Vintage, Luthier-Built and Modern Production Guitars - Can YOU Hear the Difference?

[WordMan]

He has published the answer in the TNAG Blog: http://thenorthamericanguitar.com/blog/

I can't tell how to hide Spoiler text here, so I can not summarize the findings in a hidden text box. So sorry!!

But I can say: I was wrong, wrong, wrong!! I love the recordings and love the sound of that first guitar - which makes sense because I have many examples of that guitar that I have played.

Fascinating!! Thank you Michael.

[Mr. Paul]

Never mind 😉

[justonwo]

Wow, I blew that one!

[bho]

This was really surprising and eye-opening. It shows I have a not-always-accurate bias as to what a vintage guitar and a modern guitar sound like. Based on playing a lot of examples of both, sure, but still inaccurate in this case!

Now, excuse me, I have to go check out some modern Gibsons....

[Jamdog]

Originally Posted by bho

This was really surprising and eye-opening. It shows I have a not-always-accurate bias as to what a vintage guitar and a modern guitar sound like. Based on playing a lot of examples of both, sure, but still inaccurate in this case!

Now, excuse me, I have to go check out some modern Gibsons....

Maybe it's just a bad guitar, having served on the front and all?

I'd like a repeat of this type if experience.

[davenumber2]

Originally Posted by Jamdog

Maybe it's just a bad guitar, having served on the front and all?

I'd like a repeat of this type if experience.

I guess it couldn't just be that the TV is a really good guitar? Nope. Not possible.🙄

[Jamdog]

Originally Posted by davenumber2

I guess it couldn't just be that the TV is a really good guitar? Nope. Not possible.🙄

Yeah put words in my mouth and don't use your brain for thinking, that's awesome.

Who said the TV was bad?


However
People mostly said guitar #2 they liked the less. It happens that it's the one people tought they'd like the most. Perhaps there's something there.

But no. It's just about the TV. We can't talk of the two other guitars. Gotcha.

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by bho

This was really surprising and eye-opening. It shows I have a not-always-accurate bias as to what a vintage guitar and a modern guitar sound like. Based on playing a lot of examples of both, sure, but still inaccurate in this case!

Now, excuse me, I have to go check out some modern Gibsons....

There may be bias or no bias at all. I'd call it inherent expectations that aren't always applicable to certain vintage examples.

I voted the #2 spot to the Vintage Gibson. It surprised me to be wrong but that guitar is an inferior sounding vintage Gibson. They do exist, perhaps in greater numbers than the truly incredible ones. It was weak and subdued, while other stellar examples of that era of Gibson's can sound like a guitar on steroids.

It was a fun exercise that proves nothing further than the sound quality of those 3 particular guitars. Extrapolating that out as being indicative of ALL examples of those three models would be foolish. not that anyone is suggesting that, just an added observation.

Great fun! Thanks!!

.

[mcduffnw]

Well...

Soooooo much for confirmation bias...

And...BRAVO!!!!!!!...to the boys at Bozeman for making such a fantastic sounding new guitar!!!

In this particular case..."Only A NEW Gibson Is Good Enough"

I'll bet that new guitar sells really really fast now {;-)

duff

[Rmz76]

Originally Posted by WordMan

He has published the answer in the TNAG Blog: http://thenorthamericanguitar.com/blog/

I can't tell how to hide Spoiler text here, so I can not summarize the findings in a hidden text box. So sorry!!

But I can say: I was wrong, wrong, wrong!! I love the recordings and love the sound of that first guitar - which makes sense because I have many examples of that guitar that I have played.

Fascinating!! Thank you Michael.

Thanks for posting.

While I didn't place the Fairbanks or modern J-45 TV in correct order, at least guessed #2 correctly and as stated, felt most confident it was a vintage J-45 because that's what they sound like recorded! Only stressing this because it seems several here are a bit shocked by it. Although I've not played many vintage J-45's, I've listened to recording from a lot of them and know that dull thud sound with short sustain is exactly what vintage J-45 tone chasers seem to be after (or perhaps they really haven't thought much about it and just think it looks really cool playing an old guitar... who knows).

The Fairbanks and J-45 TV sound very similar. I prefer the sound of #1 (J-45 TV) for the three sampled instruments. It's not about what's best as that is subjective and all three are great guitars, it's just the J-45 TV has the right balance for my taste. My take away from this is a pleasant surprise to learn the best sounding guitar of the three (to my ears) also happens to be the one within price range and a guitar built by Gibson Montana.

While I get the boutique builder trend, I think the big builders are turning out exceptionally high quality product these days. Looking at Gibson and C.F. Martin, they've found a sweet spot with mass productions standards and quality and are producing a more consistent product these days than ever. Boutique builders can build fine instruments, you can argue finer on certain aspects but in the end only C.F. Martin can build you a D28 and only Gibson can build you a J-45... When someone wants to argue "well the Colling's CJ-35 or (fill in the blank X boutique builder's Gibson round shoulder copy) is actually better because it has more sustain..." I point out that the short sustain is part of the J-45's signature sound. Short sustain isn't a problem to be solved for every play.


Congrats to Ian if he happens to be on AGF

[Explorer]

Wow.

Only two people here, rdeane and warrenaines, got the correct order, and only one more, bayoubengal, called the identity of the AGF favorite.

I am pretty confident that I can't tell a particular model's sound, and I've seen too many blind tests where people who claimed golden ears couldn't identify even soundboard material beyond the results predicted for random guessing.

(Actually, there is one soundboard matreial where in its purest form has a much different sound, specifically carbon fiber which hasn't had intentional dampening of the high frequencies applied to the design/build.)

What is clear is that something is being done right if so many prefer a particular instrument's sound.
Interesting results. Thanks for doing the test.

[Silly Moustache]

Hi, I got it wrong...as all but five people also did. We Got it wrong !

This interests me. It's rather similar to the well publicied aural test of violinists who couldn't tell a modern fiddle from a Cremona vintage instrument.

What conclusions can we draw from such tests?

I've often thought that our audiences rarely perceive much of the sound quality of our instruments.

I suspect that the only person who REALLY can perceive the tonal quality of an instrument is ........ the player! ....and as players we are positioned in about the worst place to hear that instrument because it is best heard from in front of it ....y'know where the soud comes out!

Of course the wise know that the best way to evaluate a guitar (or mando, or whatever, is to both play it ourselves, and to get someone with good skills and similar style to play it for you, and to and fro.

I have a good sound card in my 'puter, and it is connected to a very good (and old) TEAC Hi-fi- amp- into even older, large Sony speakers. I'm in a rather small room and so i get a pretty good sound signal from such things.....and I listen to other people's playing and their various guitars pretty frequently, and flatter myself that I can judge tonality fairly well ........ and yet I didn't get one option correct!

Maybe , even subconsciously, we decide that the best one is the one we'd prefer it to be , rather than what we heard ?

[jt1]

Such fun! Thanks to Mr. Watts for conceiving of and conducting this experiment.

I'm glad that I didn't hazard a guess! I would have been wrong, and I was in the room during the recording and had played each of the guitars.

One note on my 1943 SJ. It's an unusual specimen and I wish that all of you could have the opportunity to play it. I've spent the last 3 years traveling the world with it and putting it in the hands of anyone willing to hold it. I'm the second owner. The first, a soldier, purchased it new in 1943 and took it to the European WWII battle front. On his death, his grandson contacted a dealer who knew it had to get to my hands. I'll be forever grateful to all of those who played a role in sending the guitar my way.

It's unusual for another reason. The X-bracing's center is placed nearly an inch off center, toward the bass side. The explanation is easy to guess. None of the Gals whom I interviewed were given any training prior to taking their places on the Gibson factory floor. They were simply told to emulate what a co-worker was doing. So, told to cross the braces in an X and to glue them to the top, a new Gal did just that, without knowing that symmetry is usually a virtue in lutherie.

Though not apparent in the recording, the guitar is a tonal wonder. That shifted X brace reduces the bass response and heightens both the mid-range and trebles. Think big guitar with sweet tone. Or, know that Jeff Beck declared it to be the finest acoustic guitar he's played:



Of course, Mr. Beck's judgment is just that, his judgment. One of the wonders of guitar geekdom is that we can revel in our own preferences.

Thanks, again, Michael Watts.

Finally, here's a chance to hear that guitar in less capable hands, but, I think, played in a way that serves its sweetness of tone, and to compare it with my other, less battered, and symmetrically braced 1943 SJ:

[Jamdog]

Originally Posted by jt1

The first [owner], a soldier, purchased it new in 1943 and took it to the European WWII battle front.

I am curious about the soldier. He fought for our way of life, survived the war, played years on that guitar.

Do you have more information?

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

Hi, I got it wrong...as all but five people also did. We Got it wrong !

This interests me. It's rather similar to the well publicied aural test of violinists who couldn't tell a modern fiddle from a Cremona vintage instrument.

What conclusions can we draw from such tests?

I've often thought that our audiences rarely perceive much of the sound quality of our instruments.

I suspect that the only person who REALLY can perceive the tonal quality of an instrument is ........ the player! ....and as players we are positioned in about the worst place to hear that instrument because it is best heard from in front of it ....y'know where the soud comes out!

Of course the wise know that the best way to evaluate a guitar (or mando, or whatever, is to both play it ourselves, and to get someone with good skills and similar style to play it for you, and to and fro.

I have a good sound card in my 'puter, and it is connected to a very good (and old) TEAC Hi-fi- amp- into even older, large Sony speakers. I'm in a rather small room and so i get a pretty good sound signal from such things.....and I listen to other people's playing and their various guitars pretty frequently, and flatter myself that I can judge tonality fairly well ........ and yet I didn't get one option correct!

Maybe , even subconsciously, we decide that the best one is the one we'd prefer it to be , rather than what we heard ?

What conclusions we should get, most are not. For some inexplicable reason we hear three particular guitars and now seem to be expecting any three of the same models of those guitars to sound the same. That's unique to the group-think model that seems to prevail here.

That vintage Gibson sounded like crap. You gave great advice by saying that only playing a guitar will tell you what it sounds like. I assure everyone that mediocre examples of ANY model exist, so take nothing from this shoot-out, except to appreciate the guy that took his time to send it out. It proves nothing.