blindboygrunt Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 it's been a while since i posted a stupid question so here goes ..... i havent played dozens of guitars like some of you guys and i bought a gibson because i love the sound and looks and theres also an attempt to get a sound similar to the guys and bands that inspire me ....would imagine we're all the same in that respect anyway , i have owned a lowden , definate sound , have owned a d28 , again , has a sound attached to it, takamine ,blah blah blah.... there are many guitars i gas over and if money were no object i'd have a few to choose from rather than just one get to the point man !!ok i understand that a mahogany guitar has a sound/tone and rosewood and koa or whatever , but why do gibsons always sound like gibsons and martins always sound like martins etc etc ...? i know that bracing wood thickness and all that also comes in to it. anyone shed light on this ? anyone understand what the hell i mean ? cheers folks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duluthdan Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 It is all in the ears of the beholder grasshopper. Might as well ask why even guitars of the same make and model sound different. I think its part componentry, and part mystery, just like sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Sound to me is like the way some actor described porn in a movie - I can't describe it but I know it when see [hear] it. Without a doubt certain guitars do have a basic characteristic sound that is identified with them - Martin's booming bass, Gibson's saturated mids and so on. I don't think, though, wood has that much to do with it. If it did my early Harmony Sovereign would blow alot of Martins and Gibsons out of the water. What really separates the Harmony from say a Martin D28 is the bracing. I also agree, though, that much comes from hearing what you want to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc McMaster Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Indeed Gibson, Martin, Guild et al have distinct sounds. They all use the same traditional woods (for the most part)......mahogany, rosewood, maple. They're all made of the same basic components.....top, back & sides, neck. But they sound distinctly different from one another given the same woods. What's the difference? An excellent question with a not so definitive answer, but it must be in the nuances of construction. Top braces vary in height, thickness and shaping. The tops themselves may be milled to different thicknesses. Back bracing differs between makers, and Guilds of the past at least were built with arched backs, no bracing. And bridge designs. I have posted here before about the Gibson belly-up bridge v. the Martin belly-down design and how the top may well be "loaded" differently due to the different placement of the pins and saddle. To my eye and understanding of acoustic guitar construction, this is perhaps the major difference in builds between these two iconic brands: the way string tension torque is applied to the top, with this difference in torque application relative to the top bracing beneath accounting for tonal variation. Would a Martin D18 sound more like a J-45 if it had a belly up bridge......would a Hummingbird sound more like a D18 with a Martin belly down bridge? I don't know for sure, but logic indicates it might. Beyond this I cannot account for tonal differences but there's no denying they are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfox14 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I think there's a distinct sound difference between manufacturers like Gibson and Martin. Hard to explain in words, but there definitely is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissouriPicker Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Gibsons and Martins, as well as Guilds, have their own sound because they have testicals. No wishy-washy new age tone. Martins and Gibsons in particular are "been there and done that" guitars. They have a definite history to them. Not just because they've been around for a long time, but because they have often played some role in humanity's history and in the history of countless individual humans (like us). Their tones, etc. have developed throughout the decades into something enjoyed, admired, and necessary for the human ear. Though better building techniques are available with technology, the basic foundation and theory of what makes a Martin and Gibson guitar is still there. The typical sounds from these guitars are what we expect from a guitar. The Gibson and/or Martin sound are what other guitars are compared to. This is not a bash on any other brand of guitar. There are lots of really sweet guitars being made today. It's simply a stating of the fact that no other guitars have the longevity and history of Martins and Gibsons. Simply their names mean music. Then, if you love to play and happen to own one, that guitar is quite likely a near-constant companion. It's literally part of who "you" are as a person. It's not just "a" guitar. It's a Martin or a Gibson, and it's as much "you" as your hands are. It doesn't sound like a Taylor, a Breedlove, or any other guitar. On the AGF, there have been a lot of threads regarding which guitar sounds closer to the Martin sound or the Gibson sound. If you truly want that sound, you need to get a Martin or a Gibson.....All the other guitars are guitars. Many are very nice guitars, but still just guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markini Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I think neck scale plays a role too. Predominately Gibson uses a 24 3/4" scale and Martin the 25 1/2' scale, there are exceptions. Birds, J45s etc in general also have a wider neck. Also mentioned previously is the belly up vs the belly down bridge. I have played several Martins and none of them sounded like any Gibson I own (Bird, Bird Pro, CSM, Songwriter) Same with Gibsons, but... the Bird pro (25 1/2") comes awfully darn close to sounding like a D28 to my ears, but with a better tone.But gives op volume. Also technically the Gibsons are not really flat tops at least my Pro isn't. There is a very slight curvature top and bottom of the body. Another factor and this is very general Martins are predominately rosewood body guitars and Gibsons are predominantly mahogany guitars, of sourse both manufactures offer several different tonewood selections. Note: I have been an acoustic Gibson fanboy since 1973. It is beyond a doubt my favorite acoustic guitar(s). But I play Martins, Yamahas, Taylors, Alvarezes, Takamines .. etc. I don't slam them because some songs are better suited to be played on other types of guitars. I am addicted to guitars. I f I could only have 2 guitars in my collection, they would be my HummingBird and my MIJ 89' Strat. Paraphrase: Keith Moon was asked. "What is your favorite guitar?" Keith's reply: " Whatever guitar I am playing at the time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Bridge pins ... its all in the bridge pins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Markini - Isn't the Martins typically 24,9 or 25,4 for dreadnoughts. EA - You nailed it as always. . . - - - - - - - The differences from brand to brand, model to model are so intriguing. Ask a non-player, an outsider or a beginner, and they'll shake their head unaware and unable to really comprehend. Ask a person from our tripe and he'll turn into Tolstoj before you're able to say Leo. I like to compare acoustics to the streets of my town. The more one gets to know them, the more one sense the differences – first by all the obvious points, later to a degree of nuance that is very hard to communicate. Even from street to street in the same neighborhood a subtle variation in the air grabs your senses with special spice and enigma. You get a genuine citizen by learning to tell one twin from the other. The basic differences in guitars are bound to come from the formulas after which they are build. It can't be otherwise and not many changes is needed before an identity begins to morph. The primal recipes holds the magic, but the balance is fragile and it has to be a challenge to improve or try to re-rise a series of models, like Ren Ferguson and Bozeman did when they started to turn the G-ship those 25 years ago. There must have been times where they stopped and wondered : Wait a minute, , , are we curving out of character here, , , is this still a Gibson. All in all the spectrum is a part of the general fascination and maybe we should allow some luthier-secrecy. What really puzzles me though, is how the fan of brands manage to sew the same sonic thread though their line of 'products' (in lack of a better word). The G-sound f.x. , , , what between heaven and earth creates that certain and unique flavor - how can so many models speak with identical accent and sub-tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted April 19, 2012 Author Share Posted April 19, 2012 Bridge pins ... its all in the bridge pins. haha , trust you EA buc i think , came closest to understanding my question .... or af least having an answer that seemed to elude him as it does me .... why oh why , is there no martin that has a 'gibson' sound , and vice versa ..... why do lowdens sound like the next one ..... its just a tree at the beginning so so so weird to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Gibsons and Martins, as well as Guilds, have their own sound because they have testicals. No wishy-washy new age tone. Martins and Gibsons in particular are "been there and done that" guitars. I would say though that both Martins and Gibsons are still voiced for what the companies consider a contemporary audience. If not there would be no need for Gibson's Legend Series or Martin's Authentic series. It has become an if you are one of those who long for the sound of the guitars of yesteryear you are going to have to ante up for it thing. Guild really was a consistent guitar - at least through the Hoboken and Westerly periods (the early NYC instruments tend to be voiced a bit differently and I have not played enough of the Fender Guilds to be able to compare them to anything). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 And bridge designs. I have posted here before about the Gibson belly-up bridge v. the Martin belly-down design and how the top may well be "loaded" differently due to the different placement of the pins and saddle. To my eye and understanding of acoustic guitar construction, this is perhaps the major difference in builds between these two iconic brands: the way string tension torque is applied to the top, with this difference in torque application relative to the top bracing beneath accounting for tonal variation. Would a Martin D18 sound more like a J-45 if it had a belly up bridge......would a Hummingbird sound more like a D18 with a Martin belly down bridge? I don't know for sure, but logic indicates it might. Beyond this I cannot account for tonal differences but there's no denying they are there. Your earlier post on this subject certainly intrigued me at the time Buc, and I follow the logic entirely. But I don't hear much difference between the Woody with its belly-down bridge and what I would expect to hear from a good J45 following the best samples I've listened to. I certainly don't hear what I tend to hear in Martins. There may well be a subtle tonal effect in the choice of bridge, and that may even on full understanding explain why those of us who have Woodies seem to rather like them, but the effect is so subtle that I can't actually hear it in any particular aspect of the guitar's tone. Now if you could demonstrate that the belly-down bridge does something that produces more rather than less of the mid-range growl that I associate with Gibson slopes, or makes it statistically more likely that a notable degree of growl emerges, then I might begin to understand the connection between the bridge and my love of the sound to which it contributes. But so far, it just sounds like any good SJ or 45 to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rambler Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Gibson started out making carved top instruments and has kept some of that aesthetic (24.75 scale, a slight arch to the top that adds compression and mids). Martin grow out of classical tradition and its built more lightly, more top/bottom separation, more response at a lighter touch. Examples will vary but the company aesthetics tend to shine through. The woods just add color to the design. Remember the thread, Gibosn cant do rosewood? Of course they can, but its rosewood with a Gibson feel, which isnt going to be at all like an HD28 or an OM42. One reason, I think, why AJs dont command the value they deserve on the re-sale market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatbaroque Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Don't forget to factor in Zagerising and String Science...can turn a D-18 into a SJ-200 in a few easy applications Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrplefty Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Me?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc McMaster Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Now if you could demonstrate that the belly-down bridge does something that produces more rather than less of the mid-range growl that I associate with Gibson slopes, or makes it statistically more likely that a notable degree of growl emerges, then I might begin to understand the connection between the bridge and my love of the sound to which it contributes. But so far, it just sounds like any good SJ or 45 to me. I hear ya. No sir, I cannot demonstrate the difference. Just eyeballing the construction differences trying to come up with some logic to explain what our ears hear. My thinking could be all wrong and likely is, but figured I'd take a stab at it anyway. There is probably a lot of sense in the long scale v. short scale angle making for much of the differences between Martin and Gibson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombywoof Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Gibson started out making carved top instruments and has kept some of that aesthetic (24.75 scale, a slight arch to the top that adds compression and mids). Martin grow out of classical tradition and its built more lightly, more top/bottom separation, more response at a lighter touch. Any properly built flat top will have a slightly radiused top. Ideally the arch in the top will be uniform from around the bridge to the soundhole. Martin was actually better at this than Gibson. So I don't think it is an inheritance from building archtops. During the 1930s Gibson and Martin "liberated" designs from each other pretty frequently. Gibson adopted both X bracing on their archtops and scallop bracing after Martin had been using it for years (although Gibson returned to the lighter top, parallel tone bar braced archtops by the end of the 1930s). On the other hand, Martin's shift to the forward shifted bracing mid-way through 1939 was inspired by Gibson. Martin also went from the longer OM 25 1/4" scale to a 24 3/4" scale on at least their C archtops around 1934. A good idea is a good idea no matter who came up with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Gibsons and Martins, as well as Guilds, have their own sound because they have testicals. I'm a little surprised, since I usually think of my guitars as being more feminine than masculine, with a few exceptions. I guess I'd better pay more attention to where I put my hands when I pick them up! It's not just the difference between brands, but that's a big part of it. I have a fairly wide variety of acoustic guitars, and each of them has a distinctive voice. For example, my 000-28 EC is pretty easily identifiable as a Martin with your eyes closed, and my J-45 sounds like......a J-45. But my J-45 sounds very different from my L-OO Legend, and my L-7 has a totally different sound from either one. To make a real apples to apples comparison, you need to make brand-to-brand comparisons of guitars of the same body size, style, and tonewood combination. There aren't really that many direct comparisons that can be made this way, unfortunately. It would be interesting to see/hear comparisons between even Gibsons of the same style and construction. I know JT has done this with rosewood and mahogany banner SJ's, but it would be great to see a bunch of J-45's of different eras compared sound-wise. They would need to be fitted with the same strings, and played by the same person with the same pick, for this to be meaningful. I've seen a few of these comparisons, and find them informative, if not definitive. Unfortunately, I can only afford a single guitar of each type, so I'm not the guy to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drathbun Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Paraphrase: Keith Moon was asked. "What is your favorite guitar?" Keith's reply: " Whatever guitar I am playing at the time." Well spoken... for a drummer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerBuckeye Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I think neck scale plays a role too. Predominately Gibson uses a 24 3/4" scale and Martin the 25 1/2' scale, there are exceptions. Birds, J45s etc in general also have a wider neck. Also mentioned previously is the belly up vs the belly down bridge. I have played several Martins and none of them sounded like any Gibson I own (Bird, Bird Pro, CSM, Songwriter) Same with Gibsons, but... the Bird pro (25 1/2") comes awfully darn close to sounding like a D28 to my ears, but with a better tone.But gives op volume. Also technically the Gibsons are not really flat tops at least my Pro isn't. There is a very slight curvature top and bottom of the body. Another factor and this is very general Martins are predominately rosewood body guitars and Gibsons are predominantly mahogany guitars, of sourse both manufactures offer several different tonewood selections. Note: I have been an acoustic Gibson fanboy since 1973. It is beyond a doubt my favorite acoustic guitar(s). But I play Martins, Yamahas, Taylors, Alvarezes, Takamines .. etc. I don't slam them because some songs are better suited to be played on other types of guitars. I am addicted to guitars. I f I could only have 2 guitars in my collection, they would be my HummingBird and my MIJ 89' Strat. Paraphrase: Keith Moon was asked. "What is your favorite guitar?" Keith's reply: " Whatever guitar I am playing at the time." Keith Moon? Wasn't he the drummer for The Who? Why would he be quoted about guitars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Keith Moon? Wasn't he the drummer for The Who? Why would he be quoted about guitars? Because he was a loon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I hear ya. No sir, I cannot demonstrate the difference. Just eyeballing the construction differences trying to come up with some logic to explain what our ears hear. My thinking could be all wrong and likely is, but figured I'd take a stab at it anyway. There is probably a lot of sense in the long scale v. short scale angle making for much of the differences between Martin and Gibson. Well of course I'm not challenging you to produce any demonstration, Buc! I still find your reasoning compelling in theory, and it would be genuinely interesting to know how all the variations and combinations of guitar elements do interact to produce the character of different models. That said, I'm glad that my SJ doesn't sound like a Martin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del Nilppeznaf Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Keith Moon? Wasn't he the drummer for The Who? Why would he be quoted about guitars? I think Markini got his Keiths mixed up.. " Paraphrase: Keith Moon was asked. "What is your favorite guitar?" Keith's reply: " Whatever guitar I am playing at the time." Thats a quote from Keith Richards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madman_Greg Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 This'll give you the fundamentals http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/guitar/guitarintro.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merseybeat1963 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 For some of the answer..look up John Greven luthier..and look for Voicing of the guitar..there are two essays worth reading. I think most Gibson & Martin Models are dis similar for the combination of woods/scale length to begin with..then its the bracing. I wonder what is the closest... For example D18..is closest to a Hummingbird..Martin has just recently gone to scalloped bracing on this direct competitor(I think).. So the only difference obviously is the Ebony Fingerboard & Bridge ..& Scale length..Enough to make the sound different right there.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.