Scale is where it's at?

[deeaa]

Concerning this earlier post of mine about the SG EMG upgrade:
http://www.thefret.net/showthread.php/19458-Like-NGD-again!-SG-mods-done-amp-report

The guitar sounds great now with the 81TW, and surprisingly very similar to the Davette with an 85. This got me pondering again about what is it about the differences that make them sound a bit different and also suprisingly alike despite the 81/85 difference.

There are a few differences in the guitars themselves; they weigh roughly the same and both have similar, gibson-style neck/bridge angles, but Davette is bolt-on. Woods of course are different, mahogany vs. maple/ash. Davette has strat scale and SG of course the shorter Gibson one. On Davette the pickup is roughly 1" or farther from the bridge, while on the SG the pickup is very close to bridge, more like 1/3".

On neck pickup and cleans they sound astonishingly similar. I could not tell the two apart in a blind test. I was quite amazed about that actually, there really is zero difference in the sound.

But when you turn to bridge pup and dirty sounds, there are differences. The overall sound is the same, but the strat-scale Davette is clearly more...spunky. It's low end is kind of drier and clunkier, and I swear it still has some of the Strat type 'clang' to low string sound. Not as much as its maple-fretboard sibling, but still.

When I turn to the SG, both the feel and the sound of lower-string riffing is immediately more spongy and warmer; in fact I was instantly playing very Zakk Wylde type low-string bend and false harmonics stuff quite naturally.

Again I was amazed; the 81 is usually clearly colder-sounding than the 85, AND because the pup is right at the bridge, I had expected it to be quite obviously brighter than the Davette. But not! In fact it is almost the other way around, becasue the SG has that spongy thick Les-Paul kind of low end growl to it, while the strat is more spanky.

I must say, the differences aren't huge, but quite noticeable still, especially or maybe only in the low register feel and response.

Now this yields a couple of things to ponder:

- does the lack of tone control on SG make it a little more reactive and warmer on the low end? (I have no idea how much actually a tone pot changes the sound).

- is it ONLY the longer scale of the Davette that makes for the difference in spankiness, or do the woods add to it? I do have the Flying V with gibson scale AND maple/ash woods and it ain't spanky at all, so I'd dismiss the woods as very crucial in this.

- is the bridge pup location the most crucial factor, and if so, why does it seem it only gets warmer when nearer the bridge? This really leaves me puzzled. Or then the 81TW does sound different from a normal 81. In any case I did not expect it to sound SO similar to the 85 on this guitar.


I'm quite sold on the idea that the scale length is actually one of the most determining factors in electric sounds, but the mahogany/set neck structure of the SG could also add to it's warmer, rounder low end. But so much as to negate the effect of so differently placed and so different a pickup seems like a stretch.

So I'm left considering maybe removing a few more tone pots off my guitars (never use 'em anyway) and see if that could affect the sound so much...

[Eric]

That's interesting stuff. I've kind of experienced some similar questions recently. I recently played my new strat (albeit a hello kitty one with a humbucker in the bridge) with a full band, and I expected it to sound like any other humbucker guitar. Instead, it sounds like any other strat would. Confusing.

I guess there are a number of factors (tilt headstock/bridge, scale length, fretboard/neck wood, bolt-on/set neck, etc.), but it's interesting to see your ideas on it. Maybe someday I'll figure it out.

[deeaa]

Indeed! I always did put quite a bit of trust in that the tilt bridge etc. change the sound a lot...and it likely does. But the scale must be a bigger factor.

Come to think of it, I do also have the Yamaha, which is built just like a strat woodswise, but has Gibby scale. It don't sound like my strat scale guitars either, at all. I haven't really tested it much with the band, but it doesn't sound as thick either as the SG, but it's no wonder because it also has a Floyd bridge and is even lighter in weight.

[Eric]

I just re-read your post, a little more thoroughly this time, and I have a few thoughts on that.

1) I'd like to find an A/B test between the 81 and 81TW. I had the latter in the Schecter I was mistakenly shipped, and while I still don't have a very good handle on how to use active pups, it sounded a little different than what I remember of the 81s I've used before. It wouldn't seem to make sense if it was different-sounding, but given your comments I'm a little curious.

2) Personally, I've always thought it's a bolt-on/set neck issue. I never gave much thought to scale length other than personal preference for fretting. I also looked at woods, particularly neck woods, as a source of sound differences, but that difference may be minimal at best. But that whole thing was just based on my personal ideas, without much in the way of experimentation or empirical (albeit subjective) evidence.

[deeaa]

I just re-read your post, a little more thoroughly this time, and I have a few thoughts on that.

1) I'd like to find an A/B test between the 81 and 81TW. I had the latter in the Schecter I was mistakenly shipped, and while I still don't have a very good handle on how to use active pups, it sounded a little different than what I remember of the 81s I've used before. It wouldn't seem to make sense if it was different-sounding, but given your comments I'm a little curious.

I can make one, but the TW is on SG and the 81 in a boltneck w/a locked-down floyd, but both Gibson scale. I was thinking of A/B:ing the two soon, and also could add an Y and X :-)


2) Personally, I've always thought it's a bolt-on/set neck issue. I never gave much thought to scale length other than personal preference for fretting. I also looked at woods, particularly neck woods, as a source of sound differences, but that difference may be minimal at best. But that whole thing was just based on my personal ideas, without much in the way of experimentation or empirical (albeit objective) evidence.

Me too, so more tests are called for. Also, it's one of those things that are hard to A/B in demos, as it's more of a difference that _lends_ to a certain sound and style, and for instance if you just play chords on either it makes no difference to the sound. I have to come up with some riffs that would reveal the difference.

But, that was also my suspicion, that bolt-on/set neck might be more important.

However, now it seems that a strat sounds like a strat like it should, and a strat with tilt-neck/bridge sounds less strat-y but still has some of that 'twang' BUT a gibson-scale guitar with the same woods ain't twangy at all but much more gibson-sounding.

FWIW, I think the best way to get the best out of actives is take your passive guitar, and set the sounds/volumes so crazy that it becomes just blurry and howls, becomes nigh unusable...then switch to an active guitar and suddenly it's all usable again, the clarity is there and everything...actives are meant for all those sounds that are too crazy for passives, they keep it nice & tight where everything else is just mush.

And that's why you can get such great wailing tones out of them...or, if you're so inclined, super-driven sounds that still stay clear.

[deeaa]

Ok, here's a video I made at the training facility....I dunno...


http://youtu.be/PBdF5VuZn6o

I'd say the TW and the regular 81 probably don't differ much, but it's probably the set-neck and mahogany does make the SG way more midrangey than the sibling yamaha w/same scale but with lighter woods/maple neck/trem...it's clearly brighter and sweeter sounding in a way.

The 85 in comparison doesn't really sound much different either, but it does have much more of a 'rock' feel to it, clearly less midrange bite and overall much rounder and better balanced sound for rock chording especially. It's one of those differences you only notice when you play a little more; whereas the bite of the 81 can get a little tiring, the 85 keeps sounding great. Still my favorite pickup, but the 81s seem to work much better with the JVM than they did with the Ceriatone. I like that midrangey 'gibson' sound of the SG too, should be great for heavier tunes especially, but we'll see after a few training sessions. The Yamaha, meh, it's good enough but it just lacks the depth of either the SG or the Davette somehow, likely due to the super light woods/tremolo.

Comparing the SG and Davette, both feel equally beefy but SG is midrangey and more 'heavy' sounding and the Davette has some of the Strat type 'twang' in the lower string riffs...I do think that is the scale...the woods explain maybe some of the better top end, but that slight twang I feel comes from the scale mostly.

The Seymour in comparison...well at times that too sounds just the same, the biggest difference again is that it is way less balanced and tends to get mucky with full chords, and is a tad noisy.

Sorry I recorded it up too close; the sounds break up a little in the mic...so it's not that pleasant to listen to maybe...but it still shows the differences between the sounds pretty well I think.

I would have also compared my two strats with 85's but it was enough to lug even these to the facility alone...:-)

[Eric]

Yeah, it's hard to tell the difference sound-wise, other than in the obvious ways like with the 85. But I know what you mean about feel. I love that spongy, thick low end. So I guess it makes sense that I like Les Pauls.

[deeaa]

I like 'em too...I was surprised how midrangey the SG is, however. Clearly less high-end ring and low-end twang than in strat-types. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.