What Kind of Acoustic Does Eddie Use????

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

.

Brez

sennin wrote:

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

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

.

How is there a cable going into it if it's "pre WWII"..... this is gonna bother me till someone explains

sennin

How? Friction?

You can equip any acoustic with a pickup.....so it can plug in to an amp.

CJMST3K

"What Kind of Acoustic Does Eddie Use????"

...wooden?

mca47

Brez wrote:

How is there a cable going into it if it's "pre WWII"..... this is gonna bother me till someone explains

You can put in electronics into any acoustic...old or new.

Brez

mca47 wrote:

You can put in electonics into any acoustic...old or new.

Thank you

lucylespian

Other thing abouit Ed and his tone, he does play with vigour. A soft pick and a gentle stroke won't produce the same tone. There is a lot of lacqer missing from the bottom half of his Martin where he has been giving it the welly.

mca47

lucylespian wrote:

Other thing abouit Ed and his tone, he does play with vigour. A soft pick and a gentle stroke won't produce the same tone. There is a lot of lacqer missing from the bottom half of his Martin where he has been giving it the welly.

I thought Ed used thins or medium-thins.

Maybe I'm wrong...

lucylespian

mca47 wrote:

I thought Ed used thins or medium-thins.

Maybe I'm wrong...

Yeah, I don't know for sure, but the boots I have sound like he is stroking pretty hard, I'm thinking of Thumbing my Way in particular, also Gimme Some Truth. I don't know what gauge strings he uses either, or if they are bare or coated, which makes a big difference.

Pearl Jam and toast

sennin wrote:

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

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

.

that is a great picture

frenchs

The acoustic I see ed with the most (such as the pictures in this thread), is a small bodied Martin with a mahogany top, and mahogany back and sides. Most likely a 0-17 or 00-17 (I can't tell without measuring or holding it). I also seem to recall seeing him play a spruce topped version of this, which would be the 18 series.

While quite expensive, 17 and 18 series Martins don't command the premium that the 21, 28, 42, and 45 series do. Possibly part of this reason is that the 17 and 18 always used Mahogany instead of Braz. for the sides and back, thus making their value as a collectible quite less.

As a general rule of thumb, you can get pretty nice prewar 17 and 18 series for $3-5k. Once you start looking beyond that in the vintage market, the prices get out of hand quickly ($20-100k).

The 17 series is no more, so if you want that, you'll have to go vintage. But if your not looking to spend $3k on a 60 year old guitar, I would reccomend getting a brand-spanking new 00-15 or 000-15. These 15 series are basically* the same thing and you should be able to get them for under $1000, possibly more if you get an electrified one.

-steve

*the 15 series has a satin finish, the 17 series was a bit glossier.

---

I had typed this up, so I thought I would include it if anyone was interested. As I see it, there are two major points in the Martin timeline that collectors pay attention to, 1945 and 1969.

All Martins made up to 1945 are considered to be "prewar". The reason these are so highly sought after are because of the materials, construction methods, and the bracing pattern on the top of the guitar. Martin has, in recent years, begun creating guitars that replicate some of these features and labeling them as "GE" (Golden Era) or "A" (Authentic) models.

1969 is an important year because it is the year which Martin discontinued the use of Brazillian Rosewood as the standard wood for the backs and sides of their 21, 28, 42 and 45 series guitars. Braz is considered to have a better sound, but was phased out due to ecological reasons. It is true that after '69 this they did make guitars with Braz on them, but they were rare and had a hefty price tag to compensate for the scarcity of the wood. So if your looking for a nice guitar, but don't want to go prewar, a 1946-1969 should keep you in the $7-$15k range and still sound great. If I'm not mistaken, I think in an interview (w/ToneQuest) that Larry Cragg said Neil Young's Martins are in this range (1950's I think).