jef5f Posted February 27, 2001 Share Posted February 27, 2001 I'm curios about the tonal differeneces between a flamed maple top and and non-flamed maple top. I know that the Les Pauls made famous by Jimmy Page and Phil Keaggy are non-flamed and have an incredible tone, but then Michael Bloomfield and Joe Walsh with their flamed tops were incredible also. Is there a difference other then the cosmetic appearance? Psalm 33:3 The best instrument you have, is your heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael saulnier Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 I'm not aware of any tonal differences between "flame tops" and non-flamed maple tops. Obviously maple itself has tonal qualities, but those seem consistent across quilted, flamed, and non-flamed. guitplayer I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisa Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 The figure and appearance of the wood usually aren't responsible for the tonal qualities. In fact, some players believe that plainer-looking guitars sound better. The best-sounding guitars are often not the prettiest ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jef5f Posted February 28, 2001 Author Share Posted February 28, 2001 If there are not any recognizable tonal differences, then maybe the differences are that the more figured woods are worked to make them appear as beantific as possible. Staining, clear coating, etc. A few weeks ago, I tried a few acoustic Alvarezes, identical except in finish and observed noticable differences. A painted body was less lively then a stained body. A stained body was less lively then a natural finished body. A natural finished body was less lively then a hand-rubbed oil finish. I remember a few years ago, in a Guitar Player round table of guitar makers, Paul Reed Smith said that to sell guitars in a mass market, they pretty much have to make them like museum pieces. To make the best sounding guitar, tonally, the appearance would be quite different. Psalm 33:3 The best instrument you have, is your heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael saulnier Posted March 1, 2001 Share Posted March 1, 2001 There's no question that many aspiring (and experienced) guitarist will be attracted to a guitar that "looks good". But there are certainly great guitars without cosmetic "good looks". I have a PRS Standard 24 that sounds and plays great. I got it for a great price because as the sales guy said the day I bought it: "This is a great guitar nobody wants because it's a solid black finish, not a 10 top". I played it through a HR Deluxe and was so impressed with the sound and feel, I bought it immediately. It was probably $700 to $1000 less than the 10 tops they had there... SRV had several guitars and could have bought any guitar he wanted. His #1 was visually ugly... but had the sound and feel that spoke to him... He even bought it used... Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to nice looking guitars... I have a Koa flame topped Carvin guitar that is impossibly beautiful, but I'll take great sound over style any day! This one happened to have both great sound and great looks. Try this... go with a friend to a guitar shop. pick out two nice guitars, one that looks great, one that you like but is more "plain". Close your eyes, and have your friend play them back to back through the same amp setup without you knowing which is which. Go back and forth a couple of times and see which one "sounds" the best. If it's the plain Jane... buy it and be happy you've got a great sounding guitar. guitplayer I'm still "guitplayer"! Check out my music if you like... http://www.michaelsaulnier.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman1ovation.net Posted March 1, 2001 Share Posted March 1, 2001 Back in 1993 I was getting an acoustic-electric guitar, and the store I went to had some Seagull guitars. Well, first off, I'd never heard of them. The sales person said they were made by "someone in Canada". I played it, and it sounded good and felt pretty good. I think it would have felt better had I bought it and had it worked on a little. It had the PLAINEST finish I'd ever seen on a guitar. It was like no finish at all. But it wasn't remotely objectionable. I think if I'd known about Seagull guitars and their general reliability, etc., I'd have purchased it. As it was, I got a Washburn EA-20. It's the Moody Blues model, you might say. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I've been pleased with the Washburn, but I've always wondered about that Seagull. It apparently had a specifically good electronic component, but it was just one of those things about wondering if my ears and hands were fooling me, and actually it was going to warp and break in six months. Later I came to learn that Seagulls are a terrific value, and that plain finish goes along with my current philosophy on guitars. I only use them in a studio setting, so I don't care what they look like; just how they feel and sound. But I've got to say I find that simple look very appealing. It's raw, cut to the bone, and what it lacks in vanity, it makes up for in quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jef5f Posted March 2, 2001 Author Share Posted March 2, 2001 I have four guitars right now. My Dad's 53 Martin (on permenant loan), an Alvarez A/E Jumbo, a Hamer SATF, and an 80 Les Paul Firebrand. The Hamer is the standard flamed top, gloss finish, and sounds and plays good. Has great tone. A very usable and versatile tone. The Les Paul I bought for $250 in a pawn shop. It was beat, almost as much as SRV's 59 strat. It needed tuners, bridge saddles, adjustment, cleaning of the pots, and a little TLC. I originally bought it for a backup (esp for the price). But it is more then a backup, it has a unique quality about it that so that I switch between guitars. The Alvarez is in great shape. I had to replace the bridge saddle. It sounds good, but the old Martin, which stays at home unless recording, is phenomenal. Great singing quality. A few years ago, before I began to understand sound and tone quality, I chose a Peavey Generation over a 70s Telecaster Deluxe with a great deal of the sunburst worn away. Same price, the PV looked better. Don't get me wrong, the PV is a great guitar. The Generation is the best PV has ever done, but the Tele, as I think back on it was a tonemonger. I love good looks. That's what draws me to the PRS and Hamers. I want a PRS Santana III or Custom 24, and a Hamer Artist Korina and a Hamer Mirage. I have espensive tastes, but buy inexpensive instruments. This particular thread took a unexpected and surprising, but exciting turn. I have learned what I originally wanted to know. The Gibson and PRS forums gave the same info. But with the little twist we've taken here, I guess the nitty gritty is this: It's all in the ears of the beholder and the hands of the player. Eh? Psalm 33:3 The best instrument you have, is your heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.