-
Question marks unintended. Supposed to be imojees of capping hands and pinched fingers expressing "exquisite!"
-
01-16-2023 11:45 AM
-
Freeman, Great Post! Makes me feel smarter for reading it.
-
Originally Posted by Freeman Keller
-
Originally Posted by RJVB
And yes, that is exactly what I hear - a dominate note very close to an A2. And that is pretty much what I expect of a box about this size, I would guess that if it was a 17 incher it would be G or G#.
I want to add that I am a relatively new builder, this is only my 30th guitar. I'm using the software not achieve any end goals but to better understand what I am hearing as go about this whole voicing process. The frequencies change as I make changes, that is good and they seem to go in the direction that I would expect. But I am in no way targeting any specific frequency or note.
There is another interesting use of the spectrum analyzer. Sometimes when I change something I will take a clip of a couple of specific notes to see how they change. Almost always it is an open string - often the 1st and 5th. Its very interesting to compare before changing something like nut or string material or a pickup on an electric guitar. It is also interesting to compare the same note on two different guitars - I would love to be able to do that with identical archtops with different bracing.
All part of my education
-
Freeman -- It's a nice learning experience for us all
-
[QUOTE=ArchieHollow;1242636]
Originally Posted by AKA
Guillaume Rancourt
-
Originally Posted by Dennis D
The short answer is we just don't know for sure, but there is a possible explanation:
Old Cremona archtop instruments typically show a more plateaued long arch on the top, a flatish area, whereas the backs show shorter or minimal flatish areas, transfering into a smooth curve (circle or curtate cycloids).
As is typical of normal long-term distortion of a thin top plate from string load and humidity cycling, this flatish area went "double-humped" rather than staying flatish. The deformation and creep could even have converged a circular arch towards flat towards "camelback".
The "holy grail" of archtop mandolin - vintage Gibson F-5 models signed by L. Loar - were carved upon exactly mould with machines so they all started basically the same, but now, 100 years later, the arches are all over the map, especially the long arches.
Some earlier archtop guitar designers oriented themselves by copying what they found on old (Cremonese) instruments. This relates to carved and some pressed laminated top plates.
-
Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
I doubt anyone would assume that those deformations were anything other than that, though...
-
Thanks, Guillaume, for your response. I truly appreciate the science behind your archtoppery and the splendid quality and workmanship of your guitars. Amidst other 'greats,' you, Ken Parker, and Gary Zimnicki inspire!
-
I’m not sure I get some of the comments here. Maybe we just all hear a little different…. But the comments that x bracing is more mellow differ than what I hear. Parallel bracing sounds more mellow and “traditional jazz” to me while x bracing sounds more acoustic. Anyone else hear that as well? I was comparing the CL Jazz from Collings both pre-2013 (X) and post 2013 (parallel).
-
Originally Posted by Srvtecej
If we stick to the guitar's (= acoustic) voice and not the voice of the PU: X-braced archtops like Eastmans are often said to sound bright and more like flat-tops than parallel-braced archtops like my Loar. I've never played an Eastman archtop yet but on recordings you can hear some of that. Though there are enough Loar LH6/7x0 recordings where they sound tinny and chunky, i.e. not mellow at all.
(and so not like this: )
-
Depends so much on the combinations of elements. And how you hear them. I do get acoustic clarity from an X braced tuned guitar, I could also build it heavier and tune it differently, it'd still be clear but it can be built to favour low frequencies and not the transients. THat's what some call mellow. Put flat wounds on it and it's really mellow.
My Jimmy D'Aq is X braced and I can play mellow on that but it rings clear as a bell too.
X brace allows a lot of control over what the frequency signature is, what voice is brought out through overtones, parallel has a strong propensity towards fundamentals. Beyond that, it's the hands and knowledge of the builder, the archings, the thickness, the woods, the F holes, the bridge, the tailpiece, the amp, the jack/cord used, the pick, the player an the listener. Kind of...
-
Thanks for the responses, makes sense. I guess that given there is so much is involved with the build, trying to assign overall characteristics based on just one part of that build is too simplified.
-
Originally Posted by Srvtecej
-
I agree - - lots of variables !
My ' first question' becomes - once you've decided to cut a hole in the top of a hollow-body for a p/u, how much will bracing matter ? Either as aftermarket or as an original design feature, wouldn't parallel vs x braced be a toss-up once the guitar is amplified?
-
IME the bracing still matters even when amplified. The pickup vibrates with the top, at least to some extent, and that affects the tone. The top vibrates somewhat differently depending on the bracing. How much difference it makes varies between individual instruments. Everything influences everything else, to a greater or lesser extent.
-
Originally Posted by Dennis D
-
Originally Posted by Freeman Keller
catch the mechanical movements of the top and bridge but won't convey any resonance and "air" . A combination of a piezo under the bridge PLUS a small condenser mic on a
gooseneck, both plugged into a (capable) small mixer/pre-amp could be a possible route to success but most often it would be too fussy and delicate for me on stage.
Maybe in a solo or duo CONCERT setting but not when I play with a larger ensemble.
My Trenier lam-top Jazz Special is fitted with a Kent Armstrong single coil floater and I have installed a push/pull volume pot on the guitar which allows me to switch between
the full output of the pickup and a tapped output : The tapped signal has less bass and mids and that makes the sound very useable for swing-type comping, with much more "air"
in the tone ! Not complicated, cheap and non-invasive. A miniature toggle-switch under the pickguard would also work.
-
Originally Posted by Freeman Keller
I really believe that even when playing, say an A minor chord on an acoustic guitar on an instrument through a pickup vs an instrument designed to optimize that signal (built to support a stable platform for the pickup), it may sound like an A minor chord played through an amp either way, but to the musician playing that guitar, the difference is night and day.
What makes all the difference to me is not only the sound of what comes out of the amp but more so, the feel of the guitar in the player's hands, that subtly and profoundly changes the way they feel is possible when that guitar is vibrating. Interactive inspiration may not necessarily come through the signal path, but a well matched acoustic instrument can very well provide the sensual excitement that enables the player to play at a more engaged level every time. THAT's a good instrument. There is still "only" a 440 hz signal and chordal overtones out of the amp, but the match of wood that the creator of that signal is what it's about for me as a luthier. It's unlocking the inspiration of a player through a sensual instrument and not strictly vibrations and overtones between a pickup and the amp. Put the player at one end of the signal path, the listener at the other end, the acoustic quality of a guitar matters to the player. If your ideas are unlocked better, that's why I build.
KA PAF info please
Today, 11:52 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos