Les Pauls

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

i'm asking... that people actually write what kind of axe they are using as their frame of reference when making recommendations.

In summary:

- Generalizations are bad.

- Positive generalizations are good, and require no support.

- Negative generalizations are bad and require support. Ideally the person should also provide sound clips of his playing prowess.

- Negative generalizations are okay when they're for a PU you don't like ('57 Classics). No support is needed.

- Negative generalizations are not okay when they're for a PU you like (PG's). Support is required.

- When people make negative generalizations about PU's you like (PG's), it's not okay, and appropriate responses include getting upset and insulting that person.

- When you make negative generalizations about PU's you don't like ('57 Classics), it's okay, and other members are out-of-line if they get upset and insult you.

- Can you clarify: You've said '57's are poor sounding PU's, and Edgecutter says Gibsons are great-sounding guitars; over the years Gibson's had '57's in many of their models at one time or another. Can you reconcile this? To my untrained eyes both of these seem to be generalizations, and I know how you both condemn the use of them.

I think I got it. Makes sense to me, consider it done. It would help if you posted a list of the PU's you like and don't like, so we know how we're supposed to talk about them. Some people may question why you have more rules than the Duncan moderators, but they obviously don't realize how consistently you've followed your own rules. If you can do it, everyone else can too.

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

The whole point of G175's post and mine is that this place is rife with logical fallacies being used in dispensing advice.

Of which you have been totally innocent of in all 5,400 of your posts. Kudos! Even the fair-minded Gibson175 hasn't been able to do that (in his bashing of '57's and glowing praise of PG's). You've set a standard for objectivity that we shall all strive to attain. I look to you to set an example by listing the guitars used in all your comments about PU's.

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Les Pauls

Of which you have been totally innocent of in all 5,400 of your posts. Kudos! Even the fair-minded Gibson175 hasn't been able to do that (in his bashing of '57's and glowing praise of PG's). You've set a standard for objectivity that we shall all strive to attain. I look to you to set an example by listing the guitars used in all your comments about PU's.

You really seem to feel that all this is personally directed at you. Why is that? No one named names. The way your reacting does smell funny though... like... guilt soiled sweat socks.

Its funny that when you get riled up you have to resort to deliberate twisting of words to form even the thinnest defense, none of what you say was said was even said but then you know that dont you, this is just all you can think of ... so in the words of the great Sergeant Hulka

[uOpt]

Re: Les Pauls

THIS is good information for readers.
All i'm asking for is that people actually write what kind of axe they are using as their frame of reference when making recommendations.

I have two MIJ Les Pauls that are identical in construction and documented wood choices. Even with the same pickups and electronic they sound very different, and it even shows up in frequency distribution graphs.

That's the problem I have with this thread.

This thread places too much emphasis on manufacturer and brand choice and manufacturer's choices (how much control do they have, really?), and not enough on random factors such as individual wood pieces (including but not limited to sub-par sourcing on part of the manufacturer) and how the truss rod placing and the anchors in the top (if any) worked out with this particular piece.

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

You really seem to feel that all this is personally directed at you. Why is that? No one named names.

My posts on a couple of threads in the past week seemed like the inspiration for Gibson175 to start this thread. It appeared that I may have stepped on some toes. But I could be mistaken. Or maybe it's from a few of the same guys periodically blowing up at me for doing the same thing they do, only about different PU's. It's curious how 'objectivity' becomes a requirement when talking about a few people's favorite PU's, when they don't seem to be able to do it consistently themselves. Funny how that works. It's okay for the 'elite inner circle of tone experts' to make generalizations (positive and negative), but when their favorite PU's are referred to in a less-than-flattering way, they get their feathers ruffled and expect others to provide proof. Double standard? When someone talks less-than-favorably about my favorite PU's, I don't call them names, personally insult them, or demand to hear clips of their playing ability to see if they're worthy of making such statements. I guess I'm just old-fashioned that way. I still have this naïve idea that we can talk about gear here without putting people down and lashing out at each other. Maybe one day.

And BTW, I'm not referring to you in this post. No names were mentioned.

[donaldr]

Re: Les Pauls

What I like about this forum is how members are respectful of each others, and that everyone can give their opinion without fear of being slashed. I think this thread is drifting a bit from that...

[donaldr]

Re: Les Pauls

I personally appreciate when someone can give me some information about it's comment /observation/opinion to make sure it applies to MY context and members are usually doing so. But it's also my responsibility when I open a thread to give enough information so that others don't ask me for additional information and they can give there opinion based on THAT information. I can also challenge an opinion if I find it "strange" compared to other opinions I received and ask in what guitar the opinion.

As it has been said, no guitars from same manufactures are totally identical but then are usually not totally different from either. Amps/speakers/technique also have big influence on sound and our perception of it.

[uOpt]

Re: Les Pauls

What I like about this forum is how members are respectful of each others, and that everyone can give their opinion without fear of being slashed. I think this thread is drifting a bit from that...

It's always the same people. The ignore list helps, as underengineered as it is.

The people who are so bad you can't killfile them are here but not that many.

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

I personally appreciate when someone can give me some information about it's comment /observation/opinion to make sure it applies to MY context and members are usually doing so. But it's also my responsibility when I open a thread to give enough information so that others don't ask me for additional information and they can give there opinion based on THAT information. I can also challenge an opinion if I find it "strange" compared to other opinions I received and ask in what guitar the opinion.

That's the way I think it should work too. Get a variety of input and views; then you're informed and can make your own decision. As part of that, you probably want to know member experiences on where they think a PU works best and where it doesn't. It's almost all opinion. Doesn't mean you'll have the same experience as any of them, but at least you won't be blind-sided. I'd like to think we can give someone more than the sanitized manufacturer's marketing copy about a PU. The anger seems to come when a recommendation doesn't necessarily portray someone's favorite PU's in the best possible light. The occasional knock-down, drag-out fights over that are really pretty juvenile. But that's been part of the entertainment here for many years. Keep your sense of humor. There's a lot of good info here and lots of helpful people, even if we don't agree with each other all of the time.

[Chickenwings]

Re: Les Pauls

I have two MIJ Les Pauls that are identical in construction and documented wood choices. Even with the same pickups and electronic they sound very different, and it even shows up in frequency distribution graphs.

That's the problem I have with this thread.

This thread places too much emphasis on manufacturer and brand choice and manufacturer's choices (how much control do they have, really?), and not enough on random factors such as individual wood pieces (including but not limited to sub-par sourcing on part of the manufacturer) and how the truss rod placing and the anchors in the top (if any) worked out with this particular piece.

You are right of course. Every guitar is different and unique in some way, even when comparing two guitars that come out of the same plant on the same day.

[Aceman]

Re: Les Pauls

'Unreliable information and perception' being opinions that differ from yours?

Not to be confused with reliable information and perception that is yours.

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

Not to be confused with reliable information and perception that is yours.

It's almost all opinion when it comes to tone. No one is without their own personal biases, including you.

[Aceman]

Re: Les Pauls

It's almost all opinion when it comes to tone. No one is without their own personal biases, including you.

Yes - but I don't generally portray my opinion as that of others as a defacto truth.

I usually (and I'm not saying always) clarify My opinions, usually specify the guitar that things are in, and tend to ask the golden triangle of gear questions: Guitar/Amp/Style.


I have a Ph.D. I can caveat like nobody's business.

[blueman335]

Re: Les Pauls

I really don't portray my opinions as 'de facto truth.' What I regularly do (to the consternation of a few individuals) is quote what I see other members repeatedly posting. Their opinions seem just as valid as anyone else's. What I really hate to happen is for someone to get glowing recommendations for a PU (and god knows, just about everything gets a glowing recommendation here from somebody), and for them to wind up with the same issues that some other members have had with that PU. They shouldn't be blind-sided, especially if they're paying someone to do the install. That could turn them off Duncan's for life. There's always some members that love any given PU, and always some who are underwhelmed by it. So. We're not all going to like the same things. Even when we do, there's different approaches to get there. The ones who disagree with you aren't tone deaf idiots. We certainly aren't all playing the same kind of music. We just need to dial down the anger level sometimes. Good lord, these are just PU's. You'd think someone's mother had been insulted or sister had been defiled.

[audiocheck]

Re: Les Pauls

I would like to throw my two cents in on the 59n. I own 6 LPs of various years and models, none of which are 50s models.

So although I will agree that the 59n does sound boomy, it is much more characteristic of a LP tone, then other Duncan A5 pickups I have tried.

The Jazz is great in the neck, almost no boom, but it does not give you that characteristic LP tone. Same goes with the Screamin' Demon and Full Shred neck. The only 2 Duncan neck pickups, I have found (my opinion only), that just ooze LP tone are the 59n and the PGn. I have not tried any of the AP2 versions, but I would assume they also get you that characteristic LP tone. Please correct me if I am wrong about the AP2 in a LP.

So it is very important to realize, what the tone is that someone is after, as well as the wood involved in getting that tone accomplished. So my vision of the perfect LP neck tone are from players like Dickey Betts, Duane Allman, and Warren Haynes. When I flip to the Neck, that is the ballpark I want to be in. Others may not agree.