NGD: Finally a decent gig-worthy not-so-J45, affordable J-45 Slope Shoulder dread!

dankilling

Tele-Afflicted
Silver Supporter
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Posts
1,714
Location
Lehigh Valley, PA
I had a sigma OM sized model for several years- it was a good guitar! Ended up horse trading it for another guitar, but I’d buy a Sigma again without hesitation. Congrats!
 

dreamingtele

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Posts
5,074
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I had a sigma OM sized model for several years- it was a good guitar! Ended up horse trading it for another guitar, but I’d buy a Sigma again without hesitation. Congrats!

Thank you!

These Sigmas are great! They can really outclass some of the more expensive brands for less money!

I’m happy with my Sigma and I’m satisfied for the price I paid for it
 

dreamingtele

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Posts
5,074
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Ordered a few bone saddles to experiment on the action/feel of this Sigma JM-SG45.

I dont like low action. For my main electric guitars, the action at the 12th fret is 3.175mm (1/8 inch) on the low E string, and around 2.5-2.6mm ( a littler over 3/32). Being a bit heavy handed, this is the lowest I can go for a really comfortable feel with 11-52’s without buzzing.

The stock bone saddle that came with it is a bit high. Its around 5.55mm (7/32”). It’s okay, playable, but a little high than what I would like.

So the new bone saddle went in and got the action around 4.7mm (3/16”).. which is better than the stock string action.

Untitled by D Y, on Flickr

Untitled by D Y, on Flickr

Untitled by D Y, on Flickr

I’m thinking of sanding the bridge saddle
more and get it a little higher than my electric guitar action. Maybe around 3.96mm (5/32”).

Anyway, I would like to know whats your string height action? Do you guys think my action is high? Low?

I did get a comment that my guitars are very hard to play. Hehehe.
 

arlum

Tele-Afflicted
Platinum Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2018
Posts
1,883
Age
67
Location
O'Fallon, MO
"The Sigmas are pretty good value! Save me almost half of my budget which is always good, which means I got more guitar for my money.
If I have more money, id probably wont buy the Gibson, but Id go Eastman. The Eastman E20SS in the same store (no photos sorry!) is actually better - soundwise. Warm, thumping low end and balanced highs. However, it’s just 400 aud more than what I can spend at maximum.
There you go! I think we live in a great era. Inexpensive guitars punching above their price range. When I finally upgrade, id turn the world upside down to find a nice J-45."
E20SS_Flattop__CSB1_0815.jpg



I agree on the Eastman. I figured I'd supply a photo of it from Eastman's website. I have one from their vintage E series that I like quite a bit. I really haven't played any Gibson acoustics in the the last ten years that I truly liked. They just tend to sound stiffer than the old Gibsons. They've got great projection but I just don't hear the magic in Gibsons acoustic voice anymore. Your new Sigma both looks and sounds cool. Enjoy it.
 

dreamingtele

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Posts
5,074
Location
Melbourne, Australia
"The Sigmas are pretty good value! Save me almost half of my budget which is always good, which means I got more guitar for my money.
If I have more money, id probably wont buy the Gibson, but Id go Eastman. The Eastman E20SS in the same store (no photos sorry!) is actually better - soundwise. Warm, thumping low end and balanced highs. However, it’s just 400 aud more than what I can spend at maximum.
There you go! I think we live in a great era. Inexpensive guitars punching above their price range. When I finally upgrade, id turn the world upside down to find a nice J-45." View attachment 948236


I agree on the Eastman. I figured I'd supply a photo of it from Eastman's website. I have one from their vintage E series that I like quite a bit. I really haven't played any Gibson acoustics in the the last ten years that I truly liked. They just tend to sound stiffer than the old Gibsons. They've got great projection but I just don't hear the magic in Gibsons acoustic voice anymore. Your new Sigma both looks and sounds cool. Enjoy it.

I went back to the store and still the Eastman E20SS (Solid Rosewood b&s) sounds better than the Gibson.

They now have the E10SS (Solid Mahogany B&S) in stock which i have yet to try, but i have no doubt its a great one and probably still better than the Gibson
 

TwangerWannabe

Tele-Holic
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Posts
848
Location
West Coast
I'm curious why the OP was on a specific quest for a J-45 while admitting they had no idea what a J-45 even sounds like.

All I will say is this...many others may look like a J-45 because they have the short-scale, slope shoulder design, but most won't sound like a J-45. Nothing wrong with that at all, though. I'm just saying it may look the part on the outside but under the hood as far as bracing patterns, etc., they're different. I played a beautiful Santa Cruz slope shoulder a while back, and although it was a phenomenal sounding guitar, it sounded nothing like a J-45, which may not necessarily be a bad thing. I also used to own an Eastman ES10 and despite having that slope shoulder look, it sounded noting like a Gibson. Just pointing out that we very frequently buy with our eyes and not our ears.
 
Last edited:

TwangerWannabe

Tele-Holic
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Posts
848
Location
West Coast
Ordered a few bone saddles to experiment on the action/feel of this Sigma JM-SG45.

I dont like low action. For my main electric guitars, the action at the 12th fret is 3.175mm (1/8 inch) on the low E string, and around 2.5-2.6mm ( a littler over 3/32). Being a bit heavy handed, this is the lowest I can go for a really comfortable feel with 11-52’s without buzzing.

The stock bone saddle that came with it is a bit high. Its around 5.55mm (7/32”). It’s okay, playable, but a little high than what I would like.

So the new bone saddle went in and got the action around 4.7mm (3/16”).. which is better than the stock string action.

Untitled by D Y, on Flickr

Untitled by D Y, on Flickr

Untitled by D Y, on Flickr

I’m thinking of sanding the bridge saddle
more and get it a little higher than my electric guitar action. Maybe around 3.96mm (5/32”).

Anyway, I would like to know whats your string height action? Do you guys think my action is high? Low?

I did get a comment that my guitars are very hard to play. Hehehe.
Just keep in mind the action on an acoustic will also affect the overall tone. Higher action will sound "better" but harder to play. Lower action may be easier to play but you may hear that the guitar starts to sounds smaller, choked, not as "open" as it did with higher action. Also, this is hugely dependent on your playing style, how hard you hit the strings, etc. Also make sure the saddle you're using fits properly into the slot in the bridge and isn't loose, wobbly, leaning, etc.

Personally I like my action around 0.100-0.105" on the low E and around 0.080 on the high E (NOTE: these are MY personal preferences and are in no way to be the be all, end all for everyone or anyone else. This is jsut where I've found to be my own personal sweet spot for my playing style and the music I play).

But action isn't the only thing you need to factor in when making your guitar more playable. You have to check the neck relief as well. Some like little to just a hint of relief while others may prefer a little more. The problem with liking little neck relief is your frets need to be perfect, otherwise any high frets, etc. will start rearing their ugly heads and you'll get fret outs, buzzing, etc., so you may not be able to get that neck dialed in with jsut a hint of relief without shelling out for a fret level, which isn't cheap. You may also need to raise that action slightly with minimal neck relief.

After you sort out your relief the one thing that is going to make your guitars easier to pay (especially int he first position) are the nut slots. You could have your action set as low as you like, but if the nut slots are high it will still feel liek you're fighting it when playing cowboy chords. Most guitars have high nut slots off the rack. It's much easier (and cheaper) to file the nut slots to suit each players taste and needs than it is to make a new nut if the slots are too low. But having someone address those nut slots will make that guitar much easier to play int he first position if they are too high from the factory and help with intonation as well.

Neck relief, action and nut slot depth are all things that a competent repair person can take care of for you. So many of us go out and buy an acoustic and never get it set up because we don't want to spend the money to have it done and would rather spend that money on a new tuner, fancy strap, pickup system, etc. because those are tangible things we can see and hold, when in reality it's the lower end and cheaper guitars that will benefit the most from a decent setup. Time is money, and they're not going to spend all that extra time to dial it in perfectly on the assembly line. Even much higher-end production acoustic guitars from Gibson and Martin will need a basic setup to dial them in to the player's taste and playing style.
 
Last edited:

TwangerWannabe

Tele-Holic
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Posts
848
Location
West Coast
I went back to the store and still the Eastman E20SS (Solid Rosewood b&s) sounds better than the Gibson.

They now have the E10SS (Solid Mahogany B&S) in stock which i have yet to try, but i have no doubt its a great one and probably still better than the Gibson
"Better" in what way? I am in no way a Gibson fanboy and not even a J-45 fan, but saying one is better than another without qualifying what the better part is isn't helpful. Better sounding? Well, that again is subjective. Better looking? Again, subjective? Better price?

As I mentioned above, I had an ES10SS and it sounded nothing like a Gibson. Thats doesn't mean it was a bad sounding guitar. Be that better or worse is up to the player, but I wouldn't say one is better over the other, just two very different sounding guitars and two very different price points.
 

dreamingtele

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Posts
5,074
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I'm curious why the OP was on a specific quest for a J-45 while admitting they had no idea what a J-45 even sounds like.

All I will say is this...many others may look like a J-45 because they have the short-scale, slope shoulder design, but most won't sound like a J-45. Nothing wrong with that at all, though. I'm just saying it may look the part on the outside but under the hood as far as bracing patterns, etc., they're different. I played a beautiful Santa Cruz slope shoulder a while back, and although it was a phenomenal sounding guitar, it sounded nothing like a J-45, which may not necessarily be a bad thing. I also used to own an Eastman ES10 and despite having that slope shoulder look, it sounded noting like a Gibson. Just pointing out that we very frequently buy with our eyes and not our ears.

I had a rough idea. I played a few before. I made a thread before this that I said I played 3 and all 3 are sounding different from each other anyway.

I’m not defending my purchase, obviously, my guitar isnt the most expensive one - nor the best sounding one, but upon testing back and forth with that black Gibson J-45, I bought the one that sounded “close” - so pointing out that we frequently buy with our eyes and not our ears is actually a wrong assumption when I clearly bought with my ears :)
 

dreamingtele

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Posts
5,074
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Just keep in mind the action on an acoustic will also affect the overall tone. Higher action will sound "better" but harder to play. Lower action may be easier to play but you may hear that the guitar starts to sounds smaller, choked, not as "open" as it did with higher action. Also, this is hugely dependent on your playing style, how hard you hit the strings, etc. Also make sure the saddle you're using fits properly into the slot in the bridge and isn't loose, wobbly, leaning, etc.

Personally I like my action around 0.100-0.105" on the low E and around 0.080 on the high E (NOTE: these are MY personal preferences and are in no way to be the be all, end all for everyone or anyone else. This is jsut where I've found to be my own personal sweet spot for my playing style and the music I play).

But action isn't the only thing you need to factor in when making your guitar more playable. You have to check the neck relief as well. Some like little to just a hint of relief while others may prefer a little more. The problem with liking little neck relief is your frets need to be perfect, otherwise any high frets, etc. will start rearing their ugly heads and you'll get fret outs, buzzing, etc., so you may not be able to get that neck dialed in with jsut a hint of relief without shelling out for a fret level, which isn't cheap. You may also need to raise that action slightly with minimal neck relief.

After you sort out your relief the one thing that is going to make your guitars easier to pay (especially int he first position) are the nut slots. You could have your action set as low as you like, but if the nut slots are high it will still feel liek you're fighting it when playing cowboy chords. Most guitars have high nut slots off the rack. It's much easier (and cheaper) to file the nut slots to suit each players taste and needs than it is to make a new nut if the slots are too low. But having someone address those nut slots will make that guitar much easier to play int he first position if they are too high from the factory and help with intonation as well.

Neck relief, action and nut slot depth are all things that a competent repair person can take care of for you. So many of us go out and buy an acoustic and never get it set up because we don't want to spend the money to have it done and would rather spend that money on a new tuner, fancy strap, pickup system, etc. because those are tangible things we can see and hold, when in reality it's the lower end and cheaper guitars that will benefit the most from a decent setup. Time is money, and they're not going to spend all that extra time to dial it in perfectly on the assembly line. Even much higher-end production acoustic guitars from Gibson and Martin will need a basic setup to dial them in to the player's taste and playing style.

Yes. I do my own set ups. I have my measurements nailed down on my electric guitars. I know about relief, nut heights, etc etc. i never messed with acoustic before so this is why i’m experimenting and doing a bunch of things to get this acoustic to my preferred playing set up.

The nut on this Sigma is cut very well, it actually is the same as the nut cut by my luthier for one of my guitars which i spent money on. Heck, the nut on the Gibson J-45 is worse. D, G ans B string slots are cut too low that there’s actually no more gap on the first fret if I fret a note on the third fret. Go figure. The Epiphone Slash I tried is set up better. Again, go figure.

I dont play with much relief as I dont like that feel. The neck is as straight as I can get it, and I have no fret buzz currently with this action. I intend to go lower and see how it feels and sounds. This is why i bought 10pcs of bone saddles so i can switch it around.

And I’m not new to the world of entry level guitars. Yes, obviously this wont have the attention to detail of a Collings CJ45 or even a Santa Cruz Vintage Southerner. The way I see it, they crank these out as fast as they can get it out of the factory, so i dont focus about the set up out of the box as I can get set up to suit my playing style, but I do try to pick the ones that are set up well right on the get go so i can just do minimal set up.
 

dreamingtele

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Posts
5,074
Location
Melbourne, Australia
"Better" in what way? I am in no way a Gibson fanboy and not even a J-45 fan, but saying one is better than another without qualifying what the better part is isn't helpful. Better sounding? Well, that again is subjective. Better looking? Again, subjective? Better price?

As I mentioned above, I had an ES10SS and it sounded nothing like a Gibson. Thats doesn't mean it was a bad sounding guitar. Be that better or worse is up to the player, but I wouldn't say one is better over the other, just two very different sounding guitars and two very different price points.

Okay, to me it is better.

Lets establish one thing, the Gibson J-45 I specifically tried isnt a bad guitar, and its well-built - although heavier than the Eastman, and has a good sound, projects well, notes are clean and clear.

First, the Eastman E20SS is set up better. Fit and finish is nicer than the Gibson. I’m looking at the way the braces look, the quality of workmanship on the inside (no glue traces, rough wood, etc), the neck joint, overall finish, feel. The Gibson J-45 has the same fit and finish of my ES-330, it feels solidly built, with first rate materials, but if the Eastman use the same materials, the feel - for me - is nicer and the way I hold the guitar, feels like its just built nicer.

Second, the sound. This may not be accurate as I’m not in a quiet room, there’s lots of people shopping around, so whatever I hear from the guitar is what it is. The Gibson’s tone has good low end, throaty low e - sounding like the low e has a very low string action but its not actually low, a little bit harsher highs - harsh to me means brighter, metallic ring - nice mids, and I love how those mids enchance the low end a little, kind of making it a bit warmer in tone.

The Eastman E20SS, obviously is different in specs (Adirondack top vs Sitka, Rosewood B&S vs Mahogany B&S, etc etc). While I wont pretend i can hear each wood over the other, my ears arent sensitive enough for that. I just base my observations on what I hear. The Eastman’s sound is similar to the J-45. Some say it has it’s own EQ, its own voice. I can say for the other Eastman guitars I tried (D and OM models) in the store and tried it against their Martin counterparts, that it is true. The specific E20SS i tried however is close to the J-45 while sounding a bit different. Different in a way that the notes seem clearer, I noticed a better note separation - especially when making a barre chord. Kind of like how I tweak the pole pieces of my P90 equipped guitars to balance out each string volume/output. If the Gibson has thump and big low end, this Eastman has an even bigger low end, a round sounding low end rather than a throaty thump. It might be the strings or something, but thats what I hear. The highs arent harsh, just the right balance of highs to balance out that big low end. Its not harsh to my ears - kinda like engaging the reverb on your electric guitar which rounds out the tone - and it has a wee bit more highs than my Sigma, which sounded subdued if I go back and forth with the Sigma and Eastman. It also sounds like the D and G strings are not muffled when strumming chords. Other acoustic feels like its just all about the low e, low a, high b and high e, and it sounds like the d and g strings arent there. Due to the balance I mentioned above, it sounds like those two strings are now noticeable. Another thing is the Eastman is louder. Now louder doesnt mean better sounding, but to me, the qualities Ive been rambling about above is being projected and amplified at a much higher volume than the Gibson, so to my ears, i can hear all those little details better. The only thing I dont really like, but not a negative, is that its got a bit more overtones which i’m trying to avoid as I dont want to compete with the vocals. I just want to lay down a nice bed for vocals to sing over. My Sigma has very little overtones which to me sounds like a Collings with their very focused and clear voice and eq. Just straight in your face notes, but lets face it, my Sigma is a hundred miles apart from a Collings, but nailing that focused sound for little money is enough for me.

So there, of couse YMMV. You have your own set of ears and experience, and I so have mine. I’m not saying its correct or true for the next guy who will try that Eastman or that Gibson. But I’m happy and I walked away with what I feel is almost 1:1 with the sound of the Gibson at 1/6th of the price.

And yes I think I know that not all SS will sound like a J-45. Heck, even the 3 J-45’s I tried doesnt sound the same. So i based my decision on that one J-45 I tried. So again, I did not buy with my eyes and not because it “looks” like a J-45, it “sounds” like a J-45. This is the reason I went to the store and tried things. I used my ears and trusted my ears. If you assume I bought with my eyes, you would be correct if I ordered this guitar online instead.
 

TwangerWannabe

Tele-Holic
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Posts
848
Location
West Coast
Okay, to me it is better.

Lets establish one thing, the Gibson J-45 I specifically tried isnt a bad guitar, and its well-built - although heavier than the Eastman, and has a good sound, projects well, notes are clean and clear.

First, the Eastman E20SS is set up better. Fit and finish is nicer than the Gibson. I’m looking at the way the braces look, the quality of workmanship on the inside (no glue traces, rough wood, etc), the neck joint, overall finish, feel. The Gibson J-45 has the same fit and finish of my ES-330, it feels solidly built, with first rate materials, but if the Eastman use the same materials, the feel - for me - is nicer and the way I hold the guitar, feels like its just built nicer.

Second, the sound. This may not be accurate as I’m not in a quiet room, there’s lots of people shopping around, so whatever I hear from the guitar is what it is. The Gibson’s tone has good low end, throaty low e - sounding like the low e has a very low string action but its not actually low, a little bit harsher highs - harsh to me means brighter, metallic ring - nice mids, and I love how those mids enchance the low end a little, kind of making it a bit warmer in tone.

The Eastman E20SS, obviously is different in specs (Adirondack top vs Sitka, Rosewood B&S vs Mahogany B&S, etc etc). While I wont pretend i can hear each wood over the other, my ears arent sensitive enough for that. I just base my observations on what I hear. The Eastman’s sound is similar to the J-45. Some say it has it’s own EQ, its own voice. I can say for the other Eastman guitars I tried (D and OM models) in the store and tried it against their Martin counterparts, that it is true. The specific E20SS i tried however is close to the J-45 while sounding a bit different. Different in a way that the notes seem clearer, I noticed a better note separation - especially when making a barre chord. Kind of like how I tweak the pole pieces of my P90 equipped guitars to balance out each string volume/output. If the Gibson has thump and big low end, this Eastman has an even bigger low end, a round sounding low end rather than a throaty thump. It might be the strings or something, but thats what I hear. The highs arent harsh, just the right balance of highs to balance out that big low end. Its not harsh to my ears - kinda like engaging the reverb on your electric guitar which rounds out the tone - and it has a wee bit more highs than my Sigma, which sounded subdued if I go back and forth with the Sigma and Eastman. It also sounds like the D and G strings are not muffled when strumming chords. Other acoustic feels like its just all about the low e, low a, high b and high e, and it sounds like the d and g strings arent there. Due to the balance I mentioned above, it sounds like those two strings are now noticeable. Another thing is the Eastman is louder. Now louder doesnt mean better sounding, but to me, the qualities Ive been rambling about above is being projected and amplified at a much higher volume than the Gibson, so to my ears, i can hear all those little details better. The only thing I dont really like, but not a negative, is that its got a bit more overtones which i’m trying to avoid as I dont want to compete with the vocals. I just want to lay down a nice bed for vocals to sing over. My Sigma has very little overtones which to me sounds like a Collings with their very focused and clear voice and eq. Just straight in your face notes, but lets face it, my Sigma is a hundred miles apart from a Collings, but nailing that focused sound for little money is enough for me.

So there, of couse YMMV. You have your own set of ears and experience, and I so have mine. I’m not saying its correct or true for the next guy who will try that Eastman or that Gibson. But I’m happy and I walked away with what I feel is almost 1:1 with the sound of the Gibson at 1/6th of the price.

And yes I think I know that not all SS will sound like a J-45. Heck, even the 3 J-45’s I tried doesnt sound the same. So i based my decision on that one J-45 I tried. So again, I did not buy with my eyes and not because it “looks” like a J-45, it “sounds” like a J-45. This is the reason I went to the store and tried things. I used my ears and trusted my ears. If you assume I bought with my eyes, you would be correct if I ordered this guitar online instead.
I hear you. I personally don't care for the J-45 "Standard". I've owned several over the years and they never did anything for me despite trying to like. J-45TV's sounded great though and so did a J-45V, but for whatever reason the Standard has always left me wanting more and they really do sound all over the place from one to another. I think what really bugged me about the Standards are the thin, tinny high end they all seemed to have, despite experimenting with different saddle materials, pulling gout the UST, etc. They just all had this weird high end harshness going on. Some had a nice dry low end thump, while others sounded like strings strung over cardboard. They felt constricted.
 

dreamingtele

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Posts
5,074
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I hear you. I personally don't care for the J-45 "Standard". I've owned several over the years and they never did anything for me despite trying to like. J-45TV's sounded great though and so did a J-45V, but for whatever reason the Standard has always left me wanting more and they really do sound all over the place from one to another. I think what really bugged me about the Standards are the thin, tinny high end they all seemed to have, despite experimenting with different saddle materials, pulling gout the UST, etc. They just all had this weird high end harshness going on. Some had a nice dry low end thump, while others sounded like strings strung over cardboard. They felt constricted.

I'm glad I'm not alone!! The 3 J-45s I tried were "Standards".. I guess we have common ground in this, and I'm glad that what I'm hearing and what's in my head are not two different things.. yes, Ive also found that they have some sort of tinny high end, and probably a more pronounced high mids making it a bit harsh? or probably being a bit overbuilt.. I'm not sure if weight is an indicator of being overbuilt.. the Gibson I tried is lighter than the Epiphone Slash J-45 I have on the video in my very first post in this thread.. the two Sigma (solid and lam b&S) were of the same weight.. the Eastman I tried was lighter still.

The lightest slope shoulder acoustic in there that I've tried is a Martin DSS-15m.. which isnt even the high end model.. even the Taylor "American Dream" AD17 is a hair heavier than the DSS-15m.. but anyway.. happy that I'm not alone with thinking whats wrong with the J-45 Standards I tried.
 

TwangerWannabe

Tele-Holic
Joined
Jun 25, 2019
Posts
848
Location
West Coast
I'm glad I'm not alone!! The 3 J-45s I tried were "Standards".. I guess we have common ground in this, and I'm glad that what I'm hearing and what's in my head are not two different things.. yes, Ive also found that they have some sort of tinny high end, and probably a more pronounced high mids making it a bit harsh? or probably being a bit overbuilt.. I'm not sure if weight is an indicator of being overbuilt.. the Gibson I tried is lighter than the Epiphone Slash J-45 I have on the video in my very first post in this thread.. the two Sigma (solid and lam b&S) were of the same weight.. the Eastman I tried was lighter still.

The lightest slope shoulder acoustic in there that I've tried is a Martin DSS-15m.. which isnt even the high end model.. even the Taylor "American Dream" AD17 is a hair heavier than the DSS-15m.. but anyway.. happy that I'm not alone with thinking whats wrong with the J-45 Standards I tried.
You should try an Advanced Jumbo (AJ). You won't even want a J-45 ever again.
 

dreamingtele

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Posts
5,074
Location
Melbourne, Australia
For what it's worth, here's a recording with my recent bandmates using my Sigma..

as I've said, the Sigma has a crappy Piezo UST pickup (Fishman Sonitone).. so I used 2 J-45 acoustic IR's blended to get a bit of a natural tone.. definitely not a "mic'ed" tone or "my guitar just louder".. just trying to get a better tone out of my Piezo UST pickup.. I have plans on changing this pickup to a nicer one, like LR Baggs Anthem or something with dual source.

 

howlin

Tele-Afflicted
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Posts
1,416
Location
Who wants to know?
From what I can tell quite a few acoustics coming out of China are made in the Shadow factory. I guess that quite literally makes them a "shadow builer". :lol:

Here's Ren Ferguson narrating a demo:



For the eagle-eyed readers out there you'll notice a Epiphone Masterbilt at around the 1:10 mark. I had Shadow's own version of a J-45 made of all solid mahagony and it was great. The size got to be a bit of a problem but I'd still have it if I hadn't given it to a family member. I'm actually considering a Fender PM-2 and, after demoing one, I'm convinced they come from the same factory. One reason is the UV finish that they use. Ren makes mention of this here:




Cheers!
 

dreamingtele

Poster Extraordinaire
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Posts
5,074
Location
Melbourne, Australia
From what I can tell quite a few acoustics coming out of China are made in the Shadow factory. I guess that quite literally makes them a "shadow builer". :lol:

Here's Ren Ferguson narrating a demo:



For the eagle-eyed readers out there you'll notice a Epiphone Masterbilt at around the 1:10 mark. I had Shadow's own version of a J-45 made of all solid mahagony and it was great. The size got to be a bit of a problem but I'd still have it if I hadn't given it to a family member. I'm actually considering a Fender PM-2 and, after demoing one, I'm convinced they come from the same factory. One reason is the UV finish that they use. Ren makes mention of this here:




Cheers!


Thanks so much for this info!

I love my Sigma and have been playing it hard ever since. It sings with 13-56’s.

Built nicely, and very light. I havent even gone to my luthier yet as the only adjustment I needed to do was to shave the bridge saddle a bit for a better action.
 

zombywoof

Friend of Leo's
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Posts
4,166
Location
These Days NE Ohio
Lots of Gibson newbies here. I go back with them some half a century. And I have loved me more than a few round cornered beasts. Initially I bought used guitars because I could not afford anything bright, shiny and new. Guess it became a habit because I have never owned a new Gibson. The last three round shoulder jumbos I have owned were a 1961 B45-12, a 1956 Southerner Jumbo and a 1942 J50. I still have the Banner and the 12 stringer.

My take on modern Gibsons though is Bozeman has its own ideas as to what sounds and feels best. I find they are more hi-fi sounding than guitars from past catalogs and so will appeal to modern ears. Almost like they have incorporated a taste of a nuanced Martin sound. Nothing wrong with that. I find it intriguing as it makes the J45 a better all-rounder for those who want it all.
 

Jeff H

Tele-Meister
Joined
Mar 29, 2003
Posts
468
Location
State of Jefferson
Congrats on the guitar.

I owned an all solid wood Mahogany SIGMA when they were first introduced. Excellent.

Sadly the Sigma is not available in the US but available in Canada. Lucky for them.

I have a Canadian friend who has a half dozen Sigmas.. all spectacular.
 




Top