Semihollow body vrs chambered body

[Revelation]

I am interested in knowing the pros and cons of each when comparing the two against each other. Carvin for instance had the chambered guitar while Gibson and Ibanez has the semi hollow body design.

Thanks

[M-ster]

Carvin's Holdsworth models are a semi-hollow design, too, btw.

[helios]

Originally Posted by Revelation

I am interested in knowing the pros and cons of each when comparing the two against each other. Carvin for instance had the chambered guitar while Gibson and Ibanez has the semi hollow body design.

Thanks

I have a semi-hollow Yamaha SA-2200 (ES-335 clone) with Lindy Fralin pickups. It got better tone to my ears (and other individual's ears) than the Carvin SH550 and Holdsworth HF2 guitars I owned and compared it to. I was never a huge fan of Carvin pickups, and this was I'm sure a contributing factor to my prefering the tones of the SA2200, to either of the two Carvins. Both Carvins had superior workmanship and playability to the SA2200 however. If I owned another Carvin, I'd get rid of the pickups.

[Revelation]

Everyone's taste in guitars is different. My questions for an engineering standpoint, the pros and cons of semi hollow body vrs chambered guitar.

[lpdeluxe]

Having played and evaluated an SH550 and as the owner of an ES-335, I'd say that the two methods of construction are equally useful. The chambered style uses more wood, but is robust and can be very attractive. The hollow construction may require more care in handling, but is otherwise well engineered. The technology of each is mature: there aren't many new breakthroughs expected in either style, other than the very likely incorporation of new materials as wood sources disappear (this may lead instead to a demise of the traditional guitar, but I'm not going to predict the future).

Subjectively, if one sounds better to you than the other, go for it. I personally love my 335, but listening to a friend play his 550 makes me think I could be happy with one of those, too. I'm agnostic when it comes to construction: if a guitar feels good and sounds good, I am apathetic about whether it was made with laminates or solid woods or by constructing a hollow body with jigs and fixtures or routing out a chunk of wood with a CNC router. I'm the one making the music, in my view.

[Revelation]

Originally Posted by lpdeluxe

Having played and evaluated an SH550 and as the owner of an ES-335, I'd say that the two methods of construction are equally useful. The chambered style uses more wood, but is robust and can be very attractive. The hollow construction may require more care in handling, but is otherwise well engineered. The technology of each is mature: there aren't many new breakthroughs expected in either style, other than the very likely incorporation of new materials as wood sources disappear (this may lead instead to a demise of the traditional guitar, but I'm not going to predict the future).

Subjectively, if one sounds better to you than the other, go for it. I personally love my 335, but listening to a friend play his 550 makes me think I could be happy with one of those, too. I'm agnostic when it comes to construction: if a guitar feels good and sounds good, I am apathetic about whether it was made with laminates or solid woods or by constructing a hollow body with jigs and fixtures or routing out a chunk of wood with a CNC router. I'm the one making the music, in my view.

Did you find one had more issues with feedback over the other. Does semi hollow body have more of an acoustic sound over chambered or is the difference really on the size of the guitar body?

[lpdeluxe]

Originally Posted by Revelation

Did you find one had more issues with feedback over the other. Does semi hollow body have more of an acoustic sound over chambered or is the difference really on the size of the guitar body?

Never an issue with feedback, but I don't play really loudly. I'm sure that I would have experienced it if it were prone to do so, since I play in a wide variety of venues with a wide variety of amplification. This in comparison to a Gretsch Chet Atkins Country Gentleman I had, which would easily feed back, even playing outdoors through a low-powered amp.

As to whether one sounds more "acoustic" than the other, the answer is that each one is an electric guitar and sounds like one. I think that "acoustic sound" comes down to playing style rather than the particular tool the player is using.

I don't play acoustic (other than the occasional gig on Dobro), and haven't for at least 15 years. I'm much more interested in how an instrument responds as an amplified guitar. That said, the Carvin and the Gibson sound very different from each other. The Carvin is capable of a chimier sound (well-designed coil splitting) and is brighter overall. The Gibson is more mid-rangey, which suits my style better.

Listening to a friend play the Carvin through my Fender Jazzmaster Ultralight, he achieved a great classic "jazz" tone as well as more aggressive sounds without switching channels on the amp. He has a rare Martin EM18 solid body with DiMarzio pickups and a coil splitter, and was able to get closer to a Tele sound with it than with the 550. I didn't have my 335 along, so can't comment on it (I was playing bass). It's interesting, by the way, what an different impression of sound and tone one gets from listening to someone else play -- but that's another story.