Chadbanjo - Posted - 02/06/2012:  18:46:14

Sound like the same banjo, with different strings. 1-Nylon and 2-steel

If this isn;t a trick question, i prefer number 2. Seems to have a good balance, number 1 seems a little more on the dull side.

bodhi47 - Posted - 02/06/2012:  18:59:30

#2 because it sounds more distinct. It has nice overtones but each note sounds crisp and individual.

AlpacaLips - Posted - 02/06/2012:  19:17:26

The Reveal

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far! Over 40 people have voted and there seems to be a clear trend, so I'm going to go ahead and post what the banjos are:

41 votes for Banjo 1: This is a Gold Tone WL-250, all factory original. Whyte Ladye tone ring, Renaissance head, medium strings 7 months old. Retail $1100, I paid $750

6 votes for Banjo 2: This is a Gold Tone CC-OT, all factory original, except it has a densely rolled wad of packing foam wedged between the rod and the head under the bridge. Rolled brass tone ring, FiberSkyn head, medium strings 3 YEARS old. Retail $520, I paid $150 used (but perfect condition other than the ancient strings). I tightened it up, adjusted the bridge position, and adjusted the action to my liking.

This was an interesting experiment. I'm not surprised by the result (there's a reason the WL-250 sells for double the CC-OT). A few comments on the responses:

• 
  ZEPP didn't vote, but he did note that the CC-OT sounded echoey and speculated that it might be a recording artifact. Good ear; that is in fact how the banjo sounds, which I dislike, and which is the reason I've stuck the foam in the back. (See below for a recording with the foam removed.)


• 
  One other person commented that the CC-OT sounded echoey, but another person made the same comment about the WL-250 as a positive trait.


• 
  3 people mistook the CC-OT for a Whyte Ladye. One preferred it, one didn't prefer it, and one abstained. Not sure what to make of that.

As a couple of people noted, they're my banjos so it's really my opinion that matters, and of course you're right. I far prefer the WL-250 for all the reasons people gave: it has a more balanced sound, without over emphasizing certain frequencies; it has plunk, but doesn't sound like it's in a box (I'm not a big fan of gourds with real skin); though being somewhat bright, it also has a nice round sound. The CC-OT is just a little too bright (even muffled), and sounds to me a little like a Trinidadian steel drum when not muffled.

I will say this for the CC-OT: Though I wouldn't buy one new, it is a stellar banjo for the price I paid. It is an excellent "practice" version of the WL-250. (If it had a glossy finish instead of matte which subtly changes how the thumb slides up the neck, it would play almost exactly like the WL-250.) My Deering Goodtime on the other hand is too light and thin-necked to simulate the WL-250. When I want to head out the door with a cheaper banjo, this one won't feel weird to me. Finally, during the week I've had it, the CC-OT has taught me that Bic caps and even a Reagan 5th-string capo is no substitute for a railroad spike. I do have plans for the CC-OT though: First I have to get those strings changed so I can hear it the way it was really intended. Even after that though, I suspect a Renaissance head will get it closer to the WL-250 sound that I (and 90% of you guys) prefer.

Finally, I've attached the original two files again (more descriptively labeled this time), along with a recording of the UNmufled CC-OT so you can hear how "echoey' it really is, as well as a recording of my Deering Goodtime for comparison. (To my ears, the Goodtime is surprisingly similar to the muffled CC-OT.) If you'd like to see a version of this experiment on a much grander scale (and with better playing), spend some time at zeppmusic.com/MP3/.

So whaddya think? Any other comments? Anyone surprised?

Edited by - AlpacaLips on 02/06/2012 19:24:13

Gold Tone WL-250

Gold Tone CC-OT muffled

Gold Tone CC-OT UNmuffled

Deering Goodtime

AlpacaLips - Posted - 02/06/2012:  19:20:13

Figures two people would immediately vote for #2 before I clicked Post!

Just FYI, since I didn't explicitly say it, they both have steel strings. (In fat, according to Gold Tone, they have identical strings, but the fact that the WL-250's strings have been played a lot more and the CC-OT strings are a lot older undoubtedly has some effect on the sound.)

Paul R - Posted - 02/06/2012:  19:36:00

Interesting blind taste test, Cory. It's neat when members post these.

I played a GT WL at one of local stores recently and I was very impressed. I've really come to prefer the WL sound. I played a whole bunch of banjos in the last while and find Tubaphones too "crashy" for my taste. Last year I tried a GT with a WL ring at the same time as a bunch of banjos costing several times more, and liked the GT best.

I wondered if the recording conditions affected the sound. It seemed as if the second banjo resonated through the room more.

Thanks for the thread.

AlpacaLips - Posted - 02/06/2012:  19:55:47

Yeah, about the recording, I was very careful to record every one with exactly the same conditions: Blue Snowball USB microphone (with consistent settings) recorded to WireTap for Macintosh to AAC at high bit rate, then converted to MP3 196 kbps. (I actually could have recorded directly to MP3, but didn't realize it until after I started and I wanted to keep the same methodology for consistency. The bit rates should be high enough that it shouldn't affect the sound too much, but at worst it would have affected them all more or less the same.

My office where I recorded this is hardly a studio environment; it is possible that the frequencies emphasized by the CC-OT bounced off the walls differently than the WL-250, but I'm pretty confident that most of the reverberation is within the pot. I tell you this thing sounds like it belongs in a reggae band!

Mossie - Posted - 02/07/2012:  06:57:08

One for a relaxed tune and two for a lively tune.

banjered - Posted - 02/07/2012:  08:51:59

I much prefer the WL sound. However set up is a big deal. Hide heads seem to make both WLs and Tubes sound fuller, mellower, nicer. I wonder how the CCOT would sound with nylgut strings? I wonder too if hardwood tone rings like Romero makes could create a similar sound as the WL without the weight. Folks with wider banjo experience would better know or have opinions on some of these questions. Thanks for the posting. Banjered

JEA13 - Posted - 02/07/2012:  09:31:24

Hey I didn't get to vote before the reveal. Now I am not going to say because my opinion might be slanted by the "reveal".

wahr - Posted - 02/07/2012:  09:50:07

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mossie

One for a relaxed tune and two for a lively tune.

---

Perfect!

bublnsqueak - Posted - 02/07/2012:  10:04:21

I was one of the guys who misidentfied the WL and I abstained.

I own a California Pro WL that I find has too many overtones and can be a bit shrieky if I get rough with it. I've tried fibre skin, real skin, nylguts etc. Stuffing it calms it down a bit but it quickly sounds muffled if over stuffed. I have a love hate relationship with it. Sometimes it is magical and at others I decide to sell it.

Some like it: They often describe it as 'cheerful' or 'happy.' And then they say "Loud isn't it?"

It was the overtones that made me think no2 was the WL.

Your speculations on the thickness of the neck affecting tone make sense to me. My WL has a very thin neck, lots of overtones and nothing I do with the pot makes much difference to those frequencies. So thanks for that.

Nice playing by the way.
Paul

Sam Alfano - Posted - 02/07/2012:  11:49:05

Both sound good but No. 1 is a bit sweeter I think.

AlpacaLips - Posted - 02/07/2012:  13:15:01

quote:

---

Originally posted by JEA13

Hey I didn't get to vote before the reveal. Now I am not going to say because my opinion might be slanted by the "reveal".

---

Edited by - AlpacaLips on 02/07/2012 13:17:42

plunknplinkntwang - Posted - 02/07/2012:  15:06:49

quote:

---

Originally posted by bublnsqueak

I was one of the guys who misidentfied the WL and I abstained.



I own a California Pro WL that I find has too many overtones and can be a bit shrieky if I get rough with it. I've tried fibre skin, real skin, nylguts etc. Stuffing it calms it down a bit but it quickly sounds muffled if over stuffed. I have a love hate relationship with it. Sometimes it is magical and at others I decide to sell it.



Some like it: They often describe it as 'cheerful' or 'happy.' And then they say "Loud isn't it?"



It was the overtones that made me think no2 was the WL.



Your speculations on the thickness of the neck affecting tone make sense to me. My WL has a very thin neck, lots of overtones and nothing I do with the pot makes much difference to those frequencies. So thanks for that.



Nice playing by the way.

Paul

---

 I've a Chinese WL too - I believe that the common cause of the shrillness is that they're constructed of steel rather than brass.  Loosening the head helps dampen it quite a bit, slightly heavier bridge and nylon strings also make a difference.  Then there's always the piece of stuffing option too. 

I'm not sure that the neck has a great deal of influence on overtones.  My homemade fretless neck is cherry 1&3/8" wide by 1" deep at the nut, and not at all slim.  The overtones are the same as they were with the factory neck.

rgds

Chris

banjoholic - Posted - 02/07/2012:  16:13:13

Since the WL has the preferred sound when you're wanting something bright, I'd probably throw some nylguts on the cc-ot to have another tonal palate to work with. 

banjered - Posted - 02/07/2012:  16:56:52

I used to think that WLs were all horrible sounding, overtones galore, like rolling a marble around in a tin garbage can. But I have heard some of the best sounding banjos ever at our local jam, two WLs, one a 12" with a skin head and the other an 11"cher with a plastic head and BOTH sound really nice and similar which surprises me with the plastic head. I've read that Rickard's WL rings are the best, perhaps Paul you could put one of his rings in your banjo and get back to all of us. Try playing your banjo off your right thigh, the belly baffle can really kill the tone of some banjos. Banjered

bublnsqueak - Posted - 02/08/2012:  01:45:50

Thanks for your input: I guess there is more to learn before I get this WL sounding the way I want. I'll try making some heavier bridges soon.

The sound is not what I want but something tells me that I will regret selling this banjo (BAS I suppose).

If money, time etc were not a factor I think I would opt for something with a Dobson Donut tone ring, so I may be barking up the wrong tree altogether in terms of my preferences. Anybody in the UK fancy a working out a deal?

Helpful thread, don't mean to hijack. Thanks
Paul

gary schumann - Posted - 02/08/2012:  02:44:05

the #2 banjo sounds like my m,m cascade

Hairymare - Posted - 02/08/2012:  05:47:46

I also chose number 1 before reading the reveal. I described it in my mind as a little earthier sounding. Lovely playing.

Bohonkie - Posted - 02/08/2012:  11:10:56

Number one. Richer, fuller, but the tune was played just a bit differently on this one.

sandyhookflash - Posted - 02/08/2012:  11:59:07

#2.  Banjo #1 sounds has just a tad more sustain, but #2 seems to show the intricacies of your playing with its more stacatto sound.  JL

Chip Booth - Posted - 02/08/2012:  12:58:33

I have a Whyte Layde conversion in the mail right now, looking forward to seeing how it compares to a Tubaphone.  This test confirms that I enjoy the sound of many recorded samples of WL banjos.

Rosie Pop - Posted - 02/08/2012:  14:12:56

They sound very much alike.  I would have to go with # 1.  Nice!

dbieger - Posted - 02/08/2012:  16:06:36

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlpacaLips

Attached are two samples of me playing two banjos I own. I'm curious to know which sound you prefer. Please reply indicating which sample you like. If you like, please describe why you chose the one you did.

I'd like to get responses without telling you what the banjos are first. (If you're curious you can probably figure it out by looking at my profile, but PLEASE VOTE FIRST, so as not to influence your objective opinion.)

Later I'll post what the banjos are. Again, I'd like objective opinions, so please do not post guesses!

Thanks!

---

dbieger - Posted - 02/08/2012:  16:07:58

I like #1 for its deeper tone. What kind of a Banjo is it?

AlpacaLips - Posted - 02/08/2012:  17:24:16

Dan, It's Gold Tone WL-250. See second post on page 3 of the thread for details.

jeffmiller - Posted - 02/08/2012:  19:42:59

Both are on the bright side I like 2 - less overtones

agitator - Posted - 02/08/2012:  20:20:34

i have to say the 1st one it has a warmer sound which i like now anyway what kind is it?

DrBobNeon - Posted - 02/09/2012:  04:55:24

I must be tone deaf. The first MP3 was nice, but the start of the tone at the beginning of the seconed MP3 was higher, and therefore more crisp. Were they on the same banjo?

wickerpicker - Posted - 02/09/2012:  08:39:13

#1 (goodtime?)

captbanjo - Posted - 02/09/2012:  11:20:05

No. 1.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlpacaLips

Attached are two samples of me playing two banjos I own. I'm curious to know which sound you prefer. Please reply indicating which sample you like. If you like, please describe why you chose the one you did.

I'd like to get responses without telling you what the banjos are first. (If you're curious you can probably figure it out by looking at my profile, but PLEASE VOTE FIRST, so as not to influence your objective opinion.)

Later I'll post what the banjos are. Again, I'd like objective opinions, so please do not post guesses!

Thanks!

---

pickinchik - Posted - 02/09/2012:  20:12:49

Hey Cory - popped in and you've got a cool thing goin' here.  

I picked number (1) before I ever read any posts past your OP.  Of course, I've owned both banjos and could tell, but you did a great job of getting them to sound really close there.  Sound (1) just DOES IT for me for sure.  It's like I said to you earlier when we were talking about it, after playing my WL a bit then picking up the CC-OT there was a world of diff IMO.  And there should be really.  

One thing I would have wanted you to discuss in your reveal would be your "FEEL" between the 2.  I have my own opinion of course, but please share with us the playability and "FEEL" of each if you don't mind.  To me the WL fretboard is butter and playing is just so much easier for lack of a better word I guess.

Oh and great playing too! 

Mandy

CerescoShane - Posted - 02/09/2012:  20:54:11

#1 sounded mellow and smooth. I preferred this over the more sharp sounding #2.

Shane

AlpacaLips - Posted - 02/09/2012:  22:12:32

quote:

---

Originally posted by pickinchik

Hey Cory - popped in and you've got a cool thing goin' here.  

I picked number (1) before I ever read any posts past your OP.  Of course, I've owned both banjos and could tell, but you did a great job of getting them to sound really close there.  Sound (1) just DOES IT for me for sure.  It's like I said to you earlier when we were talking about it, after playing my WL a bit then picking up the CC-OT there was a world of diff IMO.  And there should be really.  

One thing I would have wanted you to discuss in your reveal would be your "FEEL" between the 2.  I have my own opinion of course, but please share with us the playability and "FEEL" of each if you don't mind.  To me the WL fretboard is butter and playing is just so much easier for lack of a better word I guess.

Oh and great playing too! 

Mandy

---

Hey Mandy, glad to hear you survived your move.

In my earlier description I mentioned that the OT is a good simulator of the feel of the WL (except for the finish of the back of the neck, which is matte instead of glossy). I stand by that, but I perhaps overstated it a bit. You're right, the WL is a much easier-playing banjo; that is to say, it takes a heavier hand on the OT to get it to make music. Tonight I played the OT for about half an hour, then picked up the WL, and I could barely play it because I had to really back off. It takes a much lighter touch. I don't really understand why; I've adjusted their actions to be similar, and they theoretically are supposed to have the same strings. The WL strings feel thinner to me. They're both overdue for a string change so I'll change them out with the same kind of strings and see what happens.

For those just joining the show, Banjo #1 is a Gold Tone WL-250, while Banjo #2 is a Gold Tone CC-OT.

Dave_RB75 - Posted - 02/13/2012:  15:20:25

quote: I like No.1- warmer, richer tone to me.  Both are plenty bright and crisp.

---

Originally posted by AlpacaLips

Attached are two samples of me playing two banjos I own. I'm curious to know which sound you prefer. Please reply indicating which sample you like. If you like, please describe why you chose the one you did.

I'd like to get responses without telling you what the banjos are first. (If you're curious you can probably figure it out by looking at my profile, but PLEASE VOTE FIRST, so as not to influence your objective opinion.)

Later I'll post what the banjos are. Again, I'd like objective opinions, so please do not post guesses!

Thanks!

---

Kay Annable - Posted - 02/13/2012:  19:06:15

#2 has a pleasant lighter sound.

IBBO - Posted - 02/13/2012:  21:11:33

I prefer #1 - sounds more 'old fashioned'! second one is a lot brighter but I prefer the plunkier one!

Prestopick - Posted - 02/13/2012:  21:28:18

I think I agree with the general consensus: #1 is the more pleasant sound for that style. If you were playing bluegrass, I might go the other way, though.

Bellavoce - Posted - 02/13/2012:  21:30:54

Liked #1 without reading anything; still like it now. Although I like the Deering better. Greg Deering is a friend but I'm not being paid to say this...

Harpist - Posted - 02/14/2012:  00:59:33

Definitely the first. I like the more mellow/hollow/woody sound rather than the thin/tinny/twangy. A case of plunky versus plinky. Plunky wins

DrJVD - Posted - 02/14/2012:  04:27:00

I'll say number one......



Probably it is a Older Gibson....2 is probably a Deering.



This is from a retired dentist who has probably lost his high note nerve receptors



from too much high speed drilling!

I forgot to add:  HAPPY VALENTINE"S DAY    to all!

Give your honey a squeeze for me!

Edited by - DrJVD on 02/14/2012 04:32:17

Steve Haynie - Posted - 02/14/2012:  06:03:33

# 1 sounds more pleasing for the type of music played in the samples.

dspaeth218 - Posted - 02/14/2012:  09:33:23

I like #2. The sample takes me to real, calf-skin heads and open-back, old-time, high lonesome sound. The kind I'd travel 500 miles to sit in with.

ewbradshaw - Posted - 02/14/2012:  13:54:36

Number 2 for me. Brighter sound, fuller sound. Number 1 is too muddled.

majikgator - Posted - 02/14/2012:  14:16:54

i guess it would depend on the setting you are playing in as a solo banjo i prefer #1. #2 would probably not step on the toes of other players as much because it is more precise. If it were the only banjo i could have i would pick #1. Both sound nice though.

OK i went back and saw that you alrady spilled the beans on which was what, makes sense, WL250 so far is my favorite Gold Tone banjo but heck those CC OTs are really cheap and the price of  WL250 is just  a liitle too close to getting a low end American banjo and i just have a thing about that myself, plus from what i have heard the American banjos just sound better, it's all very personal though. i still am hanging on to my Gold Tone CB 100 although ii rarely play it i finally have it tweaked to where i don;t have to stuff it and it has a pretty good sound, i paid $400 for my CB 100 with a heavily padded Gold Tone gig bag so considering not a bad deal. My Ramsey didn't cost much more than your WL250 though and i wouldn't trade it for the world, just love it.

You are getting a nice sound from both those banjos and i would credit that to your playing which is more important than the kind of banjo you play.

Edited by - majikgator on 02/14/2012 14:36:21

rfreeze - Posted - 02/15/2012:  12:02:47

Rich freeze here. Couldn't listen to the second mp3. When I click on it a little yellow hand comes up. I can't figure how to play it number 2.
Rich freeze

victor furtado - Posted - 02/15/2012:  18:54:36

they are both good but for me definitely 1#

shannonhearne - Posted - 02/16/2012:  14:09:46

# 1.

(Both sound food.)

rfreeze - Posted - 02/17/2012:  09:15:05

I defently liks the sound of number 1. But then I'm an owner of a Gold Tone OB 250+.
Rich Freeze