where do the duds end up ?

[BluesKing777]

Likewise. I only convert to mp3 for use on a pocket player. Since I priamrily use my ipod for listening on an airplane, the compression loss from going mp3 is almost insignificant compared to the ambient noise issue, even with high-quality noise-cancelling headphones.

 

Everything is a compromise once you move out of the studio or away from a quality home set-up.

 

 

 

There are lots of min-threads moving around here!

 

 

I have always used headphones for recording and last year I bought the Shure SE545 'in-ear monitors' which are arguably the best 'commercially available'.

 

http://www.shure.co....ducts/earphones

 

You see people using them live and on tv and the people look so natural wearing them, but when you get your own, well....it can feel like the Alien has attached itself to your ears until you get used to them.....and the sound in just incredible. I will go back a bit - I got the recording bug in the late 70s/early 80s and in those days whoever was involved in a project would all gather round the 'desk' and listen to a whole lot of white noise and stuff with a band recorded somewhere in there that sounded not one thing like the live band!

 

 

Now we hear everything so well with the Shure SE545 and things like it - a bit too well sometimes - too many home truths in there! So I record music/videos and photos all on the maximum resolution possible with the equipment and then gradually whittle it down to the final MP3 - I think you can get a bit more detail by doing it this way, but the sound is really disappointing after hearing the original full res recording ......and that is before we listen on the iPad after it is loaded to the Forum or similar...

 

 

 

BluesKing777.

 

 

EDIT :

 

I know - I would rather listen to YOU on the SE545 than ME.... how's that?

[MissouriPicker]

This thread is enlightening me. All these years I thought the Gibson duds were sent to a mysterious warehouse and then forgotten. Remember that warehouse at the end of "Raiders of The Lost Ark" where they put the "ark of the covenant"?................Personally, I think whither or not a guitar is considered a "dud" is directly dependent on the pair of ears hearing it. I bet that for every Gibson some expert proclaims to be a "dud," there is at least one other so-called expert who loves the guitar. Comments on internet forums like "I've been playing Gibsons for years and never found a good one" and "I've owned lots of Gibsons and can't think of one I really liked" are typical of the "train of thought" you find on certain sites. But, you can't fix "stupid," so you've got to move along.

[J200_2013]

when it comes to top of the line Gibsons, my experience has been simply this: the dud is usually the player and not the guitar.

[BluesKing777]

Don't forget about a decent set up for the poor 'dud'.

 

 

It may just become a Princess....

 

 

 

 

BluesKing777.

[j45nick]

when it comes to top of the line Gibsons, my experience has been simply this: the dud is usually the player and not the guitar.

 

 

A poor worker blames his tools......

[Guth]

You might not be able to fix stupid, but you also can't paint a turd. That's why I put out a request for recordings. Again, the guitars that I'm talking about sound more like cardboard than they do wood. The strings sound more like rubber bands than they do steel. Whether recorded at a studio with an entire analog chain or recorded with an inexpensive digital device, these traits are very apparent. I'm traveling right now so I don't have access to my headphones (Grado SR60, a great bargain in the world of hi-fidelity) but I'll be sure to listen to everything shared once I return home.

 

For you folks who are mentioning things like a setup, think about it for a minute. So basically Gibson can't even get their own guitars to sound good coming straight from the factory yet they'll happily take your thousands of dollars? A fool and his money...

[blindboygrunt]

Lets hear them.

 

When I stop by my local 5-star dealer, I'll check out just about every single Gibson on display. Lots of them aren't even worth taking down off of the wall — I'll strum my thumb across each open string and the strings sound like rubber bands instead of steel strings, especially the low-E string. Total crap, just a muted thud of mud, no edge to the note, no ring to it at all. I might spend more time with the examples that don't exhibit this trait and still most of them sound fairly lifeless and muted ("stuffed with socks like"). Most every other guitar on display that I check out doesn't do these things so I don't buy into excuses like the strings are too old or it needs a setup or the room humidity wasn't right.

 

I notice that most people are quick to post picures of their guitars but very few post sound clips. Digital recorders can be had now for prices in line with cameras, phones, etc. so that shouldn't be an issue for anyone who can afford the kind of guitars we're talking about here. Even videos would work.

 

Wouldn't have to be anything fancy, but should be something other than strumming a few cowboy chords so that we can hear each string separately be it single note runs, some fingerpicking or simply picking across each string individually through a chord progression. Some chords/notes played higher up the neck in any fashion would be good too. Nothing fancy at all, but something that gives a good sonic representation of the guitars overall sonic traits.

 

So, lets here them.

 

i'll ask again...

 

yeah , get yer ya-ya's out ...

 

how do you explain what youre saying about the dead gibsons hangung on the wall Guth ?

[EuroAussie]

I think a good example of the variances in perception of Gibson tone from great to dud is the personal interpretation of the Gibson bottom end 'thump'.

 

This is a real unique property to Gibsons and many 'traditional' players get their knickers in a knot when they dont hear a piano bass coming out of a Gibson guitar (first note, its a guitar, not a piano).

 

But also amongst us Gibson fans there is still a lot of debate about the 'right' level of the Gibson thump that differentiates a good Gibson from a dud.

 

I recall Guth stating in the past her prefers a 'lively' thump, one that is quite responsive but still has the trademark Gibson thump. The real dry, flat thump was something that Guth didnt not appreciated as much (and Bill please correct me if Im wrong here). Meanwhile a hardened blues man loves that dry, flat bottom end Gibby thump. And it would be fair to say a hardened blues player and Guth are both great players, yet their interpreation of what makes a Gibson great from average may simply come down to that one criteria of the 'thump'.

 

Its all subjective ... I think that was the point, even amongst well versed Gibson fans.

[Guth]

Thanks EA, you're coming much closer at describing what I'm referring to with words than I am with one exception (which is where the recordings can be helpful). Where you use the word "dry", I would use the word "wet" or "damp".

 

Think about a raw piece of wood on its own. If that piece of wood had been left outside overnight during a rainstorm it's going to get soaked and become damp. If you tap on that piece of wood you'll end up with a muted thud — almost no vibration or resonance at all. If that same piece of wood sat out in the desert for a few weeks it would get all dried out. Now if you were to tap on that piece of wood you'll get more of a ringing out of it, there will be more of an edge when your knuckles hit the board followed by the sound of the board vibrating. A damp sound v.s. dry sound.

 

Using the above analogy, I much prefer a drier tone in general. Sometimes I want my low E string to ring out when I pluck it. Other times I want it to snap when I pull it up and release it. In those situations, I don't want the string to be muted. I can mute the string on my own using my palm or fretting fingers when I need to, and I often do. I absolutely don't want the guitar to do this on its own all the time. Yet this is exactly what most Gibsons that I play do. Sometimes just the low E string and sometimes more, or all, of the strings.

 

The only way to get any ring at all out of these guitars is to put on a new set of really bright strings like some 80-20s, and that effect quickly wears off after just a few days. The box simply has almost no resonance on its own. Those are the Gibsons that I call duds. Most inexpensive laminate guitars behave similarly. This just sounds like crap to me. Some old blues players guitars might have sounded this way, or they might have been muting the strings on their own as I described above. When things are muted all of the time, it just doesn't do it for me.

 

In my mind, when it comes to acoustic guitar tone, dry = good, damp = bad.

 

This is much different to me than bright v.s. warm which has more to do with emphasis on certain areas of the frequency spectrum than the vibration characteristics described above.

[j45nick]

Sometimes I want my low E string to ring out when I pluck it. Other times I want it to snap when I pull it up and release it. In those situations, I don't want the string to be muted. I can mute the string on my own using my palm or fretting fingers when I need to, and I often do. I absolutely don't want the guitar to do this on its own all the time. Yet this is exactly what most Gibsons that I play do. Sometimes just the low E string and sometimes more, or all, of the strings.

 

The only way to get any ring at all out of these guitars is to put on a new set of really bright strings like some 80-20s, and that effect quickly wears off after just a few days. The box simply has almost no resonance on its own. Those are the Gibsons that I call duds. Most inexpensive laminate guitars behave similarly. This just sounds like crap to me. Some old blues players guitars might have sounded this way, or they might have been muting the strings on their own as I described above. When things are muted all of the time, it just doesn't do it for me.

 

In my mind, when it comes to acoustic guitar tone, dry = good, damp = bad.

 

This is much different to me than bright v.s. warm which has more to do with emphasis on certain areas of the frequency spectrum than the vibration characteristics described above.

 

 

Hmmm, sounds to me like Gibsons in general might not be the right guitars for you. I guess it's a matter of personal preference and playing style, as well as the musical material chosen. The ringing bass you seem to be looking for seems to me to be more of a Martin-style sound, but that often overwhelms the mids, where Gibson seems to excell. I'm not sure any one guitar can do it all.

 

What guitar do you own that comes the closest to your all-around ideal? (Not trying to be critical here in any way: just trying to better understand what appeals to you.)

[EuroAussie]

Hmmm, sounds to me like Gibsons in general might not be the right guitars for you. I guess it's a matter of personal preference and playing style, as well as the musical material chosen. The ringing bass you seem to be looking for seems to me to be more of a Martin-style sound, but that often overwhelms the mids, where Gibson seems to excell. I'm not sure any one guitar can do it all.

 

 

There is actually a Gibson that has all that Nick .... its called the Advanced Jumbo.

[Guth]

Hmmm, sounds to me like Gibsons in general might not be the right guitars for you. I guess it's a matter of personal preference and playing style, as well as the musical material chosen. The ringing bass you seem to be looking for seems to me to be more of a Martin-style sound, but that often overwhelms the mids, where Gibson seems to excell. I'm not sure any one guitar can do it all.

 

What guitar do you own that comes the closest to your all-around ideal? (Not trying to be critical here in any way: just trying to better understand what appeals to you.)

 

You're absolutely right, it is all about preferences. If you click on the "My Music" link at the bottom of my post in my signature area you can listen to my Gibsons. The tunes "Walking Nick" and "Corn On The Cob" feature my J-45TV. The tunes "Backcountry" and "Rumble Seat" feature my Advanced Jumbo. These are my two favorite guitars that I've ever owned over the past 35 years. Both are strung with phosphor bronze strings for months at a time before I get around to replacing them and they remain lively and resonant the entire time. The low E strings never loose their ring. Both guitars sound as dry as can be.

 

As far as work by successful recording artists, I love the tone of Russ Barenberg's vintage Gibsons. Not just his maple J-45, but all of them that I've heard. Each and every one of them is very dry and woody sounding. Roy Bookbinder's Gibsons generally all sound good to me as well. There are plenty of other examples out there to boot.

 

These are the guitars that I refer to as the "great" Gibsons. That's why I played countless Gibsons to find the few that appealed to me. I'm guessing that most people here don't care for that type of sound, but it sure works for me and it still says Gibson on the headstock.

[Dennis D near Milwaukee]

not only does Gibson sell every acoustic guitar they make, CRAIG'S LIST sells every Gibson acoustic I see in our area!!!! That includes double X-braced, 1 9/16" nut sized Norlin era's finest!!! This includes vintage Gibsons to 1940 (which I have seen), EVERY GIBSON GETS SOLD!!!!! For every ear, there is a great sounding Gibson Acoustic, even if it doesn't suit YOUR ear......There are no "Duds", a dud is in the ear of the beholder. One man's dud, is another man's treasure!!! And so on , and so forth......

 

 

" As they've said since day one in the camel business, the donkey business, the horse business, the car business etc etc etc

 

" There's an a** for every seat " !!!

[Hairy Dave]

Interesting thread BBG.

 

I was in Dublin about two weeks ago and visited a large music shop. On one hand I was very excited to see such an array of instruments. Walls filled with Epiphones and Gibsons. The Gibson acoustics were behind the desk and sadly not one jumped off the wall at me. I love Gibson finishes and I think their bursts are arguably the best around. The guitars I saw were generally dull in appearance and in need of a great deal of TLC.

 

Tried a Hummingbird TV, J45 Custom and TV, Dove, J35 and an AJ. The only guitar that impressed was the J35. Crackin wee guitar and what value! The reason I think it was head and shoulders above the rest was the fact that it was newer. It hadn't been left hanging as long as the others and the strings were brighter.

 

I wouldn't necessarily write them all off as 'duds' as they could all be brought back to life with a bit of care. However, in their current state they would not make me want to part with anything close to the usual selling price. I would prefer to take my chances with online ordering - the safety net of distance selling rights is great.

[Mojorule]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMuI0DSL5l0

[onewilyfool]

You're absolutely right, it is all about preferences. If you click on the "My Music" link at the bottom of my post in my signature area you can listen to my Gibsons. The tunes "Walking Nick" and "Corn On The Cob" feature my J-45TV. The tunes "Backcountry" and "Rumble Seat" feature my Advanced Jumbo. These are my two favorite guitars that I've ever owned over the past 35 years. Both are strung with phosphor bronze strings for months at a time before I get around to replacing them and they remain lively and resonant the entire time. The low E strings never loose their ring. Both guitars sound as dry as can be.

 

As far as work by successful recording artists, I love the tone of Russ Barenberg's vintage Gibsons. Not just his maple J-45, but all of them that I've heard. Each and every one of them is very dry and woody sounding. Roy Bookbinder's Gibsons generally all sound good to me as well. There are plenty of other examples out there to boot.

 

These are the guitars that I refer to as the "great" Gibsons. That's why I played countless Gibsons to find the few that appealed to me. I'm guessing that most people here don't care for that type of sound, but it sure works for me and it still says Gibson on the headstock.

Guth, you dog!! You are quite the picker and grinner. First time I've heard you play...I really enjoyed it. Either Gibson's found YOU or you found Gibson's, but it sounds like a match made in heaven!!!

[blindboygrunt]

the thoughts i had that started the thread were from the belief that i have that the fanous gibson 'duds' , which , from my tiny experience , is what would put a lot of musicians off even considering a gibson acoustic , are more myth than reality .

certainly there seems to have been a period when they messed up their recipes and manufactured the more heavily built ones which , of course will suffer tonally . but if this was any other brand then i think it would bring about nothing more than ' theyre nice guitars but dont buy one that was made in 19** '

 

hear a conversation as such - ' i hear bob bought a D28 ' is usually followed by an 'ooh ' or something , but 'i hear bob bought a J45 gibson' and you get the ' why would anyone but a gibson ' response.

we're all sitting in our respective houses with acoustics that we like SO much that we come on here and bum n blow about them.

i know mine make me very happy .

 

and after reading the various posts and thoughts written , the gibson dud acoustic train of thought is more prevalent here than a lot of other places .... strikes me as very strange .

my reason for posting in the first place was - why do gibsons get a harder time than other guitars .

 

its no more than one mans meat is another mans poison . kind of makes me wonder how intelligent , experienced men can still allow themselves to think that something is rubbish just because they don't like it .

[j45nick]

There is actually a Gibson that has all that Nick .... its called the Advanced Jumbo.

 

 

Interesting point. I was thinking about buying one of those new D-28 Authentics, but maybe I'll look at an AJ instead. Late-model used AJ's are cheap as chips in the US.

[EuroAussie]

 

my reason for posting in the first place was - why do gibsons get a harder time than other guitars .

 

 

I think if I was to go down to one core 'reason why' is simply because they are different BBG, many folks simply dont like 'different'

[Guth]

BBG,

 

It's probably impossible to nail down exactly why such feelings exist. When it comes to Gibson acoustics, my opinions and feelings are probably closer to the majority of folks who hang out over on the AGF as opposed to people who hang out here. I can understand why Gibsons receive such harsh criticism overall. When I go to a guitar store, the only guitars that come anywhere close to the typical Gibson tone are the inexpensive imports out on display. When it comes to tone, the majority of people associate that lack of sustain with inexpensive instruments. Yet Gibson is charging thousands of dollars for their guitars while the imports run in the hundreds of dollars. That right there tends to put people off.

 

I'm all for people buying what they like. To spend one's money in any other way would be foolish. If the guitars that you own bring you enjoyment, then that's really all that counts regardless of the name on the headstock. I really don't care all that much if people over on AGF bash Gibsons or any other brand for that matter. Nor do I care if most people here don't care for the way my Gibsons happen to sound. In fact, most here probably feel that I am the one who has ended up with dud Gibsons. That's okay too because they aren't going anywhere regardless of what anyone else might think of them.

 

The fact that a great Gibson or a dud Gibson represents different things to different people is probably the most perplexing thing of all. As long as everyone playing a Gibson is happy doing so, that doesn't really matter all that much either.

[Guth]

One trait that is very common amongst most of the Gibsons that I've played was a lack of sustain. Most every other guitar builder out there is trying to achieve just the opposite to some degree or another. That's probably the biggest issue that non-Gibson fans have with Gibson acoustics. Like I said, you can slap on a set of 80-20 strings to try and liven them up a bit, but it's usually a short lived effect and then the guitar returns to its lifeless self. The only other guitars that I've seen achieve this same effect on a regular basis are the inexpensive imports. That sound is a tough sell in the crowd shopping for guitars who are budgeting thousands of dollars.

[EuroAussie]

I know what you mean by 'wet Guth ... I left my humidifier on this morning and forgot to switch it off before going to work. When I returned RH was at 89% .... and all my Gibsons sounded like a spaghetti western.

[Guth]

I'm sure that many here feel like I'm coming across like a total ***, and that's okay too. I'm simply at a loss to describe my viewpoints in words and these are simply the best and most straightforward analogies that I can come up with.

 

My perspective is probably skewed by the fact that I'm a fingerpicker/instrumentalist so the guitar is my only musical voice. People who can actuallly sing probably have much different requirements. A lot of my favorite singer-songwriters play Gibson acoustics and I'm sure that is not a coincidence.

[onewilyfool]

I think it's because Gibby's are often very mid-rangey, which is what goes best with the singing voice. And long sustain, again can muddy things up for a singer/guitar player......

[stein]

My perspective is probably skewed by the fact that I'm a fingerpicker/instrumentalist so the guitar is my only musical voice. People who can actuallly sing probably have much different requirements. A lot of my favorite singer-songwriters play Gibson acoustics and I'm sure that is not a coincidence.

I think that's a good obsevation.

 

I know what you are talking about, because I am problably the same way. I can use my fingers, the fleshy stuff. So to ME, a brighter guitar that takes off when you pluck is a more "dynamic" guitar, because I can certainly tame it easily. It's far easier to eliminate treble and brightness by adjusting. And the more stuff is there in the guitar otherwise, the more I feel I can use or not use, so to speak.

 

On the flip side, there are players that strum guite a bit with a pick, strum-strum-strum, that sort of thing. A guitar that has a lot of initial "attack" results in the sound of the pick being more prominant. The sound of the pick across the strings can easily overpower the sound of the actual chords, especially if the 'style' of the strummer is to constantly be strumming.

 

Now..I might pause here, to consider that one thing we "hear" or feel in a bright guitar is perhaps the attack, or how quickly the note takes off, or how fast the treble frequencies take off. Or, perhaps, maybe it's a case that treble frequencies alawys take off first. But either way, I think there might be TWO things at play here: perhaps the pick noise or sensitivity, and secondly, how much it has in the way of treble in the first place, i.e, onces strummed, the balance of strings.

 

I have two points, or thoeries of consideration regarding this:

 

One, is an example of a D-28 "cannon" type of guitar. I have personally, picked up many and heard and felt many differences, including wet-noodle type sounding ones. (I find Gibby being the "dead" sounding brand is a bad rap, because I hear it in Martin at least as much). I have experienced, someone taking that same wet-noodle D-28 and blasting out bluegrass type treble string licks that sound fairly bright and trebly overall. Wailing away with a pick on high notes, it don't sound the same way to me when someone does that while I stand about 10 feet away- but I feel it moving air even, and I hear the treble and the note, the treble notes just as clear without needing the pick noise-even though I still hear the pick as the Bluegrass-dude thumps the hell out of it.

 

The OTHER example, is the strummer strum-strum-strum type of players, who mainly never stop moving with the right hand, and whose performance might be more dictated by how fast to move the arm, or how loud to sing, etc. One man's wet noodle becomes another mans lack of hearing the pick, and without hearing the treble from the initial attack of the pick, you hear more of the chord, the note structure, the interaction between notes, that sort of thing. For THAT, Gibby's tend to hold a certain charm, because when it comes to chord and note interaction, Gibby's often actually have a "voice" that others don't seem to have as much.