School me on the different Les Paul guitars!

Michael R said:
If you want a Gibson with high output pups then the Studio models with the 498T would be in your price range. The Studio would have a 60s neck and the Tribute models would have a more 50s style neck. If you are willing to swap pups later, then I would go for a used Gibson Classic. It has the 60s style neck and more importantly, the pups are in the correct position for that authentic LP tone. A lot of guys don't consider or even know that the pickup position on Gibson Standard/Studio/Epiphone are all different. The Classic and more expensive models are all identical. On the Studio/Tribute both pups are the same distance apart but are slightly more toward the neck. The Epiphones have the bridge pup even more toward the neck. If the pup position does not concern you then, the Epiphone Jerry Cantrel LP Custom has a 60s style neck with a very hot bridge pup in it. I just got delivery of that model yesterday and it is very nice.
Click to expand...

The pickup position winds up being a big deal. Even the "the guitar doesn't matter" people tend to agree that makes a significant difference.

I can't confirm or refute that different Gibson LPs have different pickup positions, but I'm convinced that the pickup positions are one of the big reasons why my 594 sounds different from my LP. They both sound great, but they don't sound the same.
 
marsonic said:
The pickup position winds up being a big deal. Even the "the guitar doesn't matter" people tend to agree that makes a significant difference.

I can't confirm or refute that different Gibson LPs have different pickup positions, but I'm convinced that the pickup positions are one of the big reasons why my 594 sounds different from my LP. They both sound great, but they don't sound the same.
Click to expand...
I actually did a youtube vid about the pickup position a few years ago. If you can tolerate the long and boring vid, here it is:


As for the 594, I own both a SC and DC S2 594s. Their pickup positions are more similar to an Epiphone in general. Also, oddly enough they are not the same....did a vid on that as well:


Strangely, my SC S2 594 with it's bridge pickup the furthest from the bridge sounds more like my LP, acoustically as well. I definitely live in the "wood matters" camp.
 
Michael R said:
I actually did a youtube vid about the pickup position a few years ago. If you can tolerate the long and boring vid, here it is:


As for the 594, I own both a SC and DC S2 594s. Their pickup positions are more similar to an Epiphone in general. Also, oddly enough they are not the same....did a vid on that as well:


Strangely, my SC S2 594 with it's bridge pickup the furthest from the bridge sounds more like my LP, acoustically as well. I definitely live in the "wood matters" camp.
Click to expand...

They'll go in my watch later list. Looking forward to it.

I definitely don't regret my S2 594 DC - it's a great guitar in its own right, insanely comfortable, and probably my best-built guitar as far as the objective things luthiers look at. But, it's not a LP replacement, at least to me. It's it's own thing, regardless of their intentions.

FWIW, they did claim that the scale length was supposed to be more like at least some specific examples of vintage Les Pauls. I don't have enough of a basis for comparison in that regard...could just be marketing BS.
 
marsonic said:
They'll go in my watch later list. Looking forward to it.

I definitely don't regret my S2 594 DC - it's a great guitar in its own right, insanely comfortable, and probably my best-built guitar as far as the objective things luthiers look at. But, it's not a LP replacement, at least to me. It's it's own thing, regardless of their intentions.

FWIW, they did claim that the scale length was supposed to be more like at least some specific examples of vintage Les Pauls. I don't have enough of a basis for comparison in that regard...could just be marketing BS.
Click to expand...
I agree, the PRS S2 594s are very nice but not quite a LP. They are in the ballpark and sound better than an Epi LP though.
On my DC I swapped the bridge pup for a Dimarzio air zone. It's a different beast now and I much more prefer it that way.
 
Michael R said:
I agree, the PRS S2 594s are very nice but not quite a LP. They are in the ballpark and sound better than an Epi LP though.
On my DC I swapped the bridge pup for a Dimarzio air zone. It's a different beast now and I much more prefer it that way.
Click to expand...

So...as far as the video...I think the second one was better. The pictures you used in the first one weren't all scaled the same. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your video didn't prove your assertion. It would have been nice to see some actual measurements like in the second, though I know you didn't own all the guitars when you made it.

I might end up having to go to a shop and do that just to satisfy my own curiosity.
 
marsonic said:
So...as far as the video...I think the second one was better. The pictures you used in the first one weren't all scaled the same. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your video didn't prove your assertion. It would have been nice to see some actual measurements like in the second, though I know you didn't own all the guitars when you made it.

I might end up having to go to a shop and do that just to satisfy my own curiosity.
Click to expand...
No problem, I get it.
Here are two pics of my LP Traditional and my Epiphone LP Modern.
Traditional:
20230814_203200.jpg
Epiphone:
20230814_203223.jpg
 
Cool.

FWIW, my PRS is 1 1/4" (a tiny bit closer than your epi) and my Standard is actually 2/32 farther than your Traditional, both measured to the pole pieces, measured as similarly to your method as I can.

The PRS scale length is also shorter....I'd need to do math to actually see how different I would expect them, and I just don't feel like doing it.
 
Sixstring said:
Somewhat off topic but I'm wondering if translates over to other models, ES335's SG's etc!
Click to expand...

It would be interesting.

I'm under the impression that SG pickups are supposed to be a lot closer to the bridge than LP pickups, in general. But, I haven't looked at differences between models and only have an Epiphone at my disposal (which is 1 3/32"...just a hair farther than my LP, with the neck a good bit closer to the bridge than either of the others).
 
I also noticed that on the Epiphone Prophecy models the bridge pup looks like it is identical in spacing to the Gibson standard.
Those are 24 fret so that would have looked really odd if they didn't move it closer to the bridge.

Just my theory but, I think Gibson knows exactly what they are doing.
You want the real deal? Pay the high dollar.
Want a cheap USA Studio/Tribute....pay the price and get your pups slightly off.
Want to go really cheap and get an Epiphone..........We will move them even more.

I think I mentioned this in that vid but you would think that pickup manufacturers would have noticed this and would sell specific aftermarket pups for either a "Studio" or an "Epiphone". I am sure they could make them sound more accurate even though the spacing is different.
 
Michael R said:
I also noticed that on the Epiphone Prophecy models the bridge pup looks like it is identical in spacing to the Gibson standard.
Those are 24 fret so that would have looked really odd if they didn't move it closer to the bridge.

Just my theory but, I think Gibson knows exactly what they are doing.
You want the real deal? Pay the high dollar.
Want a cheap USA Studio/Tribute....pay the price and get your pups slightly off.
Want to go really cheap and get an Epiphone..........We will move them even more.

I think I mentioned this in that vid but you would think that pickup manufacturers would have noticed this and would sell specific aftermarket pups for either a "Studio" or an "Epiphone". I am sure they could make them sound more accurate even though the spacing is different.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced they could. The pickup position isn't just a matter of bright/dark, it changes the relative strengths of the overtones that wind up in the electrical signal. We hear it mostly as bright/dark, but that's because people kind of suck at explaining these subtleties.
 
I have narrowed it down to a Les Paul Classic Gold Top clear back! It is a 2019 Model not sure if there are any issues with that year it is a slim taper neck which is what I'm after over all it is in pretty good shape! I'm considering making an offer.
 
Bman said:
the '59 necks feel like modern necks to me. So either a 60s or a 59 will get you away from the baseball bat feel. You mentioned about being able to dial back the volume for cleans. That's the one thing mine does not do well and I've experimented with 50s wiring schematic and modern. I even had a treble bleed put on the neck volume pot. But I think I've finally figured out WHY I'm not getting a clean tone from rolling back the volume. My neck p/u is too hot. It's a Classic and the bridge p/u is a Classic plus. It's very similar to my Warmoth build in that I've got a Thornbucker (neck) and Thornbucker plus in the bridge. I need a low output neck p/u to clean up the way I feel it should. A Duncan 59 should do it but I haven't tried it yet. But my Les Paul does sound good in all of my presets. It's chambered and light. For me, it's a one trick pony but maybe that will change once I get around to swapping out the neck p/u. I've considered buying a PRS but I figure the Les Paul is the same thing, different brand. (Take it easy on me for that last statement, you PRS loving zealots!) :p
Click to expand...
Bet you were starting to think you'd flown under the radar there for a while ....... :D

PRS Singlecuts and Les Pauls are actually very different animals. I don't fall into the PRS zealot camp, but I love PRS guitars a whole lot, and am still tempted to say that my PRS DGT is the best guitar I have ever owned if I look at its attributes dispassionately compared to my other guitars (which run the gamut from fifties Strats and Teles to a couple of Strandbergs so it has some reasonable competition to deal with) - but no PRS I have owned sounds like a really good Les Paul Standard, and oddly enough the DGT comes closer than a beautiful PRS SCT I owned a few years ago. I have a pretty cool 59RI that absolutely nails the classic jean leg flapping oomph that only Les Pauls seem to be able to get a quad box to do, but the thing is, that's kind of all it does really well.... and that makes it a one trick pony - no good for recording because it has a low end hump that can't be EQ'd out and it hammers the front end of any amp into submission, which is odd because the pickups are Throbak PAF clones which are not high output - yet the guitar is stupidly loud. PRS guitars just don't have that particular low end thump - you aren't going to get it no matter what you do - but for me that's a good attribute, not a minus. It's all 100% subjective of course, that's just my take.

To the original poster - Gibson neck shapes changed radically in 1960. Prior to that they were big, somewhat baseball bat like with big shoulders - post 1960 the neck shape became more of a shallow, wide D so I think one thing you should definitely be looking at is a "sixties" neck profile from your description.

As always, try as many as you can get your hands on - it's really the only wayh to get a feel for what you are looking for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom