Hot-rodding a J-45

[livemusic]

The geetar guru, Brian Kimsey, apparently, does a lot of modifying Martin guitars. Where he'll take, say, a D-28 and shave the braces, remove the 'popsickle' brace, change nut/saddle, do a setup, etc. People seem to like the results. Wondering if something like that could be done to a J-45.

 

My standard J-45 sounds good but just wondering if it could be improved. Or just buy a J-45 TV! (Which I have never played.)

[EuroAussie]

There was a poster on the AGF that did exactly that with his D-18v. It became an absolute pitbull monster, much what i remembered when I played a D-18 Authentic some time back.

 

The hotrodded D-18v definitely sounded close to the 18A, and that was the desired effect, so mission achieved. However I personally didnt like the tone as I found it just way over the top boomy and the bass frequencies were dominating across every register.

 

Would it work on a J-45, I dont know. Gibsons are so different to Martins that its actually their subtlety that makes the so special. On the other hand one could argue the TV models are hot-rodded to an extent and sound spectacular.

[ParlourMan]

Wouldn't the AJ be a stronger contender for this? If the object is to squeeze all the volume, boom and 'on steroids' effect as possible, surely the AJ which already has a lot of this built in.

 

The removing braces part is what worries me, in this day and age of building them lighter, how light can it go before it's compromised? The warranty is a goner and it somewhat limits repairs and other maintenance to the hot-rodder as not all luthiers will be familiar with this work.

 

Interesting concept though, I'd be curious to see some actual luthiers chip-in on this.

[dhanners623]

While there are various "tweaks" that can (and often should) be made to a guitar, I'm often hesitant when I hear about "hot-rodding" an instrument. It becomes a situation where you are changing the fundamental character of the guitar, and if you're going to go to those lengths and that expense, why not just get the guitar with the sound you want?

 

We like the J-45 because of the classic sound it has developed a reputation for. If we want some other sound, we should find some other guitar. Sometimes, we should leave well-enough alone.

[EuroAussie]

Yes, thats my thinking also. If I look at the motivation of the guy who hot rodded his D-18v it was because he wanted a D-18A but didnt have the cash for it, so he saw it as an alternative solution. Seems to have worked for him.

 

Its not like that in the Gibson world where there is the perceived pinnacle like the D-18A in the Martin world with a very specific tone, and a price tag to match.

 

While there are various "tweaks" that can (and often should) be made to a guitar, I'm often hesitant when I hear about "hot-rodding" an instrument. It becomes a situation where you are changing the fundamental character of the guitar, and if you're going to go to those lengths and that expense, why not just get the guitar that sounds the way you want it a guitar to sound?

 

We like the J-45 because of the classic sound it has developed a reputation for. If we want some other sound, we should find some other guitar. Sometimes, we should leave well-enough alone.

[Murph]

While I have chopped up some electrics, I'll pretty much leave the J-45 as it is.

 

I don't care what somebody else does to theirs, though.

[livemusic]

What, exactly, is the difference in the J-45 and J-45 TV? Is bracing scalloped? Different glue? Adi top?

 

As far as that goes, anyone care to take a stab at describing the difference in sound?

[EuroAussie]

Im pretty sure the bracing is lighter, the overall guitar is much lighter, so hence it must be the bracing. Adi top vs Sitka.

 

Tone wise I find the TV version more open and fluid, while the standard a bit more nasaly, laid back, not quite as open, but still great in its own way. There is definitely a difference.

 

What, exactly, is the difference in the J-45 and J-45 TV? Is bracing scalloped? Different glue? Adi top?

 

As far as that goes, anyone care to take a stab at describing the difference in sound?

[emmonsh]

Im pretty sure the bracing is lighter, the overall guitar is much lighter, so hence it must be the bracing. Adi top vs Sitka.

 

Tone wise I find the TV version more open and fluid, while the standard a bit more nasaly, laid back, not quite as open, but still great in its own way. There is definitely a difference.

popsickle brace by most martin players and luthiers is deemed not necessary and hinders the sound

[Mojorule]

Im pretty sure the bracing is lighter, the overall guitar is much lighter, so hence it must be the bracing. Adi top vs Sitka.

 

Tone wise I find the TV version more open and fluid, while the standard a bit more nasaly, laid back, not quite as open, but still great in its own way. There is definitely a difference.

 

I know that modern pickups are not all that heavy, but I'm pretty sure that the main difference in weight is likely to be the pup before it's the bracing. The Woody has bracing like the Standard, and the braces are very thin. The tone is likely affected by the positioning of the braces, but I can't imagine the TV having significantly lighter bracing.

[E-minor7]

The J-45 is scalloped, the D-28 isn't. I wouldn't do it if I was you. Then again my 45 braces could be more scalloped than yours.

The Hummingbird here is more inviting. Its braces are scalloped, but not much. Yet it would down right foolish to alter the interior while it's in the process of breaking in - just wrong.

 

Then there is the 1968 SJ. Admit I was tempted to remove a little mass 16 months ago, but didn't dare. The basic nature and voice of the guitar could tilt and if so, there'd be no way back. A situation that would make any explorer feel utterly stupid.

 

Still the topic represents a challenge. A possibility would be to take theYamaha or the Epiphone IB Texan and go slow (both fairly cheap and un-scalloped). A good summer mission, isn't it. Sit on the terrace in the sun (I haven't got a terrace) and sand away bit by bit. Might do that sooner or later, , , fascinating thought.

 

 

 

[GotTheSilver]

What, exactly, is the difference in the J-45 and J-45 TV? Is bracing scalloped? Different glue? Adi top?

 

As far as that goes, anyone care to take a stab at describing the difference in sound?

 

I believe the two biggest differences between the J-45 Std and the J-45 TV are 1) different bracing pattern, and 2) the TV has an Adi top vs. the Std's Sitka top. I also believe (but am not sure) the TV has more hide glue. I believe both use hide glue for the neck joint, but the TV uses hide glue for the bracing and the Std does not. Not sure on this part - please correct me if anyone knows better.

 

There are other spec differences between the two, but these are probably the ones that contribute the most to the tone.

 

In my experience, I have found the TVs to be more consistent tonally than the Standards. In general, I think the TVs sound better - fuller, more depth, more well rounded sound. The Stds I have played lately have tended to sound thinner and less pleasing to my ear. This is not to say there are not great sounding Stds - there are (passtheJ45 has posted some nice sounding clips on this forum). Also, I guess it depends on what sound you like as to which is better. But if I were in the position of mail ordering a new guitar site unseen, I would definitely go with the TV. The price difference is really not that large.

 

Of course, you could just buy a J-45 Legend!

[GotTheSilver]

The geetar guru, Brian Kimsey, apparently, does a lot of modifying Martin guitars. Where he'll take, say, a D-28 and shave the braces, remove the 'popsickle' brace, change nut/saddle, do a setup, etc. People seem to like the results. Wondering if something like that could be done to a J-45.

 

My standard J-45 sounds good but just wondering if it could be improved. Or just buy a J-45 TV! (Which I have never played.)

 

I have never really heard of anyone doing this with a Gibson. I have heard about it with Martins, but not Gibsons. I guess I don't really understand it so much, but then I am not very familiar with Martins. Maybe there are certain things with Martins (like the popsicle brace that I am unfamiliar with) that are just unnecessary and inhibit certain models. I don't think there has ever been that thinking in relation to Gibson acoustics.

[EuroAussie]

Here's a direct comparisement.

 

[music4love]

I have never really heard of anyone doing this with a Gibson. I have heard about it with Martins, but not Gibsons. I guess I don't really understand it so much, but then I am not very familiar with Martins. Maybe there are certain things with Martins (like the popsicle brace that I am unfamiliar with) that are just unnecessary and inhibit certain models. I don't think there has ever been that thinking in relation to Gibson acoustics.

 

 

My used to be local luthier in Newport News Va used to take Gibsons from the Norlin era through a simiiar process. She must have gotten good results because every time I had the J-200 that I used to own in her shop , she always showed me another Gibson she was working on. She received guitars from all over the US to work on. Her name is Marguerite and her shop is called Fret Not Guitar Repair. She does excellent work.

[j45nick]

My used to be local luthier in Newport News Va used to take Gibsons from the Norlin era through a simiiar process. She must have gotten good results because every time I had the J-200 that I used to own inner shop , she always showed me another Gibson she was working on. She received guitars from all over the US to work on. Her name is Marguerite and her shop is called Fret Not Guitar Repair. She does excellent work.

 

I tried to get her to work on my old J-45, but she is too busy to take in outside work. Her website has excellent tutorials on a number of topics, and I highly recommend it.

[GotTheSilver]

Here's a direct comparisement.

 

 

Always hard to tell nuances over youtube, but I think the TV in this video sounds warmer, fuller, whereas the Modern Classic sounds brighter. Which is better depends on your personal tastes, but I would go for the TV based on this youtube video.

 

BTW, is the Modern Classic the same as the Standard? I thought they were different models.

[gotomsdos]

 

BTW, is the Modern Classic the same as the Standard? I thought they were different models.

I don't know past, but I've never seen J45 STD together with J45 Modern Classic on internet stores. I guess they're a thing. I guess STD is previous name, MC is later, especially with pickup.

[music4love]

Always hard to tell nuances over youtube, but I think the TV in this video sounds warmer, fuller, whereas the Modern Classic sounds brighter. Which is better depends on your personal tastes, but I would go for the TV based on this youtube video.

 

BTW, is the Modern Classic the same as the Standard? I thought they were different models.

 

 

 

 

That seems to be what I hear as well. With every video and personal encounter that I have had with a MC compared to a TV, the MC always sounds brighter with more clarity. The TV always seems more open with more warmth. As time goes on, the MC should develop more warmth as the wood ages and playing open it up. But that extra clarity should remain. If I was going to be playing solo or through a mic the majority of the time, I would personally choose a TV model. Playing with others and through a p.a. system on sundays made the MC a little more favorable for me.