Les Pauls

[voggin]

Re: Les Pauls

This thread wins the "WTF of the Week" award.

The op starts out with a reasonable statement. It's specific to guitar brands, but it still makes sense: The more detail, the better the information you are likely to receive.

If someone asks for an opinion about a particular pickup, I know I'm going to give more weight to the ones which explain the opinions better.

Which opinion are you more interested in? "Seth Lovers are awesome!" or, "I have a set of Seth Lovers in a chambered (2008 model) Les Paul Standard. I find they give a real, classic PAF tone in both the bridge and the neck. They're great for everything from clean to mid gain. Never had any "mud" from the neck through either of my Fender tube amps or my modeller. Not really suited to more modern metal with tons of thick gain, as they're not potted and lower output."

I'm assuming the crap in this thread is due to some drama that I missed. Because otherwise, arguing about whether the make and model of a guitar is useful information when discussing pickups is really dumb.

BTW, I don't think it's racist to have reservations about the quality of goods made in countries with records of sweatshop labour and significant human rights abuses. Here's a new slogan, "Epiphone makes Great Leap Forward!"

P.S. I recently praised the quality of some new Epiphones in a thread in this very site, so I'm not a brand-snob or basher.

[Archer250]

Re: Les Pauls

I dunno. I'd say that the FMIC factory has turned out consistently "well-made" guitars recently, that a good number of Chinese-made guitars are very usable and require little modification.

Cort's factories have turned out some inconsistent products, though.

[ArtieToo]

Re: Les Pauls

Hmmm . . . I was going to make a comment on how simple it is to make '59 not boomy and bassy, with 79-cents worth of parts. But I have a feeling that that's not what this topic is all about.

[Snake Aces]

Re: Les Pauls

Hmmm . . . I was going to make a comment on how simple it is to make '59 not boomy and bassy, with 79-cents worth of parts. But I have a feeling that that's not what this topic is all about.

I mentioned how I don't like the stock 59 mag much but how much I like it with an A2. I also mentioned how I like the stock 59 when used with a .015uf cap and lower or even no cap at all. I do not think anybody paid much attention to it.

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Les Pauls

I mentioned how I don't like the stock 59 mag much but how much I like it with an A2. I also mentioned how I like the stock 59 when used with a .015uf cap and lower or even no cap at all. I do not think anybody paid much attention to it.

But that isnt what this is over.... its over generalizing and saying 59's are always boomy... The op was wanting people to give more specific statments like "In my guitar the 59 is boomy so i spread yak tears on the pole pieces and it cured it" This is what he was after or stop saying that all single cuts sound like "Les Pauls" because not even two les pauls sound alike, but give a description. Try to avoid the over generalization that you always see. "Jb's dont work in mahogany" is another one or even worse "Many guys find JB's dont work in mahogany" Who are these many and did all their guitars sound the same? Half the time the people saying these things havent even experienced it they are repeating it.

In the past it used to be a real faux pas around here to give recommendations for stuff that you hadnt personally tried or experienced. Or at minimum you qualify your statement with "I think from what ive read x would be good"

This is what it was all about..

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

But that isnt what this is over.... its over generalizing and saying 59's are always boomy.

No one's said '59's are always boomy.' Since I joined the forum I've seen periodic posts about players saying their '59N was bassy in their guitar, more often than not in their LP style guitar. Certainly not in all cases, probably not half the time, but often enough that one could see that there may be an occasional connection between the two. I think that bit of info may be helpful for someone with an LP style guitar that's thinking about putting a '59N in it, especially if he's not handy or may be paying someone else to do the install. Apparently some members think it's none of their business. Hey, tell them what you want.

No one on this thread has generalized about any PU's in positive or negative ways? Always gave guitar/gear specifics in their comments about the PU's being discussed? Or is it the pot calling the kettle black? Are unsupported generalizations okay when you agree with them, and not okay when you don't? That's what this thread is about. Everyone's made generalizations.

Gibson175 asked us to list guitars for anything being said about '59's where they haven't been an ideal PU (because he likes them, so proof is required), but in the past few months made some unsupported harsh generalizations about '57 Classics (because he doesn't like them, no proof needed). A handful of members pick and choose which generalizations are a problem? I'm not playing that game.

[MrTondo]

Re: Les Pauls

[audiocheck]

Re: Les Pauls

not even two les pauls sound alike, but give a description.

True for same Model and Year.

each Les Paul has it's own sonic characteristic. If you want to be more specific, you must include it's acoustic sonic character.

I have ones that are:
Bright and Alive
Dark and Warm
Balanced
Loud and Resonant
Full and Warm

All of which are Weight relieved. Weight is also all over the map from 8lbs to 13lbs. I have found the Heavier they are the darker the tone, but that may not be true of all Les Pauls.

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Les Pauls

No one's said '59's are always boomy.' Blah blah woof woof back to the same old tired arguments that werent worth the calories they took to type....

Listen scoobie... you seriously need to unbunch your knickers.

You've said all these arguments before and they are still incorrect and untrue...

[uOpt]

Re: Les Pauls

I have never seen anybody say "59s in the neck of a Les Paul are boomy", unconditionally. Never. Stop riding that BS, Blueman. You keep messing up perfectly fine threads arguing against things nobody said in the first place.

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

I have never seen anybody say "59s in the neck of a Les Paul are boomy", unconditionally. Never. Stop riding that BS, Blueman. You keep messing up perfectly fine threads arguing against things nobody said in the first place.

OMG. No one? Duncan Administrator Simon F, said in two posts on 1-17-15 in the thread about WLH vs '59 Tone:

"In a Les Paul the neck pick up can be too bass heavy."

"WLH's are like a '59 set that has been optimized for a Les Paul."

No specific models mentioned! Generalizations! So why don't you boys straighten him out about bassy LP's, since he's apparently using generalizations and spreading misinformation. And while you're at it, tell him that he's not doing things the correct way on this forum.

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

You've said all these arguments before and they are still incorrect and untrue...

So you're going to tell Simon F he doesn't know what he's talking about, right?

And Gibson175 should start a thread telling Duncan Administrators and Moderators what they can and can't post. Or is that the inmates running the asylum?

[Snake Aces]

Re: Les Pauls

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Les Pauls

So you're going to tell Simon F he doesn't know what he's talking about, right?

And Gibson175 should start a thread telling Duncan Administrators and Moderators what they can and can't post. Or is that the inmates running the asylum?

Im not talking about Simon F... Im talking about you. Stop trying to deflect to others. Just because someone else has done it doesnt absolve you of anything.

[DreX]

Re: Les Pauls

Man, I see the same regulars always turning out for the most pointless arguments on this forum! You guys should give it a rest!