Saying a LP is too heavy is like saying a Ferrari is too fast ...

Ya, not a fan of his tone either tbh. Always seemed too thin and trebly/icepicky to me.

How he managed to get such ( to me) crappy tone out of an LP is definitely the exception rather than the rule. Cuz if there's anything LP's do have going for them it's tone. He's still my Fave Ozzy guitarist after Jake E Lee though. Jake's playing & tone (w/ his modded Fender's/Charvel's) was incredible...
 
Phantasmagoria said:
Ya, not a fan of his tone either tbh. Always seemed too thin and trebly/icepicky to me.

How he managed to get such ( to me) crappy tone out of an LP is definitely the exception rather than the rule. Cuz if there's anything LP's do have going for them it's tone. He's still my Fave Ozzy guitarist after Jake E Lee though. Jake's playing & tone (w/ his modded Fender's/Charvel's) was incredible...
Click to expand...

Samesies.
 
I like Les Pauls (both heavy and light)

I do not like Ferrari's

I'm new to liking Les Paul's, as I have always been a V and an Explorer guy.

The tone machine that is the Les Paul outweighs the ergonomics, for me.
​​​​​​
I am learning to get along with the ergonomics of an LP these days.

F_@k Fender.

I think the OP set this topic up to get y'all riled up and argue about things, and some of y'all are playing right into that.

​​​​​​
 
Last edited:
randy-rhoads-front-row-photographs-.jpg


2023 guitar is a sad state of affairs when folks who never were signed to a label or toured the world bash folks that did.
R Rhoads work is 45 years old and he had a very limited choice of gear available.
All his work is just Badass to me and always will be.
Weeze just all different. Im sorry i thought this was a guitar forum.
 
You can like a guy's playing and yet not care much yourself for his choice of instrument or his tone. Don't see what's wrong with that or how it's "bashing" him in any way...

I'm a diehard Yngwie fan yet I'm not particulary crazy (it's grown on me over the years..still not my fave thing) about his tone or choice of instrument either...
 
JMP/HBE said:
randy-rhoads-front-row-photographs-.jpg


2023 guitar is a sad state of affairs when folks who never were signed to a label or toured the world bash folks that did.
R Rhoads work is 45 years old and he had a very limited choice of gear available.
All his work is just Badass to me and always will be.
Weeze just all different. Im sorry i thought this was a guitar forum.
Click to expand...

Who said I wasn't or isn't currently signed?
I never said I don't like RR. I don't like his tone.

But man, I will repeat, it would totally suck if we all liked the same music and the same players. My favorite players (and my influences) are wonderful, but it is silly to expect us all to understand why I like them so much, much less get angry if people don't agree.

Celebrate that we all don't have universal guitar truths.
 
Randy's tone isnt my favorite tone -there's nothing wrong with it but -for me it sounds notched and like a parachute was put over the speaker -I love his playing though

Everyone's ears and brain are different -I dont see how not preferring his tone is a problem.

LP tones I most enjoy are things like Robert Fripp

Fripp's tone starts at 1:40ish
 
beaubrummels said:
I think Top-L and I were talking about something similar in another thread - that age-old thing of contrasting what an electric guitar sounds like unplugged vs plugged in, and what are the reasons for the deltas; like is it better to have a resonant body and neck, or is it better to have a rock solid body and neck that don't really vibrate at all; and if it's resonant, what qualities indicate what it will sound like plugged in - does a thin acoustic sound mean a thick plugged in sound? or should it sound the same plugged in as it does acoustically?

Edit: damn! it was this thread! Too many pages.
Click to expand...

So -thats differently something Im working on a long term project to demonstrate, a guitar body losing energy through motion and heat via the body is not imparting that energy into the oscillation of the strings as much -or the resonation of the guitar could be in phase from nut the bridge through the body and actual return energy efficiently to the strings -really hard things to know -also the pickups are vibrating too (as they are not isolated or floating) therefor their motion in relation to the strings motion affects this too. Its so complicated!

The key is all of the factors dont make a better sounding guitar -they make a guitar sound you might prefer in certain context -especially by themselves -but damn if some of the best guitar tones ever on records were thinned out phased guitars that sat in a mix better than a louder full bodied beauty!
 
GuitarStv said:
This one is very much personal preference, not a rule. I have big hands and play slower on very thin necks. The guitars are cool, but many Ibanez necks are almost unplayable for me.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Except for my 1986 MIJ Charvel model 2 which still has girth. :wizard:
I seem to have evolved to chunkier necks where as before i couldn't stand them.
Can't stand Fender 7.25 radius at all any size. The strings fall off the sides of the FB.
 
Last edited:
NegativeEase said:
So -thats differently something Im working on a long term project to demonstrate, a guitar body losing energy through motion and heat via the body is not imparting that energy into the oscillation of the strings as much -or the resonation of the guitar could be in phase from nut the bridge through the body and actual return energy efficiently to the strings -really hard things to know -also the pickups are vibrating too (as they are not isolated or floating) therefor their motion in relation to the strings motion affects this too. Its so complicated!

The key is all of the factors dont make a better sounding guitar -they make a guitar sound you might prefer in certain context -especially by themselves -but damn if some of the best guitar tones ever on records were thinned out phased guitars that sat in a mix better than a louder full bodied beauty!
Click to expand...

This is the one thing that would lend to the argument that more resonant guitars also sound better amplified. If the neck was imparting energy to the strings because of vibration.

But I just don't see that being the case. It would be like one of those "perpetual motion" machines that are disproved by principle of conservation of energy. A string that puts energy into the neck and body is losing energy and can't somehow create more energy back into the strings.

That said, I think its a tiny amount of energy compared to the amount that is lost to the air. Which is why I don't think solid guitars have appreciably more sustain when 99.9% of the energy is lost to the air/sound.

My current thinking is that body resonance is a filter (that filters out high/low freqs and makes sound warmer or rounder and could actually make it sound "louder" because more mids are present), but I can't characterize it accurately beyond my own anecdotal experiences.
 
Last edited:
Top-L said:
This is the one thing that would lend to the argument that more resonant guitars also sound better amplified. If the neck was imparting energy to the strings because of vibration.

But I just don't see that being the case. It would be like one of those "perpetual motion" machines that are disproved by principle of conservation of energy. A string that puts energy into the neck and body is losing energy and can't somehow create more energy back into the strings.

That said, I think its a tiny amount of energy compared to the amount that is lost to the air. Which is why I don't think solid guitars have appreciably more sustain when 99.9% of the energy is lost to the air/sound.

My current thinking is that body resonance is a filter (that filters out high/low freqs and makes sound warmer or rounder and could actually make it sound "louder" because more mids are present), but I can't characterize it accurately beyond my own anecdotal experiences.
Click to expand...

That sounds resonable, once I get all the test criteria together -I'll let you guys pick at it and see what Im missing
 
I think another question which goes hand in hand with this, is "what is a dead spot"?

IME, a "dead spot" is a part of the neck that "doesn't sound as good/resonant". I know this can be caused by poor fretwork or low action.

But can it also be caused by wood peculiarites/cancellation of frequencies? And does a "dead spot" not caused by bad fretwork, actually sound worse amplified, or better?

A dead spot might be a "soft" fret that is not well anchored to the wood, and therefore is losing energy in a noticably different way than the notes around it. But does that mean it sounds worse amplified?

An examination of the "deat spot" phenomenon would go hand in hand with a study of guitar resonance and its affect on tone.
 
GuitarStv said:
This one is very much personal preference, not a rule. I have big hands and play slower on very thin necks. The guitars are cool, but many Ibanez necks are almost unplayable for me.
Click to expand...

Big or small hands may be a preference if you play "thumb over the top". But for me (I'm 6';2" and have fairly large hands as well...though not Vai-like spider fingers lol) I play with my thumb centre/behind the neck (classical style) and so I can pretty much adjust to any neck...it's not a deal-breaker for me but I know a lot of folk who prefer neck's that are thinner. Even playing the way I do a thinner neck feels noticeably faster & more comfortable/controllable to me. Butyeah...to each their own..

For me, the location of the selector switch and poor upper fret access are far bigger impediments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Edgecrusher
New GHS Fast Fret
Replies
12
Views
744
Securb
Securb
IMENATOR
Should I get a 24 fret guitar?
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Rex_Rocker
Rex_Rocker
B
Next step up after the JB
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
NotDemanic
NotDemanic
JMP/HBE
Um is Gibson saying "Les Paul Tribute" i nice way to market "cheapo" ?
Replies
5
Views
287
Rex_Rocker
Rex_Rocker
G
JB vs PG question
Replies
10
Views
595
esandes
E
Back
Top