The Gretsch Pages: Discussions: Modern Gretsch Guitars:

In Search of ... Dynasonic Facts, Fiction, Myth, and Truth

« » Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

- Rated: 23 ↑
Feb 17, 2008 1:30 p.m. Danman:

cjm good point:
I had been thinking of that too. I'm sure it does make a difference in time and cost.

You never know....
- Rated: 78 ↑
Feb 17, 2008 1:40 p.m. Mark Synchro:

Deed Eddy said: Again, as I was unaware of this "used" or "factory second" issue, do y'all see much of this? (from any companies)
There are some older Gibsons floating around with "second" stamped into the back of the headstock. I don't know how many there are but I've run across a few in my time. I'm not certain what their current policy is.

I know that Fender states that they don't sell seconds and I'm not sure what Gretsch does on the subject.

There is also "B stock" which can mean a lot of different things. It could be a manufacturing mistake which is what I believe my solid-topped natural finish Country Club to be. There's nothing wrong with it but the feature set doesn't really fit anything in their catalog. B stock could also include unsold leftovers of obsolete models or guitars that for some reason or another have fallen through the cracks of the distribution system and are sold at a discount to clear them from inventory.

I actually see factory seconds as a positive thing. If a guitar comes out of the factory completely serviceable but with some obvious defect that can't be repaired indelably marking it a second and selling it for a substantial discount opens the door for some buyers that are currently unable to buy what they would like to own. It also takes a certain amount of pressure off of the factory because rejecting an item is no longer an all or nothing proposition.

As I mentione earlier, my last Gibson was a Les Paul that a dealer ordered for me. When I got it I was disappointed by the quality of the workmanship but returning it wasn't an option because it was a special order. If they'd stamped it a second and knocked the price down I probably would have been satisfied that I had gotten my money's worth.
- Rated: 21 ↑
Feb 17, 2008 3:56 p.m. chrisp:

I do not know Gibson's current policy on Gibson label guitars.

You do see many Epiphones stamped "USED", the old S/N crossed out and a new serial number put on.

This means there is no lifetime warranty. I have seen guitars with no defects (that I could find) stamped "Used". It is possible that this is a way to move overstock out at a lower price with no warranty exposure (thus some average cost reduction at HQ level).

I would be perfectly happy with factory seconds being available from all manufacturers. No problem at all so long as the offer is clearly defined.

But I draw the line at factory second underwear. I want Big Jim and the Twins riding first class at all times.

CP
- Rated: 22 ↑
Feb 17, 2008 6:18 p.m. TomfromPA:

Deed, I visited the Gibson factory in Memphis last spring and the tour guide said they do not sell seconds. If the guitar doesn't meet standards at point in the assembly sequence the instrument is destroyed.
- Rated: 185 ↑
Feb 17, 2008 6:18 p.m. Proteus:

cjm, interesting theory that a shorter wind provides less opportunity for breakage and material/labor wastage, but I don't think it holds up.

It might apply to hand scatter-wound pickups, but Tokiwa and other volume winders have purpose-designed equipment which I suspect can reliably and safely pile on any number of turns without an ever-increasing risk of spoiling the product while making it.

As mentioned in the text, Joe and Mike have both specifically rejected the lower-cost theory as an explanation for pickup specs. Outside the realm of TVs, Seymours, and other boutique options, pickups in general represent a pretty small proportion of an import guitar's cost. When it comes to fractional costs of that fractional cost, it doesn't make sense to me that FMIC would let a couple cents worth of wire stand between pickups perceived as missing the mark and pickups seen by the market as getting it right.

Mike's Mantra: it costs just as much to build it wrong as to get it right.

I'm confident Tokiwa's Dynas are wound to their current specs to be in the ballpark with someone's set of observed vintage measurements.

Gibson seems to build an inherently sound product with, in my experience and by observation, occasional but common fit-finish-and-QC issues. Nice enough guitars, when you get a good one. Some no doubt rise to greatness.

That's as may be, and I make no comparative argument either way. Gibson's main problem from my perspective: no guitars with Dynasonics, past or present.

Or to put it less flippantly, Gibson and Gretsch design and build guitars to different sets of specs. They're intended to sound and play differently from each other. Always WERE; that was the point. It's immaterial to me to what extent a Country Club is perceived as trying to be (or falling short of being) an L5.

Each in its essential pristine perfect form is its own thing, suited to its own purpose.

I don't have to mourn, attack, or defend Gibson (from either sentimental or commercial motives), since the company doesn't make guitars which – whatever their level of quality – have a sound which suits me as well as various Gretsch flavors do.

I'm familiar with Gibson and Epiphone seconds, and have seen the USED stamp. Gretsch also lets B-stock out there. In both cases, my understanding has been that these qualifications refer solely to cosmetic and not structural or functional issues.

In some cases, I've been able to find an obvious problem (usually finish) for which a guitar clearly lost its most favored status; in others I can find something only an obsessive would consider a flaw – and sometimes I can't find any issue whatever.

And at least in my experience, manufacturers and dealers promise 2nds or B-stock will be functionally perfect.
- Rated: 185 ↑
Feb 17, 2008 6:21 p.m. Proteus:

If the guitar doesn't meet standards at point in the assembly sequence the instrument is destroyed.

And of course, those standards are defined by Gibson!
- Rated: 185 ↑
Feb 17, 2008 6:34 p.m. Proteus:

Post here as place-holder till I think of something else to rant about.

Will keep it short.
- Rated: 20 ↑
Feb 17, 2008 7:33 p.m. cjm:

Proteus said: cjm, interesting theory that a shorter wind provides less opportunity for breakage and material/labor wastage, but I don't think it holds up.

I wouldn't fall over in a heap to find that I was wrong...I'm just "spitballin'" here.

Proteus said: It might apply to hand scatter-wound pickups, but Tokiwa and other volume winders have purpose-designed equipment which I suspect can reliably and safely pile on any number of turns without an ever-increasing risk of spoiling the product while making it.

I was thinking more in terms of flaws in drawn copper wire and baked enamel insulation. More feet, more flaws, is my theory.

Proteus said: As mentioned in the text, Joe and Mike have both specifically rejected the lower-cost theory as an explanation for pickup specs...

No one who wants to stay in business is likely to say, "Hey! We just cheapened the product because you'll buy it anyway with our name on it!"

Now, I'm not saying this is the explanation, or that someone is being less than truthful. Been around long enough to know that a lot of incorrect information comes out of corporations from the mouths of people who have been misled by higher management...been a while, but I used to work for Motorola and held both technical and sales positions, and while in sales was handed a load of crap by management which I proceeded to demonstrate as being false on the back of a cocktail napkin in the hotel's bar. They thought they were telling me the truth, but got so agitated they excused themselves, went to their rooms to call Chicago (back before cell phones) and returned about an hour later looking pretty shaken.

All one of them could say was, "Well I'll be a son of a bitch," which I didn't disagree with since he was in management and it was Motorola.

But the point is, doodoo happens, and when a product differs significantly from the original which it is purported to replicate, cost cutting is, more often than not, the explanation.
- Rated: 30 ↑
Feb 18, 2008 12:00 a.m. do not be afraid:

Mark Synchro: sheesh, how many pages back is that? oh, i don't know, but i'm going to respond anyways:

is a Country Club a “toy” compared to an L-5? well, first, i was sort of joking, but, then again, i was sort of not… “vintage” Country Clubs probably are a reasonably fair comparison to an L5, actually, but the current FMIC ones aren't even close in terms of construction, materials, etc; it's much cheaper to build a guitar with a pressed top, laminate back and sides, and “tone bar” bracing (basically just the cheapest way possible to keep the top from caving in, with no consideration to acoustics at all!), than it is to build one with a carved top and back, solid sides, and, you know, real bracing (X-bracing, maybe? i don't actually know for sure…) — especially when one is being mass produced in Japan, and the other is being made in limited quantities in America! not to mention that the Country Club, rightly or not, is an often ignored and underrated member of the Gretsch line-up, while the L-5 is an undisputed icon, which also increases the costs substaintially (supply and demand, and all of that!)

oh, and “plywood” is just an affectionate little term i use! yes, i know, it's not really plywood, but, still… you can't deny that it's much cheaper in terms of materials, labor, time, etc, to build a “laminate” archtop, and that was originally the whole point of them: to be “cheap!” i actually like them better myself, and the “cheap” factor is part of the reason — L-5s seem just a little too “stuffy” for me!

cjm: But the point is, doodoo happens, and when a product differs significantly from the original which it is purported to replicate, cost cutting is, more often than not, the explanation.
i agree. current Gretsch guitars really aren't anything like the originals in the details, and just get the broad-strokes right — like the cheap Asian knock-offs they are — and they're absolutely great on that level (and have gotten even better in recent years), but to market them as exact replicas of the originals is — at best — completely bullshit! so, why don't they build 'em like they used to (on any day?) and why do they market them as if they did? money! that's the only answer i can think of — especially when most of the changes i can spot seem to either make them more “standard”, or, sometimes, frankly, more shoddy (remember those pickup covers that aren't grounded, and fall off? yeah…) if they were priced the same as, say, the Epiphone Elitist series (made in the same factories!), and were just marketed as what they are, then i probably wouldn't care — or, at least, not as much as i do!

and, again, as i said before, i'm not really sure building 'em like they used to should be the main goal at Gretsch, but it's what they themselves seem to present as their main goal, so…
- Rated: 37 ↑
Feb 18, 2008 4:25 a.m. Timthom62:

About a year ago I decided I wanted (read: had to have) a Gibson L7 after hearing one in a club setting. My preferred Gibson dealer didn't stock one, so we ordered and waited.

The first one sent had so many issues that it never even got out of the store. A large section of binding was loose and several scuff marks in the finish were the worst of it. A huge disappointment, but these things do happen.

The second one lasted a month before some part of the bracing came loose inside; playing it was kind of like being accompanied by a muted snare drum. Up until then it sounded great and was perfect in every other respect. I had taken great care of it and was devastated.

Rather than go that route again, I changed directions and went with a J-200. This one I call my "Cold, Dead Fingers" guitar; as in "They can have it when they pry it from my...". It is absolutely perfect in every way, I struggle to be worthy of it. (The name also describes my playing style.)

When I returned the second L7, the dealer and distributor (the same two I referred to in an earlier post) were way past being merely apologetic and promised to follow up with Gibson. This past week was the first time I've had a chance to talk to them both and they made it clear that they got nowhere. Having quality issues ran counter to the corporate conventional wisdom and anyone who's worked for a large company can tell you what happens to things that run counter to the corporate conventional wisdom.

I couldn't help but contrast that with Joe Carducci's response to the headstock inlay (onlay?) issue here many months ago. He identified a problem and acted quickly to resolve it and make the customer happy.

I like Gibson guitars and have no desire to 'bash' them. If they are having problems, I hope they resolve them quickly as they have quite a reputation to protect. Even if they are having problems, I must say that when they are good, they are still very, very good.

Anyone can have quality problems and Gretsch has had some bad spots as well. Fortunately they seem to have dealt with many (most) of their issues and are enjoying a renaissance. I don't know if they're making them exactly like the vintage ones or not, but I do think that fifty years from now there will be people on the GDP-of-the-future wishing they were making them then like they're made now.

To veer briefly back toward the topic:

Modern aircraft use quite a bit of enamel-coated copper wiring (generators, transformers, etc.) in far more difficult winds than a guitar pickup with few quality problems. I think the quality of the wire used today is such that there would be little more fear of defects in a few extra winds.

I do wonder if maybe they undershot the spec for the RI Dynas perhaps thinking that the sound of the vintage ones might be less marketable today.
- Rated: 21 ↑
Feb 18, 2008 6:03 a.m. chrisp:

DNBA,

I think being devil's advocate is a valuable part of a forum such as this.

But an agent provocateur, or simply silly "True Believer" probably does little to forward the discussion.

Carved is certainly more expensive than pressed to build. It might even be better in some cases.

There is no practical cost difference in parallel vs. X bracing. One is not "real" (except to the "True Believer") and the other unreal.

We are a long way from archtops as acoustic volume producers in the pre-amp days. Many changes happen to be cheaper and also happen to be better suited to amplified playing.

But what is or is not an icon (you know, like Hannah Montana), and who is ready (or just silly enough) to pay more based on that - is just one person's opinion.

CP
- Rated: 30 ↑
Feb 19, 2008 2:02 a.m. do not be afraid:

oh, sheesh! how come everything i say half-jokingly comes back and bites me in the ass? but, really, there is a huge difference between the bracing that Gretsch uses, which is incredibly crude and simple, and the bracing most “high-end” carved-topped guitars use, which is noticeabley more intricate and well thought out. it's not just parallel vs. X bracing, it's… damn, how can i explain this? i wish i had pictures of the different bracings to show you, but i can't find any right now! it's just that the Gretsch bracing seems designed simply to be made with as little work and cost as humanly possible, and still “work” — and there's absolutely nothing “wrong” about that, but it certainly does help bring the guitar in cheaper, which was my whole point. i will say that what i've seen of it looks nothing like this, which is the only decent picture of parallel bracing on an archtop i could find:

if it was like that i certainly would agree that it's “real” bracing, but, well, it's not — and, besides, again, i was joking!

and as for it being an “icon”, well, let me put it this way: if Gretsch could get away with selling a Country Club for as much as an L-5, they would!
- Rated: 21 ↑
Feb 19, 2008 10:49 a.m. chrisp:

[DNBA] >>>oh, sheesh! how come everything i say ,...

Maybe you are a misunderstood soul.

OR

Maybe if a thread is wobbling on the rails already, it is worth watching the half-humor a bit.

I understand your point on the bracing. The fine work done on many fine guitars that were built for max acoustic volume was, and is, very nice.

On the other hand, almost all modern archtops are played through an amplifier - and more than a few bewildered budget-busting buyers complain that their new "real" archtop sounds thin through the amp and more or less like an Ovation from 1979. So alot of cash goes in and a shaky at best version of "So What" comes out.

(Or maybe "Blue in Green" would be funnier?)

Now I think a Campellone archtop with a floater sounds superb through an amp - but it is not a Joe Pass or Kenny Burrell sound. So it does not cut it for some.

Note that D'Angelico started getting 9-layer laminated bodies made offsite. He would then attach his own necks and finish them up. This was done in order to make a superior instrument for a given application.

So "real" is probably an unfortunate choice of word to summarize a given preference out there in the multi-dimensional variety of ways to make an archtop.

CP
- Rated: 78 ↑
Feb 19, 2008 1:04 p.m. Mark Synchro:

Chris P said: We are a long way from archtops as acoustic volume producers in the pre-amp days. Many changes happen to be cheaper and also happen to be better suited to amplified playing.
This is a big part of my point with all of this. I own a big volume producing archtop right now, so loud that it can make my ears hurt. It's a wonderful instrument but it's not worth much for gigging unless the gig is playing jazz in a trio at some little coffee shop.

A close friend of mine that plays Jazz exclusively has three custom built archtops made by a luthier named Denny Stevens. There is an 18" acoustic, a 17" acoustic with a floater and 16" solid top with a Guild style humbucker cut in. Besides these he has a '49 ES 175 with a dog ear P-90.

They are all marvels of design, the 18" is the loudest archtop I've ever played. I once played a chord solo on it between sets at one of his gigs and people across that room could hear what I was playing. I was quite surprised when I looked up and realized that it was that audible. The thing is, this is but one function of an archtop. Not every situation calls for a loud acoustic archtop.

A lot of players, including people that could afford any gutar they wanted, will opt for laminate topped instruments with heavy bracing. It's a way of controlling feedback. Joe Pass, Herb Ellis, Tal Farlow, Jim Hall and Grant Green number among the players that have chosen laminate instruments for playing Jazz. As I've mentioned before, Joe Pass himself told me that he used a solid wood D'Aquisto for the studio and a similar looking laminate topped model for gigs. (This was later in the '70s when he had purchased some custom-built instruments.)

There have also been a number of prominent Jazz guitarists that have chosen solid wood instruments with pickups cut into the top. Wes Montgomery's L-5CES and Kenny Burrell's Super 400CES come to mind.

Since I became interested in Jazz guitar I've heard these same arguments over and over again. There seems to be a parade of self-appointed experts looking down their noses at laminate guitars as if they were some cheap price leader sold only to the uninformed. I used to believe all of this thoroughly, until I gained some real world experience and found out that laminate guitars with heavy bracing were not a production shortcut, they were designed to be that way for good reasons.

It might be good to refer to "The Gibson L5" by Adrian Ingram. He mentions in this book that the L-5C and L-5CES are braced quite differently. Undoubtedly the bracing of the L-5CES has an affect on the accoustic qualities of the guitar, but it also makes it more useful in a live performance situation. I can tell you from personaly experience, an archtop designed for optimal acoustic performance is no fun at all in a medium to high volume situation.

I have never been of the opinion that the Country Club is an icon of acoustic archtop greatness with a couple pickups attached for good measure. It is anything but this, but that is also what makes it useful for more than just a few low volume situations. That's also why I bought one. If I wanted another acoustic archtop with a floating pickup I'd have bought one but I'm already fine with what I have along those lines.

Just because something is made differently than it was in the past that, it itself, is no reason to conclude that the new methods are any less "real". Times change, situations change and products change too. Sixty years ago there were all sorts of people making a living chunking out rhythm on big-box acoustics. A guitar was judged by its ability to cut through and power a band. In those days Super 400s, L-5s, D'Angelicos and Strombergs were highly desired. Gretsch cam to this market fairly late with the Synchromatics but these guitars were well regarded in their time as very balanced instruments that were easy to finger. It should be noted that once Freddie Green deemed his Stromberg to be too valuable to take on the road he bought a Gretsch Eldorado as a replacement.

I do not know of one person making their living that way in 2008. There are a hanful of big bands still around, usually manned by volunteers and challenged to find even rehearsal space not to mention performance venues. Brian Setzer has his band but he's not doing acoustic rhythm behind it, he's out front, usually with a laminate Gretsch with heavy bracing, because that's what it takes to get the volume he needs without massive feedback problems.

Different tools for different tasks.
- Rated: 21 ↑
Feb 19, 2008 1:39 p.m. chrisp:

My grandfather was a big band banjo player in the 30's and 40's. Not the 5-string "dueling Banjos" fingerpicking, but the tenor banjo which was used just like a guitar but had extreme volume and punch.

Off topic, but the seemingly useless "fingers" tailpiece on the Gibson (eeeeeaaauuuuuww, Gibson,...) Le Grande (and even more uselessly on the Howard Roberts Fusion) was actually a useful feature on a tenor banjo. You could effectively balance the strings attack volume with these adjustable fingers.

[MarkS]>>> There seems to be a parade of self-appointed experts

Hey! My mother also says I am an expert.

>>>laminate guitars as if they were some cheap price leader sold only to the uninformed

Only to the uniformed? Like to the army or something?

If I wear a paper hat that says "Trainee" and am allowed to man the shake machine at Burger King, am I uniformed enough to buy a laminated guityar?

CP
- Rated: 185 ↑
Feb 19, 2008 1:44 p.m. Proteus:

dnba wonders why his half-jokes come back to bite his bum...

It's not just about bracing; you've seemingly attacked Gretsch's approach across a range of issues, but without being very specific.

Maybe we can't TELL when you're half-joking. Plus your comments in any given post in this thread seem to contradict themselves and leave us wondering what the points were.

You've veered from categorical, vitriolic animus toward Gretsch to the balanced, accommodating and respectful, admitted subjectivity which is common for you. So we're confused, that's all. You sound harsher at times than you intend – then you apologize and back up – then you're flaming again. The flames are becoming caricature though.

It almost looks like there's an instinctive reactive impulse simply to oppose anything and everything – and that conflicts with the desire to be accommodating, balanced and rational.

That confuses us and muddies the waters.

And we're a durn long way from Dynasonics.

Not that I mind thread detours.
- Rated: 78 ↑
Feb 19, 2008 3:53 p.m. Mark Synchro:

The little smiley faces are much more that cute on a discussion board, they are as essential to communication as our body language and tone of voice are when we speak to someone in person.

One thing I find puzzling is when forum members rail against Gretsch guitars and expect others to adopt their views. This is a Gretsch forum and most of us are here because Gretsch guitars suit our tastes and needs. I've owned and played a lot of guitars over the years and I've settled on the current Terada-made Gretsches, as my brand.

I've gotten compliments on my sound but never any complaints and I can't recall any time that anyone took exception to the bracing of these instruments.

Obviously, Terada-made Gretsch guitars are different from the guitars that came out of Brooklyn. Beyond that, Brooklyn made Gretsches were different from what was made in Kalamazoo, MI, Nazareth, PA or Fullerton CA. Different brands frequently represent differing design philosophies. If all brands were all built the same there would be no reason for all of these brands to exist.

Gretsch is my choice of brands because it meeets my needs, sounds right to me and I find the price reasonable. I don't fault anyone else for their choices, but I come here to commune with people that similarly enjoy the current production Gretsch instruments.

If it offends someone that I don't like Gibsons as much as I like Gretsches so be it. It's my opinion and I don't apologize for that.
- Rated: 21 ↑
Feb 19, 2008 5:04 p.m. chrisp:

[MarkS]>>>If all brands were all built the same there would be no reason for all of these brands to exist.

Hee-hee.

I get your concept and I agree. But I think most economists would despute the general applicability of this particular point.

CP
- Rated: 78 ↑
Feb 19, 2008 5:23 p.m. Mark Synchro:

I wasn't speaking in the sense of macro-economics. I only do that on Tuesdays.

Just a minute, this IS Tuesday. Oh well.
- Rated: 30 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 2:29 a.m. do not be afraid:

Proteus, my comments contradict themselves? maybe that's because you just don't understand them? for instance: when somebody complains that the L-5CES is far more expensive than the Country Club, and i try to explain why, everyone complains that none of that stuff actually makes the L-5 a better guitar! well, i never said they made the L-5 a better guitar, just that they made it a more expensive guitar! actually, i'd much rather have a Country Club than an L-5CES (all else being equal, at least), but that still doesn't change the fact that the current Country Club is much cheaper to build, and much cheaper to sell — and i say “current”, because (from what i understand) the originals actually had hand carved tops and backs, solid sides, and very different bracing and joints (although i'm not sure on all of the specifics!), and were made in America, which would probably make them as expensive to build, if not more expensive, than an L-5CES, although the law of supply and demand, combined with the popularity of Gibson and iconographic status of the L-5, might still make them more expensive to buy!

anyways…

that might not even be an issue on which you feel i've contradicted myself, but it's just an example — and maybe it is my fault for not being more clear about what i'm saying, but i'm trying to be as clear as i can, so, i don't know… i've always had a hard time getting along with this damn internet thing, and that i've even been able to get out any posts that you could consider “balanced, accommodating, and respectful” kind of suprises me! like you say:

“It almost looks like there's an instinctive reactive impulse simply to oppose anything and everything”

although, actually, it's not so clear cut — i don't really oppose anything and everything, it's just that (for some reason) it's always been easier for me to figure out what i don't like than what i do, and, once i know what i do and don't like, it's always been easier for me to work up the courage to say what i don't! i don't know why that is, but, uh, i guess that's just how i am, and how i've always been, for as long as i can remember.

what am i going on about? i don't even know anymore, and it's late, and i'm exhausted, so i'll just shut up…
- Rated: 25 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 10:18 a.m. texarock:

Proteus said: And JohnnyFriendly wants to know, from texarock: The big question is really this: how close to the originals do you feel the SDs sound based on Proteus's sound clip?

But texarock hasn't answered!

You can listen to my answer and decide for yourself, all the songs posted were recorded with DeArmond equipped 1957 Gretsches. First song is a Jet, 2 & 3 are a 6120.

My DeArmond-Space
- Rated: 185 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 10:43 a.m. Proteus:

Said dnba: i've always had a hard time getting along with this damn internet thing, and that i've even been able to get out any posts that you could consider “balanced, accommodating, and respectful” kind of suprises me!

Nonetheless, you generally do a fine job, and I always find your thoughts unique, interesting, and honest. I doubt many of us think we've gotten our points across perfectly (the length of my posts often results from attempts to do so) - but I think you communicate just fine.

although, actually, it's not so clear cut — i don't really oppose anything and everything, it's just that (for some reason) it's always been easier for me to figure out what i don't like than what i do, and, once i know what i do and don't like, it's always been easier for me to work up the courage to say what i don't! i don't know why that is, but, uh, i guess that's just how i am, and how i've always been, for as long as i can remember.

I know what all that's like too - sometimes a hint of negativity is a great defense, since when we say what we DO like, we're a bit more "exposed."

That, and I do respect your willingness to look at both sides of things, and reveal your honest ambivalence as you figure things out.

It's all just a conversation here, no whizzing match, and you're OK in my book, dood.

texarock, thanks for the link. Will listen and report. For the record, what amps, what effect chain, what mic, what kind of processing in the mix?
- Rated: 25 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 11:01 a.m. texarock:

The amp was a Standel 50J12V, the effects were the on-board tremolo and an EP-2 Echoplex. I don't recall which mics. The recorded sound is very true to the live sound.
- Rated: 9 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 2:48 p.m. JohnnyFriendly:

Sounds like somewhere in between - growlier than the stocks, prissier than the Duncans. Guess this validates the 9k theory espoused by Proteus.

Speaking of which, here's a question for Proteus himself:
If the stocks are "legit" recreations of dynas, how come it's the Duncans and not the stocks that Gretsch/FMIC choose to install on their custom shop models? (not arguin', just curious...)
- Rated: 185 ↑
Feb 20, 2008 3:06 p.m. Proteus:

My guess is that it's because they're made in America, which fits the portfolio for the guitar, and are seen as boutique pups.

And remember, the 9k theory came from TV's experience with B Setzer's Silver Jet.

(It's also occured to me in the meantime that SD may have chosen the highest range of historical values for maximum contrast with the stockers...so that buyers (who often turn to SD for hot pickups) would be satisfied with the maximum difference they hear after installation.

And to hedge his bets, SD makes sure you know you can have yours wound to suit...in case you DO know what you want.)