Older Les Pauls Compared to Newer Les Pauls - Wood Tone and Sustain?

[Stevo]

Can anyone give a "general" idea of the tonal/sustain differences between a more modern LP with maple top, compared to my 77 standard?

I ask because my LP is very heavy, and I wondered what I would lose or gain if I got a modern Standard. I would rather deal with the weight, rather than sacrificing sustain. I might bring my LP to a music store and compare the sustain to a newer LP.. I just have a hard time getting good demos in music stores, because you have to imagine what the guitar would sound like with your favorite SD pickups in it.. and with your own amp with decent volume.. for a couple hours or so :laugh2: One thing that I don't like too much about the newer LPs is the action.. maybe I am just spoiled because my guitar is so well worn in?

 

[Gearjoneser]

Re: Older Les Pauls Compared to Newer Les Pauls - Wood Tone and Sustain?

Luckily, I played your guitar! he he he

I could tell that the guitar had been setup nicely with the nut cut nice and low. It had a nice worn in feel. Heavier Les Pauls do seem to sustain a little better and have a brighter and punchier attack. The flipside is lighter guitars resonate better, so they sound louder unplugged. Those often sound better, but don't always have that bold sustain. I think I tend to like hotter pickups with more mids for heavier guitars and sweeter vintage pickups for light resonant guitars. That's just my take on it though.

 

[Curly]

Re: Older Les Pauls Compared to Newer Les Pauls - Wood Tone and Sustain?

I think weight's a debatable issue with LPs.

I like lighter guitars in general, whether it's a strat, tele or LP. I do agree, though, that heavier mahogany can sometimes sustain well.


when I was shopping for LPs, my friend Pete said he likes LPs around 8 lbs!! good luck finding a newer one at that weight!

still, I've seen some lighter Standards; but, I'd say hang on to your regular ole LP - by now, it's like an old pair of shoes - very comfortable, with plenty of life left

 

[Simon_F]

Re: Older Les Pauls Compared to Newer Les Pauls - Wood Tone and Sustain?

Don't you dare sell that '77!! :yell:

You'll regret it. :nono:

 

[Jeff_H]

Re: Older Les Pauls Compared to Newer Les Pauls - Wood Tone and Sustain?

Steve....opinions on this are as common as noses....and no one is necessarily right. Your's is a Norlin era guitar, and people equate those to CBS period strats. There appear to be plenty of dogs from the Norlin era, but there are also some jems.

If you go with a newer LP, especially from say 92' or newer, you will generaly get appointments closer and closer to actual 1959 LP specs...if you are concerned with that. It is also reputed that the early 90's and then again in the early 2000's, Gibson received or forked over the cash for some fairly good mahogany, and produced some top notch LP's.

If you like the way your lester sounds, I'd be inclined to keep it. If you want annother LP to compliment it, look for a used 57' RI Goldtop or a used 58' Reissue. These are the best bargins in LP's right now dollar for dollar, and you will get the lighest mahogany available with no weight relief holes (not that I think weight relief matters, but the mahogany IS better). They can be had between $1700-2000 used. You can pick up new 57' GT's for as low as about $1900. The 58' will cost you a few hundred more new. Then you can decide if you like something like that better than your 77'.

 

[Stevo]

Re: Older Les Pauls Compared to Newer Les Pauls - Wood Tone and Sustain?

Don't you dare sell that '77!! :yell:

You'll regret it. :nono:

Hehe you are correct, my friend. I don't think I'd sell it, but a 2nd LP may be in my near future :naughty:

How about your LPs? Can you describe the natural sound of each, in contrast?

 

[Stevo]

Re: Older Les Pauls Compared to Newer Les Pauls - Wood Tone and Sustain?

Thanks guys. I definitely know something about Duncan pickups but I don't have much savvy on the whole Les Paul History. Jeff, Joneser, Curly, I appreciate the info

 

[Robert S.]

Re: Older Les Pauls Compared to Newer Les Pauls - Wood Tone and Sustain?

Stevo, here's my spin on it and I'm a LP kind of guy.

The heavier LPs made in the 70s were all over the place as far as specs and materials used. The results are that you can find some killer guitars in those years as well as quite a few less than desireable guitars. The tone tends to get a bit tighter and somewhat brighter in the heavier LPs. It's a more focused tone to my ears. We're talking 10 to 10.5 lbs and up here.

I find the 90s LPs fall more into the 9 - 10 lb range as a rule and they are still tight sounding, probably due to the maple tops but they aren't as tight as the heavier Norlins can be.

The Historic RIs tend to fall 8 -9 lbs, and they tend to have a more resonant, woody character to their tone. While that might be caused by a number of factors, I'm sure wood density has a bit to do with it.

With a little set-up work most production LPs I run into made over the last 15 years actually play very well. Any luthier worth his salt can cut your nut, drop your frets and get a LP to play cleanly just off of the fretboard.

A fretless wonder is just a good set-up away.

 

[Simon_F]

Re: Older Les Pauls Compared to Newer Les Pauls - Wood Tone and Sustain?

Hehe you are correct, my friend. I don't think I'd sell it, but a 2nd LP may be in my near future :naughty:

Phew! A second LP, now you're talking.

I'm glad you're keeping the '77. Norlin era Gibsons get some bad press, but I owned two ('71 LP Deluxe and '74 SG Standard) that were both excellent workhorse guitars and great lookers.

I sold them when I was young and foolish. Ain't young any more.

How about your LPs? Can you describe the natural sound of each, in contrast?

My two LPs sound different acoustically. The '96 Standard (which has a fat 50s-style neck) is bright and loud. The '91 Classic (slim '60s neck) sounds warmer, less bright and quieter. I'm not sure how much the difference in acoustic tone is due to the different necks and how much it's due to other factors like quality of wood, choice of hardware etc.

Much as I prefer the look of the Classic, I think I prefer the plugged-in tone of the Standard (whichever pickups I try). I'm going to put the Seths back into the Standard - it seems to be an unbeatable combination.

I haven't weighed the guitars accurately, though I think they're both around 9 lbs.

Taking your '77 to a music store to use as a yardstick when trying new ones sounds like a great idea.

In my recent experience, new Gibsons have the nut cut too high unless the store has bothered to give them a good setup. Makes it so difficult to evaluate them. :grumble:

 

[Stevo]

Re: Older Les Pauls Compared to Newer Les Pauls - Wood Tone and Sustain?

Thanks for the tips guys I am getting a better clue.

I have heard some negativity about the Les Pauls that were made in the 70s. I specifically wanted one that looked like a Jimmie Page guitar. I like the action on the older guitars too. Like Gearjonser said, mine has low action and it's broken in nicely Maybe I just got lucky and stumbled on a good one. I got it from a person who had it on consignment at a local music store (Jensen). The guy who sold it to me was actually trying to talk me out of it I did not really care about what was cool or not, I just liked the guitar and bought the darn thing.

 

[Gearjoneser]

Re: Older Les Pauls Compared to Newer Les Pauls - Wood Tone and Sustain?

You should check out the Les Paul Premium Plus. Used, they still cost less than a new Standard, and once they're setup perfectly with the right Duncans, you'll have something you probably like more than a $3000 Historic.

I'm really fond of Desertburst, Honeyburst, and Tangerineburst.