Gibson 336 V 339

Hootsmon

one is made like the traditional 335 ( the 339) and the other is "tonally carved"  the cs 336

What's the difference here? and difference in sound and amplified performance?

Thanks guys 

Whitecat

The 336 is all-solid woods, with a one-piece mahogany back. The 339 is made from laminates - and the back is the same as the top (maple/poplar/maple sandwich). 

The difference is it tends to sound a little more like a solid body guitar - and some feel it is less feedback-resistant as well. Bill Collings was a big proponent of laminated woods for high stage volumes. 

I love how 336s sound but it’s tough to find one with a non-slim neck carve...

Hootsmon

Whitecat said:

The 336 is all-solid woods, with a one-piece mahogany back. The 339 is made from laminates - and the back is the same as the top (maple/poplar/maple sandwich). 

The difference is it tends to sound a little more like a solid body guitar - and some feel it is less feedback-resistant as well. Bill Collings was a big proponent of laminated woods for high stage volumes. 

I love how 336s sound but it’s tough to find one with a non-slim neck carve...

Which one?

stickyfiddle

The 336 is more solid body-like, both in construction and tone. 

If you imagine a line from LP to ES335, the CS 336 sits about one third of the way along (nearer the LP), and the 339 sits another third along (nearer the 335j). 

FWIW I’ve never played a 339 I liked as much as my 336.

Nitefly

Hoots, the 336 has its back and sides carved from a single piece of mahogany, where the 339 is made like a 335, with separate back and sides made from laminate.

Hootsmon

the laminate 339 is more suited though to stage volumes?

crunchman

The 339 still doesn't sound like a 335.  I think the centre block is proportionally a much bigger part of the body.

To me, the ES Les Paul sounds more hollow than the 339.  It's a different body style, but there is more air in it.  It doesn't have as much wood in the centre block.  I say this having owned a 339 in the past, and owning an ES Les Paul now.

stickyfiddle

hootsmon said:

the laminate 339 is more suited though to stage volumes?

I wold guess the 336 is more feedback-resistant, of the two, but neither are an issue. 

I've gigged my 336 with a wound-up Rat pedal for main dirty sound  and never had any issues.

Whitecat

hootsmon said:

Whitecat said:

The 336 is all-solid woods, with a one-piece mahogany back. The 339 is made from laminates - and the back is the same as the top (maple/poplar/maple sandwich). 

The difference is it tends to sound a little more like a solid body guitar - and some feel it is less feedback-resistant as well. Bill Collings was a big proponent of laminated woods for high stage volumes. 

I love how 336s sound but it’s tough to find one with a non-slim neck carve...

Which one?

Sorry, the 336 is more akin to a solid. 

Tat2dstesh

I've read in some places that the midtown is closer to the 336 but with a flat top. Not sure myself as I've never played or owned a 336. Got a midtown which is an amazing guitar and possibly my favourite I own. 

Hootsmon

It is said (by the people wot know shit) that the 335 is perhaps Gibson's most versatile guitar

Does the 336 have this same level of versatility ya think?

CloudNine

I love 335's, but I do think this 'versatility' thing is way overstated. The amplified sound is very very similar to an LP imo. I don't think one is particularly more versatile than the other. I actually think there is too much overlap to need both.

People see some F Holes, and it's like 'oooh, it does jazz as well', which it will of course, but not really any differently than an LP does. But the point is, a semi does not get you anywhere near a hollowbody.

If you have an LP already, I would say get a 330.

Blueingreen

I have one of each.

Sounds

The main sonic difference is that the 336 is a little tighter, more focused and less 'airy' than the 339.  But it's subtle: for most purposes the guitars cover the same territory.  I agree with posters saying the 339 is nearer a 335 and the 336 is nearer a Les Paul but both are in between.

Playability

Even though I have the slimmer 60s neck on my 339, the neck on the 336 is slimmer still.  The 339 came with 6105-type "narrow jumbo" frets, the 336 with more typical medium jumbos, ie a little wider and shallower.  I preferred the neck on the 336 but preferred the fretwire on the 339 and for that reason the 339 was a better playing guitar for me "out of the box".  I've since refretted the 336 with 6100 frets, a big improvement for me.

Looks

The 336 was a more expensive guitar and that shows is in the looks.  Mine's a Vintage Sunburst, beautiful figured top.  The 339, a light caramel burst, is still a nice looking guitar and I've have a lot of compliments on how it looks at gigs, but it's a bit of a plain Jane alongside the 336.

Fit and finish

I thought both guitars had issues they shouldn't have had for guitars in their price range.  The 339 had a dry fretboard, some roughness in the nibs, some initial tuning issues that needed fixed.  No such obvious problems with the 336, but one of the pickups died on me: admittedly this was after I'd owned the guitar for a couple of years, but the luthier that fixed the pickup said the problem was down to poor QC in the factory.

None of these prevented either guitar from being great at what matters: they play, sound and look wonderful.  But only after taking the time and paying the money to fix issues the guitars should not have had.

One thing I would add is that the 336 was originally bought as a better looking replacement for the 339, but several year's later I still have the 339: I'm just too fond of it to sell it.   In fact it's the one I take to gigs (if I'm not bringing a Strat).  Other than looks the differences between the guitars is wafer thin, so I figure I may as well take the less valuable one.

DB1

CloudNine said:

I love 335's, but I do think this 'versatility' thing is way overstated. The amplified sound is very very similar to an LP imo. I don't think one is particularly more versatile than the other. I actually think there is too much overlap to need both.

People see some F Holes, and it's like 'oooh, it does jazz as well', which it will of course, but not really any differently than an LP does. But the point is, a semi does not get you anywhere near a hollowbody.

If you have an LP already, I would say get a 330.

I'd pretty much agree with that - for jazz, bigger, deeper bodies are always going to give you that depth and mellow tone as standard. 335's are always going to be thinnner, obviously. I had a few enquiries from elsewhere when I was selling my 335 Larry Carlton recently, from people that wanted a 'jazz' guitar, and gave them the same sort of opinion that you gave. In saying that, I think that bit of depth makes it 'jazzier' than an LP, but just my opinion. 

I advised them (not that I know anything, but they did ask!) to look at a 330 if they wanted that shape, not only for the warmth of p90 tone (think Grant Green) but also, particularly if they were sitting down and playing, it's a bit better balanced, as it's hollow and lighter at the body. 

stickyfiddle

If by "verstaile" you mean "you can play 3 hours in numerous styles without changing guitar" then the 336 is absolutely versatile, particularly if you have a couple of good pedals and know how to get the most from the vol/tone controls.

It's not my most-played in the last year or so, but I'm quite sure it's the guitar I'd save from a fire. 

Philly_Q

stickyfiddle said:

If by "verstaile" you mean "you can play 3 hours in numerous styles without changing guitar" then the 336 is absolutely versatile, particularly if you have a couple of good pedals and know how to get the most from the vol/tone controls. 

It's not as heavy as an LP, either.

Blueingreen

CloudNine said:

I love 335's, but I do think this 'versatility' thing is way overstated. The amplified sound is very very similar to an LP imo. I don't think one is particularly more versatile than the other. I actually think there is too much overlap to need both.

People see some F Holes, and it's like 'oooh, it does jazz as well', which it will of course, but not really any differently than an LP does. But the point is, a semi does not get you anywhere near a hollowbody.

If you have an LP already, I would say get a 330.

I agree versatility is overstated.  I often make last minute decisions whether to take a Strat or my 339 to a gig.  Very different guitars, but with a bit of tweaking either can do the job.

But for similar reasons I think the 339 can get as close to a 330 as I'll ever need it to get (and both my current bands are jazz bands, albeit playing very different styles of jazz).  Since I hugely prefer the smaller size that makes the 339 a much better option for me personally. YMMV etc.

DB1

The ES-275 sounds like a good alternative as well. Hollow bodied and smaller sized (15 inch?) but with H/Bs (or P90's). ,  I had the H/B version but would like to try the P90 version, as an even lighter alternative to the ES-330

TimmyO

The CS-336 is the guitar model I've always had the biggest raging horn for but never owned. Whenever I've come across one I've always been skint.

I should really look in to sorting this out... 

dwheeldo

I'll echo what @Blueingreen said. Out of the box, my 339 was slightly rough around the edges and needed quite a bit of setup work. It had a dry fretboard, a weird rattle in the neck pickup cavity, a stiff truss rod (oo-er) and the usual high cut Gibson nut.

So I decided the best solution was to drop it, break the neck and start again. Plays like a dream since I had that (and the other issues above) fixed.

DougCoda

Just in case anyone has any money left after the R8 blowout ..We've a few Custom Ordered Made 2 measure CS336's going in the Black Friday sale...we're starting it from Sunday and running for a week rather than just for a day as that was absolute mayhem..