What Makes Lps Sound So Fat?

[Kith]

What makes a lp sound so fat, when many other mahogany guitars dont? is it possible to get that sound in a 2 cutaway model?

thanks

[Guest AlexVDL]

It's the combination of a thick mahogany body and a glued in thick mahogany neck. A rosewood fretboard makes it sound darker too. The thick maple top is there to make the whole thing not too muddy because it gives you some high. Also don't forget is has a stoptail and TOM bridge... an SG i.e. sound less fat because the body is like 1/3rd the thickness of a les paul

There are maple neck les pauls (1975 to 1983 if I recall). They sound brighter and less fat. I personally like those, because they are more allround. Oh yeah, Zakk Wylde also plays maple neck les pauls. It just takes away the too much muddyness when playing with high gain.

[darren wilson]

The shorter 24 3/4" scale length is also a contributing factor in the Les Paul's sound. In fact, some would say it's a major part of a guitar's sound.

Construction and materials definitely play a role, but i don't think it's as significant as how those strings are vibrating in the first place, and the scale length plays a major role in the overtones present on the vibrating string. A set-neck mahogany/maple Strat with 25.5" scale length still won't sound exactly like a Les Paul.

[bigdguitars]

yea most lp's have a 2inch thick body. That helps.

Plus of course you toss in humbuckers with 500k pots. If you wanted a hotter LP go to 1 meg pots.

Wanna roll it back more use, ahhhh, 100k pots.

[Kith]

so you have to make a thick neck to get a fat sound?

I hope not

[darren wilson]

How did you come to that conclusion?

[Kith]

that seemed to be what someone ment

[Strange Fruit]

Where did they say that?

Alex commented on the thick body, and set in neck, but not the two together.

[GregP]

...a thick mahogany body and a glued in thick mahogany neck...

←

Seems to me that both are mentioned as being thick. Alex wasn't answering the question, "How do I make something have a thick sound," because that wasn't the thread's question; rather, he was enumerating some of the things that contribute to a fat tone on a Les Paul, which was the questin posed. I'm sure Alex would be one of the first people to say that there are no hard and fast rules, and that to have a fat tone, you don't need a thick neck, though.

I think it's mainly this:

1. Humbuckers

2. Fixed bridge

3. The fact that many people who play Les Pauls will send them through a fat amp. I mean, when you think "Fat Les Paul," you're usually thinking something with a decent amount of drive. The amp has more to do with the fatness than the guitar, IMO. If you hear a Les Paul played through a Fender Twin with a 'country' EQ setting and some twangy reverb, the first word you think of isn't going to be "FAT", so I personally feel it's more to do with the fact that the musicians you associate with playing "fat-sounding" Les Pauls probably have "fat-sounding" setups; this means primarily their amp.

Greg

[Kith]

would plutting a 1/2 inch maple top on a 1 1/2 to 1 3//4 inch mahogany back make it sound really bright?

[erikbojerik]

I have a double-neck strat, big alder body with maple cap, hardtail bridge(s). Even with 25.5" scale and single coils and maple necks and no mahogany, its sound is nearly half-way between my MIM Strat and my LP custom.

My conclusion...body mass is pretty significant.

[ooten2]

I think the LP tone comes from a combo of all of the things mentioned above. Body thickness, TOM, set neck, scale length, mahogany neck/body with maple cap, etc. The maple cap on a LP is pretty thick to allow for the carve, so I don't think the 1/2" maple top will make it too bright.

While I agree that humbuckers play a part of the LP fat tone, it's not the only difference by any means IMHO. My example; I can get a "fat" tone with my LP through my amp, then plug in a strat with a bridge humbucker into the same amp with the exact same settings, and the tone is much cleaner, brighter, and thinner. I have to redial my amp to try to get the fat back, and it never quite gets as "fat" as the LP, even though the strat has a humbucker.

I think it's an equal part of all of the components in a LP that create the tone. Change any of the individual parts, and the tone changes.

[psw]

Fat Les Paul...Vintage Leslie West...not the new simmed down version...

[Kith]

thanks

1 more question

do really high output passive pickups tend to sound thinner than normal output ones?

[GregP]

Shouldn't be, but it'll depend on how you approach amplification and tone. The word "fat" is pretty subjective, and it can be claimed that really high-output pickups lack a bit of character as a trade-off for their output. However, driving an amp is easier with a high-output pickup for obvious reasons.

Pretty tricky question to answer without knowing your requirements for tone, but at the most basic level, I don't think I've ever heard anyone claiming that high output = thin tone.

Greg

[sepultura999]

TODAY IS THE DAY GREGP lol. I have tried 2 sets of guitars with EMGs. One had 81/85, the other had 81/81. One was through my amp, a fender 4x10 hot rod deville, another was through a really gross piece of crap 2000 dollar too much Orange amp. I did not like the EMGs at all. I thought the tone was garbage, and I thought they were thin sounding compared to my stock pickups on my yamaha which gives me more bass. However, I am going to go and give it another go, who knows, I may come back here and have bought them lol.

Edited July 19, 2005 by sepultura999

[Kith]

I hope your right greg

:}

Edited July 19, 2005 by Kith

[GregP]

Ah, but EMGs are a whole different beast. Many people find them clinical-sounding, which may translate into "thin" for some people's personal perspectives. I haven't played a pair personally, so I couldn't tell ya. I don't find Zakk Wylde's tone to be particularly 'fat', so that's the only thing I can go by. The only other guitarist I know intimately who uses EMGs is Martin Tielli of the Rheostatics, and I don't find his tone "fat", either, so you may be on to something there.

I personally like the character of vintage-output pickups.

Greg

[Mr.Churchyard]

Ah, but EMGs are a whole different beast.    Many people find them clinical-sounding, which may translate into "thin" for some people's personal perspectives.  I haven't played a pair personally, so I couldn't tell ya.    I don't find Zakk Wylde's tone to be particularly 'fat', so that's the only thing I can go by.  The only other guitarist I know intimately who uses EMGs is Martin Tielli of the Rheostatics, and I don't find his tone "fat", either, so you may be on to something there.

←

Well Metallica use them.

But same thing goes for Evolution pickups, there are many who dislike them and say they sound clinical, thin and so on. And Evos are really high output for passive pickups.

[Kith]

I would be using mighty mite motherbuckers. any opinions/comments on them?

[GregP]

Metallica, another band with non-fat tone.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I'm thinking that by my personal definition of "fat", my earlier statement that I prefer the character of vintage-output pickups translates into an even more general statement of: mid-output pickups = fat.

I find a strat neck pickup to be fairly fat going through the right amp, even.

Again, just personal perspective. One man's "fat" might be another man's "stocky".

Greg

[Kith]

ok.............. is it true that pickups with 16k or more ohms resistance usually sound lifeless and boring, with very little treble? my bridge pickup has 21.6 ohms, and the neck has 18.

[GregP]

I've heard the same thing. Since they drive the amp harder, you can make up a lot of harmonic content in the overdriven tubes; however all things being equal, I'm told that they have less definition in the high register.

Greg

[Kith]

would wiring them so they can be switched to both coils in parallel help them clean up and get better clarity?