Page 2 of 2
#41
Quote by <3beat
The P90 version of the Core series does come with Duncan pups (P90, obviously). The HB model, on the other end, comes with Godin humbuckers (Godin Nitro Humbuckers).

I have no experience with Godin HBs, but the single coils in my Velocity sound quite nice. I never felt the need to change them yet after 5+ years of using it as my main (95%+) guitar.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but P90's are the size of humbuckers, but are single coil correct?
#42
Quote by Captaincranky
You're dealing with a 1/12 octave shift in center frequency when you tune to Eb standard.

Low E on the guitar is about 80 Hz. So, a 1/2 step away from that should be well within the bandwidth of most any pickup.

I expect it an "aural illusion" of heaviness due to the lower frequency, rather than issues with pickups.

OTOH, I would expect that it would have more effect on the loudspeakers. Enough to matter? Not sure, but I suppose that would depend on the size of the speakers, and both their resonant frequency and that of their enclosures.



I have no idea what you are talking about.....
#43
Quote by Shadowofravenwo
Correct me if I'm wrong, but P90's are the size of humbuckers, but are single coil correct?

They are single coil, but they are not the same dimensions as a humbucker.
#44
Quote by T00DEEPBLUE
Your original argument is that you were mad because Gibson don't put binding on their LP Studios though. So then you turn around and suggest that an ART100 is a better guitar for the reason that it has binding on it.

Let me rephrase that into your rhetoric.

"Apparantly a $300 guitar can be magically made better than a $1000 guitar because it has binding on the neck. Of course, ignoring the fact that many Gibsons (and Fenders, Musicman etc) never originally had bound necks (Flying V's, Explorers, LP Studio's, LP Jr's, Firebirds and so on), fuck those guitars, my ART100 has binding on the fingerboard! Oh, you just bought yourself a Musicman JP7 with a rosewood neck? HA! Loser! Get an ART! It has a plastic piece of binding on the neck which makes it 3 times the guitar it really is!"

Can you understand now how ridiculous you are sounding?

He didn't even imply that. The point he was making is binding goes into the cost. If it's not there, then the person paid for nothing other than the wage of the worker who missed that it was suppose to have binding.
#45
Quote by W4RP1G
They are single coil, but they are not the same dimensions as a humbucker.


Cool thanks.
#46
Quote by W4RP1G
It's business. Gibson saves the Binding for their more expensive models so people will SEE that they are getting a better guitar. This is because many people, like captaincranky, see binding either as some sort of quality indicator, or a more aesthetic enhancement(much the same way as some people think a natural finish looks classier). Some of those people will pay more just for binding and Gibson knows this.

I do not believe Studios are made without binding to make them more affordable.
To say that musical instrument appointments are vanity driven in large part, is a statement of the very obvious.

However, binding at least has a functional objective, particularly in acoustic guitars. It prevents edge splintering.

And yes, it's almost impossible to bind an ergonomic shaped guitar such as a Strat. However, Teles look very nice with their squared sides bound up.

Now, I'm not trying to start an argument, honest. But, if memory serves Gibson's "The Paul" model was the first of the uncapped and unbound Les Paul models. In substance it was a knock off of itself. There was no maple, no binding, not much hardware. And again, if memory serves, these were the precursors to the Les Paul Junior, and Studio models.

But I must insist, the omissions were fully price motivated, as the whole idea behind them was to give a sector of the buying public a real Gibson, who couldn't actually afford a "real Gibson". And again, if memory serves i think they were about 400 bucks, and that was in 1980s money.

You just have to cruise Carvin's website one time, and build yourself a guitar, to see how little you need spend on performance upgrades, and how much you can spend on vanity items.

This is still a thread about picking between a Godin "Paul" and a low end Gibson. In any event Godin's "Seagull" line of acoustic always get high praise. Their website have all the specs you could ever want, and I think they might be a bit easier to negotiate than Gibson's site.

TS has alluded to issues of "marketing vs. reality", but oddly, I find Godin's sales pitches reasonable, informative, and sincere. They sound like they believe in their product, to the extent I believe they're being genuine. So, my vote goes for the Godin opposed to any stripped down Gibson Paul. At the end of the day, it's easier to be enthused about a quality product you believe in, and that usually shows up in your approach to selling it.

Another member threw a bit of a curve into this thread comparing a P-90 equipped Godin, with a guitar with standard humbuckers. The P-90s are supposed to have "more bite", and I expect by twiddling a few dials on the right amplifier, the Godin will be able to give you all the Les Paul type sound you could ever want.

It's frustrating for me to watch potential buyers be hypnotized by the Gibson name, as it tends to paralyze their decision making process.
Last edited by Captaincranky at Sep 30, 2012,
#47
Quote by Captaincranky

This is still a thread about picking between a Godin "Paul" and a low end Gibson. In any event Godin's "Seagull" line of acoustic always get high praise. Their website have all the specs you could ever want, and I think they might be a bit easier to negotiate than Gibson's site.


Love my A&L Cutaway. That's why I'm was still heavily leading towards the Godin, but was shocked to see a Gibson that price. Most I had seen in stock were over a grand.


TS has alluded to issues of "marketing vs. reality", but oddly, I find Godin's sales pitches reasonable, informative, and sincere. They sound like they believe in their product, to the extent I believe they're being genuine. So, my vote goes for the Godin opposed to any stripped down Gibson Paul. At the end of the day, it's easier to be enthused about a quality product you believe in, and that usually shows up in your approach to selling it.


Again, have nothing but praise for my Art and Lutherie Cutaway. Just a really good guitar. I played a Martin, and I honestly can't hear enough of a difference to go and spend that money on a Martin.


It's frustrating for me to watch potential buyers be hypnotized by the Gibson name, as it tends to paralyze their decision making process.


That's just it. I alluded to it earlier, that the Gibson has a certain bling appeal, but other than that, it's how it sounds and plays that matters to me. It's not that I can't afford a 1000+ Gibson, or a Marshall. I can. I can't justify the price for a hobby, and I also don't want to lug a 50lbs combo to jam sessions.
Last edited by Shadowofravenwo at Sep 30, 2012,
#48
The only Godins (as in, not a Seagull, Norman, etc.) that I have handled were a Glissentar 11-string or based on Strat designs, so I can't make a direct comparison between the actual guitars in question. And to me, those Godins each felt better than similarly priced Fenders...not that there was a damn thing wrong with the Fenders.

However, I have ZERO doubt as to the quality of those Godins. Given a choice between a Fender Strat and a Strat-like Godin in a given price range and I'll pick the a Godin every time.

No knock on the Gibsons, but I just have this feeling that I'd make a similar choice between their guitars and similar Godins.
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#49
Quote by W4RP1G
I do not believe Studios are made without binding to make them more affordable.
To my pleasant surprise, Wikipedia had this short blurb about Gibson's, "The Paul" models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson_The_Paul I was in the business of selling guitars at the time, so I got to play with some of the first arrivals of these. Although my "play" was a bit foreshortened by my chronic left handedness.... (Metallic blue I think (?), was the first one I saw).

As I said earlier, they were targeted at a price point, and binding is a labor intensive proposition. Leaving it off, really is a good way of saving money on production. You're correct in thinking it's as much an aesthetic consideration on a solid body electric, as with these types of guitars, rounding off the corners takes away the tendency for sharp corners have to splinter. You can't do the same thing with a wood acoustic, and binding becomes more of a practical necessity. Hell though, Carvin charges $40.00 bucks, to run a roundover bit around their solid bodies....

Back to ,"The Paul", wiki claims it began an almost biblical "beget, begat" sequence of events, leading to the Les Paul II. (OK, I may be embellishing that a bit).

Amazingly, the Les Paul Studio made its appearance in 1983, the year after "The Paul" was discontinued. But here, it's a question of Gibson coining a clever name / intended use, for a very similar stripped down guitar. Wiki again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibson_Les_Paul_Studio
#50
Quote by dannyalcatraz
The only Godins (as in, not a Seagull, Norman, etc.) that I have handled were a Glissentar 11-string or based on Strat designs, so I can't make a direct comparison between the actual guitars in question. And to me, those Godins each felt better than similarly priced Fenders...not that there was a damn thing wrong with the Fenders.

However, I have ZERO doubt as to the quality of those Godins. Given a choice between a Fender Strat and a Strat-like Godin in a given price range and I'll pick the a Godin every time.

No knock on the Gibsons, but I just have this feeling that I'd make a similar choice between their guitars and similar Godins.


Yeah, the neck felt very comfortable to me. Not that Gibson's don't, but my Washburn has a really nice neck, so it's not like I'm going to notice much difference. I also thought the Godin's were a bit heavier than the Gibson's despite being thinner. Not sure why that was.
#51
I also thought the Godin's were a bit heavier than the Gibson's despite being thinner. Not sure why that was.


I don't know which model you played, but could be because a lot of Godins are strat based and use maple and not mahogany for the neck.
#52
Quote by randomnoteshred
I don't know which model you played, but could be because a lot of Godins are strat based and use maple and not mahogany for the neck.


I played a Core. I was amazed at the heft.
#53
Quote by Captaincranky
Hell though, Carvin charges $40.00 bucks, to run a roundover bit around their solid bodies....

Wow that is sad. That should be offered for free(or almost free)if you opt out of the binding as it takes about 2 minutes to do. My guess is that they charge so much for a roundover because they want people to say "ah **** it" and just pay more for the binding.

As far as binding being "labor intensive", that's kind of an exaggeration, especially when we talk about plastic binding which doesn't need to be pre-bent. Acoustic guitars don't need a binding, and Martin is very successful at selling some of it's models without it, but it does protect the edges a bit. Fretboard binding, however, is never anything more than cosmetic.

Also I just want to add, that PRS uses a faux binding, which is nothing more than masking off the edge of the guitar before the back and sides are stained. It literally takes 2 minutes to do. Some Les Paul studios have this. My 60s tribute did. Is this not an acceptable method to use on a budget guitar since PRS uses it on their USA line? And can completely leaving the binding off of a guitar not be aesthetically pleasing in some cases, therefore a better option?
#54
I get what you are saying W4RP1G, but if you pay for an option, should you not get it? And if it is missing, is that not a QC error? I might not worry about the binding as much. But, if the dead pickup and the not wired up stories are true, that a HUGE issue. Especially in the latter's case. That was all I was saying originally.
#55
Quote by Shadowofravenwo
I get what you are saying W4RP1G, but if you pay for an option, should you not get it? And if it is missing, is that not a QC error? I might not worry about the binding as much. But, if the dead pickup and the not wired up stories are true, that a HUGE issue. Especially in the latter's case. That was all I was saying originally.

I'm not talking about that at all. I'm talking about the comments made earlier which suggest that an expensive guitar should be bound.
#56
Quote by Shadowofravenwo
Correct me if I'm wrong, but P90's are the size of humbuckers, but are single coil correct?
The original "P-90s", were a Gibson innovation, and single coil. They've been nicknamed, "soapbar pickups".

However, "P-90" has become sort of a generic term that attaches to these pickups form factor.

You do have to read the fine print, because I believe you can get stacked coil humbuckers in a "P-90" package.

Quote by Shadowofravenwo
I played a Core. I was amazed at the heft.
This goes back to what I said earlier about Godin's sales pitches being based in fact. The "Core" model Godins, have maple caps, and chambered mahogany bodies. So, that means they are more built along the lines of a Les Paul Standard, than a Studio or an LP II, which are slab mahogany through and through.

Here's that page: http://www.godinguitars.com/godincoreseriesp.htm

Now, the "Rock Maple" that Godin has access to, is very dense and heavy, up to about 40 lbs. per cubic foot. That possibly explains the, "heft".
#57
Quote by W4RP1G
Wow that is sad. That should be offered for free(or almost free)if you opt out of the binding as it takes about 2 minutes to do. My guess is that they charge so much for a roundover because they want people to say "ah **** it" and just pay more for the binding.
Possibly true, but you're making and apples to oranges comparison, and me very sad I mentioned it in the first place...

To the best of my knowledge Carvin doesn't offer binding on the solid body guitar I had in mind, when I spoke of the "round over". The 40 bucks doesn't give up square to round edges, it gives you slightly round to really round edges...

Their AE peizo styles which do have square edges, have body binding as an option, to the tune of 80 bucks extra.

Quote by W4RP1G
Fretboard binding, however, is never anything more than cosmetic.
Not quite true. Neck binding does cover up the fret tang. Beauty or function, the line is just a bit blurry

Quote by W4RP1G
And can completely leaving the binding off of a guitar not be aesthetically pleasing in some cases, therefore a better option?
Yes, certainly! (Wait for it.......the "but" is coming). This thread attaches itself to economy Les Paul options. However, Les Paul Standards are bound. On that guitar, which has the maple cap, it serves to obscure the maple/ mahogany boundary, in a functional and pleasing way. As to the rest of it, I honest to gosh don't believe that a "painted on binding", will ever take the place of the tactile and aesthetic appeal of the different materials coming together. So yes, it could be good, but (IMO) not quite as good.

Follow those Wiki links I left to the Paul and Studio models. You'll see Gibson's spin department was working over time when they came up with the "studio" concept. Because they transposed the concept of a Gibson for people who couldn't afford a Gibson, (and the summary conclusions of cheapness), to the idea the the stripped down model was now a "valuable tool", and as such really didn't need to be "pimped out", in fact you could almost now imagine that the lack of bling, was really a virtue. I mean after all, you wouldn't want rhinestones on the handle of your Craftsman wrench, now would you?

Anyway, binding guitar bodies and fret boards is a time honored tradition. And while I don't believe that all guitars MUST be bound, I don't think all guitars should trend toward being as bland and sparsely decorated as Danish modern furniture either...

On a side note, I'm here looking at the cover of the October 2012 issue of Guitar player mag, and what to my poor wondering eyes should appear? But a picture of "John 5" with his gold twin humbucker Telecaster, with full white body binding.

Hey, this dude is as far away from traditional looking as you can get, and yet still........
Last edited by Captaincranky at Sep 30, 2012,
#58
Quote by Captaincranky
To the best of my knowledge Carvin doesn't offer binding on the solid body guitar I had in mind, when I spoke of the "round over". The 40 bucks doesn't give up square to round edges, it gives you slightly round to really round edges...
Oh I wasn't aware that they didn't offer binding. I tend to ignore Carvins since I find most of them to be pretty ugly.

Quote by Captaincranky
Not quite true. Neck binding does cover up the fret tang. Beauty or function, the line is just a bit blurry

That fret tang doesn't affect the playability at all. It's actually super easy to take it down to the level of the wood and smooth it to the point of not being able to feel it. And in my experience of fretting guitars, the hardest part to get rid of it actually the sharp corner at the end of the fret, which exists in most fretboards, regardless of whether or not they are bound.

Quote by Captaincranky
Yes, certainly! (Wait for it.......the "but" is coming). This thread attaches itself to economy Les Paul options. However, Les Paul Standards are bound. On that guitar, which has the maple cap, it serves to obscure the maple/ mahogany boundary, in a functional and pleasing way. As to the rest of it, I honest to gosh don't believe that a "painted on binding", will ever take the place of the tactile and aesthetic appeal of the different materials coming together. So yes, it could be good, but (IMO) not quite as good.
I'm not talking about painting on the binding, I'm talking about leaving the maple cap visible and then painting or staining the top. While this works particularly well for PRS because they use figured tops, this also looks fine on a regular maple cap. Granted, it may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it certainly can look nice. I'm not really sure why is is necessary to "obscure the maple/ mahogany boundry" as it will no doubt look fine, but I suppose that's a matter of preference.
Quote by Captaincranky
Anyway, binding guitar bodies and fret boards is a time honored tradition. And while I don't believe that all guitars MUST be bound, I don't think all guitars should trend toward being as bland and sparsely decorated as Danish modern furniture either...

Of course! There is beauty in both styles of guitar and everything in between. It may not be for everyone, but there is certainly a market for both extremes.

FOr the record, I don't think a Les Paul with no binding looks better than one with binding. They are just different. And I wish Gibson did offer some studio models with binding, but I think they know damn well that those models would cut into their regular line sales and that's why they don't it. And I guess for those that just want a Les Paul for it's looks, they have the Epiphone line.
#59
Quote by Captaincranky
The original "P-90s", were a Gibson innovation, and single coil. They've been nicknamed, "soapbar pickups".

However, "P-90" has become sort of a generic term that attaches to these pickups form factor.

You do have to read the fine print, because I believe you can get stacked coil humbuckers in a "P-90" package.

This goes back to what I said earlier about Godin's sales pitches being based in fact. The "Core" model Godins, have maple caps, and chambered mahogany bodies. So, that means they are more built along the lines of a Les Paul Standard, than a Studio or an LP II, which are slab mahogany through and through.

Here's that page: http://www.godinguitars.com/godincoreseriesp.htm

Now, the "Rock Maple" that Godin has access to, is very dense and heavy, up to about 40 lbs. per cubic foot. That possibly explains the, "heft".


I don't know what the model was made out of, but that would explain the heft. I assuming that wood would be expensive. Edit: Unless I am missing it, looks like the Core doesn't use Rock Maple.
Last edited by Shadowofravenwo at Sep 30, 2012,
#60
Quote by Shadowofravenwo
I don't know what the model was made out of, but that would explain the heft. I assuming that wood would be expensive. Edit: Unless I am missing it, looks like the Core doesn't use Rock Maple.

No, Godin has local access to that wood. I Don't what your A & L is made of, but many Seagulls have laminated wild cherry B & S, which is another local wood they claim to be managing in an environmentally sound manner.

The "rock maple" for the cap of the "Core" series, is indeed a guess. However, it's an almost educated guess, since Godin claims they make their maple necks out of it. I going to go not very far out on a limb here and suggest that I seriously doubt if they chop down one species for necks, and another for the body caps, but I suppose anything is possible. They do mention, "Canadian Big Leaf Maple" on their Seagull site. That wood is supposed to be a bit less dense. You can still make a bowling alley out of most species of it...

The fact remains, that their "Core" series, (and they claim all models of it), have maple body caps, which does make them more comparable to an LP Standard, as opposed to a "Studio". Following quote from "Core" page @ Godin

All feature chambered mahogany bodies with maple tops, mahogany set necks, 24 ¾” scale, rosewood fingerboards, fully adjustable wraparound Resomax bridges by Graphtech, and as the name suggests, these guitars are rock machines to their very “Core.”


Another crazy fact is Agile's 3000M Les Paul style single cut guitars, have a 3/4" thick, carved maple top! (The flame is granted veneer, but hey, these axes are under a nickel). Spec pager @ Agile.com http://www.rondomusic.com/alspec.html
Last edited by Captaincranky at Sep 30, 2012,
#61
Quote by W4RP1G
Oh I wasn't aware that they didn't offer binding. I tend to ignore Carvins since I find most of them to be pretty ugly.
Oh stop! Now you're just being contrary, and without just cause:

This guitar has the maple/ mahogany boundary you like, and no, it seems they don't offer binding as an option.

I think that's only available on their AE, thin body offerings.
Last edited by Captaincranky at Sep 30, 2012,
#62
I like the SH550 better...especially in the Spalted Maple or the Claro Walnut.
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
Last edited by dannyalcatraz at Sep 30, 2012,
#63
Quote by dannyalcatraz
I like the SH550 better...especially in the Spalted Maple or the Claro Walnut.
That picture I posted is an almost dead stock offering. Only gold hardware and high gloss finish are extras. Besides it's a midi-synth! And for just under 2K!
#64
Oh, I know, I know...I just like the Sh550 more!
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#65
Quote by Captaincranky
Oh stop! Now you're just being contrary, and without just cause:

This guitar has the maple/ mahogany boundary you like, and no, it seems they don't offer binding as an option.

I think that's only available on their AE, thin body offerings.

NO I'm serious, i don't like the way Carvins look. Those ones aren't that bad, but I still would never choose to buy one. I hate dot inlays, their block inlays(they are just so big and over powering, imo), the headstock(though I really hate their other headstock). And on this particular one the spacing for the volume and tone knobs just seem off. I just don't like Carvin's style But then again, I drool over florescent 80s guitars, and I'm sure they are hated by some.
Last edited by W4RP1G at Sep 30, 2012,
#66
Quote by W4RP1G
But then again, I drool over florescent 80s guitars, and I'm sure they are hated by some.
Hated by just "some", you say..... I'm sure it wouldn't be a stretch to bump that pronoun "some", up to a "many"....

And may God forgive me for asking, but do you like them bound, or unbound.....?
Last edited by Captaincranky at Oct 1, 2012,
#67
Day-Glo 80s shredder guitars...IN BONDAGE!!!
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#68
Quote by Captaincranky
Hated by just "some", you say..... I'm sure it wouldn't be a stretch to bump that pronoun "some", up to a "many"....

And may God forgive me for asking, but do you like them bound, or unbound.....?

Hard to say, I can't recall seeing any bound florescent 80s models. They are generally pretty plain with black hardware. I suppose I'm not against it though.
#70
And quite sophisticated machines as well.
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#71
Quote by dannyalcatraz
And quite sophisticated machines as well.



Yeah, I don't really get what all that stuff is. I haven't had time to look it up.
#72
Nice choice, I've heard some very nice tones out of that guitar from youtube demos, rewatching them just now I really want one. But I'm already looking at a Godin Duet Nylon, did just sell and old electric so my stand has room for one more :P
Often in ones madness resides genius. Thus for a mind seeped in madness, the imagination is limitless.
Page 2 of 2