The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 26 to 41 of 41
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    The canard (quack) that an old archtop needs to be played to "wake" it up is true. Perhaps you just need to play it a lot.

    Try a set of Martin Tony Rice 13-56 Monels on them.

    I am pretty sure that the Thomastik-Infeld AC113 Plectrum are roundwounds. The AC111 set is the one with flatwounds and one roundwound E2. The AC112 has one flatwound G3 with the rest being rounds.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Jabberwocky
    Tfaux, at the risk of my sounding stupid, I hope that you know that an acoustic archtop does not sound like nor have the acoustic response of a flat-top like a D-18.

    I am not sure if you are saying there is a problem with the response of your 1935 Epiphone Triumph because it does not sound like your friend's D-18. Of course, they don't.

    Please correct me if I am wrong...
    Since you invited correction...

    The D18 I mentioned was a good sounding mid-50s instrument that my friend took to Dana Bourgeois for the scalloping, and as I said, the transformation was remarkable. It went from being good to being just about as good as any D18 I've ever played (quite a few.)

    But my question wasn't about making the Epi sound like a 1950s D18, rather, it was about making it sound more like a 1930s Epiphone Triumph. I've been playing guitar seriously for more decades than I like to admit, and am very familiar with the sound of these old birds. As I said in the original post, this instrument doesn't sound the way it should. And as I noted earlier, on reading Steve's note, I'm thinking that the slight opening at the heel might indicate some vibration loss.

    I'll leave it at that.

    Again, thanks all for the concrete suggestions!

    Tom
    Last edited by tfaux; 05-29-2019 at 09:31 AM.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by tfaux
    But my question wasn't about making the Epi sound like a 1950s D18, rather, it was about making it sound more like a 1930s Epiphone Triumph. I've been playing guitar seriously for more decades than I like to admit, and am very familiar with the sound of these old birds. As I said in the original post, this instrument doesn't sound the way it should. And as I noted earlier, on reading Steve's note, I'm thinking that the slight opening at the heel might indicate some vibration loss.
    I don't believe that archtops, especially not a great vintage Epi like yours, ever suffer from being too heavily braced. That's a problem unique to flat tops. It's quite the opposite on archtops, because you occasionally see sunken tops. It's a very different construction and physics problem: one puts pressure on the top downward, the other can "pull" on the top (especially the bridge).

    I can't speak to the neck set issue, but I can say that "set up" is far more than merely the action at the 12th fret. I keep trying to put heaver strings on one of my guitars and it never feels right, and it's because, I finally realize, the nut slots are not V'd, so the thicker heavier strings sit above where they should. Consequently the action on the lower frets is uncomfortably high, even though the its fine by the 12th fret. Especially given that a 1935 Epi doesn't have an adjustable truss rod, things like proper nut slot profile and even fret dressing have a lot of impact. If all of that stuff is proper, then sure, a neck set may be in order.

    That said, you've got a piece of history, and I would say most luthiers are not properly acquainted with the proper function and set up of an ACOUSTIC archtop. Years ago, I took mine to one of Los Angeles' "best", and the guy tells me they do Lee Rittenour's guitars, and he can pull 11's on it and make the action super low. I told him that make no sense and that I play 1930's music acoustically and that I needed the guitar to project, so he offered to install a floating pickup. [facepalm]

  5. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by campusfive
    I don't believe that archtops, especially not a great vintage Epi like yours, ever suffer from being too heavily braced. That's a problem unique to flat tops. It's quite the opposite on archtops, because you occasionally see sunken tops. It's a very different construction and physics problem: one puts pressure on the top downward, the other can "pull" on the top (especially the bridge).

    I can't speak to the neck set issue, but I can say that "set up" is far more than merely the action at the 12th fret. I keep trying to put heaver strings on one of my guitars and it never feels right, and it's because, I finally realize, the nut slots are not V'd, so the thicker heavier strings sit above where they should. Consequently the action on the lower frets is uncomfortably high, even though the its fine by the 12th fret. Especially given that a 1935 Epi doesn't have an adjustable truss rod, things like proper nut slot profile and even fret dressing have a lot of impact. If all of that stuff is proper, then sure, a neck set may be in order.

    That said, you've got a piece of history, and I would say most luthiers are not properly acquainted with the proper function and set up of an ACOUSTIC archtop. Years ago, I took mine to one of Los Angeles' "best", and the guy tells me they do Lee Rittenour's guitars, and he can pull 11's on it and make the action super low. I told him that make no sense and that I play 1930's music acoustically and that I needed the guitar to project, so he offered to install a floating pickup. [facepalm]
    Thanks Jonathan. I appreciate the point about the bracing. The thing is, this guitar feels fine to play. I think the neck will need to be re-glued because of the separating heel joint, but not reset in the sense of neck angle.

    FWIW, the thing on this guitar that's not original is the binding. When I got it--5 or 6 years ago--the cellulose was a mess. Cracked, shrunken, missing in places, etc. I sent it to Andy Todd in Nashville, who did a fantastic and meticulous job replacing it.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Hello Tom. I'm new to the site and late on this thread but I can offer you an interesting experiment . Try cutting two small squares of rosewood veneer and placing them as feet under the bridge. I've seen archtops really respond well to not having bridge contact with the body over the whole length. Being veneer it will hardly change string height at all and, of course, is totally removable. Place them under the e strings to begin with. If it does help you then have to reshape the bridge!
    Nick

  7. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by maccy
    Hello Tom. I'm new to the site and late on this thread but I can offer you an interesting experiment . Try cutting two small squares of rosewood veneer and placing them as feet under the bridge. I've seen archtops really respond well to not having bridge contact with the body over the whole length. Being veneer it will hardly change string height at all and, of course, is totally removable. Place them under the e strings to begin with. If it does help you then have to reshape the bridge!
    Nick
    Thanks for the post Nick.
    Willing to experiment, but I'm a little dense. Why might putting something between the bridge and the top improve transfer of sound?

    Tom

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    I think it's to do with exciting the top from a smaller area.if the feet are above the struts, they spread the vibrations, possibly more effectively (faster) than the dense bridge wood. Having said that, I failed to mention that to work really well the bridge needs to be hollowed out to reduce the mass. What I've always wanted to try but never have, is a bone saddle shaped to two feet mounted straight to soundboard, rather like a violin bridge, very low mass. My reply only adresses volume by the way, tone is another matter.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Cool guitar, and you've gotten plenty of good advice... I have a 1940 Epi Deluxe, and I'm really happy using Newtone strings. Their Heritage series - 13 -55 - have about equal tension on each string, and the overall tension is a bit less than D'Addario Lights. Only drawback is that the D string is almost too short because of the Epi tailpiece, but, so far, that hasn't been a problem. Good luck with improving the sound of your Epi -
    Attached Images Attached Images arch top tone improvement-newtone-acoustic-guitar-heritage-phosphor-bronze-low-tension-013-055-nhs6-1355-3-gif 

  10. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by mercosound
    Cool guitar, and you've gotten plenty of good advice... I have a 1940 Epi Deluxe, and I'm really happy using Newtone strings. Their Heritage series - 13 -55 - have about equal tension on each string, and the overall tension is a bit less than D'Addario Lights. Only drawback is that the D string is almost too short because of the Epi tailpiece, but, so far, that hasn't been a problem. Good luck with improving the sound of your Epi -
    Follow up to this old thread.
    1) After a neck reset and reglue by Third Coast in Chicago I was much happier with the guitar. I think the loosening of the heel joint was contributing to some loss of tone.

    2) Mercosound, those Newtone strings are hard to find. I got "no longer available" from several sources. HOWEVER, Optima has a similar heavier gauge/low tension string, and they are fantastic on this instrument.

    Belated thanks all.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    I've tried the Newtone strings, and they do sound good, but go dead very quickly. Like Christian, I really like the Martin Retro Monel strings on my acoustic archtops. But of course string choice is a very subjective thing, so use whatever you like.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by tfaux
    Since you invited correction...

    The D18 I mentioned was a good sounding mid-50s instrument that my friend took to Dana Bourgeois for the scalloping, and as I said, the transformation was remarkable. It went from being good to being just about as good as any D18 I've ever played (quite a few.)

    But my question wasn't about making the Epi sound like a 1950s D18, rather, it was about making it sound more like a 1930s Epiphone Triumph. I've been playing guitar seriously for more decades than I like to admit, and am very familiar with the sound of these old birds. As I said in the original post, this instrument doesn't sound the way it should. And as I noted earlier, on reading Steve's note, I'm thinking that the slight opening at the heel might indicate some vibration loss.

    I'll leave it at that.

    Again, thanks all for the concrete suggestions!

    Tom
    What strings are you using?

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Because the two frequensator arms are hinged, pending them will achieve literally, exactly nothing. The string tension will pull from the hinge axis to the top of the bridge along the same line of action whether the pieces are straight or bent.

  14. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Mmaddox7
    What strings are you using?
    I've started using Optima strings on this guitar. The last two string changes I used Optima Bronze 12s; for my next change I want to try the VintageFlex. Supposedly heavy gauge/low tension. Not sure how that works.

    Tom

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by tfaux
    Follow up to this old thread.
    1) After a neck reset and reglue by Third Coast in Chicago I was much happier with the guitar. I think the loosening of the heel joint was contributing to some loss of tone.
    Since you measured the break angle over the bridge before a reset, could you measure the new break angle? I know from experience that if the break angle gets too low the tone can go to hell. I’ve also read that too high a break angle can deaden the tone. Increasing break angle increases the force between the stings and bridge, which the bridge then relays to the top. Neck resets on archtops affect the break angle, so it makes sense that it might have helped.

  16. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by KirkP
    Since you measured the break angle over the bridge before a reset, could you measure the new break angle? I know from experience that if the break angle gets too low the tone can go to hell. I’ve also read that too high a break angle can deaden the tone. Increasing break angle increases the force between the stings and bridge, which the bridge then relays to the top. Neck resets on archtops affect the break angle, so it makes sense that it might have helped.
    Kirk, The breaking angle hasn't changed at all. The neck reset simply closed the paper-thin gap at the heel, and tightened the neck to the body.
    As for an increase of angle causing deterioration of tone, I believe it. As a banjo player, I have done a lot experimenting with tailpiece angle, and have found that after a certain point, increasing the angle makes it louder but harsher.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by tfaux
    increasing the angle makes it louder but harsher.
    Agreed. Or in other words; "Sharp, brilliant, cutting".
    By relieving string tension, decreasing break angle, we typically get "Rich, mellow, deep".

    The interesting part is that this contradicts Gibson's tag on the old vari-tone tailpiece...They got it backwards. No wonder they got warranty claims and pulled the design...



    When the stop tailpiece was introduced on the Les Paul in the 50s, Gibson wrote: "The tailpiece can be moved up and down to adjust string tension". A statement that has caused more controversy than any other subject related to set-up, which is probably why Gibson has kept quiet about it for 60 years...and then they didn't even say in what direction you were supposed to adjust it to get a certain result.

    One can rightfully argue that a Banjo is different from an archtop and that a stop tailpiece is different from a Trapeze/archtop tailpiece, but the fact remains; the string pressure over the bridge affects tone and feel, but people have different preferences and lack a common language to describe subjective attributes related to tone.