round vs square shoulder and other questions

[DCBirdMan]

J45s, J50, J160e, etc. went from round to square shoulder around 1969/70? Does anyone think there is a difference in acoustic tone because of this? I have read most of the sound comes from the sound hole and on down from there -- and above soundhole isn't much of a factor and is just a visual thing you either like or dont' like.

 

Now some folks say that Gibson acoustic quality started to decline around this same 1969/70 period -- but all other things being equal would you really hear much of a difference between the the 2 body styles?

 

Getting interested in J 160-Es, not because of the Beatles connection, just because I was interested in an amplifed acoustic, w/ front mounted controls... I have a nice mid-late 60s J 50 w installed K & K pickup which is very nice

but it has the narrower 1/ 9/16th neck width (at nut) and early and later models are the more conventional 1 11/16th width.. .anyone know when they went back to that width.

 

A final question -- is the pickup on J 160E height adjustable like pickups are on most Gibson electrics?

 

Thanks,

RB

[retrorod]

J45s, J50, J160e, etc. went from round to square shoulder around 1969/70? Does anyone think there is a difference in acoustic tone because of this? I have read most of the sound comes from the sound hole and on down from there -- and above soundhole isn't much of a factor and is just a visual thing you either like or dont' like.

 

Now some folks say that Gibson acoustic quality started to decline around this same 1969/70 period -- but all other things being equal would you really hear much of a difference between the the 2 body styles?

 

Getting interested in J 160-Es, not because of the Beatles connection, just because I was interested in an amplifed acoustic, w/ front mounted controls... I have a nice mid-late 60s J 50 w installed K & K pickup which is very nice

but it has the narrower 1/ 9/16th neck width (at nut) and early and later models are the more conventional 1 11/16th width.. .anyone know when they went back to that width.

 

A final question -- is the pickup on J 160E height adjustable like pickups are on most Gibson electrics?

 

Thanks,

RB

Yes, the pole-pieces on the P-90 are adjustable...but not the P'up itself...of course.

And of course, the magnetic P'up on the J160E is a different animal than UST types...

[Rambler]

[Gibson] went from round to square shoulder around 1969/70? Does anyone think there is a difference in acoustic tone? some folks say that Gibson acoustic quality started to decline around this same 1969/70 period -- but all other things being equal would you really hear much of a difference between the the 2 body styles?

 

Both things are true. Gibson did bulk up its bracing, bridge pads and etc in the late 60s across the board. That said, a J45 is going to have a different vibe from a H'bird, just to take one example. The slope shoulder helps push the sound out a little more forecfully and adds a bit of high end crispness. Plus I happen to think the slopes handle better.

[E-minor7]

I have had this topic on my profile page and studied for a while. To me it isn't as easy as I thought. Yes, maybe it can be said that the squares are a bit roomier – even boomier. But my Standard 45 contradicts it before the sentence is written. A lot of sound comes from that box and it's far more projecting than the Bird.

Some talk of more bass from the squares – here too I tend to disagree, , , or let me say, I have 2 slopes with plenty of deep end here.

 

To drop a smaller grenade, I could quote a luthier who says not much sound is goin' on in the shoulders (and then he taps on the woods there, which sounds quite dead).

 

Short of long is that I can't come up with a single-track answer. It surprises me this basic Q. didn't reach more response so far. It's about what everyone of us choose between and have in our hands all the time -

[Rambler]

My understanding is that the round shoulder and tail end help push the sound out a bit more. It projects better. It also rolls a little off the low end so while there's still plenty of bas, it it doesnt boom like a Dread. On a full dread, the sound waves have a somewhat larger space to whirl around in. Players experience a lot of presence but that doesnt project outward so well. You also tend to get a big low end and not as bright on the high end (the extent of all that depending on bracing, woods used etc).

 

Gibson's (Norlins) adaptation of the square shoulder design wasnt a success. Sales declined (the stiffer build dint help) and when they moved to Nashville they stopped making them for a while. Vintage maven Gary Burnette said that something to the effect that old-timers, who remembered the 30s-40s, held Gibson in high regard. Younger pickers, who only knew about the 60-70s Gibsons, didnt have anything good to say about them at all.

[Del Nilppeznaf]

 

To drop a smaller grenade, I could quote a luthier who says not much sound is goin' on in the shoulders (and then he taps on the woods there, which sounds quite dead).

 

Tried the TAP test and the HB is solid and dead right at the shoulder, esp' PG side which is to be expected with the large PG.

Moving down to the belly and she's nice and alive..... obvious i suppose when you think of construction... interesting none the less.

 

Rambler,

 

your explanation concerning sound waves ect' makes a lot of sense.

[EuroAussie]

I find the difference not be in volume but in directoness of tone. The square shouldr to me is more open while the square sholdered is more focused and somewhat tighter, compressed, with a midrange focus.

 

Volume wise the AJ has shown that it can be extremely loud for a round shoulder.

 

I think this square = loud is equated with the Martin dreads heritage which are loud and boomy and thats sort of the short cut to assuming squries are loud and big. not really the case.