Sadowsky Jim Hall / Heritage Sweet 16

[salvog]

Hello,...I must decide in a hurry which between these two instruments i must buy.

Is There someone that can gives me some councils please? I’m much confusing.

I know are optimal all two, but I must choose of one of these!

WHICH!

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by salvog

Hello,...I must decide in a hurry which between these two instruments i must buy.

Is There someone that can gives me some councils please? I’m much confusing.

I know are optimal all two, but I must choose of one of these!

WHICH!

If you would like some very obvious but sage advice, I would council you to buy to one YOU like best . . . not the one that comes with the best recommendation. However, I seem to detect an accent in your post? Are you from outside the US and can not sample each? If that is the case, then I will tell you that the Sweet 16 is hands down a better guitar. However, I must offer the disclaimer that I am affiliated with Heritage. But, my opinon would be the same even if I was not. I believe that you will also find the Sweetie to be more expensive . . . if cost is a consideration, you may want to keep that in mind.

[PTChristopher]

>>> are optimal all two,

Definitely, they are both superb designs and wonderfully built.

In summary (and since you are Italian):

The Sweet 16 is the Violante Placido of 16" achtops, and the Jim Hall is the Monica Bellucci of 16" archtops.

Or to be more detailed:

The Sweet 16 has a 25 1/2" scale and 1 11/16 nut width, while the Jim Hall has a 24 3/4" scale and 1 3/4" nut width.

Both are VERY playable guitars, but you may prefer the scale and nut width of one vs. the other.

I do not own either one, but have played them both, so in my opinion:

The Sweet 16 has a bit more character to the sound in my opinion. The top is solid spruce and while it is not a super-thin acoustic carved top, it does have more complexity in the high end than the Jim Hall.

The Hall is really the arguably modern idea of the "jazz box sound" for many. Super smooth, very predictable, hollow-body character but with very good feedback resistance, even sustain, and very even response (volume and harmonic content) all over the fingerboard.

So think about the nut width, then also consider if you want the touch more character of the Sweet 16 sound, or the super-even response of the Hall.

This is all my opinion, others may have far more useful info for you.

Chris

[John Link]

Originally Posted by salvog

Hello,...I must decide in a hurry which between these two instruments i must buy.

Is There someone that can gives me some councils please? I’m much confusing.

I know are optimal all two, but I must choose of one of these!

WHICH!

I'd go with the Heritage. I like the 25.5" scale length of the Sweet 16 over the 24 3/4" of the Sadowsky. The Heritage width at the nut is 1 11/16 vs. the Jim Hall is 1 3/4" which is better for my hand. The body on the Sweet 16 is thinner which I prefer and finallly, having owned plenty of laminated guitars I would like to finally have a carved top instrument.

[Jim Soloway]

They're both fine guitars but they are also very different in nature. The Sweet 16 is essentially an amplified acoustic archtop while the Sadowsky is more of a true electric guitar.

With solid woods and a 25.5" scale length, the upsides of the Sweet 16 are a complex tone with a lot of snap. The down side is that the solid woods also make it more feedback prone and more difficult to play at louder volume. Combined with the longer scale length they also make it more difficult to get that classic smokey jazz tone that a lot of players like.

With the 24.75" scale length and the laminate construction, the Sadowsky can handle more volume without feedback. It's also likely to be a lot more rugged over the long run and the shorter scale length reduces tension making it a bit easier to play. Tonally, it cops the classic smokey jazz tone perfectly but it will never have the acoustic presence of the Sweet 16.

Now the question becomes which of these descriptions fits your needs better? If there is a clear answer to that question, then I would say that's the one to get.

[NSJ]

I haven't played a Sweet 16, but I've heard only good things about em.

My thinking is that a jazz box with a pickup--particularly a set-in pickup-- is really meant to be, first and foremost, an ELECTRIC guitar, as played with an amp. And the natural acoustic qualities are useful insofar as they contribute to the electric tone.

There is a reason why many people have played plywood guitars (ES-350, ES-175s, etc, Barney, Joe, Jimmy, et al)---they are ELECTRIC guitars and are meant to be heard as such.

Thus, my Sadowsky JH is about as good as an electric guitar as I've ever owned. So much so, I sold a bunch of other guitars. Really well balanced. Sadowsky and Hall even A/Bed two early beta models, one with the current plywood settings, the other with the carved spruce top.

They concluded, that WHEN PLAYED through an AMP, the plywood won, hands down. Much less muddiness.

[salvog]

Yes i'm italian, as they have said some of you, I do not have the possibility to try these instrument, I always have seen them on "youtube", and have read many book reviews, but I do not succeed to decide to me. Tomorrow I must demand it in USA and still I have not decided.

[Bill C]

I've not played a Sweet 16, but I'd add that the JH's I've played have - imo - had a very nice acoustic tone as well as a fine "jazz box" electric sound.

[salvog]

the length of the scale is not a problem for me, rather, the fact is curious that the Hall is in laminated, even if technically has a good jazz sound

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by salvog

Yes i'm italian, as they have said some of you, I do not have the possibility to try these instrument, I always have seen them on "youtube", and have read many book reviews, but I do not succeed to decide to me. Tomorrow I must demand it in USA and still I have not decided.

What will you use the guitar for? Will it be strictly at home hobby usage? Small combo jazz settings (low volume)? Or are you part of a working jazz group with drums, horns etc.? As mentioned here by others, if you need to project with volume, you will more than likely be better off with the Sadowsky. Also, there are options on the Sweet 16 for either a single mounted neck pup, 2 mounted neck and bridge pups or a floating pup, attached to the pick guard. The option with the floating pick up attached to the pick guard will have an X braced top. The acoustical performance of this version is a night and day difference from the Sadowsky, with the Sweetie being far superior in tone. However, at moderately loud volumes through an amp . . . you will struggle to control the feed back. On the Sweetie with mounted pups (routed top) the top is left a little thicker for added support and it is parallel braced. Different tone, better control of feed back . . but, feed back will still be more of an issue that on a laminate top such as the Sadowsky. If you have narrowed you choice down to either of these 2 guitars, then your choice really should be based upon your needs from the guitar . . . as stated above.

in la bocca al lupo, mi amico!!

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by salvog

the length of the scale is not a problem for me, rather, the fact is curious that the Hall is in laminated, even if technically has a good jazz sound

As others have said, often, when a guitar's main function is to be played amplified, a laminate is more desirable.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Saying the Jim Hall model is better than the Sweet 16 is like saying steak is better than salmon.

[pingu]

Don't worry ......
Both guitars a really good

[salvog]

Patrick has reason in effects I plays for hobby after the job, and i do not happen to me to play to high volumes much, therefore the choice would be for S 16. However, I do not know why, but I feel to choose the Jim Hall.

[salvog]

Saying the Jim Hall model is better than the Sweet 16 is like saying steak is better than salmon.

Ah AH AH.... Good, Big Daddy, this is a beautiful comparison,

[salvog]

Thoughts that I am not much young person I'm 47, nevertheless in this field the doubts never do not lack.

[salvog]

excused, a technical question in which way can i answer directly to everyone of you in this forum?

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by salvog

Patrick has reason in effects I plays for hobby after the job, and i do not happen to me to play to high volumes much, therefore the choice would be for S 16. However, I do not know why, but I feel to choose the Jim Hall.

Then, that should be your choice. Follow your own instincts. Both are great guitars.

[salvog]

Thank you Patrick, i'm sure, it will be right!

[kris]

I think Sadowsky Hall model is more comfortable to play.
laminate top --very good.You will not have problem with it.
Think about J. Hall -he use this guitar.He is important guitarist in history of jazz.

[Synchro]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

Saying the Jim Hall model is better than the Sweet 16 is like saying steak is better than salmon.

Good analogy. I've tried a lot of different Jazz guitars and my tastes run towards the Sadowsky, mostly because I think it would be more feedback resistant on a gig. There are two very distinct schools of thought regarding solid vs laminate and floating vs cut-in pickups. Both choices are valid IMO but I've chosen laminate for my needs. No big deal either way.

[Jazz_175]

Originally Posted by salvog

....rather, the fact is curious that the Hall is in laminated, even if technically has a good jazz sound

Don't be misled by the idea that only solid wood guitars should have a "good jazz sound".
The main jazz guitar of Metheny (Gibson or Ibanez) is laminated.
I think I would go for the Sadowsky.
Basically because I want a guitar to be used in a context of a jazz group with drummer, bass etc...
But, if you say you just want the guitar to be used at home, it might be different.

A few years ago I bought a solid wood jazz archtop made by a local luthier.
I paied 3500 euros. It has a floating pickup.
I still have that guitar, but I often regret having bought that instrument and I find myself saying:" Wish I had used all that money in a different way..."
I am always struggling with feedback problems. Also at home lots of feedback.

Others might think differently......
Greetings from another Italian.

[Jazz_175]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

Saying the Jim Hall model is better than the Sweet 16 is like saying steak is better than salmon.

Since you cited steak and salmon, I want to use another analogy to describe the amplified sound of an acoustic archtop.
When I use my 3500 euros acoustic-archtop with floating pickups and plug it into the amp I say:
What kind of sound is this?
Acoustic or electric?
It's like eating some food and you say" Is this meat or fish? steak or salmon?"

I've come to the conclusion I prefer the warm electric sound of a laminated guitar like a 175 or a 335.

[salvog]

wow Jazz 175....It's very important that you have said,
often many guitarists do not like the laminated. But i think it's no right

[salvog]

"What kind of sound is this?
Acoustic or electric?"

Yes it's true!!

[salvog]

The famous acoustic guitar generally don't have a pickup.

[salvog]

Sorry,...Now i must go.

Bye... Jazz 175

[Synchro]

Originally Posted by Jazz_175

Don't be misled by the idea that only solid wood guitars should have a "good jazz sound".
The main jazz guitar of Metheny (Gibson or Ibanez) is laminated.
I think I would go for the Sadowsky.
Basically because I want a guitar to be used in a context of a jazz group with drummer, bass etc...
But, if you say you just want the guitar to be used at home, it might be different.

A few years ago I bought a solid wood jazz archtop made by a local luthier.
I paied 3500 euros. It has a floating pickup.
I still have that guitar, but I often regret having bought that instrument and I find myself saying:" Wish I had used all that money in a different way..."
I am always struggling with feedback problems. Also at home lots of feedback.

Others might think differently......
Greetings from another Italian.

A big +1 to all of this. The people that told me that I needed a solid wood guitar with a floating pickup tended to be music store employees; people that would benefit directly if I followed their advice. More to the point, none of these people actually were playing gigs with the type of guitar they suggested to me.

I found it revealing to learn that the L-5 CES was braced differently than the L-5 C. The guitars looked similar but the differences under the surface were aimed towards reducing acoustic performance and increasing feedback resistance. A friend owns a beautiful Super 400 CES which is no great shakes acoustically . . . but it is usable.

It's always been my contention that I don't really know a guitar (or amp) until I've used it on a gig. The music store "expert" that advises a high-end archtop with plenty of acoustic performance has an interest in moving high-end gear and probably knows or cares not about the feedback problem.

Were I a guitarist of greater stature and greater wealth I would probably buy a guitar quite similar to a Sweet 16 or an acoustic L-5 CT with a floating pickup just for around the house or perhaps recording. (Note that I said "perhaps".) For gigs I'd use something very similar to the Sadowsky.

[mattymel]

steak to salmon is a good analogy.

all the same, id take the Sadowsky. not a heritage fan.

[sadowsky]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

Saying the Jim Hall model is better than the Sweet 16 is like saying steak is better than salmon.

But steak IS better than salmon!

Roger