare, and crazy expensive woods sound the best? Nothing wrong with paying for beauty and aesthetics, by the way, if that is what one wants, but that is not the same as quality.

Lars

Scratching my head…. If this were really true, that higher end/priced builds are just about the aesthetics and  nothing to do with tone, we’d all be playing Mitchells and Ovations.  Those can be pretty blinged up, if someone wants that.

High quality is also about build strength and longevity.  Cheap tuners are gonna fail, thin flawed wood and bracing is gonna crack, thin or poorly applied finishes are gonna wear and flake, weak glue is gonna fail, uncured necks are gonna warp or break, plastic bridges will give out, soft fret wire will wear down in a year.  

And yes, I can tell the difference between models and woods with my eyes closed.  We do play-offs when shopping where I turn my back and my wife will play different models.  You *can* hear the differences.  Usually in the depth and complexity of volume, tones, and their overtones. 

[Sgt. Pepper]

1 hour ago, PrairieDog said:

Scratching my head…. If this were really true, that higher end/priced builds are just about the aesthetics and  nothing to do with tone, we’d all be playing Mitchells and Ovations.  Those can be pretty blinged up, if someone wants that.

I’m not, you might. I had a plastic back Ovation. Biggest POS of the POS out there. I don’t give a F if Cat Steven’s played one, or if Macca played one, or Melissa Etheridge played one. They suck.

Edited November 3 by Sgt. Pepper

[Larsongs]

Some Guitar manufacturers do pick their Woods. There are different grades of the same kinds of wood from what I've read.  Some parts of the Wood are more desirable.

If it's true that Gibson is using higher quality, more Aged wood in their higher level Guitars, if they're use better Glues (like Hide Glue) I'll buy that. If they use Ebony or Rosewood for the fretboard, Bone Nuts, Saddles, Kluson or Gotoh Tuners, high gloss quality Nitro finish & the more Deluxe L.R. Baggs Electronics I'll buy all of that. IMO those things will make a better Guitar.

IMO that's what they should be doing. I don't doubt they do. Particularly the Acoustic Guitars I see coming from Bozeman.

Edited November 3 by Larsongs

[PrairieDog]

4 hours ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

I’m not, you might. I had a plastic back Ovation. Biggest POS of the POS out there. I don’t give a F if Cat Steven’s played one, or if Macca played one, or Melissa Etheridge played one. They suck.

That was kinda my point… I was responding to the comment that was proposing the only difference between cheap guitars and expensive ones are “looks” and otherwise are equivalents.  There are clearly  tonal differences in guitars and quality that go beyond mere aesthetics.  

[Lars68]

9 hours ago, PrairieDog said:

Scratching my head…. If this were really true, that higher end/priced builds are just about the aesthetics and  nothing to do with tone, we’d all be playing Mitchells and Ovations.  Those can be pretty blinged up, if someone wants that.

High quality is also about build strength and longevity.  Cheap tuners are gonna fail, thin flawed wood and bracing is gonna crack, thin or poorly applied finishes are gonna wear and flake, weak glue is gonna fail, uncured necks are gonna warp or break, plastic bridges will give out, soft fret wire will wear down in a year.  

And yes, I can tell the difference between models and woods with my eyes closed.  We do play-offs when shopping where I turn my back and my wife will play different models.  You *can* hear the differences.  Usually in the depth and complexity of volume, tones, and their overtones. 

I’m afraid you are missing my point. I’ll give it a second go. If two different J-45 models have the exact same tuners, and then Gibson decides to put 24 K gold tuners on one of them, that guitar is only of a higher price, not of a higher quality as a musical instrument. That guitar would be “over speced”.

Of course, I agree with you that a higher price in GENERAL leads to better materials and workmanship, but that is not to say that one specific J-45 cannot sound just as fine as one specific Southern Jumbo, given they share the same basic construction and are put together by the same method and people. Many perceive the SJ as more aesthetically pleasing (to me it’s the most beautiful model) which can be worth paying for, but the added bling does not make it sound better. Also, I’d probably go as far as saying, that if the J-45 was without a polished finish, it would not sway the tone comparison to the SJ one way or the other. However, it would make the J-45 cheaper, as in less expensive, not as in of lesser quality…

Lars

 

 

Edited November 3 by Lars68

[PrairieDog]

2 hours ago, Lars68 said:

I’m afraid you are missing my point. I’ll give it a second go. If two different J-45 models have the exact same tuners, and then Gibson decides to put 24 K gold tuners on one of them, that guitar is only of a higher price, not of a higher quality as a musical instrument. That guitar would be “over speced”.

Of course, I agree with you that a higher price in GENERAL leads to better materials and workmanship, but that is not to say that one specific J-45 cannot sound just as fine as one specific Southern Jumbo, given they share the same basic construction and are put together by the same method and people. Many perceive the SJ as more aesthetically pleasing (to me it’s the most beautiful model) which can be worth paying for, but the added bling does not make it sound better. Also, I’d probably go as far as saying, that if the J-45 was without a polished finish, it would not sway the tone comparison to the SJ one way or the other. However, it would make the J-45 cheaper, as in less expensive, not as in of lesser quality…

Lars

 

 

Okay, I see what I missed.  However, I still contend that finish is not just cosmetic, but integral to the sound.  

If you think of the body as a bellows, moving air/sound, physics says the heft of a leather bellows is going to move more air farther, and directionally, than a paper one.  Or more extreme for illustration, imagine trying to shoot pool using a ping pong ball for the cue ball.   Builders can’t just use thicker wood on the top to increase mass, it would become too stiff for the strings to move.  So a thicker finish adds mass while remaining flexible.  

And different types of finishes are more flexy than others. The more flex, the more the finish supports and rolls with the vibrations, rather than fighting and cancelling them.  And the thicker the finish, the more it is able to support and sustain the wider, deeper, sound waves.  

Nitro, being oil based, stays in a fluid state. So the sound waves are surfing over water, sustaining and playing off each other. This is what creates complex overtones, with nothing to stop them but decay.  

(Some cheaper poly finishes will set up rock solid.  They may look pretty and shiny, but they make the top stiffer so the waves may roll for a bit, but then crash prematurely on the shore before the dance can really set up. )

While the Faded is still Nitro, thinner finishes don’t have as much mass in the top.  This is why the faded does have the potential to sound different/lighter than a full depth application of finish.  

Edited November 3 by PrairieDog

[Lars68]

45 minutes ago, PrairieDog said:

Okay, I see what I missed.  However, I still contend that finish is not just cosmetic, but integral to the sound.  

If you think of the body as a bellows, moving air/sound, physics says the heft of a leather bellows is going to move more air farther, and directionally, than a paper one.  Or more extreme for illustration, imagine trying to shoot pool using a ping pong ball for the cue ball.   Builders can’t just use thicker wood on the top to increase mass, it would become too stiff for the strings to move.  So a thicker finish adds mass while remaining flexible.  

And different types of finishes are more flexy than others. The more flex, the more the finish supports and rolls with the vibrations, rather than fighting and cancelling them.  And the thicker the finish, the more it is able to support and sustain the wider, deeper, sound waves.  

Nitro, being oil based, stays in a fluid state. So the sound waves are surfing over water, sustaining and playing off each other. This is what creates complex overtones, with nothing to stop them but decay.  

(Some cheaper poly finishes will set up rock solid.  They may look pretty and shiny, but they make the top stiffer so the waves may roll for a bit, but then crash prematurely on the shore before the dance can really set up. )

While the Faded is still Nitro, thinner finishes don’t have as much mass in the top.  This is why the faded does have the potential to sound different/lighter than a full depth application of finish.  

I agree 100% about the impact of the finish on sound. So given the example of two identical finishes, same thickness and same chemical structure, one polished one not. In theory the polished one would be preferable, because it is thinner and will enhance vibration better,  due the fact that polishing removes material. Even if that is true in theory, or even measurable, I doubt human ears to be sensitive enough to pick it out.
 

That being said, I do believe in the process of maximizing features, which individually might be insignificant, but as a combined total, makes a real world difference. I bet that is a big part of the job of the engineers working pre-season to set up a word class race car for maximum performance for the upcoming season 😀 

Lars

Edited November 3 by Lars68

[PrairieDog]

8 minutes ago, Lars68 said:

I agree 100% about the impact of the finish on sound. So given the example of two identical finishes, same thickness and same chemical structure, one polished one not. In theory the polished one would be preferable, because it is thinner and will enhance vibration better,  due the fact that polishing removes material. Even if that is true in theory, or even measurable, I doubt human ears to be sensitive enough to pick it out.
 

That being said, I do believe in the process of maximizing features, which individually might be insignificant, but as a combined total, makes a real world difference. I bet that is a big part of the job of the engineers working pre-season to set up a word class race car for maximum performance for the upcoming season 😀 

Lars

Just one fine point.  They are not the same thickness.  The faded has a much thinner finish.  The Standards are finished with the polishing steps in mind, so material is applied in each coat to leave the right thicker amount after the final polishing.  

Edited November 3 by PrairieDog

[Sgt. Pepper]

Our ears are funny things. Sometimes my guitars don’t sound as good today, as compared to playing it two days prior. I’ve put on albums I haven’t heard is years, and say why the F did I like this album? Every thing affects tone, from our ears, to every part and piece on the guitar, strings, pick choice, finger picking, amp, effects, to the size room we are in. 

Edited November 3 by Sgt. Pepper

[Lars68]

5 hours ago, PrairieDog said:

Just one fine point.  They are not the same thickness.  The faded has a much thinner finish.  The Standards are finished with the polishing steps in mind, so material is applied in each coat to leave the right thicker amount after the final polishing.  

Ah, I missed that part. Interesting! That means the tonal scale is tipped ever so slightly in favor of the less expensive model, which was what I was getting and that sometimes happens with goods, guitars and otherwise. given everything else on the models are comparable , of course.

Lars

Edited November 3 by Lars68

[PrairieDog]

9 minutes ago, Lars68 said:

Ah, I missed that part. Interesting! That means the tonal scale is tipped ever so slightly in favor of the less expensive model, which was what I was getting at domtimes happens with goods, guitars and otherwise. given everything else on the models are comprable, of course.

Lars

Go back and read my post about what a finish does? I’m really not clear on why you believe thinner equals better tone?  Are you saying you do prefer a “bright, thin, quick decay, brittle sound?” Sure, it’s a thing and has it’s place. Maybe that is what I’m missing in your responses, but that doesn’t mesh with your fondness for Jumbos, which give some of the fullest sound. I’m just going off most folks like a more complex tone in their instruments, which is what a thicker finish provides. 

[Sgt. Pepper]

11 minutes ago, PrairieDog said:

Go back and read my post about what a finish does? I’m really not clear on why you believe thinner equals better tone?  Are you saying you do prefer a “bright, thin, quick decay, brittle sound?” Sure, it’s a thing and has it’s place. Maybe that is what I’m missing in your responses, but that doesn’t mesh with your fondness for Jumbos, which give some of the fullest sound. I’m just going off most folks like a more complex tone in their instruments, which is what a thicker finish provides. 

I’m sure many believe a thin finish lets the top, sides and back vibrate more than a thicker one. Not sure if one or the other makes the tone brittle or not. Then there is the p/g’s glued the top of most acoustic’s. And like that Smith song “some girls mothers are bigger than other girls mothers”, some p/g’s are thicker than other p/g’s, which has to affect sound somehow.

Edited November 3 by Sgt. Pepper

[Lars68]

Yes indeed, my belief is that the thinner a finish can be, while still protecting the fragile wood, the more beneficial to tone. I also think this holds true for pickguards, but total weight and surface area might be even more important. I simply fall in the camp that believes a thinner finish, all other aspects equal, improves vibration transfer and hence tone. For what it’s worth, in recent years a lot of manufacturers (and special runs from retailers) tend to market their efforts to reduce finish thickness as tone enhancing. This is also the argument most heard in favor of the cracked relic finishes. The super thin, artificially cracked and even partially removed, finish will help a guitar to vibrate even more freely.

Can this argument be proven in guitar A/B tests? Probably not. Can I tell the difference? Most definitely not🤪

I don’t know where it would fit into the discussion, but I remember the reissue J-35 as being said by many as being brighter than the 45 counterpart. That was surely the case for the one I tried many years ago. All of those were gloss and the same finish as the J-45. My belief was (and is) that it’s a result of the x-brace being in a different place, as discussed in the Music Villa video 

Interesting discussion and sorry for being unclear of my opinion. 

Lars
 

 

[Larsongs]

3 hours ago, Lars68 said:

Yes indeed, my belief is that the thinner a finish can be, while still protecting the fragile wood, the more beneficial to tone. I also think this holds true for pickguards, but total weight and surface area might be even more important. I simply fall in the camp that believes a thinner finish, all other aspects equal, improves vibration transfer and hence tone. For what it’s worth, in recent years a lot of manufacturers (and special runs from retailers) tend to market their efforts to reduce finish thickness as tone enhancing. This is also the argument most heard in favor of the cracked relic finishes. The super thin, artificially cracked and even partially removed, finish will help a guitar to vibrate even more freely.

Can this argument be proven in guitar A/B tests? Probably not. Can I tell the difference? Most definitely not🤪

I don’t know where it would fit into the discussion, but I remember the reissue J-35 as being said by many as being brighter than the 45 counterpart. That was surely the case for the one I tried many years ago. All of those were gloss and the same finish as the J-45. My belief was (and is) that it’s a result of the x-brace being in a different place, as discussed in the Music Villa video 

Interesting discussion and sorry for being unclear of my opinion. 

Lars
 

 

I definitely agree about Bracing types of Wood, Pattern, Scalloped vs Non Scalloped & Placement affecting Sound.

In my experience not even 2 of the exact same model of Guitars sound exactly the same. I've tried 2 or 3 of the same model Guitars & each sounded different.

I plan to do some A/B testing when I go to Hollywood GC soon to play some different Guitars. Most of the Jumbo Guitars mentioned in this Thread. Gloss & Satin.

[62burst]

13 hours ago, PrairieDog said:

.  And the thicker the finish, the more it is able to support and sustain the wider, deeper, sound waves.  

wow.

13 hours ago, PrairieDog said:

 

Nitro, being oil based, stays in a fluid state.

Nitrocellulose lacquer is solvent based.

 

And put me in the camp with Lars, and everyone else who believes the thin finish yields better tone.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

48 minutes ago, 62burst said:

wow.

Nitrocellulose lacquer is solvent based.

 

And put me in the camp with Lars, and everyone else who believes the thin finish yields better tone.

 

So not water based like Astro Glide?

[PrairieDog]

8 hours ago, 62burst said:

wow.

Nitrocellulose lacquer is solvent based.

 

And put me in the camp with Lars, and everyone else who believes the thin finish yields better tone.

 

What do solvents do?  They keep things fluid…. Think paint thinner.   It’s the balance between the solvent and the oils that keeps the finish pliable.  Luthiers in the olden days used to just apply wax, but wax  dries out and gets brittle inhibiting the vibrations. So it needs to be reapplied to loosen things up again. That creates build up that needs to be stripped periodically.  (If you ever lived with old waxed furniture, you know the drill.)

The revolution of the solvents in nitro keeps things suspended and flexible, and responsive to the top vibrations, as opposed to hardshell plastics like polyurethane that set up rigid.  

And to thinner being the goal, I guess, all I can say is physics is cool?  It’s the delicate balance of flexibility and weight/density that lends fuller range and sustain.  Imagine two identical cymbals, one normal bronze alloy, and the other solid tin.  Both are struck by a stick but one weighs a fraction of the other.  Using “lighter is better, allows more vibration” logic you’d prefer the tin one?  Why do we make even tiny cymbals out of heavy bronze alloys?  

In the end, there is “thin” and there is “too thin”.  If the lighter the finish the better, then you might ask why did they start finishing guitars at all?  Just sand ‘em good and go.  Super cheap.  Wouldn’t even need a pick guard.  Just some sand paper.  

Even though all you may be seeing is the looks, it’s really not just about the aesthetics.  Finishes do contribute and lend weight to tone.  

Edited November 4 by PrairieDog

[Sgt. Pepper]

Finish effects the tone because its on your guitar. It might be nitro, or poly, or something else depending on which one is used. Who gives a s..t if it’s oil, solvent or water based. If you switch from a nylon pick, to a metal one to a cellulose one, your tone will change cause you just used something different to strum and pick notes. 

Edited November 4 by Sgt. Pepper

[Larsongs]

I’ve been looking on Reverb. Almost ready to pull the trigger on one but the what if’s prevented me.

I have bought Used Electric Guitars off Reverb & have been lucky. But, Acoustic Guitars are completely different than Electric Guitars. It’s all about the Guitar of course, but, especially about its Acoustic Sound & Tone. You can’t hear that without playing it live. YouTubes aren’t the same as live.

I’d travel maybe up to 100 miles for exactly what I want. So I can see, feel & play it. Have Cash in hand & ready to buy if we can make a good deal.

Would you buy a “Used” Acoustic Guitar off Reverb that’s more than 100 miles from you?

Edited November 6 by Larsongs