What Kind of Acoustic Does Eddie Use????

Brez

I love that sound so much I'm kinda thinking about looking into purchasing something like what Ed has. The acoustic I have is terrible, because I play about 99% electric, but I wanna be able to bust out a nice acoustic at parties and what not. So does anyone know?

exhausted

a very old martin 00-17 or 00-18. like pre wwII old.

seanw1010

exhausted wrote:

a very old martin 00-17 or 00-18. like pre wwII old.

yep, thatll be about 75-80 thousand dollars in good condition

Brez

seanw1010 wrote:

yep, thatll be about 75-80 thousand dollars

yeaaaahh guess I won't be gettin that one... Did eddie drop that kinda money on his guitar though??

seanw1010

Brez wrote:

yeaaaahh guess I won't be gettin that one... Did eddie drop that kinda money on his guitar though??

i never really thought how much he paid for it, be pretty interesting to find out though...

harrisonmerwin

lets remember something....

his acoustic woudl have a delicious "flavour" of sound...but lets step back and look at it from the sound point of view....

His acoustic runs through a directional condensor mic, or DI box from after market pickups (which mic/pick up i dont know) runs down a series of cables into a pre-amp, probably one made for acoustic guitars, ran through a channel on the mixer, it would then run through some sort of outboard gear, eq, gate, compressor, reverb, etc, back into the mixer, into the main outs, into the house EQ, and then out an extremely large sound system.

what that all basically means is that between the hundreds of feet of cable, thousands of bits of processing and much analog manipulation, and being Eq'd, eddies 40's era martin, doesn't nessicarily sound like it would acoustically. this goes for almost any band instrument, if your looking for a specific live or studio sound, it goes much past the gear and into the processing. there are many cheaper alternatives to a $70,000 acoustic. The older ones usually have a shorter scale, worn frets, and in some cases terrible action. They all seems to be fairly smaller on the body sizes, and contain some mysterious "old age chunkiness". almost any old acoustic i have played has most of these features, and most of them all sound near the same, pending on the strings. Just remember,

half the tone is gear, half the tone is processing

exhausted

not that it'll sound the same but a new martin 00-15 would have some of the same character as it breaks in. the price is reasonable.

lucylespian

I bought a small body parlour guitar a few years ago, and was really disapointed with the sound and gave it away. It was OK to play single notes, but strummed chords sounded pretty crap. The stuff above about PA/processing is really relevant. Lots of guitars designed to be amplified have small bodies and sound less than specacular when played acoustically. You might do better to go for a full size, esp if you want to be heard at parties.
MArtins are very nice of course, and the new breed of stars, Breedlove, LArivee, Taylor etc are beautiful, and Gibson acoustics are my fav, but Tanglewood do a pretty close impersonation for a third the price. Solid top, ebony fingerboard, nice finish.

MellowMind

he might have a 40's Martin, but apart from the mic and all that his guitar tech/s must've fixed it up for sure no way is it going to be in it's original state apart from strings...

friend of mine...also a jam head, purchased a Martin acoustic in the UK and its fuckin beautiful, was around £600-£700 (british pounds) and sounds amazingly...

kinda like John Frusciante (chili's) acoustic that he uses for songs like Venice Queen and probably Road Trippin'....looks really old and probly is but that doesnt mean that it hasn't been fixed throughout the years and had things changed

lucylespian

Also gotta remamber that half the tone of an acoustic is in the strings. Not many of us have a tech to put nice shiny new ones on every night. SAdly !!

JofZ

I believe Eddie plays a 194X 000-18 Martin.
He has many I am sure, but that is his acoustic of choice.

sennin

kinda like....?

http://www.vintagemandolin.com/50martin00018_411502.html

KevinStraub

harrisonmerwin wrote:

lets remember something....

his acoustic woudl have a delicious "flavour" of sound...but lets step back and look at it from the sound point of view....

His acoustic runs through a directional condensor mic, or DI box from after market pickups (which mic/pick up i dont know) runs down a series of cables into a pre-amp, probably one made for acoustic guitars, ran through a channel on the mixer, it would then run through some sort of outboard gear, eq, gate, compressor, reverb, etc, back into the mixer, into the main outs, into the house EQ, and then out an extremely large sound system.

what that all basically means is that between the hundreds of feet of cable, thousands of bits of processing and much analog manipulation, and being Eq'd, eddies 40's era martin, doesn't nessicarily sound like it would acoustically. this goes for almost any band instrument, if your looking for a specific live or studio sound, it goes much past the gear and into the processing. there are many cheaper alternatives to a $70,000 acoustic. The older ones usually have a shorter scale, worn frets, and in some cases terrible action. They all seems to be fairly smaller on the body sizes, and contain some mysterious "old age chunkiness". almost any old acoustic i have played has most of these features, and most of them all sound near the same, pending on the strings. Just remember,

half the tone is gear, half the tone is processing

You can't create great tone with processing no matter what Line 6 might try to t(s)ell you. The more expensive acoustic setups do a better job of replicating the natural sound of the instrument. If that natural sound isn't there to begin with...

harrisonmerwin

KevinStraub wrote:

You can't create great tone with processing no matter what Line 6 might try to t(s)ell you. The more expensive acoustic setups do a better job of replicating the natural sound of the instrument. If that natural sound isn't there to begin with...

well ya, im not saying they improve, copy, or fruadulate the sound at all, they change its acoustic properties , but if you bought the same guitar as ed, and played it acoustically, it would sound near dead to what his sounds like on a live recording.

elstongunn

seanw1010 wrote:

yep, thatll be about 75-80 thousand dollars in good condition

look up martin 000-15, current model, satin finish.

Brez

lucylespian wrote:

I bought a small body parlour guitar a few years ago, and was really disapointed with the sound and gave it away. It was OK to play single notes, but strummed chords sounded pretty crap. The stuff above about PA/processing is really relevant. Lots of guitars designed to be amplified have small bodies and sound less than specacular when played acoustically. You might do better to go for a full size, esp if you want to be heard at parties.
MArtins are very nice of course, and the new breed of stars, Breedlove, LArivee, Taylor etc are beautiful, and Gibson acoustics are my fav, but Tanglewood do a pretty close impersonation for a third the price. Solid top, ebony fingerboard, nice finish.

Thanks I think I'll be checkin those out compared to spendin 75-80 grand

acutejam

Of course doesn't need to be said (so I'll say it)...

Take a friend to the guitar store and let him play it while you sit opposite and listen, or ask the sales dude to play. Play a bunch of guitars, listen to a bunch of guitars, I did for like a year researching my guitar.

I'd played electric for 15 years nearly exclusively, never owned an acoustic ... and then I had kids. So I wanted an acoustic and checked jsut about everything out -- ya Lucy lists some nice ones up thar.

I really wanted a Gibson just cause I'm partial to 'em. But couldn't afford them (again, kids, But I have my Songbird fund growing now!). Taylor, Martin's all really nice. Feel totally in love with a Breedlove, and a Collins ... one day, one day....

But I wasn't going to use to gig with, just noodle around the house so no electronics, pure acoustic.

I settled on a Martin D1, step up from the DM with solid wood back, but yeah, laminate sides. BIG, CLASSIC SOUND. I wasn't too happy with it originally playing it -- then figured out it hadn't really been setup right. $50 later I've been strumming it just about every day....

And yeah, I change the strings every month.

My poor Les Paul... Lucky if it gets new strings 2-3 times a year now!

Brez

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions and advice, but now I might have a wicked stupid question. No I think it might definitely be a stupid question:

Does an acoustic guitar exist that has strings that are less than .011's?? Maybe some nice .010's??

elstongunn

http://www.12bar.de/instr.php

you can get a vintage martin 00-17 for under $10,000
to properly give the instrument its due, first woody guthrie and then bob dylan used the alll mahogany 00-17 martin's. dylans martin was on display at the seattle music experience.

martin doesn't make the 00-17 anymore

i;ve got this one:
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Martin-00015-Auditorium-Acoustic-Guitar-?sku=514735

elstongunn

http://cgi.ebay.com/GREAT-CONDITION-1957-MARTIN-CO-00-17-NO-RESERVE_W0QQitemZ160064440471QQihZ006QQcategoryZ118981QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

$1500 on ebay... little beat up but i bet it sounds great. someone once said, "wood remembers"

pizzaboynizza

You all are getting way too technical with guitar playing. When it comes to guitar, expecially acoustic guitar it really has very little to do with the type of technology you incorporate but more of your own natural playing ability.

My tip is, buy a semi-expensive but high quality acoustic, preferably something by Fender, make sure it's got electronic qualities, buy an amp with a complex equalizer and you'll be set.

lucylespian

Brez wrote:

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions and advice, but now I might have a wicked stupid question. No I think it might definitely be a stupid question:

Does an acoustic guitar exist that has strings that are less than .011's?? Maybe some nice .010's??

MOst acoustics in shops have 11's or 12's on them to maximise the tone you hear when you try it out. PI have only ever used 10's on my acoustic, always used Thomastik Plectrum brand until very recently, so I find it a bit of a struggle to play those heavier strings well. The suggestion above to get the storekeep play while you listen is a good one. I did that today while looking at amps, so I could concentrate on the tone, not my playing.
It is worth looking at the state of the strings when you try, cos if the git has been on teh rack for a few weeks and been played by a few guys, teh strings wil deteriorate and basically make a great guitar sound like shit. If you are serious about a guitar, and the strings are crap, make them put a new set on then have another listen. A reasonable rule is to match strings to guitar brand, MArtins on a Martin, Gibbo's on a Gibson, GIbsons on a Tanglewood, and your fav brand on everything else.
I put Elixir long life strings on my acoustic recently, as I don't play it that much and wanted them to last, but I don't really like teh tone as much as I do a bare string. They do last though, and lots of people like them.
HAppy Hunting !!

Pearl Jam and toast

acutejam wrote:

My poor Les Paul... Lucky if it gets new strings 2-3 times a year now!

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Pearl Jam and toast

pizzaboynizza wrote:

You all are getting way too technical with guitar playing. When it comes to guitar, expecially acoustic guitar it really has very little to do with the type of technology you incorporate but more of your own natural playing ability.

My tip is, buy a semi-expensive but high quality acoustic, preferably something by Fender, make sure it's got electronic qualities, buy an amp with a complex equalizer and you'll be set.

I've never been fond of fender acoustics at all.

Honestly, I think the way to go for a mid priced nice acoustic is probably Martin.

Brez

lucylespian wrote:

MOst acoustics in shops have 11's or 12's on them to maximise the tone you hear when you try it out. PI have only ever used 10's on my acoustic, always used Thomastik Plectrum brand until very recently, so I find it a bit of a struggle to play those heavier strings well. The suggestion above to get the storekeep play while you listen is a good one. I did that today while looking at amps, so I could concentrate on the tone, not my playing.
It is worth looking at the state of the strings when you try, cos if the git has been on teh rack for a few weeks and been played by a few guys, teh strings wil deteriorate and basically make a great guitar sound like shit. If you are serious about a guitar, and the strings are crap, make them put a new set on then have another listen. A reasonable rule is to match strings to guitar brand, MArtins on a Martin, Gibbo's on a Gibson, GIbsons on a Tanglewood, and your fav brand on everything else.
I put Elixir long life strings on my acoustic recently, as I don't play it that much and wanted them to last, but I don't really like teh tone as much as I do a bare string. They do last though, and lots of people like them.
HAppy Hunting !!

What kind of acoustic do you have?

pizzaboynizza

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

I've never been fond of fender acoustics at all.

Honestly, I think the way to go for a mid priced nice acoustic is probably Martin.

I'm just a big advocate of Fender, they've yet to steer me wrong.

Pearl Jam and toast

pizzaboynizza wrote:

I'm just a big advocate of Fender, they've yet to steer me wrong.

I love everything they do except for the acoustics honestly.

My general experience (played lots of them too),...

The strings lie too close to the fret board, the guitars have really poor projection, the sound itself it pretty thin and weak, and a few other things.

lucylespian

Brez wrote:

What kind of acoustic do you have?

My acoustic is the first guitar I bought in about 1980, an Ibanez. It has rosewood back and sides and solid spruce top. It was all I played for years, apart from a brief ownership of a Strat, which I never came to grips with. The headstock has been snapped off it twice, initially when it went through a windshiled in a car accident, and I had some struts re-glued a coupla years ago, and some new tuners.
I haven't played many others than outshine that old thing, it has such a clear and open tone, most others sound constipated next to it.
I often try out acoustics in shops though, looking for something to replace it. I tried some Tanglewood recently, which I was very impressed with, as well as some Ayres, whichi think are an Auisralian brand. Most Aussies rave about Maton acoustics, but I have never been that impressed. Cole Clark is another Oz brand which are making their mark, but I think that Gibsons are much better. Whenever I am watching a clip on TV and the acoustic sound is to die for, it is nearly always a Gibson. HAve a look at the songwriter series, and teh Hummingbirds are classic of course. Stone has a few of those. I like Martins as well, but only the signauture series, which are hellaciously expensive. The rest all look the same, which puts me off, though they probably sound great. I like things that stand out.
I really don't play that much acoustic now, tending to play mostly heavy metal. Though recently I have been playing a lot of PJ, probably cos they toured adn are right up on my radar, so have had the acoustic out more.
I often use acoustic to jam a riff I am trying to learn before going back to my electrics. They really are very good for your playing, make you fret and articulate notes properly, don't really let you get away with sloppiness, much like really clean electric. I used to fingerpick lot too, still do quite a lot.
If budget is not an issue for you, have a look at the TAylor T5 Thinline, they are about $3500 US and are truly marvellous. I had one on my wishlist, still do, but I had the chance to buy a Gretsch I wanted at a cheap price recenlty, so the Taylor is going to have to wait a while. It will be the next guitar I buy though. Stone uses one, a black one with dual outputs, which is not standard. I like the koa one personally, which is what I will get, though my wife wants me to get a spruce with red transparent finish.
At the end of the day, I feel that guitars last a long time, and you only play if you love the sound, so take your time, play heaps, buy the one that speaks to you, and remember that string quality is critical with acoustics.
I love those Plectrum strings. They have plain high E and B, flat wound G, D, A, and round wound bottom E, which is soft and vibrates beautifully. They only last a few weeks at most, which is why most in the shops are gonna be crap. I probably wouldn't suggest buying a Martin just cos Ed plays one, unless you really like it for itself, but hey, it's a free world and I wouldn't knock you either.
I own an ESP KH-2 cos Kirk HAmmett is one of my guitar heroes, and I love it.

sennin

Here's a great photo of Ed's Martin......

http://www.bridgeschool.org/events/2006concert/Pearl_Jam/pictures/picture-2.jpg

.

Brez

sennin wrote:

Here's a great photo of Ed's Martin......

http://www.bridgeschool.org/events/2006concert/Pearl_Jam/pictures/picture-2.jpg

.

If that guitar is pre WWII than where is that cable going into??

sennin

Martin Men..........

http://www.bridgeschool.org/events/2006concert/Pearl_Jam/pictures/picture-46.jpg

.