Difference in tone HB TV vs 60's HB

[EuroAussie]

Would you expect a distinct difference in tone or not really ?

 

Im starting to think that actually, it really is a signfiicant difference.

 

If I listen to my 69' Bird it has quite a strong midrange, very woody, even bluesy tone. Actually almost identical to this sample here.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ27Yv5CWBc&list=FLKtgHPiM5z1Dk4e5v2qsOJw&index=5&feature=plpp_video

 

When I hear and play the TV's I hear a softer tone, not as much midrange or wood, but more silk and softness, as for example this clip.

 

 

What do you think, would you expect a 'significant' difference in tone between a HB TV and a real vintage HB ?

 

As you are probably guessin Im wondering if it makes sense to get a HB TV, as while I love the tone of mine, Im also enchanted by the HB TV tone, which to my ears is a bit of a different beast. However one criteria which I always need to pass when adding a guitar is that it must complement the others in the heard. Would this be overkill ??

[j45nick]

I think the real question here is: how much of the perceived and real tonal difference is a function of different HB models, and how much is simply the instrument-to-instrument variation that we see and talk about every day? Given the very real tonal differences we hear as a function of strings, for example, is it possible to generalize about this?

[EuroAussie]

I think if one focuses on the context of comparing the fundamental tone of a 40 year old Bird and a new TV, it can be compared. Certainly playing style, strings etc are also important, but questions is whether there is a fundamental difference in tone between a vintage Bird and a vintage 'voiced' Bird ?

 

I think the real question here is: how much of the perceived and real tonal difference is a function of different HB models, and how much is simply the instrument-to-instrument variation that we see and talk about every day? Given the very real tonal differences we hear as a function of strings, for example, is it possible to generalize about this?

[E-minor7]

No easy answer.

 

When I think of the way my Bird has developed over the last 8 month – less restrained and louder – it gives a perspective on how much 40-45 years will do.

Then add the different bracing and wood (don't forget many oldies had laminated sides).

Let's not talk about how the instruments has been treated/played or how they differ/differed as individuals from the plant, but concentrate on the above.

Yes, there'll be a difference – and yes, there'll be similarities. And both aspects will be heard/felt in the nature of the guitars. Still generally speaking the new Bird will be stronger – the old very open, dry, even airy and fragile. As we talked about several times, there's a gab between pre and post 1967 square shouldered dreads (we stop with Norlin in '70). They are and are not compatible. Same with new/vintage. In short, I don't think a '6oties sq.sh. covers the need for a modern Bird or S. Crow. But then again I'm the first to whisper you up in the tree EA - you know.

 

I find the 2 clips hard to work with as A/B. All though the guitars sound good, the old has adj. rosewood saddle (which is something for itself) – while the contemporary TV, besides sounding a little Elexirish, is played a little too 'sissy'.

[EuroAussie]

Yeah he does play without much dynamics and with what sounds like a very thin pick in the 2nd clip, woulld have been good if he dug in a bit more.

 

To me its im[ossible to recreate the woody, dry tone that 40 years of sweat, movement and vibration installs into a guitar, and to me that really comes through when comparing same guitar, any model new vs 40 years old or so.

 

I have to say I alaso love the 1 3/4 neck of the TV compared to the 1 11/16 of the 69' Bird.

 

btw: can you remind me what was the main difference in the bracing or other differences between pre 67 sq shouldered Gibsons and between 67-69' ? (Noriln Era aside?)

 

No easy answer.

 

When I think of the way my Bird has developed over the last 8 month – less restrained and louder – it gives a perspective on how much 40-45 years will do.

Then add the different bracing and wood (don't forget many oldies had laminated sides).

Let's not talk about how the instruments has been treated/played or how they differ/differed as individuals from the plant, but concentrate on the above.

Yes, there'll be a difference – and yes, there'll be similarities. And both aspects will be heard/felt in the nature of the guitars. Still generally speaking the new Bird will be stronger – the old very open, dry, even airy and fragile. As we talked about several times, there's a gab between pre and post 1967 square shouldered dreads (we stop with Norlin in '70). They are and are not compatible. Same with new/vintage. In short, I don't think a '6oties sq.sh. covers the need for a modern Bird or S. Crow. But then again I'm the first to whisper you up in the tree EA - you know.

 

I find the 2 clips hard to work with as A/B. All though the guitars sound good, the old has adj. rosewood saddle (which is something for itself) – while the contemporary TV, besides sounding a little Elexirish, is played much too 'sissy'. No real power, nor dryness or hibiscus nectar comes across in this treat.

[E-minor7]

btw: can you remind me what was the main difference in the bracing or other differences between pre 67 sq shouldered Gibsons and between 67-69' ? (Noriln Era aside?)

First let me remind you that I moderated the last part of my words about the TV clip after hearing it all.

 

Second – What ! , , , have you forgot. . . ? Well, the bracing got thicker EA – a whole lot bulkier, as they say. The new Birds are something third and forth, thin and scalloped though.

 

Totally understand your attraction towards the contemporary neck (not to mention the whole thing). With the right action it's second to none.