Gibson, D'Angelico, Benedetto--How Are They Different in Sound?

[Jimmy blue note]

Here's a variant of the OPs question. Do you think that over time the player alters his technique on a given guitar, consciously or not, to get the sound he likes? Much has been said about a guitar "opening up", but how about the changes in attack, site of picking, vibrato, pickup adjustment, string choice, etc. that gives a sense of comfort and tone?

Robben Ford famously said he gives as guitar six months playing before deciding whether it's a keeper. These are solid bodies. What happens in those six months? I doubt the guitar changes as much as the man.

If player adjustments and developed comfort are a big deal, and I think they are, it should give pause to the quick rejection many have to an instrument they've played for a day or two. I think back on my own experience. I never thought about whether a neck was too fat or skinny in my early days. The same was true about the scale length. My only focus was playing it.

Such excellent points Marty. I really believe the longer you've been playing, the more you can recognize something that holds the possibility of a real connection. The longer you've been playing too, the more adaptable your hands and ears are in working together to bring out qualities in an instrument, the variations of action adjustment effect and the ability to 'use' a guitar in a deep musical way.
This is what makes a real seamless connection.
All of this takes time, and only the player can know what instrument will bring out their best. I do know D'Angelicos are my preferred sound but the necks are too chunky for me to ever buy one and being a finger style player, their sound is exquisite but the energy threshold needed to move that top is not optimum for me. All these things make a match and what defines "perfect" for me.
Even I need to adjust my approach and playing techniques when I go from my 15" to my 16". Both are excellent but my kinesthetic relationship is different.
Truth that is guaranteed to outrage, elicit cringes and trigger screams: When I find an instrument that has all I need, soundwise, and feel wise, if the neck is not to my hand, I will re-carve the neck.
I have small hands, long fingers, and I play classical style so my thumb sits off the centre all the time. I carve a partial flat along that line and I'll reduce the depth if it fatigues my hands by being too fat. Then it's perfect and a keeper. Another reason I'd never actually buy a D'Angelico, I could never take a scraper to the master's work and I'd never be able to stop torturing myself with that possibility.

But yeah, he had his build guidelines and there has never been another guitar that had what I feel in the late D'Angelicos...and D'Aquistos for that matter. That comes from a strong unique building concept. That's what makes each master handbuilt unique. It's not the label, it's the hands that cut the wood.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Robben Ford famously said he gives as guitar six months playing before deciding whether it's a keeper. These are solid bodies.

You make great points! I’ve put a few in the closet for months to years because I didn’t love them at first, then taken them out and found love the second time around.

FWIW, Robben Ford has been playing hollow & semi bodies for many years too. He played a 335 with the Yellowjackets, and he used an L5 with Jimmy Witherspoon that he traded (+ $200, as the story goes) for an S400. His ‘66 Riviera (with Bigsby removed) is still one of his favorite guitars, and I’ve seen him with a red 335 a few times in the last 10 years.

Interestingly, I think he’s turned away from his Dumbles in recent years. There was a recent interview (in Guitar Player?) in which he said that he couldn’t get the one he had in Nashville to sound “right” and turned to smaller Fender amps for an album he made there about 3 years ago.

[jads57]

So my experience and 2 cent analogy!

If we’re talking 17” x3” Acoustic Archtops as the comparative model
Gibsons generally have much thicker tops and backs than Benedetto
To my ears a Johnny Smith sounds fuller especially in the mids as opposed to a less mid and more flat top bass and treble response.

Now Ive only played maybe 4 high end Benedetto guitars compared to many Gibsons from various years. And I’m sure certain Benedetto spec high end models are tailored to the individual buyer. So again this is just an overall observation.

I will say for a laminate model I love my Bambino Std! And I’m a Gibson Man for many years!

[frankhond]

I haven’t played all those archtop brands so can’t say anything about that. I have however played and owned many flattops by top brands - Martin, Taylor, Lowden, Larrivee, Gibson etc.

I can confidently say that each of these brands belong to its own sound family. While instruments have their individual variations, there is definitely a Martin sound, Gibson sound, Lowden sound etc. For flattop guitars, the idea that you can’t say anything about the sound of a brand with all instruments being strictly individual makes no sense at all.

I would be very surprised if archtops were any different.

[citizenk74]

Here's a variant of the OPs question. Do you think that over time the player alters his technique on a given guitar, consciously or not, to get the sound he likes? Much has been said about a guitar "opening up", but how about the changes in attack, site of picking, vibrato, pickup adjustment, string choice, etc. that gives a sense of comfort and tone?

Robben Ford famously said he gives as guitar six months playing before deciding whether it's a keeper. These are solid bodies. What happens in those six months? I doubt the guitar changes as much as the man.

If player adjustments and developed comfort are a big deal, and I think they are, it should give pause to the quick rejection many have to an instrument they've played for a day or two. I think back on my own experience. I never thought about whether a neck was too fat or skinny in my early days. The same was true about the scale length. My only focus was playing it.

True words! Granted, in an instrument as complex as a fine archtop, as the wood ages, there will be an alteration of the response to being played. But the degree to which this change occurs is IMHO much less than the player's adaptations of his technique to the instrument itself. Yes, there are physical changes to the wood - oxidation and so forth - which may in the end be countered by the top becoming more flexible through use. The basic physics of the guitar and its geometry are not going to change. It is the player who changes - subtly adjusting his skills to best coax the particular instrument he is playing into giving the sonic character of which it is capable. You've got to meet the guitar half-way, at the very least!

[Marinero]

" I really believe the longer you've been playing, the more you can recognize something that holds the possibility of a real connection. The longer you've been playing too, the more adaptable your hands and ears are in working together to bring out qualities in an instrument, the variations of action adjustment effect and the ability to 'use' a guitar in a deep musical way." Jimmy Blue Note

Hi, J,
Very nicely stated. And, when you arrive at that musical milepost in your life, there will be an instrument that allows you to express yourself as experienced in your "mind's eye" and perhaps, in the music of other musicians you admire. For me, irrespective of genre, everything is your sound since when we play it is the substitute for our human voices and the ideas we wish to express. The reason I asked this question is that over the last three years, I have been rotating three artist model/high-level Classical guitars every ten hours of play to discover each instrument's true personality and unique sound based on my playing style. And, although neck profiles and weight are marginally different, the builds are very similar and they are all cedar top instruments. So, last week, while playing, I had a spontaneous epiphany that one of the instruments was "it" yet it took me three years of serious playing for the discovery. And, the moment was clear, concise, and certain. Also, since returning to Jazz/Funk/R&B guitar as a former saxophonist/flutist after a very long hiatus and "rediscovering" my old Gibson, I have been playing, listening, and thinking about my sound and instrument in relation to other builders. I am very familiar with the "Gibson Sound" and continued feedback on D'Angelico and Benedetto instruments, so highly prized among posters, is greatly appreciated.
Marinero

[Jimmy blue note]

Hey Marinero, I'll just give you a tiny bit of builders' perspective. Forgive me if this falls into a simplistic guitars 101, it's a set of guidelines I had passed onto in my apprenticeship in archtop design and construction. It's been a constant guiding philosophy in my own appreciation of guitars.
Sound physics.
A note is air vibrating at a certain frequency. A pure sine wave sounds something akin to the sustained note of an oboe (ever notice that the oboe cuts through as a tuning tone in an orchestra?). Now every instrument has a characteristic sound, right? Even on the same exact note. A trangle 440 A is not a bassoon 440 A. This is because the character, the tonal character is what you hear and that is the result of the overtones/harmonics that create a distinctive blend. The attack and the sustained tonal decay envelope is what makes each instrument sound different.
Strings
Strings have an inherent tonal character to them. A bright set of stainless wrap standard round wound strings will be crisp and maybe even harsh to some ears. They're full of treble. They are full of upper partial overtones and you hear all that high end punching through. The waveform is full of upper frequency content. It's like an orchestra with lots of piccalloes in the woodwinds. If it's not damped, it's going to be crisp and shrill. Flatwounds are not the optimum string design for full overtones. They are designed for smooth silent travel along the strings without finger squeak. For that, they sacrifice high end frequency content. That has become the "jazz sound" many strive for. So strings have their own effect on the pure sine wave of a note. First filter.
The wood.
A wave signal entering the body at the bridge is radiated through the top and that moving air is amplified by the body construction. The thicker the top, the more dampening and the greater the filtering of the string's initial signal. Get thick enough or dense enough, you wind up attenuating a lot of high frequency harmonic content and the wave starts to 'choke'. (Note that energy that is not radiated into the body can stay in the string so since a pickup picks up the string signal primarily, often a quieter acoustic instrument (less radiation) is a stronger amplified instrument (more signal energy picked up by the magnets talking to the string).
Spruce has a greater strength to weight ratio, so you can use it to get a strong top without a lot of mass. Great stiffness, low mass = the top moves easily with a given amount of energy. Also factoured in is a wood's inherent Q, which amounts to the efficiency it radiates with a given range of energy inputted. High Q wood responds fast but may not handle the amount of kinetic energy that a lower Q would; Cedar is a fine delicate top wood but it's not not favoured among archtops because it can't be driven as hard as spruce, but it's great for classical tops, much more articulate and warmer in nuance for the low energy of nylon strings. But this is all to say wood is chosen to be matched to function and a builder's choice of his or her raw construction wood, and what they prefer, also effects an instrument. There is no "ultimate perfect piece of top wood that will make the ultimate perfect archtop" but rather a good builder will have their preferences and work with materials that bring out their own predilections. Even before you take the first chisel cut, the differences are being defined.
The top thickness.
The less wood getting in the way of vibration, the freer the more open the note sounds...up to a point. When the wood gets too thin, it doesn't have the strength to radiate the energy. A builder's graduations are trademark specs of carving that let each builder voice and shape their top from a piece of a tree into a sound radiating filter. That's one reason a voiced hand carved top will have more nuance and controlled radiating power than, say, a pressed top of uniform thickness; sometimes thicker than optimum, sometimes thinner. Also why a tuned carved top guitar can bring out the character of some notes more effectively than a laminated.
And back to brand differences, there was a tendency and trend which entered the parameters of guitar construction during the Norlin era: By design, pressure or policy, the tops built by some builders at Gibson tended to thicker graduations than previously designed. This gave a better chance at a sturdy warrantee guitar but many would say the articulation of those said instruments passed from optimum to...
Top arching.
How do you take a light piece of thin wood and make it strong enough to support the pressure of strings and transmit the frequencies of the strings? You arch the wood. Like a piece of paper that's too light to balance a paper clip without folding, you make a tube shape and it can hold a stapler.
Arching patterns are the secrets of each builder. Trial and error passed on from master to apprentice. And add to this, the thicknesses are not even, the wood may be thinner by the edge, then change thickness as the arch peaks beneath the bridge...or not. The arch may be long and tubular or peaked. The braces may give support where the wood needs strength and tuned by shaving to accentuate even frequencies all around, or kept thicker to create a brace that need more energy initially but booms in the envelope.

All these factours, and the tuned back, and the body thickness, and the air resonance controlled by the sound hole and its placement, all these things are conscious decisions a master luthier is aware of and construction is done to meet an ideal of sound (and the way that wooden wonder FILTERS sound), to create a specific ideal of the luthier's concept.

That, in short, is why well built hand tuned archtops of similar body size can sound SO different...or not. It's also how I've played 16" guitars that could play at higher amplitude and tonal complexity (louder and sounds better) than many 17" peers. Good design can amount to more efficiency.
Remember that each player also gives much of their own technique to the instrument, and if the player doesn't perceive a difference, that's what those pieces of wood mean; they're not that different.

A guitar is the filtering element that takes the energy of the string and the player, and translates it into a sound that we call music.

Hope this gives you a start on why these beautiful things can have similarities, or differences in the way we perceive them.

This is the tiniest parameter set and by no means complete, but maybe a tiny window into the luthier's world.

[Marinero]

Hey Marinero, I'll just give you a tiny bit of builders' perspective. Forgive me if this falls into a simplistic guitars 101, it's a set of guidelines I had passed onto in my apprenticeship in archtop design and construction. It's been a constant guiding philosophy in my own appreciation of guitars.
Sound physics.
A note is air vibrating at a certain frequency. A pure sine wave sounds something akin to the sustained note of an oboe (ever notice that the oboe cuts through as a tuning tone in an orchestra?). Now every instrument has a characteristic sound, right? Even on the same exact note. A trangle 440 A is not a bassoon 440 A. This is because the character, the tonal character is what you hear and that is the result of the overtones/harmonics that create a distinctive blend. The attack and the sustained tonal decay envelope is what makes each instrument sound different.
Strings
Strings have an inherent tonal character to them. A bright set of stainless wrap standard round wound strings will be crisp and maybe even harsh to some ears. They're full of treble. They are full of upper partial overtones and you hear all that high end punching through. The waveform is full of upper frequency content. It's like an orchestra with lots of piccalloes in the woodwinds. If it's not damped, it's going to be crisp and shrill. Flatwounds are not the optimum string design for full overtones. They are designed for smooth silent travel along the strings without finger squeak. For that, they sacrifice high end frequency content. That has become the "jazz sound" many strive for. So strings have their own effect on the pure sine wave of a note. First filter.
The wood.
A wave signal entering the body at the bridge is radiated through the top and that moving air is amplified by the body construction. The thicker the top, the more dampening and the greater the filtering of the string's initial signal. Get thick enough or dense enough, you wind up attenuating a lot of high frequency harmonic content and the wave starts to 'choke'. (Note that energy that is not radiated into the body can stay in the string so since a pickup picks up the string signal primarily, often a quieter acoustic instrument (less radiation) is a stronger amplified instrument (more signal energy picked up by the magnets talking to the string).
The top thickness.
The less wood getting in the way of vibration, the freer the more open the note sounds...up to a point. When the wood gets too thin, it doesn't have the strength to radiate the energy.
Top arching.
How do you take a light piece of thin wood and make it strong enough to support the pressure of strings and transmit the frequencies of the strings? You arch the wood. Like a piece of paper that's too light to balance a paper clip without folding, you make a tube shape and it can hold a stapler.
Arching patterns are the secrets of each builder. Trial and error passed on from master to apprentice. And add to this, the thicknesses are not even, the wood may be thinner by the edge, then change thickness as the arch peaks beneath the bridge...or not. The arch may be long and tubular or peaked. The braces may give support where the wood needs strength and tuned by shaving to accentuate even frequencies all around, or kept thicker to create a brace that need more energy initially but booms in the envelope.

All these factours, and the tuned back, and the body thickness, and the air resonance controlled by the sound hole and its placement, all these things are conscious decisions a master luthier is aware of and construction is done to meet an ideal of sound (and the way that wooden wonder FILTERS sound), to create a specific ideal of the luthier's concept.

That, in short, is why well built hand tuned archtops of similar body size can sound SO different...or not.
Remember that each player also gives much of their own technique to the instrument, and if the player doesn't perceive a difference, that's what those pieces of wood mean; they're not that different.

A guitar is the filtering element that takes the energy of the string and the player, and translates it into a sound that we call music.

Hope this gives you a start on why these beautiful things can have similarities, or differences in the way we perceive them.

This is the tiniest parameter set and by no means complete, but maybe a tiny window into the luthier's world.

Wow! Outstanding tutorial, J. Thanks for your great reply.
Marinero