People hear what they want to hear! The wood used in an ELECTRIC guitar makes a million times less impact on the sound than people make it out to. If we used a number of reissues and originals and compared them in a blind-controlled studio test, people would overwhelmingly FAIL to pick out the originals.
also i think the original 59 has nickel plated brass saddles. the original gibson bridge. people who play teles with brass saddles know how this affects the sound.
r9's don't have brass. but 50th ann. r9's do have nickel plated brass saddles.
the only a little little difference... let the drummer come in and you hear nothing... Let there be no vid and you would not hear a difference in this distorted mess because you are optical stimulated to hear what you want.. Well I like the 59 best because of the looks and its rareness but for the sound the RI is a better deal for the money- Maybe clean we would hear a difference. Then again let the drummer come in...
this r9 is not nearly as full sounding, less flavor and mids, and more harsh than the original. he's obviously fighting to get more tone out of it than when he played the original. i still think that it IS POSSIBLE for an r9 to come a little closer to sounding like the original tho.......
the 'woodiness' and 50 years of aging isn't what gives it that edge. that same guitar sounded just as good in '79. there are so many subtle things about the materials used back then that can't be duplicated today.
50 years of aging causes fading and checks in the finish, allowing the wood to breathe. A thinner finish provides a pure tone, as well as the wood being nice and dry. The finish Gibson used in the '50s is different from what's used today. It faded very quickly, so after 20 years of aging in 1979, it sounded pretty damn good.
but since there getting pretty close think what that guitar will sound like in 50 years, idk y this guy is playing and not the other dude who played, to much distortion to compare with the other one
Study: $90 wine tastes better than the same wine at $10
Read more: news.cnet (dot) com/8301-13580_3-9849949-39.html#ixzz1V19VEa6S
i think that pretty much sums it up
carlzard 6 months ago
Cant tell the difference. You are full of shit if u say u can
ten8goa 7 months ago
People hear what they want to hear! The wood used in an ELECTRIC guitar makes a million times less impact on the sound than people make it out to. If we used a number of reissues and originals and compared them in a blind-controlled studio test, people would overwhelmingly FAIL to pick out the originals.
bbnatedogg 8 months ago
A little bit of a difference. Not 400,000 $ difference!!!!!!!
bbnatedogg 8 months ago
is that a Rangemaster on top of the amp?
lollo1991 1 year ago
also i think the original 59 has nickel plated brass saddles. the original gibson bridge. people who play teles with brass saddles know how this affects the sound.
r9's don't have brass. but 50th ann. r9's do have nickel plated brass saddles.
vgemini85 2 years ago
the only a little little difference... let the drummer come in and you hear nothing... Let there be no vid and you would not hear a difference in this distorted mess because you are optical stimulated to hear what you want.. Well I like the 59 best because of the looks and its rareness but for the sound the RI is a better deal for the money- Maybe clean we would hear a difference. Then again let the drummer come in...
guitargonzo 2 years ago 2
this r9 is not nearly as full sounding, less flavor and mids, and more harsh than the original. he's obviously fighting to get more tone out of it than when he played the original. i still think that it IS POSSIBLE for an r9 to come a little closer to sounding like the original tho.......
matty8371 2 years ago
the 'woodiness' and 50 years of aging isn't what gives it that edge. that same guitar sounded just as good in '79. there are so many subtle things about the materials used back then that can't be duplicated today.
matty8371 2 years ago 5
50 years of aging causes fading and checks in the finish, allowing the wood to breathe. A thinner finish provides a pure tone, as well as the wood being nice and dry. The finish Gibson used in the '50s is different from what's used today. It faded very quickly, so after 20 years of aging in 1979, it sounded pretty damn good.
murfdog19 2 years ago
@matty8371
I think they can't be replicated by Gibson because of their stupid building policies, but some private builders do a damn fine job on replicating.
Mustang1204 1 year ago 2
@matty8371
Lmao. I smell a pretentious cunt....
Carthsgtr 1 week ago
The original 59 sounds better more bite, presence and clarity... now what play better?
TheHabit00 2 years ago 10
Sounds great too !!!
thesilverfox 2 years ago
the original is much more resonant
felixrockss 2 years ago
Oh yeah! The original has 50 years of aging, which gives it a more woody tone. NOTHING sounds like an original 1959 Gibson Les Paul!
murfdog19 2 years ago
but since there getting pretty close think what that guitar will sound like in 50 years, idk y this guy is playing and not the other dude who played, to much distortion to compare with the other one
treatb09 2 years ago