Comparison of tones from 339 vs 335 body sizes

[Greco]

A question for those of you that own/have owned or are familiar with these two body sizes from the same brand name.

In an attempt to try to compare "apples to apples" we have two Epiphone (or Gibson) brand guitars
with the same pickups, same construction specs (apart from the body size... obviously) , same strings, same amp, same pick, same control settings, same player, same cable, etc., etc.
I hope you can see where I'm going with this by now.

One has a 339 sized body and the other a 335 sized body.

How would you describe the difference in the tones you would expect from the 339 versus the 335?

I know that I could go to a music store and try two guitars that would meet most of the above criteria but
I think I would have to play them alternately for quite some time, especially if the differences were subtle. An additional complicating factor is that I am an unskilled senior player with tennitus (FWIW)

Thank you in advance for your comments.

N.B. I have watched some of the comparisons of these two body sizes on YouTube but I'm interested in comments from guitarists here as I enjoy trying to play jazz oriented chords, etc.

[NSJ]

Check out Jack’s demo of 339.

[Laurence Finston]

One has a 339 sized body and the other a 335 sized body.

How would you describe the difference in the tones you would expect from the 339 versus the 335?

I'm not familiar with numbers used to indicate the size (or shape?) of the body of a guitar. What do the numbers refer to?

The size and shape of the body will affect the resonance and thus the "recipes" of frequencies produced by the vibration of the strings and thus of the signal coming from the pickups. This is complex behavior and any predictions would have to be tested by experiment. The way to see what the effect is is to examine the signal using an oscilloscope.

Are the scale lengths the same? If not, that would be a difference where one could make an educated guess about the resulting difference in sound. Generally speaking, the longer the string, the more energy will be transferred from the string to the air and to the electrical circuit. In particular, low tones profit from longer strings.

Roughly speaking, I would say bigger and longer = fuller and smaller and shorter = thinner and more nasal. The latter isn't necessarily bad, however.

[Laurence Finston]

I just checked several Epiphone and Gibson 335 and 339 guitars and all of them had 628mm scale lengths. Too bad, it would have been an interesting line of inquiry. I didn't search in a systematic way, though. The product infos didn't contain any explanation of these numbers. However, it was just the catalogue of an online retailer, not the Gibson or Epiphone website.

[hotpepper01]

Internet is full of comparison between the 339 and the 335.
Just to mention one

Having owned a 339 size and still owning a 335, I believe there is a very small difference in tone amplified under the same conditions. Both sizes are great guitars. The biggest difference is in the size. Both lines come in lots of appointment differences. And do not forget. Even within the same size and model, there are individual differences from one particular guitar to the next.

[John A.]

The numbers refer to the Gibson ES-335 and ES-339. The body of the 399 is smaller (14" vs 16" lower bout). Otherwise they’re the same (with all kinds of variation in neck, finish, and pickups, as with all Gibson models). I’ve never owned either, but have played a bunch of both.

To me, they sound the same, with differences falling within the range of differences between different individual examples of the same model. I imagine some other people perceive more differences than I do, though.

Regarding scale length, all variants of both sizes are nominally 24-3/4”. But the Gibsons are actually more like 24-9/16” (as is the case with nearly all Gibson electrics due to quirks in their fret-spacing method), and the Epiphones are true 24-3/4”. Some corks-sniffers might perceive a difference. I doubt I can (I have guitars of both of these scale-length variants, though not Gibson/Epi).

[Greco]

To me, they sound the same, with differences falling within the range of differences between different individual examples of the same model. I imagine some other people perceive more differences than I do, though.

Thanks for all of the responses.

I understand that the more minute differences can not be eliminated when comparing.

This is a visual size comparison for interest...

[Greco]

@hotpepper01 Please see the bottom line of the initial post.

[Laurence Finston]

I saw that the numbers are used to differentiate the models. I just didn't find any information about what they mean in a technical sense, if anything. I also saw that the scale lengths (and nut widths) were identical, at least for the models I looked at.

It would be helpful to know why the OP wants to know this. If it's for the sake of deciding on a model to buy, I would say other factors were more important, for example, size, weight, comfort. I doubt that the sound would be that much different.

All other things being equal, a more massive body will resist being set into vibration more than a less massive one, so less energy will be lost with a more massive body, leading to greater sustain. That's why Les Paul used a solid block of wood. However, archtops aren't designed to lose the least amount of energy. On the contrary, the body is supposed to vibrate in order to create a back-coupling with the vibration of the string. In addition the archtop construction is able to withstand the considerable tension of the steel strings with less weight than a solid-body.

While I like hollow-bodies and archtops and appreciate them from an aesthetic and technical standpoint, I'm not sure the ride is worth the fare.

[Laurence Finston]

One thing to consider with respect to hollow-bodies, is that if you're playing them in a small room with little ambient noise and at a moderate volume (from the amp), a lot of what you're hearing will be the sound of the actual guitar, not what's coming out of the amp. I have one hollow-body electric guitar, namely a 12-string, and I can play it without the amp and it sounds good. If you want to judge what other people will be hearing under other circumstances, you have to use headphones or possibly a monitor. I've never done the latter with any guitar, because I don't have one, but it's not going to block the sound of the unamplified guitar.

There's also the question of what kind of comparison one is making. Is it purely subjective on an emotional level or is it on a technical level? I don't think the first kind is very informative or interesting. If one really wants to know what is coming out of the guitar, one has to use measuring devices to analyze the signal and/or the sound coming out of the amp. Hobbyists can measure signals, but I don't know if this is true for acoustic measurements. I've never heard of it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[hotpepper01]

@hotpepper01 Please see the bottom line of the initial post.

Sure, I did read that. But you asked for personal opinions from somebody who has used both the 339 size and the 335 size. I had them both myself, still have my 335. And may I state again that I believe there is hardly any difference if played amplified and IMHO the biggest difference is in the body size itself. If you are a big guy, my advice would be a 335 and the other way around, if you are not a big guy, try the 339 size. I myself prefer the 335 out of these two. I still use a 335 today for some more modern tunes in a bigband.

But, I once owned a 390, wich is not comparable to a 339 or a 335, since that is a full hollow 339 size, that I liked better than the 339. But that is appels and pears. the same goes for the 345 or 355 compared to the 335. Or the 330 compared to the 335 etc

[sgosnell]

I think a bigger difference in tone is determined by whether the body is hollow or semi-hollow. The center block makes a big difference, but sounds generally the same regardless of the size of the rest of the body. That's just my perception, though.

[Greco]

Once again, many thanks for all the comments.

I have an Epi 339 (and an older Epi Casino COUPE) at present and have had 335's in the distant past.

There is a new Epi 335 for sale locally and I am asking about the comparisons here because I don't want to invest $1,000.00+ CDN only to find that the tonal differences are very subtle. I would want to compare both guitars in my home environment for a reasonable time and the return policy at the store is not conducive to this.

[John A.]

I saw that the numbers are used to differentiate the models. I just didn't find any information about what they mean in a technical sense, if anything. I also saw that the scale lengths (and nut widths) were identical, at least for the models I looked at.

They don't mean anything in a "technical" sense. ES="Electric Spanish" (as opposed to lap steel, which is what the first purpose-built electric guitars were). At one point, the number in ES models was the list price (e.g., ES-175= $175, ES-125=$125), then over time they became arbitrary.

It would be helpful to know why the OP wants to know this. If it's for the sake of deciding on a model to buy, I would say other factors were more important, for example, size, weight, comfort. I doubt that the sound would be that much different.

All other things being equal, a more massive body will resist being set into vibration more than a less massive one, so less energy will be lost with a more massive body, leading to greater sustain. That's why Les Paul used a solid block of wood. However, archtops aren't designed to lose the least amount of energy. On the contrary, the body is supposed to vibrate in order to create a back-coupling with the vibration of the string. In addition the archtop construction is able to withstand the considerable tension of the steel strings with less weight than a solid-body.

It's not at all clear that more mass = more sustain, and "all things equal" is almost impossible to attain in this context. But, yes, in general solid bodies sustain more than hollow bodies (with many exceptions). But the main difference (and the reason Les Paul built his log) is feedback susceptibility.

While I like hollow-bodies and archtops and appreciate them from an aesthetic and technical standpoint, I'm not sure the ride is worth the fare.

Different horses for different courses.

In any event, ES-335's and 339's are semi-hollow, meaning they're thinline bodies with a block of wood running down the middle. This gives them features of both hollow and solid bodies, though I think most people find that they shade more toward solid than hollow in terms of tone and sustain.

[Laurence Finston]

They don't mean anything in a "technical" sense. ES="Electric Spanish" (as opposed to lap steel, which is what the first purpose-built electric guitars were). At one point, the number in ES models was the list price (e.g., ES-175= $175, ES-125=$125), then over time they became arbitrary.

Thanks. $175. Those were the days.

It's not at all clear that more mass = more sustain, and "all things equal" is almost impossible to attain in this context. But, yes, in general solid bodies sustain more than hollow bodies (with many exceptions). But the main difference (and the reason Les Paul built his log) is feedback susceptibility.

Not in this context, but I meant in general, not specifically in the case of guitars. More in the sense of a physical experiment, like if you took a piece of balsa and a piece of mahogany of the same dimensions. You may be right about Les Paul's motivation. However, I remember a story about how he said he could pluck a string, go out for lunch, come back and still find the string vibrating. Or something like that.

Different horses for different courses.

I agree. I literally meant that I don't know. The twelve-string hollow-body isn't comparable to my six-string solid-body. I played a couple of archtops at a music store years ago and they were both really nice. I play other instruments, so I have to budget. I have one six-string and one twelve-string. An archtop isn't even on my shopping list, even though I think they're beautiful instruments.

In any event, ES-335's and 339's are semi-hollow, meaning they're thinline bodies with a block of wood running down the middle. This gives them features of both hollow and solid bodies, though I think most people find that they shade more toward solid than hollow in terms of tone and sustain.

Thanks for the info. Of course, "semi-hollow" is kind of a funny term. A little bit hollow?

[hotpepper01]

Once again, many thanks for all the comments.

I have an Epi 339 (and an older Epi Casino COUPE) at present and have had 335's in the distant past.

There is a new Epi 335 for sale locally and I am asking about the comparisons here because I don't want to invest $1,000.00+ CDN only to find that the tonal differences are very subtle. I would want to compare both guitars in my home environment for a reasonable time and the return policy at the store is not conducive to this.

I see now, that is a way other matter. A way different question then I thought it was. I rectract all of my answers. I was not talking about Epi's but 339 size guitars vs 335 size guitars. My replies were based on my own experience with Gibson guitars in those sizes. O yes I have owned a couple of Epi dots in the long past, but never an Epi 339. So I cant be of any help to you.

[Laurence Finston]

But the main difference (and the reason Les Paul built his log) is feedback susceptibility.

Could you possibly explain this? The reason is, that it doesn't really fit in with my (limited) understanding of feedback. To the best of my knowledge, feedback is when the pickups pick up the sound of the amplifier, which leads to sound coming out of the amp, which is picked up again and so on ad infinitum. The energy for this comes out of the socket, not from the guitar. I don't understand the connection to the behavior of the system consisting of the vibrating string and the body of the instrument.

I'm still at the beginning of learning about this topic.

[Laurence Finston]

However, I remember a story about how he said he could pluck a string, go out for lunch, come back and still find the string vibrating. Or something like that.

I can't confirm the actual story, but I had a Les Paul Custom from around 1980, I believe. I bought it used around 1986. I didn't actually play it very much because I moved to Germany shortly thereafter and it stayed in the US. It was very heavy and had incredible sustain. I don't know if I could have gone out to lunch and find the string still vibrating, but it would vibrate for a good long time.

[Vihar]

I can't confirm the actual story, but I had a Les Paul Custom from around 1980, I believe. I bought it used around 1986. I didn't actually play it very much because I moved to Germany shortly thereafter and it stayed in the US. It was very heavy and had incredible sustain. I don't know if I could have gone out to lunch and find the string still vibrating, but it would vibrate for a good long time.

I bet you plucked a string before leaving to Germany and when you came back, it was still vibrating.

[Vihar]

Thanks for all of the responses.

I understand that the more minute differences can not be eliminated when comparing.

This is a visual size comparison for interest...

Looks like the 335 is an inch louder.

[Gitterbug]

I have an EPI 339 Pro and a Casino Coupe. Been jonesing for a 335-sized Inspired by Gibson version, but shop testing hasn't convinced me. Somehow, the larger body tends to be more nasal. I've had a Yamaha SA-2200 and a couple of semi-hollow Ibanezes in the past. Heck, they all work! Playing electric, you have a 3-way switch and up to 7 knobs to fiddle with. I'm perfectly happy with the smaller 339 body size (and weight), although not uncomfortable with my 17" archtops either.

[John A.]

Could you possibly explain this? The reason is, that it doesn't really fit in with my (limited) understanding of feedback. To the best of my knowledge, feedback is when the pickups pick up the sound of the amplifier, which leads to sound coming out of the amp, which is picked up again and so on ad infinitum. The energy for this comes out of the socket, not from the guitar. I don't understand the connection to the behavior of the system consisting of the vibrating string and the body of the instrument.

I'm still at the beginning of learning about this topic.

The strings, pickup, and guitar are all coupled together. Feedback happens when the sound coming out of the amp causes the string and/or the pickup coil(s) to vibrate sympathetically. With a hollowbody, the relatively thin top can resonate from the sound coming out of the amplifier. There's also a mass of air inside the guitar that that can resonate from the amp sound and cause further vibration in the rest of the string/guitar/pickup system. This results in greater potential for feedback. With a solidbody, there are fewer resonating pieces in the system, hence fewer paths to generate and sustain feedback. I may not have the science of this exactly right, but anyone who has played both solidbody and hollowbody guitars can attest to hollowbodies' much greater sensitivity to feedback. It's often cited as the reason solidbodies were developed in the first place.

[Laurence Finston]

Thank you very much. I will read this carefully and think about it. I only ever play at low to moderate volumes and my amp or amps are never very close to the guitar so I rarely get feedback. The twelve-string is fairly new and I haven't played it that often yet. That's the problem with having multiple instruments; you're always neglecting most of them.

[Greco]

Looks like the 335 is an inch louder.

An excellent objective deduction!

[Greco]

I was not talking about Epi's but 339 size guitars vs 335 size guitars. My replies were based on my own experience with Gibson guitars in those sizes.

I was hoping that the brand would not make much of a difference if the comparisons of the body sizes were from the same brand.