Is crisp/dry/percussive and defined the signature of Gibson acoustics?

jackcooper · #1 10-24-2010, 06:32 PM

Every Gibson acoustic guitar I've ever tried has these characteristics, but I often hear folk talking about guitars like the Advanced Jumbo and J-45 as having a full and mellow tonal qualities or rumbling bass.

I tried a Randy Scruggs Advanced Jumbo today as well as a couple of J-45's, a J-200 and a Southern Jumbo.

All five were very similar in tone, but neither could be described as full toned or mellow.

I remember the first time I tried a whole bunch of Gibsons whilst guitar shopping I came away feeling disappointed by the tone, and likened it to an unamplified semi acoustic sound.(my co-shopper dismissed them as sounding like toy guitars)

This time however, they started to have an appeal for me. The Randy Scruggs model in particular, had a nice treble/midrange and percussive tone that I could imagine would stick out very well in a mix as well as backup for vocals (and seemed to remind me of many roots/americana recordings in my collection)

It sounded very crisp, clear and defined.

When played next to a Martin D-42 however it sounded quiet and almost insignificant.

I'd like to buy a Gibson at some point, but wanted to ask those with more experience with them, is crisp/dry,percussive and defined the signature sound of Gibson? Or are there Advanced Jumbos/J45's/J200's out there that have more depth/"rumbling bass" etc.

I'm trying to choose between a Randy Scruggs AJ (crisp, clear, percussive) and a Guild D-55 50th Anniversary model (warm, balanced tone) at the moment (both sound equally nice) and it's driving me crazy.

Jack.

Glennwillow · #2 10-24-2010, 06:37 PM

Hi Jack,

Well, your words are certainly one way to describe the Gibson sound. To my ears, your words are pretty close, as close as words ever get to approximating a sound.

My Gibson Advanced Jumbo is a Luthier's Choice, with Braz RW and Adi top. I would describe this guitar is not being particularly dry, and it has plenty of bass, though it would certainly sound different from a Martin D-42.

I bought my particular AJ because I am not a big fan of dry sounding guitars.

Regards, Glenn

sharkbyte · #3 10-24-2010, 06:50 PM

With Gibsons I feel it all depends on the model. I played many over the years always feeling that I should like them but was disappointed. About a year ago I played a Songwriter at a Guitar Center and as hooked. Spent about four hours playing it along with all the other $2k+ guitars. To my ear it had a much richer, fuller sound. A couple of months ago I was blessed with the opportunity to buy my own.

That said, mine has more bass than most other guitars I've played but a very full rich sound. Plenty loud for most of what I play. Unobtrusive soundhole mounted volume for the pickup.

I think what I'm getting at is that all Gibsons sound different. Don't discount just because you don't like one. To my ear most Taylors and Martins are very similar.

enjoy!

MattM · #4 10-24-2010, 08:22 PM

I never liked the signature tone of Gibson acoustics much until I discovered the rosewood dreads (songwriter, AJ, and J45R). Gibsons most famous models -jumbo, J45, and dove/hummingbird are all maple and mahogany, and they tend to sound a bit plain to me. They work great for a lot of singers, but as an instrumentalist who fingerpicks a lot, I prefer more overtones and dimension to the sound. The rosewood models sound very different and have the richness that I prefer. My personal favorite is the J45R. It's not quite as full as my D-41, but it's more balanced, a tad sweeter, and strums better. I have several nice guitars that I have winnowed down to from the few dozen that I have owned, almost all of them worth more $ than the Gibson, and most of them more nicely appointed, but when people play through my guitars, that 45R is always the one they fall for.

Birch · #5 10-24-2010, 10:46 PM

To help understand where the Gibson flat top sound comes from, it's a good idea to play some of their classic, pre war acoustic archtops---like the L4, L5, L7, L10 or L12 models. Once you've played a few of them, you'll hear the evolution of the tone crafted by artisans who were primarily makers and designers of carved top instruments, as they ventured into flat tops. The unique and distinctive Gibson pattern sound is inflected with some very archtop-like characteristics.

Dadmac · #6 10-25-2010, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharkbyte

...To my ear most Taylors and Martins are very similar...

What ???????

shambolic · #7 10-25-2010, 02:37 AM

You are spot on with your description. that for me is the Gibson sound. you may find the odd model that is fuller and richer but crisp, percussive and rootsy is what they are mostly about. I too didn't take to it at first thinking they were just badly made in some way but something clicked and you are dead right about that americana sound. So I got a J-200 which is one of the more refined models but it still has that sound now I totally get the Gibson sound. As a songwriter I find it incredibly inspiring and as a plus they are very easy to record.

GibbyPrague · #8 10-25-2010, 02:48 AM

I would also add that for me the Gibson signature tone is a focus on the midrange. Its where they get theri mongrel 'grunt' which I love about Gibson.

They are also very balanced guitars, yes the rosewoods are richer, fuller but thats rosewood for you.

My favourite Gibsons are the mahogany b/s Gibsons as they have that dry, crisp, balanced woody tone, with just that emphasis on the midrange.

If youre looking for a strummer, songwriter, picker you just cant go wrong with Gibson acoustics.

Its the one brand that always puts a smile on my face when i hear a good one played well.

GibbyPrague · #9 10-25-2010, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dadmac

What ???????

Im guessing it was meant that there isnt a huge difference in the tone between different models of Martin and Taylor .. which i happen to agree with in particular with Taylor, not so much with Martin.

Its not saying that there is not much difference between the Martin and Taylor tone... well, i hope thats what is being said ..

Guth · #10 10-25-2010, 03:54 AM

Hi Jack,

"Crisp, dry, percussive and defined" would be a great description of what I personally was looking for in a Gibson acoustic. However, I felt that I needed to play quite a few to find one that matched that description. A number of Gibons that I tried wouldn't be described as "defined". Also there were a fair amount that were not "crisp". All four of those words (which I see as positives) could be applied when describing the tone of the J-45 TV that I ended up with, at least in my mind. Upon hearing my guitar, you might feel differently, and that is what makes this discussion a tricky one. Certainly a number of Gibsons that I've played could be described as "mellow with rumbling bass". These examples would probably appeal much more to someone else than they did to me.

TaylorPrague's observation/comment regarding the midrange is a good one. I also own an Advanced Jumbo, and while the tone of that guitar is quite different than the tone of the J-45 TV, the two do share some similar traits from the players perspective that I find quite appealing (strong midrange, clean/simple tone), yet quite different from playing offerings from manufacturers such as Martin or Taylor, etc..

The bottom line is that just like with most manufacturers, it usually comes down to the individual guitar. Some Gibsons will strike you as being great (given your playing style and tonal preferences), all the others less so to varying degrees. Play as many examples as you can.

Recordings of my J-45 TV:
Walking Nick
Corn on the cob

Recording of my AJ:
Rumble seat

All the best,
Guth

Rick Jones · #11 10-25-2010, 03:56 AM

I'd describe my j-185 as spikey and bright, it cuts the mix with other acoustic instruments in a similar way to a telecaster in a country band. For solo playing I find it completley unsatisfying compared to my other mini jumbo.

GibbyPrague · #12 10-25-2010, 04:47 AM

Guth, you just put a big smile on my face !

That is some tasty, tasty picking on your sound clips.

Folks, you want to hear how a Gibson should sound, just click on Guths tunes.

My GAS for a J-45TV has just gotten worse ... oh dear ..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guth

Hi Jack,

"Crisp, dry, percussive and defined" would be a great description of what I personally was looking for in a Gibson acoustic. However, I felt that I needed to play quite a few to find one that matched that description. A number of Gibons that I tried wouldn't be described as "defined". Also there were a fair amount that were not "crisp". All four of those words (which I see as positives) could be applied when describing the tone of the J-45 TV that I ended up with, at least in my mind. Upon hearing my guitar, you might feel differently, and that is what makes this discussion a tricky one. Certainly a number of Gibsons that I've played could be described as "mellow with rumbling bass". These examples would probably appeal much more to someone else than they did to me.

TaylorPrague's observation/comment regarding the midrange is a good one. I also own an Advanced Jumbo, and while the tone of that guitar is quite different than the tone of the J-45 TV, the two do share some similar traits from the players perspective that I find quite appealing (strong midrange, clean/simple tone), yet quite different from playing offerings from manufacturers such as Martin or Taylor, etc..

The bottom line is that just like with most manufacturers, it usually comes down to the individual guitar. Some Gibsons will strike you as being great (given your playing style and tonal preferences), all the others less so to varying degrees. Play as many examples as you can.

Recordings of my J-45 TV:
Walking Nick
Corn on the cob

Recording of my AJ:
Rumble seat

All the best,
Guth

ewalling · #13 10-25-2010, 05:34 AM

If my CJ-165 had been best described as "crisp, dry and percussive", I think I would have been at the end of the customer service queue, ready to whinge about it not being quite what I had in mind and could I possibly have my money back, please, cringe, fawn ...

Other models may fall into this category, but not the CJ-165 I had, nor the other two I tried in stores. What particularly impressed me about this guitar was its ring and sustain, with a great mid-range punch.

Wepeel · #14 10-25-2010, 05:58 AM

Crisp, dry, airy, percussive, punchy - those are all of the things I wanted in a J-45. When I got mine it was all of that, but also with a hearty growl in the bass.

mstuartev · #15 10-25-2010, 12:27 PM

+1 on this sentiment - altho I have no problems using it as solo instrument (of course that is mostly what I do). Sometimes I get into a thing, tapping my foot, and the guitar just wants to get right in there with that percussive snap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Jones

I'd describe my j-185 as spikey and bright, it cuts the mix with other acoustic instruments in a similar way to a telecaster in a country band. For solo playing I find it completley unsatisfying compared to my other mini jumbo.