Question About Microphonics

[David Schwab]

I view the L6S as the perfect example of how a guitar should not be built, a real doggie.

Care to elaborate? I mean it's built pretty much like any other Gibson.

Also, neck angle is only there to get the strings up high enough for the bridge. A Les Paul needs more angle because the top is carved. A Tele needs less. It does not affect the tone of a solid guitar one hoot.

[soundguruman]

Paul Reed Smith was sued for millions, for copying the Gibson neck angle- patent infringement. Apparently there's more to it than you realize. Les Paul developed this perfect neck angle many years ago, through countless trail and error experiments. That's part of what makes a Les Paul unique, and proprietary. I realize that the neck angle is critical, and so did PRS!
L6S-solid rock maple, sounds dead as a doornail. It may be a Gibson but, sorry the tone is absent without leave. I guess this explains why guitars are not made out of plastic or particle board.
The wood makes a huge difference. Some woods sound better than others. I can hear a difference and so can other musicians. No, it's not just pickups and electronics, it's real craftsmanship, it's carefully selected wood, it's the angle of the neck, it's the position of the pickup pole pieces over the selected harmonic points of the strings...and a whole lot more.

[David Schwab]

Paul Reed Smith was sued for millions, for copying the Gibson neck angle- patent infringement. Apparently there's more to it than you realize. Les Paul developed this perfect neck angle many years ago, through countless trail and error experiments. That's part of what makes a Les Paul unique, and proprietary. I realize that the neck angle is critical, and so did PRS!

No, none of that happened at all! PRS was being sued because his guitar was a single cutaway and vaguely looked like a Les Paul. Gibson was losing sales to PRS, and wanted in on the action. Gibson ended up losing that suit, which was because they argued that people would mistake the PRS for a Les Paul and by the wrong guitar!

Gibson has never had a patent on the Les Paul or a neck angle. Many guitars and other stringed instruments have a neck angle. Gibson styled the LP off an archtop, so because the top is carved they needed a neck angle. PRS guitars always did, and still have a neck angle.

Les Paul did not design that guitar, it was designed by Ted McCarty. Les did not "develop a neck angle." He did design the trapeze tailpiece used on the original LP. He got a patent on that. PRS guitars do have a neck angle, and so do Fenders. On a Fender it's done with a shim in the neck pocket. This is ONLY to get the strings up high enough to meet the height of the bridge. When you design a guitar, the height of the bridge must be taken into consideration. No one ever figured it out by trail and error! Anyone who has ever built a set neck guitar has had to plot the neck angle before they started building.

Also, Gibson screwed up the two original LP models. Les wanted the strings to pass OVER the bridge/tailpiece so he could palm mute. But guess what? Gibson screwed up the neck angle, so the stings had to run UNDER the bridge. The other thing they did wrong was the LP Custom was supposed to have the maple top, and the Standard was supposed to be solid mahogany. They mixed the two up. Les wanted the custom to be the deluxe guitar with the maple top.

L6S-solid rock maple, sounds dead as a doornail. It may be a Gibson but, sorry the tone is absent without leave. I guess this explains why guitars are not made out of plastic or particle board.
The wood makes a huge difference. Some woods sound better than others. I can hear a difference and so can other musicians. No, it's not just pickups and electronics, it's real craftsmanship, it's carefully selected wood, it's the angle of the neck, it's the position of the pickup pole pieces over the selected harmonic points of the strings...and a whole lot more.

It does not sound dead as a doornail. There are many good recorded examples of that guitar. Santana used it for a while, as did Keith Richards. Mike Oldfield used one, as did Rich Williams of Kansas and Paul Stanley of Kiss, and Bob Mothersbaugh of Devo.

As I said, Les Paul wanted his namesake guitar to be made of solid maple. Gibson decided to make a thick maple top instead, since a solid maple guitar as thick as an LP would be very heavy. Mahogany was only used in guitar making because its easy to carve. There's nothing special about the tone of any wood. They all have their own tone. Maple is bright, but smooth. Most Rics are made from maple.

And lookie here, Gibson has reissued the L6S!

Gibson.com: Gibson L6S

They say in their usual market speak:

A body and neck of solid Grade-A maple give the L6S unprecedented sustain and clarity, along with a chimey depth that is further enhanced by this model's overall design.

Wood does make a difference in tone, but there isn't good and bad wood. You can make a guitar out of any suitable wood, and if it's made correctly it will sound great.

As far as not making guitars out of plastic or particle board... where have you been?

There has been the acrylic Dan Armstrong/Ampeg guitar, the compost plastic Bond Superglide, various Steinberger guitars. Oh and the Airline and Valco guitars made of fiberglass. And then Gibson had the Sonex guitar made from "Resonwood" surrounding an inner wood core. Resonwood was their name for something that was pretty much particle board. People have made guitars from MDF, and they sound just fine.

You need to build a few guitars and see that these things that you are saying just aren't true.

Another fallacy is the placement of the pickups under harmonic nodes. Because as soon as you fret a note, the harmonic has now moved. Does the pickup now sound like crap? Of course not. You can place a pickup anywhere you want under the strings and it will sound just fine.

I build guitars, so I know this from experience, not from just thinking about it.

[tonedeciple]

Great post David. I couldn't agree more. When I started building guitars and winding pickups, I wanted to offer a product tailored to my customer's wants and needs. However, I now prefer to build my own designs and put them up for sale to whomever is interested. I have found that trying to build for someone else's tastes can often require extensive re-education. When a customer states that a neck through design is way better than a set-in or bolt-on neck, I have to put my foot down. There's been a lot of great music made with bolt-on necks. It all comes down to how well the neck joint was made.

Your point regarding pickup placement is another excellent example. I had a customer return a guitar because he felt the bridge pickup was 1/16" too far back!

[soundguruman]

Integrated neck is for sure better. Bolt on necks I would skip.
If I bought a guitar with the pickup in the wrong spot, I would return it too.
Pickup placement is critical, and I detest slop workmanship.

[tonedeciple]

Integrated neck is for sure better. Bolt on necks I would skip.

Show me the proof.

If I bought a guitar with the pickup in the wrong spot, I would return it too.

Define "the wrong spot."

Pickup placement is critical

Once again, show me the proof.

[Chuck H]

and I detest slop workmanship.

David had a post about a month ago that showed Gibsons lack of workmanship.http://music-electronics-forum.com/t27123/

See post 18.

You talk about Gibson like they're in it for the art... They're in it for the payola.

Pickups don't care where you put them. It's all relative. As noted, what difference can any harmonically chosen pickup position possibly make once a string is fretted???

Neck angle shmeck angle. I'm going with string tension, terminal break angle and rigidity of materials/construction (be them natural or synthetic). What difference can a neck angle make by itself???

You can't just say these things based on some long held false belief. You need to be able to back statements up with fact if you're going to tell people what's right and wrong. Some things have gray area. Some things don't.

You would do well to listen to David. He and I haven't always agreed but (IMHO) it's been on gray issues. He's a smart guy with experience and (nearly always ) right.

[soundguruman]

Show me the proof.



Define "the wrong spot."



Once again, show me the proof.

It really bothers you that some people have a lot more knowledge and experience than you do.
"show me the proof"---LMAO. The reason that we have such advanced electric guitars is that people like Les Paul worked out all these minute details decades ago. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

[David Schwab]

But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

Apparently you don't.

I'm sorry, but if you are implying that you have more knowledge, you have already shown that you don't. I'll also add to the misinformation you gave that a Super'tron is a single coil, and that Gretsch pickup are not pickups but microphones.

You have a personal preference for set necks and pickups in certain spots, but that doesn't make it better. All the rest of the stuff you are saying is either wrong, or just opinion with little basis in fact. There's nothing wrong with bolt on necks, and I'm pretty sure that Fender sells more guitars than Gibson.

Les Paul did not "work out all the details." You are making that up. Ted McCarty designed the Les Paul, and it's based on Gibsons archtops.

What Les Paul is known for is taking a railroad tie and putting an Epiphone body and neck on it, and then making his own low impedance pickups from electric clock coils.

Does this look like he worked out "all the details?"

it is known that in 1945–1946, Les Paul had approached Gibson with "The Log" prototype, but his solid body design was rejected.

Additionally, Gibson's president Ted McCarty states that the Gibson Guitar Corporation merely approached Les Paul for the right to imprint the musician's name on the headstock to increase model sales, and that in 1951, Gibson showed Paul a nearly finished instrument. McCarty also claims that design discussions with Les Paul were limited to the tailpiece and the fitting of a maple cap over the mahogany body for increased density and sustain, which Les Paul had requested reversed. However, according to Gibson Guitar, this reversal would have caused the guitar to become too heavy, and Paul's request was refused.

So, Les did not design the guitar, did not have a lot of input into the details, and wanted a solid maple guitar.

As far as pickup placement, this is the guitar Les played.



One pickup is as close to the neck as you can get it; to the point of removing the end of the fingerboard, and the other is as close to the bridge as you can get it. Where is the magic pickup placement here? You would probably hate this guitar as much as the L6-S, but THIS is the guitar where Les worked out the details... in the electronics.

I'll add this example of a great sounding guitar:



Plastic body, bolt on neck, and the pickup is in the wrong place!

[Chuck H]

I don't even think there is a significant difference in vibration transfer between set necks and bolted necks. Is the glue necks are set with better at transferring vibration than wood and steel???

My personal favorite is a neck through design or a heel-less set neck but that's for comfort and nothing else. I love the sound of strats but hate the typically clunky neck joint that must be negotiated in playing the highest registers. My current main guitar is a strat.

I also have preferences in pickup location. Mostly for the bridge pickup. Too far back and the guitar sounds thin. Too far forward and it quacks like a duck. But I'll offer that it's still just a personal preference. Jimi Hendrix, for example, played lefty and strung a right handed strat upside down. That effectively reverses the bridge pickup angle. So what's wrong with Jimi's tone???

[soundguruman]

Since you don't posses a clue,
The pickup poles are located at the harmonic points of the strings. That was only one of the major breakthroughs developed by Les Paul.
As close to the bridge as close to the neck, incorrect.

[tonedeciple]

It really bothers you that some people have a lot more knowledge and experience than you do.
"show me the proof"---LMAO. The reason that we have such advanced electric guitars is that people like Les Paul worked out all these minute details decades ago. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

I think soundguruman likes to poke hornet's nests. Every forum on the web has at least one of his kind. Daddy should have told him to be careful lest he get stung, which he has been repeatedly in this thread alone.

[David Schwab]

Since you don't posses a clue,
The pickup poles are located at the harmonic points of the strings. That was only one of the major breakthroughs developed by Les Paul.
As close to the bridge as close to the neck, incorrect.

OK, I'm giving you a warning here. One more time and I'll delete your posts.

They aren't at the harmonic points on the string, and it was NOT a breakthrough by Les Paul. So why are you calling people clueless?

You are either making stuff up to troll people, or you haven't a clue.

Since many guitars have 21 frets, the neck pickup falls near the 24th fret location. That is a harmonic node. However, when you fret a note that node moves up. So unless you are only playing open strings, being under a harmonic makes no difference. Rickenbacker, Gibson and Fender, et al, have been placing pickups in those locations before there was a Les Paul guitar.

Also, you can see where Les liked his pickups. He just stuck them at the far extremes.

[David Schwab]

I think soundguruman likes to poke hornet's nests. Every forum on the web has at least one of his kind. Daddy should have told him to be careful lest he get stung, which he has been repeatedly in this thread alone.

OK well he is starting so sound like a Troll. Even when shown the facts, such as Ted McCarty showing Les a completed guitar, he still wants to make up stories.

Since he seems to be ignoring my posts, I hope he takes heed of my warning.

[Chuck H]

He's not a troll. He's a regular over on the amp side. I don't understand his arrogance in the face of an opportunity to be corrected and learn.

FWIW the harmonic node effect is not only relative to pole position (which changes when a string is fretted) but the specific effect is also relative to where and how a string is plucked. Considering that right hand position (for right handed players) doesn't change much AND the string length is changed there are harmonic differences all over the place no matter where a pickup is located.

The relevance of pickup placement harmonically is where it is located on a strings length. Obviously this changes when a string is fretted. Is this getting through??? Hello... Is this microphone on???