vox801
New Member
strange! mine plays 'pop! goes the weasel!' then the pickups fall out
black guitars are cool...
Ok, time for the review. On Friday, I was able to attend a jam session with my new guitar where I was able to play at significantly higher volume than at home and I was able to really compare my SC245 to my R9.
Amp: Marshall YJM100
Cab: Marshall 1960b (4x12 Celestion GT-75 speakers)
2008 PRS SC245:
Rosewood board
Chambered mahogany body with maple cap
PRS 245 neck/bridge pickups
PRS factory pots/caps
Single unit bridge/tailpiece
24.5 inch scale
Purchased used for <$1400
2007 Gibson 1959 Les Paul Historic Reissue:
Rosewood board
Solid mahogany body with maple cap
Throbak SLE-101+MXV pickups
RS Vintage wiring harness
ABR bridge and tailpiece
24.75 inch scale
Purchased used for >$3000 (not including pickups, wiring kit)
Now I know that some people will say the SC should not be compared to a Les Paul. But given the design of the 245, I think it's fair to make the comparison (i.e. woods used, pickup/control layout, etc). Of course, I am not making a direct comparison as my two guitars are different in a couple of significant ways- particularly in regards to the pickups and the chambering. So here we go:
What I like about the PRS:
1) The belly cut. Not a huge deal, but it's kinda nice.
2) The single cutaway is superior to the Les Paul in terms of upper fret access.
3) The factory pots far exceed what came stock in my R9. They are on par with the RS Kit
4) The neck 245 pickup is great. I would compare it to the WCR Crossroads in terms of ability to clean up without losing any of the dynamics.
5) The weight. While I typically prefer solid LPs to chambered due to what I perceive as a difference in tone, I admit that after a couple hours of playing, the PRS was more comfortable.
What I liked about the Gibson:
1) Sustain. The Les Paul definitely had more sustain- probably due to the increased mass. That's not to say the PRS was a wet blanket, but the difference was noticeable.
2) The bass response. Again, the pickups probably contribute to this as well, but the LP had more lows and low mids. This mirrors my experience with chambered Gibsons which always seem to be brighter than their swiss cheese/solid brethren.
3) Thick Les Paul tone. It's hard to describe in words, but the R9 simply put had more balls. The R9 had a fuller, in your face type sound- ie what you would expect from a good LP.
Conclusion:
The SC245 definitely sounds like a LP and is more comfortable to play than my Les Paul. In its stock configuration, I would say it sounds like the chambered USA LPs I have played in the past. While significantly brighter than my R9 on the middle and bridge, I think that an easy solution would be to do a cap swap. I also think that at some point I will swap the bridge pickup for a more PAF-esque clone such as a WCR. I would compare the 245 bridge to a more modern Gibson pickup like the 498t (which is not my cup of tea).
If you're a PRS fan looking for a well made LP sounding guitar, the 245 is an excellent choice. And it doesn't hurt that core models can be had for relatively cheap on the used market. I see the 245 getting a lot of playing time, but I don't see myself unloading my R9 anytime soon either.
As always, ymmv. I hope this helps.
Ok, time for the review. On Friday, I was able to attend a jam session with my new guitar where I was able to play at significantly higher volume than at home and I was able to really compare my SC245 to my R9.
Amp: Marshall YJM100
Cab: Marshall 1960b (4x12 Celestion GT-75 speakers)
2008 PRS SC245:
Rosewood board
Chambered mahogany body with maple cap
PRS 245 neck/bridge pickups
PRS factory pots/caps
Single unit bridge/tailpiece
24.5 inch scale
Purchased used for <$1400
2007 Gibson 1959 Les Paul Historic Reissue:
Rosewood board
Solid mahogany body with maple cap
Throbak SLE-101+MXV pickups
RS Vintage wiring harness
ABR bridge and tailpiece
24.75 inch scale
Purchased used for >$3000 (not including pickups, wiring kit)
Now I know that some people will say the SC should not be compared to a Les Paul. But given the design of the 245, I think it's fair to make the comparison (i.e. woods used, pickup/control layout, etc). Of course, I am not making a direct comparison as my two guitars are different in a couple of significant ways- particularly in regards to the pickups and the chambering. So here we go:
What I like about the PRS:
1) The belly cut. Not a huge deal, but it's kinda nice.
2) The single cutaway is superior to the Les Paul in terms of upper fret access.
3) The factory pots far exceed what came stock in my R9. They are on par with the RS Kit
4) The neck 245 pickup is great. I would compare it to the WCR Crossroads in terms of ability to clean up without losing any of the dynamics.
5) The weight. While I typically prefer solid LPs to chambered due to what I perceive as a difference in tone, I admit that after a couple hours of playing, the PRS was more comfortable.
What I liked about the Gibson:
1) Sustain. The Les Paul definitely had more sustain- probably due to the increased mass. That's not to say the PRS was a wet blanket, but the difference was noticeable.
2) The bass response. Again, the pickups probably contribute to this as well, but the LP had more lows and low mids. This mirrors my experience with chambered Gibsons which always seem to be brighter than their swiss cheese/solid brethren.
3) Thick Les Paul tone. It's hard to describe in words, but the R9 simply put had more balls. The R9 had a fuller, in your face type sound- ie what you would expect from a good LP.
Conclusion:
The SC245 definitely sounds like a LP and is more comfortable to play than my Les Paul. In its stock configuration, I would say it sounds like the chambered USA LPs I have played in the past. While significantly brighter than my R9 on the middle and bridge, I think that an easy solution would be to do a cap swap. I also think that at some point I will swap the bridge pickup for a more PAF-esque clone such as a WCR. I would compare the 245 bridge to a more modern Gibson pickup like the 498t (which is not my cup of tea).
If you're a PRS fan looking for a well made LP sounding guitar, the 245 is an excellent choice. And it doesn't hurt that core models can be had for relatively cheap on the used market. I see the 245 getting a lot of playing time, but I don't see myself unloading my R9 anytime soon either.
As always, ymmv. I hope this helps.
Hey Funky, glad I could help. I'm guessing that the 25 inch scale played a role. I know it's not much of an increase in length vs a LP, but I think it does play more of a role moving up to 25 vs moving down to 24.5. And I'll admit, I'm not well versed at all on the different PRS pickups. But after comparing my R9 to the 245, I am willing to better the 245 would sound absolutely badass with the right PAF clone (i'm thinking a WCR Godwood bridge would so the trick)
I wish there had been a chambered LP to play like a Std...I think that would make for a closer comparison with my 245. I naturally would expect my R9 to sound better (and by better I mean in terms of the LP tone), but it cost me a lot more- both for the guitar and the electronics.
Absolutely. Like I noted, it wasn't a fair fight. But the PRS definitely held its own. And I think with the same pups, the lines would blur.
The new SC245 with the 2 piece bridge doesn't have chambers to relieve the weight, and has a 2 piece bridge. It's a different creature from the single piece bridge model that came earlier, and of course, different from the original Singlecut with 25 inch scale length and different pickups.
I've had the various SC models, and they are indeed different sounding.
The comparison between the guitars in all their iterations would be a lot of fun.
One other important point. You have to take into consideration what year the LP is. The newer ones with the hide glues and no truss rod sheath sound FAR better to me than the older ones, but in a way many LP fans would not like IMO. Less lower "beef" (Which to me sounds like mud a lot of times) and much more chime and brightness, but in a good way. More top end, but smoother and not as biting on the ears. In ways, can almost sound like a big fat early black guard tele. Thats the way the vintage LPs sounded, and its NOT what a lot of guys seem to like in many of the Gibson R series of recent years. The newest R9s are killer guitars, and I would bet the newest PRSs with the two piece bridge are as well, I have yet to play one. However, I think the old saying is still true, if you want a LP, buy a LP. If you want a tele, buy a tele. If you want a PRS, buy a PRS. None will ever sound exactly like the other, and you may find greater differences between 2 LPs than you do between some LPs and PRSs, never mind the model! I had an R9, an R8 lemon flame top at 8lbs, and a PRS Artist 2. The tonal differences between all were minimal for the most part, but the PRS had the meatiest, meanest growl of them all. At the same time, it had by far the best neck pup tones. Goodbye LPs.
lol don't get me started on hide glue :laugh:
I agree with you on buying a LP if you want a LP. But when a PRS feels better than a LP, well it made me wonder how close it could come. And the answer is pretty damned close.
Thanks for the lesson and the ideas! Great playing and a great guitar.
Gibson players who bash PRS are ignorant, as are PRS guys who bash Gibsons. Both companys make guitars that are as good as anything out there..
Gibson players who bash PRS are ignorant, as are PRS guys who bash Gibsons. Both companys make guitars that are as good as anything out there.