Collings OM1A compared to OM1A JL.

[Taylor007]

Anyone have a chance to play both & A/B them?
Differences and preferences?

[Kh1967]

Yes. Have owned both and now own the JLA.

I like both, but found the JL to be warmer and having more tonal depth...when I found the right one. The JL has a drier tone overall and many that I played were too dry for me. The one I brought home is not as dry and also has more warmth. The JL sounds “older” out of the gate.

The OM1A is a terrific guitar. They tend to have more sparkle and chime than the JLs. They are quite articulate but, after played for awhile they settle down...after a couple of years, they can be incredible and develop a lot of the tonal complexity of the JL.

I am a big Collings fan and would be hard pressed to tell you one is better than the other. Both are wonderful guitars, but like all things guitar, each particular instrument is different.

That was probably quite confusing but, the JL was a harder search for me and thus, a confusing purchase. But, once I found the right one for me...I could not be happier.

[wreckmarkT]

^^^. What Kh1967 said above is exactly the way I feel. I had a 2005 OM1A and I now have a OM1A JL with the 1 3/4” nut, Traditional neck.

Love the bigger neck and more open, dry, smoother, deeper tone of the JL.
I also love the satin finish and aged tuners. Looks, feels and sounds old out of the box.

[shotzy]

I recently played an OM1A-JL and compared it to my standard series OM1A that I brought along.

To my surprise, I actually thought the standard OM1A sounded louder, richer and more lively than the JL. With a big caveat that my guitar had newer strings and longer break-in time for the adi top (2 years).

Always hard to do a perfect A/B, but this gave me a newfound appreciation for my plain jane OM1A amid all the traditional series buzz.

[Taylor007]

Originally Posted by Kh1967

Yes. Have owned both and now own the JLA.

I like both, but found the JL to be warmer and having more tonal depth...when I found the right one. The JL has a drier tone overall...The JL sounds “older” out of the gate.

The OM1A is a terrific guitar. They tend to have more sparkle and chime than the JLs. They are quite articulate but, after played for awhile they settle down...after a couple of years, they can be incredible and develop a lot of the tonal complexity of the JL.

I am a big Collings fan and would be hard pressed to tell you one is better than the other. Both are wonderful guitars, but like all things guitar, each particular instrument is different.

Thanks for the summary detailing your experience. I asked because I have both under one roof for the time being. I did extensive A/B last night and came to similar conclusions. I’ll add that the JL is less “in your face,” i.e. doesn’t have the BOLD tone Collings is known for, but is perhaps more subtle and sweet.

The JL I have I has the 1 11/16” neck modeled after Julian’s 1939 Martin 000-18. In my hands, the JL 1 11/16” neck is a touch easier to play than Collings’ 1 3/4.” Julian spoke about a “balance” between the neck and body in a promotional video, and I think the design is spot on relating to the weight balance between the neck and body. There is a district difference in the weight between the two models as well. The JL is significantly lighter than the OM1A.

I have both guitars strung w/ D’Addario NB lights which come stock on the JL. They are somewhat different than the EJ16s that come on the standard Collings model. Among others things, the NBs feel softer with less tension than the EJs.

You mentioned dryness, and you hit the nail on the head regarding the JL tone. The OM1A has more chime to it. A few years back, I heard Bill Collings speak about how some players desired a more fundamental tone than what his guitars offered. He learned that some players thought the chime could get in the way. After playing the JL, I understand what he was describing - re keeping the chime out of the guitar.

Additionally, the low end and mid response is different between the two models. The JL offers slightly deeper low frequencies, and the mid are deeper as well.
The JL has a more “scooped” EQ than the OM1A. The OM1As response lends to a balanced EQ shared by all the strings. In promoting the JL, Julian described his ‘39 000-18 having “phantom bass.” After playing the JL, I hear what he and Collings were going for with the JL.

When reading about the Traditional Series, a “rounded” fretboard has been described. Again, after A/Bing, I can notice it on the JL.

In sum, I think the OM1A provides much of what the JL has, but delivers more in terms of chime (for lack of better description), and has more volume. But to some players, that buries the sought after fundental tone offered in the JL. Decideing which guitar to keep is keeping me up late!

I’d love to hear more for those of you have experience with both.

[shotzy]

Originally Posted by Taylor007

Thanks for the summary detailing your experience. I asked because I have both under one roof for the time being. I did extensive A/B last night and came to similar conclusions. I’ll add that the JL is less “in your face,” i.e. doesn’t have the BOLD tone Collings is known for, but is perhaps more subtle and sweet.

The JL I have I has the 1 11/16” neck modeled after Julian’s 1939 Martin 000-18. In my hands, the JL 1 11/16” neck is a touch easier to play than Collings’ 1 3/4.” Julian spoke about a “balance” between the neck and body in a promotional video, and I think the design is spot on relating to the weight balance between the neck and body. There is a district difference in the weight between the two models as well. The JL is significantly lighter than the OM1A.

I have both guitars strung w/ D’Addario NB lights which come stock on the JL. They are somewhat different than the EJ16s that come on the standard Collings model. Among others things, the NBs feel softer with less tension than the EJs.

You mentioned dryness, and you hit the nail on the head regarding the JL tone. The OM1A has more chime to it. A few years back, I heard Bill Collings speak about how some players desired a more fundamental tone than what his guitars offered. He learned that some players thought the chime could get in the way. After playing the JL, I understand what he was describing - re keeping the chime out of the guitar.

Additionally, the low end and mid response is different between the two models. The JL offers slightly deeper low frequencies, and the mid are deeper as well.
The JL has a more “scooped” EQ than the OM1A. The OM1As response lends to a balanced EQ shared by all the strings. In promoting the JL, Julian described his ‘39 000-18 having “phantom bass.” After playing the JL, I hear what he and Collings were going for with the JL.

When reading about the Traditional Series, a “rounded” fretboard has been described. Again, after A/Bing, I can notice it on the JL.

In sum, I think the OM1A provides much of what the JL has, but delivers more in terms of chime (for lack of better description), and has more volume. But to some players, that buries the sought after fundental tone offered in the JL. Decideing which guitar to keep is keeping me up late!

I’d love to hear more for those of you have experience with both.

Have you tried recording both and listening back? Always interesting to get the face-on sonic perspective.

[jrb715]

Originally Posted by Taylor007

You mentioned dryness, and you hit the nail on the head regarding the JL tone. The OM1A has more chime to it. A few years back, I heard Bill Collings speak about how some players desired a more fundamental tone than what his guitars offered. He learned that some players thought the chime could get in the way. After playing the JL, I understand what he was describing - re keeping the chime out of the guitar.

Additionally, the low end and mid response is different between the two models. The JL offers slightly deeper low frequencies, and the mid are deeper as well.
The JL has a more “scooped” EQ than the OM1A. The OM1As response lends to a balanced EQ shared by all the strings. In promoting the JL, Julian described his ‘39 000-18 having “phantom bass.” After playing the JL, I hear what he and Collings were going for with the JL.

When reading about the Traditional Series, a “rounded” fretboard has been described. Again, after A/Bing, I can notice it on the JL.

In sum, I think the OM1A provides much of what the JL has, but delivers more in terms of chime (for lack of better description), and has more volume. But to some players, that buries the sought after fundental tone offered in the JL. Decideing which guitar to keep is keeping me up late!

I’d love to hear more for those of you have experience with both.

Taylor 007,

Sorry I can't give you a direct A/B comparison of the guitars. I've yet to play a JL. But I demoed traditionals back around three years ago when I ended up ordering a standard OM1A. You are describing some of the differences I heard between the traditional and standard models. I do think this really is a case of horses for courses. Both the traditionals and the JLs are the latest voices Collings offers, but I found it in the end best to think of the traditional as a different voice--not a better voice--than the standard offering. That's in fact how the folks at Collings saw them when I had a chance to speak to one of them. Bill's description of the folks who wanted a more fundamental, I suppose drier, sound didn't describe me. (And Julian's descriptions of what he wants in a guitar also don't describe my needs and wants.) I'm a singer and I look for a guitar that gives color to the song--without drowning the singing in overtones; and Collings standard OMs (I also have an OM2G) are a perfect fit for my voice and my material. I find the combination of color and clarity inviting and exciting. But of course the standards won't be for everybody, so, based on my experience, I recommend continuing to play the two and determine what fits your needs and desires. I really like the standards, but also really liked the traditionals I played. One just fit me better, and I think of its sound as the sound that Bill Collings heard when he launched the company. I guess in fifty years or so the standards will be the traditionals--or at least the originals.

[Taylor007]

Originally Posted by shotzy

Have you tried recording both and listening back? Always interesting to get the face-on sonic perspective.

Not with anything but my phone. If I can make the time, I’d like to put a comparison video together.

[Taylor007]

Originally Posted by jrb715

Taylor 007,
I do think this really is a case of horses for courses. Both the traditionals and the JLs are the latest voices Collings offers, but I found it in the end best to think of the traditional as a different voice--not a better voice--than the standard offering.

I agree. But because both models are so good, the decision for which one keep becomes all the more difficult.

[shotzy]

Also, curious if there's much difference in construction and tone between the JL's and the OM1 Traditionals (other than the neck and finish)?

[Taylor007]

After spending perhaps way too much time reaching my personal decision, I went w/ the OM1A. The JL is one amazing guitar though.

[Dwight]

I would have too. When I'm paying that much for a guitar, I want it to be shiny and have a sparkly voice. The JL is a great instrument, just not for me.

[Kh1967]

Originally Posted by Taylor007

After spending perhaps way too much time reaching my personal decision, I went w/ the OM1A. The JL is one amazing guitar though.

Glad you came to a decision and found the one that speaks to you!

[ben]

Just wanted to echo what's already been said. I have the good fortune of having a 2001 OM1 (not "A") and 2018 OM1A JL. In my experience, acknowledging that there's a 17 year age difference, the OM1 is more powerful, brash (in a good way), and has more volume than the JL, while the latter is drier and more articulate/responsive. The JL is much, much lighter weight, and I love feel of the matte finish. The JL has become my go-to guitar, but I still love the OM1 too.