Whats the difference in the SG Standard and Les Paul Standard tone?

[Ronnie Robinson]

The question says it all , who has both and can directly compare ?

[Laney1566]

I have a SG Standard and a Les Paul Studio. (Woods and electronics same as Standard).

 

Tone is really close, but the Les Paul has a barely noticeable increase in treble. Makes sense with the maple top.

Harmonics and squeels are easier to pull off on the Les Paul.

Sustain is very similar. About the same actually. Both go to feedback at about the same level

Not counting weight....The neck on the SG is a little slimmer and might be the better choice for shorter fingers.

 

That being said....An SG can do all that the Les Paul can and do it well.

Would sell my Les Paul before I sold my SG's.

IMO

[charlie brown]

To me, the real "difference" (small as it may be), all settings being equal, is the SG is more mid-range biased,

if anything....and just an "airier" tone (whatever that means?)...it's kind of hard to explain, until you experience

it. Not really "Thinner," but....I don't know, just more "midrange" sounding....to me, anyway. Other's

may be able to explain it better?

 

CB

[Murph]

I've never had either.

 

I had a '72 Les Paul Recording. It was a solid, heavy, lean mean machine. I wore it out.

 

My '79 "The SG" is Walnut and has ceremics with the "velvet brick", and it's VERY hot, but the walnut also makes it very ballsy and not too harsh, so it's a nice bar gigger.

 

I bought my daughter an '08 Studio, and it's a great sounding/playing guitar. It's chambered, but I don't hear anything "bad" about it.....

 

I never really wanted another Les Paul until Lester died.

 

Now, for some reason I do.

 

 

Best to ya.

 

Murph.