Is there magical tone to older PRS' based on wood age?

[Rockmark]

As with the search many have had in trying to find a Gibson with the tone of some '59's for the perfect one, do you feel there is a similar possibility w PRS'? Over the years Paul has touted all the improvements during his progression that are geared to getting to the perfect instrument. New pickups, diff finishes, poly, laq., perni necks etc have all been exhibited as moves to an improved instrument. Of course we have to be realistic in the business aspect as companies survive on their new product not what they made 30 years ago so sales and marketing has to make newer better in advertising. So the real question is, do the total components of Paul's first five years of guitars, with much older wood, having all this time to age together, be equal or better in tone than the last 15 years or so of production. I guess those of you who play the 86-89's and also own some of the latest could give the best opinions on this. Or do the recent pickups, wiring configurations etc really make for better sound?

 

[jxe]

wood has mechanical properties so curing is important, but i don’t believe voodoo magic lives in old single slab broadcasters or aged magnets.

 

[jcha008]

Nope, the newer ones sound better than ever to my ear.

 

[shimmilou]

I would think that if the wood is dried properly to begin with, it isn’t going to change much over the years.

 

[strat63]

As with the search many have had in trying to find a Gibson with the tone of some '59's for the perfect one, do you feel there is a similar possibility w PRS'? Over the years Paul has touted all the improvements during his progression that are geared to getting to the perfect instrument. New pickups, diff finishes, poly, laq., perni necks etc have all been exhibited as moves to an improved instrument. Of course we have to be realistic in the business aspect as companies survive on their new product not what they made 30 years ago so sales and marketing has to make newer better in advertising. So the real question is, do the total components of Paul's first five years of guitars, with much older wood, having all this time to age together, be equal or better in tone than the last 15 years or so of production. I guess those of you who play the 86-89's and also own some of the latest could give the best opinions on this. Or do the recent pickups, wiring configurations etc really make for better sound?

I've had a ton of early PRS guitars and a recent Private Stock so both ends of the spectrum. I think the early CU24s vary a lot more vs the tight quality control today. That being said I've owned a couple of magical 86 CU24s that just seemed alive. They make the PRS tone in my head. My PS is better in almost every way and I love it but it's a little more subdued. It takes me to the edge of the cliff to take a look. The old ones get a running start and go right over the edge. I'm not sure if it's the wood, pickups, construction techniques, or something else but there is a difference. The good news for me is there's room for both.

wood has mechanical properties so curing is important, but i don’t believe voodoo magic lives in old single slab broadcasters or aged magnets.

Then you need to play my 55 Telecaster. It is 6 lbs of big, bold fury. The construction of the current reissues is virtually the same but I haven't played a recent one that was even close to my old one. To be fair I'm using a sample size of one so it could be that the planets aligned when it was built. Claiming voodoo is as good of an explanation as any for me.

 

[jxe]

every generation has its stand-outs.

 

[merciful-evans]

I would think that if the wood is dried properly to begin with, it isn’t going to change much over the years.

I concur.

I don't believe the hype about '59 LPs either.

 

[strat63]

every generation has its stand-outs.

I agree and accept that I've been lucky to own some outstanding examples. This takes nothing away from the great guitars the PRS builds today. IMHO, they're constantly excellent guitars.

 

[László]

I’ve been a PRS player since 1991, and have had quite a number of them over the years, played through good amps, and recorded for my ad work - I mention this because I’ve been able to listen back to old tracks over the years, and kind of get a “here’s where I was” vs “here’s where I am” reference, instead of a hazy memory.

Of course, players with both old ones and new ones have the ability to make immediate comparisons in the room, and nothing beats that.

Anyway, here’s where I am on this topic:

So many things on the guitars have changed over the years, most obviously the pickups and hardware, but of course it goes beyond that, that it’s kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison.

I have never had a PRS I didn’t love a whole lot, and the ones I had were damn fine examples. But I gotta say I like the recent ones more.

I love the 5x/0x series of pickups, the 58/15s (and LTs), the 408s, the current vintage-sounding P-90s, and the 85/15s. A lot. While I liked the older pickups, I didn’t love them as much. I think the new hardware is both a tonal improvement, and functions better, especially the two-piece bridges and the Private Stock Gen III trem with the locking saddles. I prefer the blade switch to a 5-way rotary. The 594, to me, is a wonderful reinvention of the McCarty. The 24.5 scale on the McCarty Singlecut I have, and the 25.594 scale I have on three guitars, is something that wasn’t available back in the day. I also like that PRS has put bone nuts on some stoptail models. I think they’re nice. I loved the look of the wingies, but the new tuners make string changes even easier.

In terms of finishes, the new finishes are thinner. I like the tone, so whether it is due to the thinner (or nitro) finish, or a little bit to the finish, or a tiny bit to the finish, I’m good with it.

Listening back to my earlier recordings, they definitely sound different from recent ones, even straight into the same or similar amps. The earlier pickups seem hotter (though maybe that’s just a different tone emphasis) and the recordings from those eras were more mid-centered and woolly compared to new pickup recordings. Recent pickups are clearer, and sharper - especially nice for clean tones - I think they’re more what I like to hear, more like the tones in my head.

There’s no, “I’m right, you’re wrong,” here. This doesn’t take a thing away from older models. I’d happily play any PRS I ever owned. Those old recordings sound just fine. But they’re different, and if I had to choose, I’d take the newer, post 2010 stuff (I think that’s around the time they came out with the 5x/0x series of pickups, and started the thinner paint?).

 

[dcm_guitar]

The older GIbson LPs hold such appeal because:

1. Not that many were made. People who haven't actually played one (most of us) have to go by what they've heard. Usually, what they've heard are recordings done by people who are masters at their profession played by world class guitarists who could make a $90 Squier sound extraordinary.
2. Not that many were made. The ones that were built were essentially hand-made instruments built by craftsmen who took their time and built things to the best of their ability.

These things have taken on mythic proportions; their reputation has been built up over years and years.

They're well made instruments built in small numbers by trained craftsmen at a time when great wood was easier to attain. Of course they should be good instruments, but the magic isn't necessarily in the age of the wood. The magic is in the quality of the wood and how it is prepped for production; not just its age.

What the Gibson Custom Shop is producing now is very similar to what Gibson was doing back in the 50's. What Paul Reed Smith does today is similar to what Gibson did in the 50's (in terms of smaller production runs and attention to detail. Have you seen how PRS makes necks?!?!?); only with vastly improved technology, much tighter tolerances and dramatically improved electronic materials. The biggest difference is the availability of quality woods. However, PRS seems to have a supply of wood that other manufacturers can't source as readily.

From a purely financial worth standpoint I'd love to have a '59 Les Paul. From a performing instrument standpoint I'd MUCH rather have a PRS over a "golden era" Gibson or Fender. The new guitars play better and look better. They sound just as good (to my ear, but this is entirely subjective).

 

[László]

The older GIbson LPs hold such appeal because:

1. Not that many were made. The ones that were built were essentially hand-made instruments built by craftsmen who took their time and built things to the best of their ability.

I dug your post. But I’ll add a comment...

The 50s Gibsons were made in Kalamazoo, Michigan (my own State) with machine tools on the analog precursors to CNC machines, called Dupli-Carvers. They were no more hand-made than today’s PRS guitars. In other words, the Dupli-Carver would guide the wood shaping machines, and hand sanders, assemblers, and finishers - as at PRS - would do the rest.

The CNC is obviously more precise, but plenty of hand work goes into a PRS, just as it did back in the day in Kalamazoo.

Is a 50s Gibson made of mahogany and maple, with a BRW fretboard any different in materials than a PRS made of mahogany and maple with a BRW fretboard? Not really. Both aged their woods. I’d be willing to bet that PRS’ woods are every bit the equal or better of 50s Gibson woods, especially back in the 50s when no one much cared about that kind of thing.

I have a mid-60s Gibson, and played many more. There’s nothing all that special about them. My PRSes sound and play better (to me, anyway).

So yes, I think there are some great points about old LPs:

1. They’re rare, because few were made.

2. They’re in demand because rock stars we all know and love cut great records with them.

3. And DAMN, they really do sound good!

But so do PRSes.

Edit: Here’s my ‘65 SG Special. Bought new for my brother, mine since 1967. And definitely no more magical than any PRS I’ve owned.

 

[Tonart]

Our smartphones today would have been magic to a 14th century person. Magic is what we see but don’t understand.

My first encounter with how much wood matters was when I compared epiphone LPs to Custom Shop Historic Reissue LPs, by playing them unplugged and listening closely. Same model, same shape, dimensions, construction. Yet the timbre of the sound was miles apart.

I see it but don’t understand it. Magic. Although I’ve formed a theory described in a thread here called ‘String Theory’.

Conclusion? Not the age of the wood, but the condition/characteristic of the wood. A good 2018 guitar will beat a 59 guitar, and a good 59 guitar will beat a 2018 guitar.

 

[László]

Our smartphones today would have been magic to a 14th century person.

As a 14th Century person, I think Alexander Bell’s telephones were magic. Smartphones are clearly built by gods.

But hell, I was impressed by the pencil.

 

[Tonart]

I don't believe the hype about '59 LPs either.

Neither do I. I’ve heard Bernie Marsden’s ‘The Beast’ 59 LP in a YouTube video interview with Lee Anderson, and it’s tone is spectacular. But it just happens to be a peach amongst that batch.