| Adam Baboolal 05.02.2016 18:24 |
I'm trying to find out what the difference between a 2013 guitar model and a 2015 model is. Sadly, I can't find any information in all my googling! The only thing I'm 100% on is by comparing my own 2006 guitar model to the current model and finding that the tremolo looks different, along with the altered half moon plate. I'm also pretty sure that the pickups will come with that horrible signature all over them. Sorry, I prefer it without :P Does anyone have any information to share on what changes have been made to the BHM guitars throughout the years? If you can, please do share :) |
| Adam Baboolal 07.02.2016 15:25 |
Sadly, no-one has chimed in. However, I have tried to look over some older reviews and have found a little info. If I find more, I'll edit this post: - Factories changed for the BHM models to improve build quality (Possibly July 2004) - Burns models originally had black switches before moving to white on future models. - Due to earlier issues with the Burns models, there are some that had problems like having fret buzz, being neck heavy, etc. - A Burns model had a slightly different neck profile to the BHM model. (No measurements available) - Burns guitars had a tremolo system without height adjustment screws, which sounds odd. - Truss plate covers on the Burns did not match the pickguard. - The 2006 models added the half moon plate - The 2009 models started to include a new Wilkinson tremolo system (Better tuning stability) - Current models have a screw-in system for the tremolo bar, rather than push/pull type in the older models (Thanks to Togg for the info) |
| Togg 08.02.2016 05:12 |
Sadly I think they have changed a fair bit since the early model. I believe (although not 100% sure) The pickups are now built in Korea and not proper Trisonics they are built to resemble them but probably sound pretty different to the original version on the 2001 guitar (Which I have and sounded pretty close to a Super version, just a little harsher maybe, the Super is warmer) Also I've been told they no longer have a cavity in the top horn, so again this will alter the sound somewhat. The lack of a accurate pickguard is annoying, they still ship them with the upper horn shape looking way too close to the top of the guitar. The Trem originally shipped with no thread in the hole so you had to pull the trem out to get it in the case which sometimes accidentally pulled the whole trem system out of the block, now you can unscrew it! |
| Adam Baboolal 09.02.2016 08:04 |
Interesting note. Especially the tremolo bar being screwed in now. My 2006 model still uses the same old system to push/pull. However, I have to disagree about the pickups in the Burns models. I owned a Burns model and it just didn't sound as good as my 2006 model. Also, I 100% disagree that the Burns pickups were anything like the Super's pickups. I know that because, I bought those pickups in 2010 or so. I've had a pretty good run with tri-sonics, owning the BHM ones in my 2006 model, some Kent Armstrongs, Adesons and finally, the Supers. I'll need to play a current model to get the lay of the land, methinks. Luckily there's a music shop nearby that has them in. If there's anything interesting to note, I'll add it to the post I made above. |
| Ozz 09.02.2016 16:01 |
I have a 2004 one and a 2013 one link I like the older one. Its overall ligther, (but a little unbalanced with the neck). In my ears sounds better than the 2013 one (golden/black). Maybe the paint job is too thick. I dont know. |
| Togg 10.02.2016 03:04 |
Not sure when they changed the pickups but these days they are shipped from Korea where they are assembled, so they are not really a proper Trisonic, its a cosmetic look rather than an accurate copy of the tone. I have three different sets, my 2001 Burns, a Super with Adeson Trisonics and my Dansan with pickup build from Greg Fryers leftovers after he built John, Paul and George. There is very little difference between the Dansan and the Adeson PU's the Burns is harsher and less refined, but as the demo CD that Brian recorded A/B testing the real RS and the Burns copy there is really very little difference in tone, Adesons etc are warmer and can be pushed more probably, but it's not a huge difference. Don't know what later versions of BMG pickups sound like so can't comment. Can't find the demo Brian did in 2001 but here's 'sideburn' a track he recorded on the Burns to show how close it was to the original link Just found the demo Brian did in 2001 Listen how close the two gutars are, all of these guitars are very similar in basic tone, the more money you pay you get better quality construction and small improvements in tone, but these Pu's were thought to be pretty close at the time, these days however, not so much link |
| Togg 10.02.2016 09:10 |
I think you have to agree from that there is not nearly as much difference between the PU's as you'd think, at least as much influence (if not more) on the sound comes from the amp and construction of the guitar. |
| Adam Baboolal 10.02.2016 09:46 |
Togg wrote: ...as the demo CD that Brian recorded A/B testing the real RS and the Burns copy there is really very little difference in tone, Adesons etc are warmer and can be pushed more probably, but it's not a huge difference. Don't know what later versions of BMG pickups sound like so can't comment. Can't find the demo Brian did in 2001 but here's 'sideburn' a track he recorded on the Burns to show how close it was to the original link Just found the demo Brian did in 2001 Listen how close the two gutars are, all of these guitars are very similar in basic tone, the more money you pay you get better quality construction and small improvements in tone, but these Pu's were thought to be pretty close at the time, these days however, not so much link------------------- A Dansan, eh? Nice :) I also don't have any experience with the current pickups, i.e. the ones with Brian's signature on them. As for the Burns demo, I remember listening to it (Still have the CD) and I could easily tell the differences. Maybe that's partly why I didn't buy a BHM guitar till 4 years later. Not sure. Going back to the pickups for a moment, trying each pickup set, I noted each time that they didn't appear to be small changes in sound. At this point, I think I must conclude that my audio background allows my ears to distinguish the differences quite easily. For instance, when I put on a new pickguard, it altered the sound of the pickups response. Yup, that's a pretty stark example of how sensitive I can be to changes in tone! ------------------- Togg wrote: I think you have to agree from that there is not nearly as much difference between the PU's as you'd think, at least as much influence (if not more) on the sound comes from the amp and construction of the guitar.------------------- Well, no. I'm afraid I don't agree :) Again, maybe it's my audio background, but I can always pick out the differences when my pickups were changed. The one thing I always remember vividly was playing Was It All Worth It on my stock pickups and loving the final G chord after the riff. Once I changed the pickups to Kent Armstrongs, and finally the Supers, I noticed that I couldn't get that same kind of rich sound that I had with the stock pickups. Weird, but true. Of course, I still much prefer the Supers for everything else! |
| Togg 11.02.2016 04:28 |
I'm not saying there's no difference, but if you are telling me there's a big difference between those guitars in the A/B test than I think maybe your ears are not as sensitive as you think! and your judgment is being clouded by you wanting there to be a big difference? In a blind test if you played Brian's guitar with that amp set up and then followed with the Burns you wouldnt tell the difference unless you were in studio evironment, on stage you wouldn't be able to tell. Brian himself doesn't even care which TB he uses, Pete Malandorne has commented that he often doesnt even know it's whatever one has a battery in it. All i'm saying is these tonal differences are so subtle unless you put them under the mircoscope you cant really tell the difference, the most dramatic effect on the sound is from the Amp. As you can hear when you A/B the two the difference is very very subtle, had he recorded a song on the Burns and stuck it on an album, nobody would know... At a Red Special meet up, people demo'd an array of different TB's in a blind test on stage, nobody could tell accurately what was being used despite some saying they always knew... I would certainly agree were you to swap the PUs on the real RS, you'd notice a difference for sure, but if they were say the Adeson pu's I bet you it would be marginal at best. Changing the pickguard will have a small effect on a guitar, but your subconcious mind will make more of it than actual audible tone. It's like when people say that they can hear the difference between a gold plated guitar cable and a none goldplated.... rubbish, the socket on the guitar and amp are not gold plated, so the difference is 100% zero to the sound, the cable just lasts slightly longer as it doesnt degrade as quickly and the connecting stays true. As I say you can hear a small difference on that A/B test, but it's in a studio effectively under the microscope, if you say you didnt buy a guitar based on that test.... really? come on. Out of my three RS's they all sound slightly different, the Dansan is by far the closest to what I believe is the tone of the original, this is due to the construction methods of the guitar, is also has hand wound PU's from the leftovers of Greg Fryers builds. As it happens I am getting a new Dansan tomorrow... this one has two differences, the neck is Bolivian mahogany as against Cuban, possible slightly warmer? but it has Adeson PU's the same as the Super, it will be interesting to hear the tonal difference, The Super is a solid mahogany guitar with cavities, so much heavier than the real thing or Dansan's, so it sounds slightly harder and less hollow. The Burns is basically slight less refined in tone, it sounds a little more basic and the end of the range in frequency is probably less, I can make the Dansan 'sing' more But again, i could play them each at Wembley and unless you could see them you'd have no idea which was which or even if I'd changed at all? only 3 feet away from the amp in a studio would reveal the differences. |
| Adam Baboolal 11.02.2016 10:46 |
After reading that first line of your reply, I'm gobsmacked. People have varying opinions, Togg, and here you are telling me that my ears are wrong or that my view on this is "clouded"? I'm sorry you feel that way. Truly. At least agree to disagree...
Togg wrote:Brian himself doesn't even care which TB he uses, Pete Malandorne has commented that he often doesnt even know it's whatever one has a battery in it.And? It's such a vague point, that I really don't know what you're getting at. I'm not Brian. Perhaps, I think differently? Togg wrote:All i'm saying is these tonal differences are so subtle unless you put them under the mircoscope you cant really tell the difference, the most dramatic effect on the sound is from the Amp.Sorry, but I completely disagree. I have tried various treble boosters and they can sound/react differently. That is my experience. Just because you don't believe it's possible, does not make me wrong in how I'm experiencing it. Here's a specific example relating to a particular treble booster someone made. It was designed to be like a TB-83 booster and I saw a few people recommending it. I bought it and once I received it, I noticed that, while the sound was good, I felt there was something weird with the dynamics of my sound when in use. Going back to my rangemaster clone pedal, that felt a lot more dynamically responsive. However, don't think I don't like the TB-83 sound! I love it! And my go-to treble booster of choice, is my trusty Electrolead RSB (a TB-83 clone). That gives me a response that I preferred to the one in the story above. Togg wrote:As you can hear when you A/B the two the difference is very very subtle, had he recorded a song on the Burns and stuck it on an album, nobody would know... At a Red Special meet up, people demo'd an array of different TB's in a blind test on stage, nobody could tell accurately what was being used despite some saying they always knew...To your first point, I never went into detail about what I heard between the two in that CD demo. I can go back and listen to it and give you my thoughts if you wish. Is that what you want? As for the RS meet-up thing, let's put it this way - if I 'feel' like something is better (TB-wise) when I'm playing it and I've done my own A-B'ing, why would I want to listen to what other people say? Surely, playing guitar and enjoying my setup is what it's all about at the end of the day? If I hate something about someone else's sound, but it makes them happy, what's the problem? Let them have their fun. Togg wrote:Changing the pickguard will have a small effect on a guitar, but your subconcious mind will make more of it than actual audible tone.Subconscious? *sigh* Read-on and hang your head in shame for that condescending remark. I bought the pickguard for its more authentic look and I loved it. The shape was also much better than the stock cut which has an annoying wide point that looks wrong on mine. Anyway, I found out why it sounded different once I'd installed it...want to know? The answer was sort of simple - the pickups were bigger than the slots and were held very tightly in the new pickguard. This stopped them from moving like they once did in the previous stock pickguard. However, once I sanded the slots down, the sound changed. Togg wrote:It's like when people say that they can hear the difference between a gold plated guitar cable and a none goldplated.... rubbish, the socket on the guitar and amp are not gold plated, so the difference is 100% zero to the sound, the cable just lasts slightly longer as it doesnt degrade as quickly and the connecting stays true.I agree about the gold cable thing. Mainly because I know what a gold cable is doing. Most people don't and simply believe what they're told, i.e. marketing lies. But, are you trying to make out like this is the same thing? If you can't hear something that someone else can, what are you arguing? More to the point, why argue at all? Togg wrote:As I say you can hear a small difference on that A/B test, but it's in a studio effectively under the microscope, if you say you didnt buy a guitar based on that test.... really?Small difference? So, you admit that maybe I have heard 'something' different?! Btw, I just noticed something, this is a big comedown from the "big difference" you said at the top of your reply :P The Burns RS - I'll admit, I still wanted one. I'm a fan, how could I not? But, the reason it took me 5 years to consider getting one was due to having excellent guitar processors like the Roland VG-8 at hand. My brother in particular managed to dial in an amazingly good Brian May 1977 amp sound - think "It's late" intro guitar. Togg wrote:only 3 feet away from the amp in a studio would reveal the differences.And with this comment, you've hit the nail on the head. I'm not a gigging musician and I do play in very close proximity to my gear. That's another reason why I can hear things quite easily. Ok, let me end it like this - let me share a minor point about my listening skills in 'sound' matters. Years ago, on this forum, I had the opportunity to give my opinion on where I felt "It's A Beautiful Day" came from, time-wise. I listened and thought it was, sonically, from around 1980, based on The Game sound. And what do you know, it turned out to be from The Game sessions. Look, if we both hold opposing opinions on this stuff, what's the point in posting/arguing points? Just let it be... This is such a personal preference, referring to tone, hearing, etc. that it has nothing to do with right and wrong. Just accept that your opinion doesn't match mine. Easy. |
| Togg 12.02.2016 02:44 |
I don't understand what you are getting so upset about? At the risk of repeating myself... I said at the start there is a small difference in the A/B test, but by posting it i was demonstrating how small it is, that's all... why are you getting so hot under the collar? I never said they were identical? simply that the difference between pu's is less than people imagine. I was responding to your comment "I 100% disagree that the Burns pickups were anything like the Super's pickups." I've simply been point out there's not much of a difference, there is a 'small' difference yes i agree, but not really that much, as you can hear Brian played his original Red Special next to a cheap comercial copy, using the same rig (and more importantly the same fingers!) the two were very very close, so my point is that any difference in the pick ups is only altering the sound of the guitar by a fraction, as demonstrated by Brian on the recording. I'm not trying to argue with you, I know and agree there IS a difference, but I wanted to come back on your comment which made it sound like you felt it was a bigger difference and only you could hear it due to your audio background... The whole point of that recording was to demonstrate how close the new commercial copy was to the real thing, it succeeded. Why are you making this into some big arguement? |
| Vocal harmony 12.02.2016 07:02 |
I wonder if anyone could have picked out which of the two guitars in the demo was which had BM not said which was being played and when. The subtle differences between the different RS models actually amount to even less in a loud concert environment, where the volume of the guitar is competing with space with the other instruments and crowd noise. Anyone who has seen Queen play live since 2005 will have seen (heard) the original guitar, two different Fryers two or three different Guytons and a Super. From 100 feet back on the Arena floor in the middle of 15000 people I don't think anyone could really tell the difference between those guitars, with the exception of George Burns (one of the Fryers) which was built using different types of wood and the pickups wound hotter and was tuned to drop D. It has a darker heavier sound than the others, but the some of the parts of that guitar add up to much more than a slight difference in the pickups |
| Adam Baboolal 13.02.2016 10:44 |
Togg wrote: I don't understand what you are getting so upset about? At the risk of repeating myself... I said at the start there is a small difference in the A/B test, but by posting it i was demonstrating how small it is, that's all... why are you getting so hot under the collar? I never said they were identical? simply that the difference between pu's is less than people imagine. I was responding to your comment "I 100% disagree that the Burns pickups were anything like the Super's pickups." I've simply been point out there's not much of a difference, there is a 'small' difference yes i agree, but not really that much, as you can hear Brian played his original Red Special next to a cheap comercial copy, using the same rig (and more importantly the same fingers!) the two were very very close, so my point is that any difference in the pick ups is only altering the sound of the guitar by a fraction, as demonstrated by Brian on the recording. I'm not trying to argue with you, I know and agree there IS a difference, but I wanted to come back on your comment which made it sound like you felt it was a bigger difference and only you could hear it due to your audio background... The whole point of that recording was to demonstrate how close the new commercial copy was to the real thing, it succeeded. Why are you making this into some big arguement?Put quite simply, I'm not upset. But I am a bit bemused at your response to my experience in what I'm hearing. When you tell someone that, "your judgment is being clouded" or, "your subconcious mind will make more of it than actual audible tone." You're actively trying to disprove what I'm experiencing. That's quite insulting, in my opinion. I would never tell anyone else that what they hear is in anyway 'clouded' or that it's part of their 'subconcious.' That kind of attitude is very dismissive. Have you noticed that I haven't said anything like that to you? Anyway, if I were to check the original A/B that Brian himself did with Guitarist magazine, I wouldn't describe it as small or big differences. I would describe what I'm hearing between the two. Saying it's small or big means nothing because it's not relatable. As for your comment, "I wanted to come back on your comment which made it sound like you felt it was a bigger difference and only you could hear it due to your audio background..." First, I think you took my comment a bit too literally. When I said the two didn't sound "anything like" one another, it was a minor embellishment of what I meant, nothing more. Also, because of my audio background, I am trained to listen for things. This makes me pretty good at noticing issues or differences in sound. Btw, I'd like to say that, at no point have I ever said anything about "differences." In fact, if you do a word search on this page, you'll find that it is you that has been using that word, a lot. Here's what I said, "However, I have to disagree about the pickups in the Burns models. I owned a Burns model and it just didn't sound as good as my 2006 model. Also, I 100% disagree that the Burns pickups were anything like the Super's pickups." That was it. Anyway...for the last time, if you think the Burns pickups and Brian's originals sound similar, fine. If you think the Burns pickups and the Supers aren't that different, fine. That's your opinion and clearly, you don't care for mine. So, in the grand scheme of things, just leave it there. Agree to disagree. I know it's the internet and we should argue, but, it's just tiring and gets nowhere. |
| Ozz 16.02.2016 13:12 |
My post went invisible (or ignored), but I also do agree there's a sound difference at least between mine (2004 BHM /burns) - (2013 BHM) . My guess is the wood and finish plus the pickups. 2004 sound more resonant and bright. the 2013 one is a little bit muddier |
| Adam Baboolal 16.02.2016 19:57 |
Sorry, Ozz. That's quite interesting to note. I've just picked up an older Burns model (no. 2355) and, although it's a little modified (pickup surrounds, Adeson pickups, white switches, replica knobs, etc.), the neck is the biggest 'stock' difference to me. It feels a little fatter, yet, not across the fretboard side. No. Instead, I think the radius is different. Also, man...going back to 10's on a guitar is a little sore to my fingers! |
| Togg 17.02.2016 03:29 |
I wish they made the neck of the BMG or at least an option to be as fat as the original, it takes people by surprise at first but many really like it when they have played of a while, the true shape of the neck is like a baseball bat, it's very round and feels good in the hands, you do need long fingers to reach all the frets certainly if you play with the thumb over. I spoke to Barry Moorehouse at BMG about it a few years ago but he was convinced it would be too much of a departure from the standard guitar neck and would hurt sales. The Super, Dansan, CQ and RS Custom, all have the right size necks. |
| Adam Baboolal 20.02.2016 19:27 |
Yeah, I must admit, I'd love to try the original neck size. But personally, I'd wonder how useful it could be. I have no idea what it would be like for my hands, at all. Still, I am curious about how it plays. |
| Togg 22.02.2016 04:40 |
So long as you dont have small hands (fingers) I think it's much better, the neck just feels right and the larger the neck the more you can feel the vibration down it, particularly if it's bolt on with chambers in the body. The corrent construction is a much more 'hollow' feel and sound and the neck adds to that. It does take a while to get used to but somehow it feels more natural once you get over the first few moments, I actually found I played the smaller necks better afterwards as I was used to stretching more. |