Maple AJ

[jannusguy]

anyone ever play an AJ with maple b/s? wondering how it would compare to the more typical rw b/s models. my limited experience with maple suggests it would be much brighter which, to me, is not necessarily a good thing. i'd appreciate any input.

 

thx

[gearbasher]

Never played a maple AJ, but when I bought my maple J45 (unseen and unplayed) I hated the brighter sound (as compared to my RW 45). Then I put on a set of bluegrass strings and now it's my favorite sounding Gibson.

 

BTW: Here's a birdseye for sale, http://www.elderly.com/vintage/names/gibson-advanced-jumbo-birdseye-%282007%29--20U-11933.htm

[Taylor Player]

Never played a maple AJ but my Taylor is maple. I love the tone of maple on a small body guitar with a spruce top. It has sustain for ever and cuts through a mix including electrics, drums, bass and other acoustics great. Maple is also a great wood for recording. It is very hard to get feedback and the although sustain is great, maple will have a quicker decay than rosewood for example. It also has very even tones across all strings. You won't get any string to overpower the others. In other words, bass and trebils blend very well together.

[jannusguy]

Never played a maple AJ' date=' but when I bought my maple J45 (unseen and unplayed) I hated the brighter sound (as compared to my RW 45). Then I put on a set of bluegrass strings and now it's my favorite sounding Gibson.

 

BTW: Here's a birdseye for sale, http://www.elderly.com/vintage/names/gibson-advanced-jumbo-birdseye-%282007%29--20U-11933.htm[/quote']

 

yeah gb, that's the one that prompted the question. nice looking guitar but, again, just wondering about the tone. i've yet to pick up a maple guitar i've liked but haven't had the luxury of swapping strings to see if i could get closer to the sound i wanted. thanks for the input and i hope your healing up nicely.

[jannusguy]

Never played a maple AJ but my Taylor is maple. I love the tone of maple on a small body guitar with a spruce top. It has sustain for ever and cuts through a mix including electrics' date=' drums, bass and other acoustics great. Maple is also a great wood for recording. It is very hard to get feedback and the although sustain is great, maple will have a quicker decay than rosewood for example. It also has very even tones across all strings. You won't get any string to overpower the others. In other words, bass and trebils blend very well together. [/quote']

 

 

thx, tp. i guess i'm trying to figure out if the bracing and the dimensions of the AJ would prevail in preserving the storied and revered AJ sound. or not. just seems incongruous to me.

[Gilliangirl]

Mike, guitarstrummer, has a gorgeous birdseye maple AJ. I have not played it but I've heard it and it's really gorgeous! The sound has some real 'body' to it. It surprised me because I expected the maple to be a bit thinner-sounding. Not mike's. I'm sure he'll chime in here at some point.

[guitarstrummer]

Mine is a custom birdseye maple in natural finish, so the birdseye really shows up on the back. Taylor Player pretty much nailed the description of the sound. Also, something to consider. At the last Homecoming, we were told that for every 1,000 maples, there is 1 curly maple. And for every 1,000 curly maples, there is 1 birdseye. (I think that's right, anyway. If not, someone else who heard it, please correct me.) So, the birdseye is pretty rare.

[Guest]

I haven't played Mike's maple AJ, but I have sampled a couple of other maple variants on the AJ theme. They were both good-sounding guitars, but one of the two was outstanding. It was also a birdseye maple -- not that I think the birdseye has anything to do with it. It's the build that does it, I believe.

 

Fred

[modoc_333]

IMHO it's not an AJ if it's maple... no matter what they call it. they really should give it a different name.

if you want the AJ sound, there's only one way to go..... ;)

[zombywoof]

IMHO it's not an AJ if it's maple... no matter what they call it. they really should give it a different name.

if you want the AJ sound' date=' there's only one way to go..... ;)[/quote']

 

But since most of us have not played, never mind owned, an original AJ it is tough to know exactly what the AJ sound is. None of the older Gibsons I have owned were what I would call bright sounding guitars so I am thinking maple back and sides was a logical route for Gibson to take. Maple sure seems to work well on J-200s.

[Rambler]

Janus-- I played a maple AJ at Guitar Sale in July. It was short scale, so really it was a maple J45 with AJ appointments. But I digress. It was very even and smooth across the spectrum (fr vanilla to RW dutch chocoalte). Clear top, not sparkley like Hog or phat like RW. Quick round bass. Not a big sustain, but not so dry like an archtop. All this makes for a nice fingerpicker (along the lines of Jorma's starburst or J190). Strummed, a nice clear (that word again) tone minus the overtones and ginormous bass that comes with RW. More body than a Nick Lucas. Punchy single note runs (Russ Barrenberg). The long scale version would be similar in character but add volume and cut.

 

So objectively, a good guitar. Still, maple (and koa) is a world apart. Not bright so much, but the absence of overtones. A harpsichord to RWs pipe organ. Seeing as how the RW AJ didnt work out for you, a mpl AJ might not be a Janus guitar. Might be a Jonny guitar, however. JK

[Rambler]

Cant find a YTube mpl AJ, but here are some clips of mple 16" jumbos. And a mpl J45

 

Knight won hsi spurs. J185.

Lamp trimmed

Rag in C J200 jr (l/s)

 

and a maple banner J45 (russ barrenberg--scroll ahead for his solo). Great celtic/BG lead but lacks the bass for riddim.

[jannusguy]

thanks everyone for the input. jon, the links are especially helpful. i will be taking my time with my next purchase since i'm still learning my way around my latest addition. cheers!