Vigier Excalibur vs Suhr Modern vs ???

paulmapp8306

The only thing I really don't want to sacrifice is acoustic loudness. PRS guitars are not known.

FWIW, My Suhr is the Least acoustically loud.  

From loudest to quietest unplugged in my collection:

1. 335 (not surprising)

2.  PRS CU22 and CE22 - both about the same

3. Strat

4.  Tele

5. Suhr

with the solid guitars its to do with the wood.  The Mahogony of the PRSs sound louder unplugged.  The Strat is Alder, the Tele Ash and the Suhr Basswood.  The Basswood is very neutral int he midrange - which is what you hear most of unplugged and why its the quietest in that situation. 

paulmapp8306

thomasross20 said:

Link to this Suhr...?? EDIT - I see it... unfortunately it's rosewood fingerboard (I'm not into that).

What is zero fret all about!?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SUHR-PRO-SERIES-M7-guitar-Bengal-Burst-Suhr-Gig-Bag-/291239272591?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item43cf36a08f

Its not Rosewood,  Its Pau Ferro which most moderns are.

He had same guitar listed on Gumtree at £1200 which is what hed get after EBay/Paypal fees - however I emailed him for some more info and asked about lowest price outside EBay

carlos

My good mate Levi playing one of his vigiers (he has 3 including the fretless) - Levi Clay - Forever Again - Official Single:

meltedbuzzbox

paulmapp8306 said:

The only thing I really don't want to sacrifice is acoustic loudness. PRS guitars are not known.

with the solid guitars its to do with the wood.  The Mahogony of the PRSs sound louder unplugged.  The Strat is Alder, the Tele Ash and the Suhr Basswood.  The Basswood is very neutral int he midrange - which is what you hear most of unplugged and why its the quietest in that situation. 

So the bridge has nothing to do with it then? Or the nut?

paulmapp8306

So the bridge has nothing to do with it then? Or the nut?

Im sure the bridge does a little - my Suhr being a Floyd, but the Tele isnt a trem and is one of the quietest.  As for the nut - I wouldnt think it makes any difference at all unplugged at this level of instrument.  Maybe 

on a really cheap[ guitar where the nut isnt set properly.

Ultimately though the body and neck  wood - along with the join is going to be the biggest factor - maybe another reason why the PRSs and 335 are louder - there glued necks - all the others are bolt ons.

meltedbuzzbox

so you are saying the join at the neck to the body is responsible for more transference of sound than the bridge?

AngryGoldfish

samzadgan said:

Mate...I think those Suhrs are amazing...at a gearfest recently i saw a few up close and they look the part and sound great.

 

what about charvel's...didnt they make one for Guthrie Govan which was similar to his old Suhr guitars...similar specs to what your looking for I think. Not sure if you'll find a sig model, but they may have a production model version of it.

I dug the old Guthrie Suhr signature, but I'm not jiving the Charvel. I doubt I'd see many crop up used, but I can keep my eye out. There are a few I'm keeping my eye out for. If it's the right price and the guy (or girl) is willing to ship to Ireland then we could be away.

paulmapp8306 said:

FWIW, My Suhr is the Least acoustically loud.  

From loudest to quietest unplugged in my collection:

1. 335 (not surprising)

2.  PRS CU22 and CE22 - both about the same

3. Strat

4.  Tele

5. Suhr

with the solid guitars its to do with the wood.  The Mahogony of the PRSs sound louder unplugged.  The Strat is Alder, the Tele Ash and the Suhr Basswood.  The Basswood is very neutral int he midrange - which is what you hear most of unplugged and why its the quietest in that situation. 

Some of the loudest guitars are bolt-on. There are many Mahogany guitars with glued necks that are dead acoustically and only come alive when plugged in. That's basically every second modern Gibson Les Paul. Interesting that the Suhr is last though. The Modern Satin is loud acoustically because of the satin finish and Mahogany construction, so says Suhr.

paulmapp8306 said:

thomasross20 said:

Link to this Suhr...?? EDIT - I see it... unfortunately it's rosewood fingerboard (I'm not into that).

What is zero fret all about!?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SUHR-PRO-SERIES-M7-guitar-Bengal-Burst-Suhr-Gig-Bag-/291239272591?pt=UK_Musical_Instruments_Guitars_CV&hash=item43cf36a08f

Its not Rosewood,  Its Pau Ferro which most moderns are.

He had same guitar listed on Gumtree at £1200 which is what hed get after EBay/Paypal fees - however I emailed him for some more info and asked about lowest price outside EBay

That's an interesting one—I dig the finish a lot. I'd be worried about the Basswood body (I've never had good look with Basswood in the Ibanez guitars I've tried), but I'd be able to sell it relatively easy here in Ireland.

AngryGoldfish

meltedbuzzbox said:

so you are saying the join at the neck to the body is responsible for more transference of sound than the bridge?

I would personally say that, yeah. Also, the level of dampness in the wood. The bridge would play a part, too. It's a combination of things. Which is the most integral part of the chain I couldn't personally say, but if I had to guess, in a solid body Super Strat-type guitar, it would be the neck joint.

ThePrettyDamned

AngryGoldfish;359081" said:

meltedbuzzbox said:

so you are saying the join at the neck to the body is responsible for more transference of sound than the bridge?





I would personally say that, yeah. Also, the level of dampness in the wood. The bridge would play a part, too. It's a combination of things. Which is the most integral part of the chain I couldn't personally say, but if I had to guess, in a solid body Super Strat-type guitar, it would be the neck joint.

I'd say anchor materials are super important - replace your nut with a brass one and you'll see what I mean (open strings only, after that your nut is the anchor point).

The bridge is too, but I reckon saddles are more important than bridge (harder, denser material being louder) then the bridge itself, then the block if it's a trem (I know one player who upgraded to a stainless steel heavy block in a strat and went back to cheap pot metal because it sounded warmer).

Then the body and neck woods and neck join, then fingerboard wood.

I don't even know that fingerboard wood makes any difference at all, if I'm being honest.

Body woods do affect the sound I reckon, but I'm of the opinion it's hard to say what each wood sounds like tonally - people hear what they want (Ooo this les paul sounds fat, must be the mahogany). I've heard an all maple les paul (that's all maple raw power les paul) that was really warm and rounded sounding - not the stupid harsh bright thing you'd expect.

AngryGoldfish

I know what you mean. Wasn't it John Suhr that helped correct the misconception that Mahogany was inherently dark tonally?

I think bridge materials and nut make a big enough difference to be picky about them. I don't think I'd ever discredit a particular method or material simply because it removes sustain or imparts high-end since both of these attributes are somewhat subjective and not always important. Jazzmasters are inherently poor at sustaining as long as a neck-thru Yamaha SG, but they're still perfectly good guitars.

hubobulous

I have a basswood Suhr with maple cap and it's awesome. I had a similar spec Modern but it was stolen. Again, amazing. I also have the Satriani sig model which is basswood with no maple cap. They sound quite different, but both are great. 

I guess the point is that the basswood is a great tone wood, but the maple adds something else to it.

paulmapp8306

meltedbuzzbox said:

so you are saying the join at the neck to the body is responsible for more transference of sound than the bridge?

No, Im saying both bridge and neck join will have an affect.  Just relatively small compared to the body wood itself.

Dave_Mc

AngryGoldfish said:

(a) Tyler guitars are amazing looking. I really dig their vibe. Would love to test one out but I highly doubt I'd be able to find one in my price range so there isn't much point teasing myself.

(b) I personally don't mind the 42mm nut width. I can get used to it and don't feel like it restricts me in any way. In fact, in some ways I prefer it to the 43mm that Les Pauls usually come with.

(a) Yeah ) Same here but I just tried it anyway, I figured I was there (and might not be back) and I'd rather know what it was like.

(b) Oh yeah absolutely, it's entirely personal preference. I'm just saying that, for me, I prefer 43mm. For someone who prefers 42mm obviously it's not a negative point at all! )

meltedbuzzbox

AngryGoldfish said:

I think bridge materials and nut make a big enough difference to be picky about them. I don't think I'd ever discredit a particular method or material simply because it removes sustain or imparts high-end since both of these attributes are somewhat subjective and not always important. Jazzmasters are inherently poor at sustaining  

this is kind of what I was getting at. 

If you swap a stock JM bridge for a mastery or a staytrem in the increase of acoustic volume and sustain is huge.